Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts

The New Socialism

SUBHEAD: Moving beyond concentrated state power to owner operated co-operatives.

By Richard D. Wolf on 27 May 2017 for Truth Out -
(http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/40656-the-new-socialism-moving-beyond-concentrated-state-power)


Image above: New Socialism will mean, at least in part, the state's dependence on masses of workers who democratically control worker co-ops. Photo by  Susannah Kay. From original article.

Capitalism as a system is now increasingly challenged. Critics proliferate and steadily deepen their opposition (alongside, of course, the persistence of capitalism's defenders).

Yet capitalism's traditional "other" -- namely, socialism -- has also been widely devalued. It has lost its position as the goal (however variously interpreted) for anti-capitalist social movements. When not simply ignored, socialism (and even more its derivative "communism") is often treated as utterly passé.

When taken seriously, it is mostly a vague rhetorical gesture expressing criticism of the capitalist status quo, not advocacy of a concrete alternative. Socialist parties now mainly support capitalism but with a human face -- i.e. with the social supports and safety nets that their "conservative" counterparts disdain.

Sometimes the advocacy of socialism expresses a systemic rejection of, or opposition to, capitalism.

But even then, the current use of the term "socialism" lacks a clear, concrete definition of what genuinely new economic system it entails.

What exactly differentiates it from and renders it superior both to capitalism and to what "old" socialism used to mean?

To enrich and strengthen anti-capitalism by giving it such a new, definitive goal, we need to revision socialism. On the one hand that means shedding accumulated historical baggage that now undermines and prevents socialism from being a prominent goal of social change.

On the other hand, a revised socialism requires new content that can inspire and motivate. That is now available.

Old socialism's drawn-out demise since the 1970s helped give birth to a new 21st century socialism whose basic contours we can now contrast with old socialism.

The old socialism that evolved across the 19th and 20th centuries eventually settled its many, rich debates by largely agreeing on two basic ways to distinguish itself from capitalism.

Capitalism entailed;
  1. private enterprises to produce goods and services and 
  2. markets as the means to distribute resources and products among enterprises and individuals (workers and consumers).
In contrast, socialism entailed government-owned-and-operated enterprises and government central planning as the distribution system. Both devotees of capitalism and socialism accepted this set of differentiating definitions.

Debates and struggles over capitalism versus socialism then swirled around the relative virtues and flaws of private versus state enterprises and of markets versus planning. The practice of socialism combined criticism of private enterprise and markets with celebration of state enterprise and central planning.

Once socialists had captured state power in the USSR, the People's Republic of China (PRC) and elsewhere, the demands of managing actual economies tilted socialism's focus ever further toward state enterprises and central planning mechanisms.

In perfectly parallel fashion, attacks upon socialism from devotees of capitalism stressed the failures and excesses of state enterprises and planning.

Many of those debates and struggles seemed to be resolved by the collapse of the USSR in 1989 and subsequent changes in Eastern Europe, the PRC and elsewhere. History, the devotees of capitalism crowed, had "proven" the non-viability of socialism, the superiority of capitalism.

They rarely grasped that what had failed was one version of socialism, an early experiment in what it might mean to construct a system beyond capitalism.

Their eagerness to claim that "socialism/communism had failed" conveniently forgot the many similarly "failed" efforts, centuries earlier, to construct capitalism out of a declining European feudalism.

Only after many such failures did changed social conditions enable a general system change to modern capitalism. Why would the same not apply to socialism qua successor to capitalism?

A major task for socialists has been honestly to admit and contend with the limits and failures of the old 19th and 20th century socialism: chiefly, excesses of over-concentrated state power and inadequately transformed production systems.

Old socialism's achievements -- especially rapid industrial development and the remarkable provision of social safety nets -- might be preserved and built upon if its limits and failures were also recognized and overcome.

One emerging and promising new socialism for the 21st century focuses on worker co-ops. Socialism becomes the campaign to establish and build a sizable worker co-op sector within contemporary capitalism.

In worker co-op enterprises, all workers are equal members of a democratically run production operation. They debate and decide what, how and where to produce and how to utilize the net revenues.

Worker co-op enterprises exist alongside traditional capitalist enterprises. They are eligible for and must obtain tax considerations, subsidies and state supports comparable to what capitalist enterprises received throughout capitalism's history. Indeed, in their initial, emergent phase, worker co-ops deserve extra government support so that the worker co-op sector quickly achieves a significant role in the economy.

Until that role is established, people will remain unable to evaluate, compare and weigh in on what mix of capitalist and worker co-op enterprises they wish for their society.

The worker co-op sector of an economy will have to decide what mix of market and planning mechanisms to utilize for the distribution of its resources and products (much as capitalist enterprises always did).

The relationships -- both competitive and cooperative -- between the two sectors of each economy (capitalist and worker co-op) will have to be determined by negotiations between them.

The third member of those negotiations will be the populace as a whole weighing in on what kind of economic system it wants as the partner for its political system.

With a significant worker co-op sector, the state's dependence on enterprises will no longer mean a dependence on a small minority: shareholders and boards of directors who control capitalist enterprises.

Instead it will mean, at least in part, the state's dependence on masses of workers who democratically control worker co-ops. Under such a system, the prospects for genuine (as opposed to merely formal) political democracy are much enhanced over their sorry state today.

Mass working class support made 19th and 20th century socialism -- with its programs of revolutionary or evolutionary/parliamentary seizures of state power -- historically important.

We cannot now expect to mobilize again any equivalent support for a revival of the old socialism. That is because of its limits and failures and also because of the massive, sustained campaigns against it by capitalism's supporters.

However, a new socialism built upon the best achievements of the old plus a new focus on the democratic transformation of the workplace can mobilize mass support now. It is already doing so.

A new socialism for the 21st century would address as well all those in the population who are not in the workforce because of family, age, education, illness, disability or other comparable causes. Systematic supports for them -- qua relatives, friends and neighbors of workforce members -- are as central to a new and better society as is the democratization of the workplace. Indeed, the latter and the former can and would be mutually supportive.

Old socialist parties are mostly fading or imploding, yet at the same time capitalism's deepening difficulties, especially since the global crash of 2008, are everywhere increasing mass opposition to capitalism. What that opposition needs is a new socialism with attractive, basic transformative goals.

What is not wanted is social change that gives power to some far-away government apparatus. The point is rather and finally to transfer power into the hands of the change-making workers themselves.

Power here refers to more than politics. It refers to the social power at the economic base of society, in the workplaces producing the goods and services upon which social life depends.

The French Revolution's slogan -- liberty, equality, fraternity -- was linked to its economic project of displacing feudalism in favor of capitalism. While its economic project succeeded, it failed to realize that slogan.

It turned out, as Marx noted, that capitalism's class division (between employer and employee) blocked that realization. Overcoming such class divisions -- something a worker co-op can do -- is required to take the next great historical step toward liberty, equality and fraternity.   

.

The SYRIZA Experience

SUBHEAD: Entering the ominous battlefield of the 21st century, the left will either be relevant or it will be obsolete.

By Andreas Karitzis on 17 march 2106 for Open Democracy -
(https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/andreas-karitzis/syriza-experience-lessons-and-adaptations-0)


Image above: During the sovereign debt crisis European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker leads Greek Prime Minister Alex Tsipras by the hand to his unhappy ending. From original article.

The impact of the strategic defeat of last year is still very strongly shaping various reactions within the Greek left. Some people seem content with superficial explanations of what happened and return to habitual ways of thinking and acting; others sense the strategic depth of the defeat and turn inwards to disappointment and demoralization.

Still others are trying to learn from the “SYRIZA experience” in order to make themselves more useful to people in the future. All of us sense the dangers lurking in front of us but we are far from having a common and feasible strategy.

In a situation like this, political priorities change and ‘novel’ tasks emerge. For example, people far beyond those affiliated with the traditional left are scattered and in disarray, but also full of energy, determination and skills. What should they do?

Another urgent task is how to transmit the 'SYRIZA experience' abroad, facilitating the left in other countries in the fight against neoliberalism and increased hostility of the elites. ‘Novel’ tasks require a different mentality and operational qualities from the ones we used to deploy through traditional political action.

But first we need: (i) a thorough understanding of the positive and negative aspects of the 'SYRIZA experience', and (ii) an open, bold and innovative process of arriving at the new conditions of doing politics. These are some preliminary thoughts in this direction.

The failure

SYRIZA failed to stop austerity and neoliberal transformation in Greece. One could argue that SYRIZA also betrayed the hopes and aspirations of the popular classes and those fighting against financial despotism. It chose to remain in power, thereby ‘normalizing’ the coup we witnessed last summer and accepting neoliberal coordinates that shape governmentality today in Europe.

SYRIZA's choice deprived the people of a crucial ‘tool’ in this fight by its painful defeat: the political representation of non-compliance with financial despotism. SYRIZA eliminated the chance of a ‘tactical withdrawal’, a collective process of reassembling our forces that could take into account the escalation of the fight provoked by elites - and forming a more effective and resilient ‘popular front’ that would build its resources to challenge neoliberal orthodoxy in the future.

The experience of the SYRIZA government in the months after the agreement, shows that there is no middle ground between financial despotism and democracy and dignity; if you try to reach such middle ground, you are quickly converted into an organic component of the biopolitical machine aimed at dehumanizing our societies. Arguing that the implementation of the agreement is the only way out of the present situation is just a reformulation of the neoliberal core-argument that There Is No Alternative; no strategy for continuing the fightback against financial despotism.

However, there is a danger of underestimating the brutal strategic defeat that we all suffered in 2015, hiding from ourselves the extent of our current impotence as regards any serious challenge to financial despotism. We must dare to perform an extensive reassessment of our methodology and tools if we want to be relevant in these new conditions.

And to do so, we should not preoccupy ourselves with the self-evident negative nature of SYRIZA's choice and comfort ourselves that this is the source of our  problems. The choice SYRIZA made is – among other things – a symptom of the deeper, structural weaknesses of the left.

Today in Greece a ‘Left government’ is implementing austerity, leftwing people are confused and ‘The Left’ is turning into a pro-memorandum political force in people's minds. Nationalists and fascists have remained the only "natural hosts" of popular rage and resentment, the expected emotional outcomes of the burial of hope we witnessed last summer. Greeks are sensing that the future of their society is severely compromised.

The majority of Greeks have been sentenced to misery and despair through the imposition of newer harder austerity measures without any real hope for the future. If we add to the economic and social disaster that austerity is inflicting on us the huge waves of refugees that are entering Greece - especially the complex and contradictory ways in which their drama impacts on the abused psychic economy of the Greek population - and add also the fear of increased geopolitical instability in the region, then it seems certain that prosperity, stability and peace has left Greece for the identifiable future.

These are exactly the suffocating conditions that prevail in a society before it explodes – due to a random incident – deepening even further the decline, and plunging existential depths. It is like we are walking on thin ice from now on in Greece. In moments like this we have to remain calm and think clearly if we want to arrive at what is needed to adapt and to be effective.

The sad case of Europe

The neoliberal EU and Eurozone has transferred a bundle of important policies and powers that once appeared to belong to the nation state out of the reach of the people. At the same time, a vast array of neoliberal regulations and norms govern the function of the state. In the EU and Eurozone today, the elected government is no longer the major bearer of political power. In the case of Greece, democratically electing a government is like electing a junior partner in a wider government in which the lenders are the major partners.

The junior partner is not allowed to intervene and disturb decisions on such crucial economic and social issues as fiscal policy, banks, privatizations, pensions etc. If it does intervene and demand a say on these issues, then the people who appoint it are going to suffer the consequences.

The elites – by extracting important powers and decisions on crucial issues from the democratically structured institutions of the bourgeois state – have managed to gain unchecked control over the basic functions of the society. It is up to their anti-democratic institutions to decide whether a society will have a functional banking system and sufficient liquidity to run or not.

That's what happened to Greece; that's the core argument of the president of Portugal behind his initial decision to appoint a pro-austerity minority government: ‘I am preventing unnecessary pain.’ Pain that will be caused by the naivety and dangerous ignorance of the people and political powers that still insist on people's right to have access to crucial decisions, while at the same time they do not have the power to shape these decisions.

It is evident today that the EU is an openly anti-democratic institutional structure. The left must embrace the crude reality: in Europe a new kind of despotism is emerging fast.

The time lag of the left

In western societies, the left, but not only the left, of a robust democratic constitution has been trained to do politics within the coordinates of a post-war institutional configuration. We assumed that the elites were committed to accepting the democratically shaped mandate of an elected government.

If they did not like the policies that it promoted, they had to engage in a political fight; opposition parties must convince the people that this policy is neither desirable nor successful and use the democratic processes for a new government of their preference to be elected.

But was this ever truly the case even for western societies after the Great War? This is surely a debatable issue. However, it is sufficient to assume that this was at least the dominant conception of political functioning that shaped the methodology and strategy of political agency over the last decades, even if it does not correspond fully to reality.

According to this conception, the post-war global balance of forces inscribed in state institutions a considerable amount of popular power, so that people without considerable economic power nevertheless have access to crucial decisions. Of course, the quality and the range of the access was a constant issue of class struggle.

The elites were obliged to fight according to the rules (or at least to appear to do so) and at the same time they were working deliberately to diffuse a kind of institutional configuration contaminated by popular power. In recent decades (not accidentally after the fall of the Soviet Union) they made decisive steps towards diffusing this kind of power and hence limiting the ability of the popular classes to influence crucial decisions. Today the elites feel confident enough to openly defy democracy. Democracy is no longer a sine qua non.

Based on the premise that the framework in which politics is being performed hasn't changed significantly, SYRIZA did what the traditional way of doing politics dictates: supported social movements, built alliances, won a majority in the parliament, formed a government. We all know the results of such a strategy now. The real outcome was totally different. There was virtually no change of policy.

Prepare for landing

A strategy that wishes to be relevant to the new conditions must take on the duty of acquiring the necessary power to run basic social functions.

Mo matter how difficult or strange this may sound in light of the traditional ways of doing politics, it is the only way to acquire the necessary power to defy the elites' control over our societies.

Is this feasible? My hypothesis is that literally every day human activity – both intellectual and practical – is producing experiences, know-how, criteria and methods, innovations etc. that inherently contradict the parasitic logic of profit and competition. Moreover, for the first time in our evolutionary history, we have so many embodied capacities and values from different cultures within our reach that we are bound to progress our collective intelligence in this regard if we put our minds to it.

Of course we are talking about elements that are not developed sufficiently yet. Elements that may indeed have been nurtured in liberal or apolitical contexts often functionally connected to the standard economic orthodoxy. However, the support of their further development, their gradual absorption in an alternative, coherent paradigm governed by a different logic and values, and finally their functional articulation in alternative patterns of performing the basic functions of our societies is just a short description of the duty of any left that wishes to take up a clear, systematic and strategically broadbased orientation.    

Based on people's capacities, proper alignment, connection and coordination it is possible to acquire the necessary power to at least be in a position to assume the basic functions if needed. We can do this by ‘extracting’ the embodied capacities of the people and putting them into use for the liberation of society.

For those who are frankly skeptical of the possibility of laying the groundwork for such a process, let's see the potential in the stark case of Greece.

SYRIZA at its peak had approximately 35,000 members, the various solidarity networks included thousands of people and from experience we know that plenty of people were available to help SYRIZA with their expertise if there had been suitable processes to “extract” their embodied capacities in an efficient way (which was not the case).

Furthermore, massive unemployment provides us with huge numbers of people who would be willing to participate in networks of a different nature as long as we can build and expand processes of this kind in a systematic way. So, it is possible to pursue such a path as long as we apply the proper methodological and organizational principles in our way of doing politics.

In the worst case scenario, we will achieve some degree of resilience; people will be more empowered to defend themselves and hold their ground. In the best case, we will be able to regain the hegemony needed: people could mobilize positively, creatively and massively, even decisively to reclaim their autonomy.

Redesign the 'operating system' of the left

We know that the popular power once inscribed in various democratic institutions is exhausted. We do not have enough power to make the elites accept and tolerate our participation in crucial decisions. More of the same won’t do it. If the ground of the battle has shifted, undermining our strategy, then it's not enough to be more competent on the shaky battleground; we need to reshape the ground. And to do that we have to expand the solution space by shifting priorities: from political representation to setting up an autonomous network of production of economic and social power (NESP).

We must modify the balance between representing people's beliefs and demands and coordinating, facilitating, connecting, supporting and nurturing people's actions. Instead of being mainly the political representative of the popular classes in a toxic anti-democratic European political environment designed to be intolerant to people's needs, we must contribute heavily to the formation of a strong 'backbone' for resilient and dynamic networks of social economy and co-operative productive activities, alternative financial tools, local cells of self-governance, democratically functioning digital communities, community control over functions such as infrastructure facilities, energy systems and distribution networks. These are ways of gaining the degree of autonomy necessary to defy the control of elites over the basic functions of our society.

It is not only in Greece that there is a growing exclusion of people from having a job or a bank account, having a ‘normal life’. Modern society in general is in decline. From history we know that societies in decline tend to react in order to survive. It is up to us to grasp this and start building networks that can perform basic social functions in a different way – one that is democratic, decentralized and based on the liberation of people's capacities.

First, this would allow people who are being excluded today to survive.
Second, this could begin a transition towards a better and more mature society.

And last but not least, there are no empty spaces in history, so if we do not do this, the nationalists and the fascists – with their own militarized ways of performing these basic functions – may step in to conclude the decline.

Shifting the battlefield

Our opponents have already spotted the shifting nature of the battlefield and have moved to new unclassified ways of organizing and acting. They develop new kinds of institutions (a Greek example http://www.corallia.org/en/) compatible with the emerging environment of fast flows of information, digital frameworks of action and production etc.

They also explore new methods and models; for example, “open innovation” models have emerged in the last few years to enable the R&D departments of big multinational companies to cope with the current distributed nature of knowledge and expertise that exceeds past means of control and usurpation of human intellectual creativity and innovation.

We have to create new popular power if we want to bring about substantial change or make ourselves resilient instead of just handling the remaining, seriously depleted if not already exhausted popular power inscribed in the traditional institutions.

The question is what does it look like to do politics in order to produce popular power without presupposing traditional democratic functioning – to restore it by newly transforming it? In other words, what are the modifications needed in our political practice for the constitution and expansion of NESPs?

What about political representation?

The function of political representation is a fundamental one in complex societies. It's the function that political parties mostly perform and that shapes everyday thinking regarding what ‘politics’ is about. The task here is not to revive neglected aspects of politics - like building popular power - or to reinvent collective and individual qualities; the aim is to explore novel ways of performing the function of political representation in order to upgrade significantly the political leverage of the people.

Of course, building popular power will also invigorate and possibly transform the institutional framework, giving substantial meaning back to political representation. But, the expansion of a network of the sort we are discussing here and the changes it could generate at various levels of the social configuration must be reflected on the function of political representation itself. We need to evaluate and explore concepts like the “commons”. Advancing a project to shape political representation as “commons” could give us valuable insights into new ways of performing vital functions that transcend the traditional, institutional framework of representative democracy.

Democratising the state?

The left talks too much about the democratic transformation of the state. In practice, the driving concept is the restoration of state functions as they were before the neoliberal transformation. But the expansion of a network of economic and social power under people's control could unlock our imagination towards more advanced and better targeted reforms of state institutions. In theory this is an old idea: the transformation of the state is a complementary move to the self-organized collectivities of the people outside it, driven by these forms of self-governance.

These modifications may be classified in three categories: political imagination, methodology and organizing principles. From my experience, the very same people who energetically claim that we need to be more innovative, better adapted and more efficient, when they actually do politics, reproduce priorities, mental pictures, methods and organizational habits that they already know are insufficient or inadequate.

There are ingrained norms in terms of methodological guidelines that decisively shape the range of our collective actions, rhetoric, decisions and eventually strategy. In the same vein, we believe in and fight for the promotion of the logic of cooperation and democracy against the logic of competition, but in practice our organizations suffer severely in terms of cooperation and democracy on the operational/organizational level.

We need to recognize these blind spots and set up a process of identifying best practices, methods and regulations – both from the experience of our collectivities and from expertise in management, leadership, organizational complexity and network systems theory etc. – in order to operationally upgrade our forces.

Furthermore, our actions and initiatives are not properly connected up, but fragmented and isolated, destined to face the same difficulties again and again. We need to upgrade our operational capacities through appropriate nodes of connection, facilitating smooth flows of know-how and information, transferring best practices, building databases and accumulating knowledge and expertise in an easily retrievable and useful way.

Actually, this is the advantage of multinational and large corporations in general, in comparison to others: they have a vast social network and powerful databases that gives them the necessary tools to plan and pursue their goals while their smaller competitors seem in disarray in a global environment of rapid changes. We need these qualities if we want to be really useful today.

Actually, this is exactly what our opponents did consistently and persistently during the last decades: they were designing and implementing reforms in various levels of state institutions based on the methods, the criteria and the functioning of their own “social agents”, namely the corporations and their own understanding of the nature of public space, namely the market. This is exactly the “mechanics” of transformation that various intellectuals and leaders of the left described in detail a long time ago. Perhaps, by shifting our priorities we will be able to revive old but useful ideas that have been forgotten in practice.

Mind the gap

The “SYRIZA experience” will be worthless if we do not resist the temptation to replace one mistake with another. The failure of SYRIZA - the failure of focusing solely on traditional electoral politics to radically change the dominant neoliberal framework - creates favorable conditions for notions like “self-referential alternativism” and “vanguard isolationism” to emerge and preoccupy the minds and hearts of those who are willing to continue fighting.

But choices like these just repeat what SYRIZA did, justifying fully the threat of our opponents: either you will be marginal or you will become like us! The existential threats and crucial questions regarding their future that our societies face today have nothing to do with a strategy of building “arcs” that aim to safeguard the “Left” or any other identity.

Entering the ominous battlefield of the twenty-first century, the left will either be relevant and useful for the defense of human societies, or it will be obsolete.








.

Bernie Sanders & Mainstream Media

SUBHEAD: Bernie wins debate, but corporate mass media crowned Hillary victor all the same.

By Deirdre Fulton on 15 October 2015 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/10/15/bernie-won-corporate-media-crowned-hillary-victor-all-same)


Image above: Photo of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton during first presidential debate for 2016 election. From (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/14/clinton-and-sanders-why-the-big-deal-about-denmark.html).

An uptick in donations, online polls and focus groups, and social media stats suggest Sanders walked away from Tuesday's debate victorious.

While mainstream media pundits fell in line this week to declare Hillary Clinton the winner of Tuesday's Democratic primary debate, signs suggest that it was Clinton's main rival, Bernie Sanders, who in fact emerged victorious.

Not only did the U.S. senator from Vermont have "the biggest soundbite of the night," as Sanders' senior adviser Tad Devine told Politico—referring, of course, to the "damn emails" line—but he also raked in post-debate donations, won several online polls and focus groups, and dominated the internet and social media over the course of the evening.

"According to Google Trends, Bernie Sanders won the debate," said Lindsey Cook for US News. "He was the most-Googled candidate post-debate in every state and led Google Search results into [Wednesday] morning. Sanders was also the most-discussed candidate on Facebook, followed by Clinton, then [former Virginia Sen. Jim] Webb."

Politico reports that the Sanders campaign "is touting the debate as a victory expected to expand his audience, boost fundraising, and, most important, peel off Clinton supporters to his cause. Indeed, at a fundraiser in Hollywood on Wednesday, Sanders said he had raised $2.5 million since the debate."
And Gawker added:
There were several large online polls, which are a fairly degraded form of data that can end up measuring enthusiasm of a candidate’s base more than actual total voter preference. But to the extent those online polls have any value, Bernie Sanders won 68% in the MSNBC.com poll; Bernie Sanders won 55% in the Daily Kos poll; Bernie Sanders won 54% in the Time.com poll; and Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly won CNN’s own Facebook poll, not that you would know it from what the pundits were saying on CNN itself. CNN’s own focus group also said that Bernie Sanders won, and Fusion’s focus group said that Bernie Sanders won, and Fox News’ focus group said that Bernie Sanders won.
Corporate media, however, ignored Sanders' success and clear resonance with voters, choosing instead to push a pro-Clinton storyline.

"Professional political reporters pride themselves on knowing what is really happening," Gawker's Hamilton Nolan argued. "It would be more accurate, though, to say that they establish what is really happening, by creating the narrative that defines our messy political process in the public mind."

According to Nolan, "That narrative sayeth: the person with the most famous name and the most money at their disposal and the most powerful connections to the political establishment shall win the nomination.

And that is the narrative that all of these mainstream political reporters are sticking to. Hillary Clinton did not tip over and collapse on stage, or spout any racist slurs into a hot mic; therefore, she won the debate."

Relying on the mainstream media, then, can offer a skewed view of political reality.

As Gunar Olsen writes for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) on Thursday, the only poll so far to ask a random sample of respondents about debate performance found that 62 percent thought Clinton won, while 30 percent gave it to Sanders.

However, Olsen notes, the poll "is described as a 'random survey of 760 registered Democratic voters across the US'—not as a survey of people who actually watched the debate. Given that there are some 43 million registered Democrats in the country and 15 million people who watched the debate, not all of whom are Democrats, it’s highly likely that a large majority of the poll’s respondents got their impressions of who won the debate secondhand."

"If they relied on corporate media to tell them about the debate, as no doubt many of them did," Olsen concludes, "it’s no wonder that most of them thought Clinton won."

Meanwhile, even those who crowned Clinton as Tuesday night's favorite had to admit that "although Clinton won the overall debate, Sanders set its terms."

For example, as Common Dreams reported, it is largely due to Sanders' candidacy that the White House hopefuls were forced to debate the merits of capitalism on a national stage.

"The winner had to move the issues and set the tone for the evening, which is what Bernie Sanders did on Tuesday," wrote columnist H.A. Goodman on Wednesday.

"Because of his ability to lead on the biggest issues, from the environment to wars in the Middle East, Bernie Sanders is on his way to the Democratic nomination and the first debate was a major stepping-stone. He won the debate, and he'll win the nomination because only one candidate is setting the agenda for ideas and discussion within the Democratic Party."

Indeed, as Ruth Conniff argued at The Progressive, "the most significant win of the evening was for those millions of people in the Sanders revolution, who continue be inspired by a candidate who speaks seriously and credibly about building a movement to retake our democracy."
"That," she said, "was worth tuning in for."




CNN's & CIA's Anderson Cooper
SUBHEAD: Anderson Cooper questions if Sanders can be elected prsident because he was against Reagan's illegal CIA war on Nicaragua.

By Robert Naiman on 14 October 2015 for Huffington Post -  
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/anderson-cooper-opposing_b_8297944.html)


Image above: From (http://www.resepidola.com/democrat-jim-webb-pretty-sure-its-cnns-fault-hes-not-going-to-be-president-2/).

A key reason that the US has so many wars is that big US media have a strong pro-war, pro-Empire bias. You rarely see big US media badgering a politician for supporting a war that turned out to be a catastrophe. But it's commonplace for big US media to badger politicians for opposing wars, even catastrophic ones.

CNN journalist Anderson Cooper is a perfect example of this phenomenon.
Here's Anderson Cooper, badgering Bernie Sanders at the first Democratic debate for opposing the CIA's illegal war on Nicaragua in the 1980s:
The question is really about electability here, and that's what I'm trying to get at. You -- the -- the Republican attack ad against you in a general election -- it writes itself. You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And just this weekend, you said you're not a capitalist. Doesn't -- doesn't that ad write itself?
Millions of Americans "supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua" in the 1980s. In 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front overthrew the US government-installed Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, promising to address Nicaragua's extreme poverty and the lack of basic government services like education and health care for the majority of the population. In 1982, Nicaragua was recognized by the World Health Organization as the third world country that had made the most progress in health care.

Under the Reagan Administration, the CIA organized a terrorist army (the "Contras") to attack the Nicaraguan government. Millions of Americans participated in a solidarity movement to oppose US military intervention in Nicaragua, including public radio host Ira Glass, actors Ed Asner, Mike Farrell and Diane Ladd, civil rights leader Julian Bond and engineer Ben Linder, who was killed in a terrorist attack by the CIA's army.

The US-Nicaragua solidarity movement succeeded in passing the Boland Amendment in Congress, cutting off US funding to the CIA's terrorist army, which led the Reagan Administration to try to fund the Contras illegally through arms sales to Iran. When these illegal activities were exposed, it became the Iran-Contra scandal.

During this period, Anderson Cooper was working for the CIA.

Opposing the CIA's illegal war in Nicaragua was a mainstream, popular position at the time, as shown by the passage of the Boland Amendment by Congress. It's only in the pro-war, pro-Empire bubble of big US media that having opposed the illegal CIA war on Nicaragua could be portrayed as an electoral liability without any evidence.

The big media use of the term "electability" is a convenient carrier for pro-war, pro-Empire prejudice; the common sense meaning of "electable" would be "the majority of people might be willing to vote for you," but here "electable" means "showing the unquestioning loyalty to war and Empire demanded by big media."

You can challenge Anderson Cooper to justify his unsubstantiated claim about the popularity of the CIA's illegal war in Nicaragua here.

.

Cooperatives, Collectives, Commons

SUBHEAD: Bank robber Enric Duran started the Catalan Integral Cooperative. An answer to predatory capitalism.

By Nathan Schneider on 7 April 2015 for Vice -
(http://www.vice.com/read/be-the-bank-you-want-to-see-in-the-world-0000626-v22n4)


Image above: Enric Duran in Barcelona in 2013 accused of bank fraud of more than $500,000. From (https://enricduran.cat/en/enric-duran-wants-to-suspend-his-trial/).

Being underground is not a condition Enric Duran always takes literally, but one night in late January he went from basement to basement. At a hackerspace under a tiny library just south of Paris, he met a group of activists from across France and then traveled with them by bus and Metro to another meeting place, in an old palace on the north end of the city. On the ground floor it felt like an art gallery, with white walls and sensitive acoustics, but the basement below was like a cave, full of costumes and scientific instruments and exposed masonry.

There, Duran arranged chairs in a circle for the dozen or so people who'd made the journey. As they were settling in and discussing which language they'd speak, a woman from upstairs, attending an event about open licenses, peeked in through the doorway. She pointed Duran out to her friend, trying, barely, to contain herself. After the meeting was over, she came right up to him. "You're the bank robber!" she said.

In that basement Duran held court. Slouching, the 38-year-old anticapitalist activist had a space between his two front teeth, grizzly hair, and a matching beard—black except for stray grays mixed in throughout. He wore a white sweatshirt. His presence was discreet and stilted, yet it carried authority in the room. While others made small talk he looked off elsewhere, but his attention became total as soon as the conversation turned to the matter on his mind and the opportunity to collaborate.

He had gathered the group to describe his latest undertaking, FairCoop, which gradually revealed itself to be no less than a whole new kind of global financial system. With it, he said, communities around the world would be able to trade, fund one another's growth, redistribute wealth, and make collective decisions.

They would hack currency markets to fund themselves while replacing competitive capitalism with cooperation. He proceeded to reel off the names of its sprawling component parts: FairMarket, FairCredits, Fairtoearth, the Global South Fund, and so on. "We will be able to make exchanges with no government controls," he promised in broken English. To get the project going, he had hijacked a Bitcoin-like cryptocurrency called FairCoin.

The French activists indulged him with questions based on whatever hazy grasp of it they could manage—some political, some technical. How does FairCoin relate to FairCredit? What can you buy in the FairMarket?

How many FairCoins go into each fund, and what are they for? Most of these came from the men, all more or less young, who stroked their chins as they listened. Most of the women left before it was over. Duran's voice was never other than monotone, but his responses nonetheless sang a kind of rhapsody. The answers to a lot of the various what-if questions were some variation of "We can decide."

The only reason that the group was willing to even consider this bewildering set of possibilities was that Duran was, in fact, a well-known bank robber—the man who expropriated several hundred thousand euros from Spanish banks during the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis, for which he was still in hiding from the law.

He had used the momentum from his heist to organize the Catalan Integral Cooperative, a network of cooperatives functioning throughout the region of Catalonia, in northeast Spain, which the activists in Paris were attempting to replicate throughout France. His undertakings tended to work. Perhaps even this.

Before robbing banks, Enric Duran networked. As a teenager he was a professional table-tennis player and helped restructure the Catalan competition circuit to be more equitable. He turned his attention toward larger injustices in his early 20s, when he read Erich Fromm's diagnosis of materialist society and Henry David Thoreau's call to disobedience.

This was the late 1990s, high times for what is alternately called the global-justice or anti-globalization movement. The Zapatistas had risen up in southern Mexico in recent years, and just weeks before Y2K, activists with limbs locked together and faces in masks shut down the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle.

According to Northeastern University anthropologist Jeffrey Juris, in Barcelona "Enric was at the center of organizing everything"—so much so that he became one of the main sources for Juris's book about network culture. People called him el hombre conectado.

Duran helped organize the Catalan contingent for protests at the 2000 World Bank and IMF meetings in Prague; a cop there whacked him on the head in the streets. He called for ending reliance on oil and for canceling the debts of poor countries. He was then living on a small allowance from his father, a pharmacist, until using the remainder of it to help set up a cooperative infoshop in Barcelona called Infospai in 2003.

He'd hoped to support himself with Infospai, but it was soon plagued with money problems, like the projects of so many activist groups around him. They needed new streams of revenue that capitalism was unlikely to provide.

Duran had been studying the nature of money, which he came to see as an instrument of global debt servitude on behalf of financial elites, carrying the stain of their usurious dealings wherever it went. He became convinced that big banks were the chief causes of injustice in the world. But, he thought, maybe they could be a solution too.

An entrepreneur friend of Duran's first suggested the idea of borrowing money from banks and not giving it back. At first they talked about organizing a mass action, involving many borrowers, or else just making a fictional film about it. After the friend died in a car accident, Duran decided to act by himself. In the fall of 2005 he began setting up companies on paper and applying for loans.

Soon, he had a mortgage from Caixa Terrassa worth €201,000 (then nearly $310,000). It was the first of 68 acts of borrowing, from car loans to credit cards, involving 39 banks. The loans, he said, totaled around €492,000—€360,000 not including interest and fees along the way. That was more than $500,000 at the time.

For almost three years, Duran worked steadily and methodically. "My strategy was completely systematic," he wrote in his testimony, Abolish the Banks, "as if my actions were part of an assembly line in a Fordist production system." He'd carry a briefcase to meetings with bankers, though he couldn't bring himself to wear a tie.

For a single item—say, a video camera—he'd get the same loan from multiple banks. As he acquired more cash, he funded groups around him that he knew and trusted. He backed the Degrowth March, a bicycle ride around Catalonia organized in opposition to the logic of economic growth, and equipped Infospai with a TV studio.

The beginning of the end came in the summer of 2007. Duran noticed signs of the mortgage crisis forming in the United States and decided that it was time to prepare to go public. During the next year, he assembled a collective to produce a newspaper detailing the evils of banks and what he had done to trick them. The people who helped organize the Degrowth March could become a ready-made distribution network throughout Catalonia. He selected a date: September 17, 2008.

The timing was pretty amazing. On September 15, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, marking beyond doubt the arrival of a global financial crisis. That morning Duran flew from Barcelona to Lisbon, Portugal, and then the next day from Lisbon to Sao Paulo, Brazil, where his friend Lirca was living. On the 17th—three years to the day before Occupy Wall Street protesters took over Zuccotti Park in New York—volunteers across Catalonia handed out 200,000 copies of his newspaper, Crisis.

Until the day before, most of them had no idea what news they'd be spreading. The international media picked up the story, and Duran became known as the Robin Hood of the banks.

He now refers to this as his "public action." All along he'd planned it that way—a spectacle, but one that would create networks and build momentum for other projects. "This is not the story of one action," he said. "It is a process of building an alternative economic system."

In Brazil, Duran set up a website for supporters to discuss the next move. At first, the plan was to mount a mass debt strike. People around the world started organizing to renege on their loans, but the scale of participation necessary to hurt the banks seemed overwhelming, and the plan was scuttled. In the last months of 2008, Duran, Lirca, and their friends pivoted toward another proposal—the Integral Cooperative and, eventually, the Integral Revolution.

Like the bank action, the idea was both political and practical. Duran had financial difficulties with Infospai, but it also taught him that there were certain benefits to organizing as a cooperative. The Spanish government normally exacts a hefty self-employment tax for independent workers—on the order of about $315 per month, plus a percentage of income—but if one can claim one's work as taking place within a cooperative, the tax doesn't apply.

Amid the cascading crisis, people were losing their jobs, and the tax made it hard for them to pick up gigs on the side to get by—unless they were willing to join together as a cooperative. Duran wasn't planning a traditional cooperative business, owned and operated by its workers or by those who use its services.

Instead he wanted to create an umbrella under which people could live and work on their own terms, in all sorts of ways. The idea was to help people out and radicalize them at the same time. The rich use tax loopholes to secure their dominance; now anticapitalists could do the same.

The group chose the word integral, which means "whole wheat" in Spanish and Catalan, to connote the totality, synthesis, and variety of the project. It emboldened Duran, and he began making promises of his return to Catalonia. He devoted much of the remaining money from his loans to a second newspaper, We Can! While Crisis had focused on the problems of the banking system, We Can! would be about solutions. The cover declared, "We can live without capitalism. We can be the change that we want!" It outlined the vision Duran and his friends had been developing for an Integral Cooperative.

On March 17, 2009, exactly six months after Crisis, 350,000 copies of We Can! appeared throughout Spain. The same day, Duran surfaced on the campus of the University of Barcelona, and he was promptly arrested. Several banks had filed complaints against him. The Spanish prosecutor called for an eight-year prison sentence.

Duran was thrown into jail, but he went free two months later, after an anonymous donor posted his bail. Thus began almost four years of freedom and organizing with his friends. They made sure to set up the cooperative legal structure at the outset, so that the tax benefits could draw people into the system. Then the priority was to arrange for necessities: food from farmers, housing in squats and communes, health care by natural and affordable means. By early 2010 the Catalan Integral Cooperative (CIC) was real, with commissions and monthly assemblies.

The following year, when the 15M movement, a precursor to Occupy Wall Street, installed itself in city squares across Spain to rail against austerity and corruption, protesters swelled the CIC's ranks. Replica cooperatives began to emerge in other regions of Spain and in France. None of the money from Duran's loans actually went to forming it, but it grew with his notoriety, his networks, and his fervid activity.


Image above: Rooftop garden at the headquarters of the Catalan Integral Cooperative. From original article.

A few blocks from Antoni Gaudi's ever-unfinished basilica, the Sagrada Familia, sits Aurea Social, a three-story former health spa that has served as the Barcelona headquarters of the CIC (pronounced "seek") since February 2012.

Past the sliding glass doors and the reception desk is a hallway where products made by members are on display—soaps, children's clothes, wooden toys and bird feeders, a solar-powered reflective cooker. There are brochures for Espai de l'Harmonia, a hostel and wellness center, where one can receive Reiki treatments or take aikido lessons. Beyond, there is a small library, a Bitcoin ATM, and offices used by some of the 75 people who receive stipends for the work they do to keep the CIC running.

On certain days, Aurea Social hosts a market with produce fresh from the Catalan Supply Center—the distribution warehouse in a town an hour or so to the south, which provides this and the cooperative's other markets throughout the region with about 4,500 pounds of goods each month, most of which come from the cooperative's farmers and producers.

Each of the enterprises advertised at Aurea Social operate more or less independently while being, to varying degrees, linked to the CIC. At last count, the CIC consisted of 674 different projects spread across Catalonia, with 954 people working on them.

The CIC provides these projects a legal umbrella, as far as taxes and incorporation are concerned, and their members trade with one another using their own social currency, called ecos. They share health workers, legal experts, software developers, scientists, and babysitters. They finance one another with the CIC's $438,000 annual budget, a crowdfunding platform, and an interest-free investment bank called Casx. (In Catalan, x makes an sh sound.)

To be part of the CIC, projects need to be managed by consensus and to follow certain basic principles like transparency and sustainability. Once the assembly admits a new project, its income runs through the CIC accounting office, where a portion goes toward funding the shared infrastructure. Any participant can benefit from the services and help decide how the common pool is used.


Image above: Espai de l'Harmonia, a CIC-affiliated hostel and wellness center. From original article.

Affiliates can choose to live in an affiliated block of apartments in Barcelona, or at Lung Ta, a farming commune with tepees and yurts and stone circles and horses, where residents organize themselves into "families" according to their alignments with respect to Mayan astrology. Others move to Calafou, a "postcapitalist ecoindustrial colony" in the ruins of a century-old factory town, which Duran and a few others purchased after he found it for sale on the internet. (Further details about Calafou cannot appear here because VICE does not publish under an open license, a requirement the colony's assembly has for press wishing to cover it.)

Not far from there, a group of anarchists runs a bar and a screen-printing studio in a building that once belonged to the CNT, the anarcho-syndicalist union that ran collectivized factories and militias during the civil war of the 1930s, orchestrating what is almost assuredly the modern world's largest experiment in functional anarchy.

Like the CNT, the CIC is making a new world in the shell of the old—so the utopian mantra goes—and, to a degree that is not at all utopian, creating livelihoods for themselves in a place where livelihoods are not at all easy to come by.

For years now Spain has been sunk in a perpetual downturn, with an unemployment rate exceeding 20 percent for the general population and hovering around 50 percent for those under 25. The exasperation has given rise to Podemos, a new populist political party that opposes austerity policies and is poised to displace the establishment. But the less-noticed side of this uprising is movements like the CIC, working closer to the ground and reshaping the structure of everyday life.

The office of the CIC's five-member Economic Commission, on the first floor of Aurea Social, doesn't look like the usual accounting office. A flock of paper birds hanging from the ceiling flies toward the whiteboard, which covers one wall and reads, "All you need is love."

The opposite wall is covered with art made by children. The staff members' computers run an open-source Linux operating system and the custom software that the IT Commission developed for them, which they use to process the incomes of the CIC's cooperative projects, handle the payment of dues, and disperse the remainder back to project members upon request.

If the taxman ever comes to CIC members, there's a script: They say that they're volunteers for a cooperative, and then point him in the direction of the Economic Commission, which can provide the proper documentation. (Officially, there is no such thing as the CIC; it operates through a series of legal entities, which also makes it less dependent on any one of them.)

Insiders refer to their system, and the tax benefits that go with it, as "fiscal disobedience," or "juridical forms," or simply "the tool."

Accounting takes place both in euros and in ecos, the CIC's native currency.

Ecos are not a high-tech cryptocurrency like Bitcoin but a simple mutual-credit network. While the idea for Bitcoin is to consign transactions entirely to software, bypassing the perceived risk of trusting central authorities and flawed human beings, ecos depend on a community of people who trust one another fully.

Anybody with one of the more than 2,200 accounts can log in to the web interface of the Community Exchange System, see everyone else's balances, and transfer ecos from one account to another. The measure of wealth, too, is upside down. It's not frowned upon to have a low balance or to be a bit in debt; the trouble is when someone's balance ventures too far from zero in either direction and stays there. Because interest is nonexistent, having lots of ecos sitting around won't do any good.

Creditworthiness in the system comes not from accumulating but from use and achieving a balance of contribution and consumption.

The CIC's answer to the Federal Reserve is the Social Currency Monitoring Commission, whose job it is to contact members not making many transactions and to help them figure out how they can meet more of their needs within the system. If someone wants pants, say, and she can't buy any in ecos nearby, she can try to persuade a local tailor to accept them.

But the tailor, in turn, will accept ecos only to the extent that he, too, can get something he needs with ecos. It's a process of assembling an economy like a puzzle. The currency is not just a medium of exchange; it's a measure of the CIC's independence from capitalism.

A word one often hears around the CIC is autogestió. People use it with an affection similar to the way Americans talk about "self-sufficiency," but without the screw-everyone-else cowboy individualism. They translate it as "self-management," though what they mean is more community than self. It's like what used to be called commoning—the sharing of common resources, like a forest nobody owns, or the air.

This kind of ethic is more cherished in the CIC than any particular legal loophole; the tax benefits just draw people in. The more they can self-manage how they eat, sleep, learn, and work, the closer the Integral Revolution has come.

From project to project, the CIC enterprises and their respective members seem to bear an uncanny resemblance, the way dog owners are said to look like their pets. These are the projects they created, not just a job they happened to get, and it shows. To make a new economy, you need all kinds.

One of the feats of integration that the CIC has managed to accomplish among Barcelona's subcultures is the relatively peaceful coexistence of two opposing identity types, the punks and the hippies. They stay separate but in a way that's mutually supportive.

Didac Costa is unapologetically a hippie; he claims the label in a way that's a bit cringe-inducing in American English. Lately, he has been planning a new CIC-affiliated commune, temporarily code-named Walden Bas, after Thoreau's pond and an old local word for forest. The land he's in the process of buying is a rugged mountainside, with the ruins of a few old stone farm buildings mostly reclaimed by vegetation.

He showed me around like a well-worn Sherpa, explaining his plans for where everything will be—from the swimming hole to the Wi-Fi antenna—with such familiarity and exactitude as if they were things of the past that had come and gone. This is where he said he wants to end up for good.

A "non-dogmatic libertarian," sociologist, and spiritualist, Costa bears an imposing, circumspect presence, honed by ayahuasca sessions with Brazilian shamans and the marijuana he keeps in a tall tequila tin. His enthusiasms come with references to thick books, though he does not consider himself above spending a week digging in the mud to make a few feet of road by the ruins he not yet owns; he claims to relish it as meditation. At 39, he is a few years younger than his graying head of curly, chin-length Catalan hair and the dark crevices around his eyes suggest.


Image above: Didan Costa. From original article.

Before the CIC, Costa was already using social currencies. He studied them for a few years in Argentina and Brazil, then came back and started one in the Catalan town of Montseny. (It began on January 4, 2009, the day after Bitcoin came online.) He already knew Duran from some abortive "crazy project" involving a boat full of hippies that was supposed to sail from Brazil to India.

But after Duran got out of jail, the two started collaborating in earnest. By late 2009, preparing for what would become the CIC, they met with people in the Tarragona region who had started another independent social-currency network. They decided to link their currencies to a common system.

Now, at least 20 local social-currency networks throughout Catalonia are connected through the CIC.

Costa helped start Calafou in 2011. He settled there, but he soon found that he didn't get along with the acrimonious punks who came to dominate the colony. In contrast, his planned eco-village will be hippie to the core: music festivals, Rainbow Gatherings, ayahuasca, yurts, yoga, Vipassana meditation. Financing has been tricky, especially since he lost 80 Bitcoins—around $20,000—to a hack of the Bitstamp exchange in January. He calls Duran his financial adviser, and they talk regularly. While he waits to close the deal on the land, he lives in an apartment close by, where he can watch it, visit it, and draw up plans.

About an hour's drive east toward the coast, one of the CIC's chief punks lives in a tiny medieval town with a death-metal name, Ultramort. Raquel Benedicto often wears a black Clockwork Orange hoodie and has dyed-red hair. There are rings all over her ears. Her nose is pierced at the bridge and septum, though the piercings are not always in use anymore. She has to avoid street protests, because when cops attack her she fights back, and she can't risk that now that she's a mother.

With her brother, recently returned from years of food service and surfing in the British Isles, she started the town's only restaurant, Restaurant Terra, at the end of 2014. It is a CIC project through and through: Meals can be paid for in ecos, and it regularly plays host to regional assemblies. Members of the local forestry cooperative, which uses a donkey to help carry away logs, come to her for their pay. In the back, Benedicto is also starting a school for local kids, including her three-year-old son, Roc.

Benedicto met Duran during the 15M movement's occupation in 2011. She was already pissed off, but he showed her something to do with it—"something real," she said. She began working with the CIC in the Welcome Commission, learning the Integral logic by teaching others, and by talking as much as she could with Duran.

Soon, she was on the Coordination Commission, the group that orchestrates the assemblies and helps the other commissions collaborate better. But that work has been burning her out, and she's been trying to step down to focus on running the restaurant. "I'm starting to do what I want, finally," she told me.

At the same time, she has been working to spread more of the CIC's operations out from Aurea Social in Barcelona to local assemblies throughout the region. Duran and Benedicto are often in touch about this sort of thing, but she has to be careful. The police once took her phone, and they've interrogated her friends about his whereabouts. She keeps her phone away when she talks about him and encrypts her email. Benedicto is one of the people who keep the CIC running in Duran's absence, who make it no longer need him.

At the end of January, the CIC held its annual weekend-long assembly, devoted to planning the coming year's budget. Sixty or so people sat in a circle in Aurea Social's large back room, with spreadsheets projected above them. A woman breast-fed in the back, while semi-supervised older children had the run of the rest of the building.

Benedicto took notes on her Linux-loaded laptop as debates came and went about how to reorganize the commissions more effectively, about who would get paid and how. That weekend they also decided to end EcoBasic, a cautious hybrid currency backed by euros that the CIC had been using—a decision that brought them one step away from fiat money and closer to pure social currency.

In the fatigue and frustration of it all, one could be forgiven for failing to appreciate the basic miracle that this many people, in an organization this size, were making detailed and consequential decisions by consensus.

Over the minutiae, too, hung the looming prospect that whatever local decisions they made were part of a model for something bigger. During an argument about whether Zapatista coffee constituted a basic need, a web developer in the assembly was quietly writing an encrypted email to Duran about changes to the FairCoin website, the public face of the CIC's new planetary stepchild. Most people there at least knew about it, but only a few were ready yet to let it distract them from their particular projects.

"Enric thinks about something and everybody starts to tremble," Benedicto told me during a break. "No, no—we've got a lot of stuff to do, and now you want to do that, really?"

In France, Duran fills his days and nights with as much activity on behalf of Integralism as his underground condition allows. He is out and about, passing police officers on the street without a flinch, changing where he lives and works from time to time in order not to be found too easily. He shares his whereabouts on a need-to-know basis.

Perhaps the strangest thing about his daily existence is its steadiness, and the absence of apparent anxiety or self-doubt about the scale of his ambition. "I feel that I have these capacities," he told me.

One overcast day in Paris, following an afternoon meeting with a developer working on the FairMarket website, Duran set off to one of the hackerspaces he frequents, one whose Wi-Fi configuration he knew would let him send email over a VPN, which obscures one's location. He was sending an update to the more than 10,000 people on his mailing list. After that was done, he went to meet with a French credit-union expert at the office of a think tank. Her abrasiveness and skepticism about FairCoop didn't faze him in the least.

Although the discussion seemed to go nowhere, his only thought afterward was about how best to put her networks to use. At around midnight, he introduced FairCoop to the heads of a sharing-economy association in the back of their co-working space. In order to continue the conversation later, he showed them how to use a secure chat program.

Following the cryptography lesson, he went back to an Airbnb apartment and sat down with his computer. There he worked until 4:30 in the morning—intensely focused, eating the occasional cookie, smiling every now and then at whatever email or forum thread had his attention, and typing back by hunt-and-peck.

All day and all night, a second laptop in the room emitted a glow as the FairCoin wallet program ran on it, helping to keep the currency's decentralized network secure. He sleeps four or five hours, usually. No cigarettes, no coffee, rarely any beer. He's not a cook. He makes one want to care for him like a mother.

Duran is currently attempting his third great hack. The first was the "public action"—hacking the financial system to benefit activists. The second was the CIC and its "fiscal disobedience"—hacking the legal system to invent a new kind of cooperative. The third is FairCoop—hacking a currency to fund a global financial system. Like the second, the third was born in the underground.

Duran's trial had been slated to begin at last in February 2013. By that time, it didn't seem like it would be much of a trial at all. None of the defense's proposed witnesses had been approved to testify; the authorities did not want the courtroom to become a stage for political theater.

A few days before the first proceedings, Duran went underground again. (The English word he uses for his condition is "clandestinity.") At first he shut himself away in a house in Catalonia, but when that became too restrictive, he left for France, where he'd be farther from the Spanish police and less recognizable in public.

With not much else to do, he began learning all he could about cryptocurrencies—the new species of online money of which Bitcoin was only the first and most widespread. Cryptographic math makes it possible to record transactions on a shared network that relies on no government or central bank. Friends of his had already been building Bitcoin-related software. In its infancy, Calafou was once known as a center of Bitcoin development. In early 2013 Bitcoin was beginning its rapid ascent from near worthlessness to a peak of more than $1,200 per unit.

Early adopters became rich out of nowhere. Duran noticed the market-adulating individualism that tended to pervade the cryptocurrency scene and wondered whether the technology could be used for better ends. "I was thinking about how to hack something like this to fund the Integral Revolution," he recalled.

Among the hundreds of Bitcoin clones out there, each with its particular tweaks to the code, Duran found FairCoin. "This is a good name," he thought to himself. Part of what supposedly made FairCoin fair was that it didn't rely on Bitcoin's proof-of-work algorithm, which rewards "miners" who have warehouses full of machines that do nothing but guzzle electricity and churn out math.

Instead, FairCoins were distributed with what seemed like a spirit of fairness. The original developer gave them to whoever wanted them when the system went online in March 2014. But the whole thing may also have been a scam; the currency went through a quick boom-and-bust cycle, after which the developer disappeared, presumably with a lot of money.

The value of FairCoin peaked on April 15 last year at a nearly $1 million market cap. Halfway through its subsequent free fall, on April 21, Duran made an announcement on the FairCoin forum thread and on Reddit: He had begun buying FairCoins.

"Building the success of FairCoin should be something collective," he wrote. "FairCoin should become the coin of fair trade." Between April and September, Duran used the stash of Bitcoins he'd been living on to buy around 10 million FairCoins—20 percent of the entire supply.

For most of that time, the coin was close to worthless, abandoned by its community. With a small team behind them, Duran set about buying and planning, while Thomas König, a web developer in Austria, tweaked the code, fixing security problems. They began experimenting with ways to replace the competitive mechanisms FairCoin had inherited from Bitcoin with more cooperative ones designed to fit into the FairCoop structure. By the end of September, CIC members started to invest in FairCoins, and the value shot up again to 15 times what it had been while Duran was buying them in the summer.

Just as the CIC is much more than its patchwork of local currencies, FairCoop is much more than FairCoin. Duran intends FairCoop to be a financial network for cooperatives, governed by its participants. They can sell their products in the FairMarket, trade with one another using FairCredit, and finance their growth with FairFunding. They can buy in at GetFairCoin.net and cash out with Fairtoearth.com. It is to be for the whole world what the CIC is in Catalonia.

He has laid out the beginnings of a structure, in the shape of a tree—councils and commissions, markets and exchanges, each seeded with FairCoins. One fund's job is to build software for the ecosystem, while another's is to redistribute wealth to the Global South. Bolstered by a $13,800 grant from the cosmetics maker Lush, thanks to a friend from his global-justice days, Duran is spending every waking hour enlisting everyone he knows to help make FairCoop something useful for post-capitalists everywhere.

What could make the hack actually work is its combination of the coin and the community. The more that local cooperatives become part of the network and use its tools, the more FairCoins will be worth in cryptocurrency markets, where wide adoption helps make a coin valuable. To build the community, therefore, is simultaneously to finance it. If the price of FairCoins were to reach the price of Bitcoins now, for instance, Duran's initial investment would be worth more than $2 billion.

Then again, cryptocurrencies can siphon away value as quickly as they can create it; Bitcoin has been shedding its dollar price for more than a year now, down to around a fifth of its peak—a loss that could be devastating to a fragile cooperative that might want to invest in FairCoin. But the idea is that FairCoop's success won't be staked entirely on FairCoin.

Duran doesn't see the currency as the kind of salvific software that tech culture trains us to expect, one that will correct human imperfection if we hand ourselves over to its perfect design. He wants to use it to create trust among people, not to replace trust with a superior algorithm. "If you are not creating new cultural relations," he told me, "you're not changing anything." Just as CIC members try to make their community stronger than any one legal structure, he'd like to see FairCoop become strong enough that it can outgrow FairCoin altogether.

For all the plan's manic complexity, it's also a plain and simple extension of the logic of Duran's previous endeavors: Cheat capitalism to fund the movement, take what already exists and recombine it. But even this unlikely track record is no guarantee. In the hackerspace basement-cave in Paris, while attempting to on-board the French Integralists for his new project, Duran added, as if it were no problem at all, "We don't know if this is going to work."

One does not often see hippies glued to the political news on TV. But Didac Costa was, in his makeshift apartment just under the mountainside where his commune will someday be. Familiar faces were on the screen. Podemos had recently secured five seats in the European Parliament, and polls suggest that it could win the national elections to be held later this year.

Costa was in the running for a spot on Podemos's regional council. He hoped to agitate from within, to make the party more supportive of Catalan independence and social movements like the CIC.

In France, meanwhile, Duran was reading the news from Spain on his computer. Mayo Fuster Morell—his first girlfriend, now a prominent media scholar—was in the Podemos leadership, along with people he'd known and organized with for years.

He was also watching Greece, where the leftist Syriza party had won an election and was preparing to take control of the government. He culled through its ministers to see if any might be interested in FairCoop. He was on the lookout for some way to hack Southern Europe's new political climate.

He was also thinking about his own return to freedom. In the winter he assembled a small team of people who are working with him in person, both on FairCoop and on his own cause. Back in Catalonia, friends have been trying to arrange some kind of restorative-justice process as an alternative to a trial and prison sentence, but there hasn't been much progress. His father died last year, and he couldn't go to the funeral. Weighing more heavily on his mind, it seems, is the thought of how much he could do for FairCoop if he didn't have to hide.

He needs to find investors, to arrange meetings, to carry out the various tasks a new enterprise demands, and doing so in the confines of clandestinity puts daily constraints on an undertaking that would be difficult enough on its own. Jail would be worse, of course, but he has had enough of this.

The bank robber is ready to be a banker.

.

Decentrtalization is Inevitable

SUBHEAD: It is what lies beyond the current failing, unsustainable versions of Capitalism and Socialism?

By Charles Hugh Smith on 1 February 2014 for Of Two Minds -
(http://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb14/decentralization2-14.html)


Image above: Photo portrait of Jeremy Leggett. From interview below.

Correspondent John D. recently sent in a link to an interview with energy expert and author Jeremy Leggett. The title, "Make no mistake, this is an energy civil war" is a bit sensationalist, but the gist of his point is that centralized control of energy (and the capital that controls the energy and distribution networks) are colliding with new models of decentralized, locally autonomous control and ownership of energy generation and distribution.

Given the immense power of the banking/energy/political Elites that directly benefit from centralization of energy, capital and political power, I term this decentralization solution "impossible."

Yet because it is driven by the diminishing returns of the centralized model and the emergence of the Web as an unstoppable force distributing decentralization and new models, the transition from ossified, failing centralized models to adaptive, faster-better-cheaper decentralized models is also inevitable.

This is the context of Leggett's view that there is an 'energy civil war' between the powers defending centralization and those promoting community ownership and control of energy.



Jeremy Leggett Interview
SUBHEAD: "Make no mistake, this is an energy civil war"

By Rob Hopkins on 11 November 2013 for Transition Network - 
(https://www.transitionnetwork.org/blogs/rob-hopkins/2013-11/jeremy-leggett-make-no-mistake-energy-civil-war)

Rob Hopkins:
Jeremy Leggett's new book 'The Energy of Nations: risk blindness and the road to renaissance' is an inspirational, page-turning telling of the evolving tale of peak oil, climate change, and economic crisis, and how the three issues intertwine and interweave. I found it gripping, and what comes through strongly is firstly the huge potential of the shift to renewables, and secondly the stubborn stalling tactics and railroading of what Leggett calls "the energy incumbency".  I caught up with him via Skpe, and starting by asking him to introduce himself to any readers who may not have come across his work before. As usual with such pieces, you can either listen to/download the podcast, or read the transcript below. 

Jeremy Leggett:
"I’m Jeremy Leggett, the founder and chairman of Solar Century, internationally as well as in Britain, and the founder of Solar Aid, the African solar lighting charity funded with 5% of Solar Century’s profits. We have a retail brand Sunny Money, which is the biggest seller of solar lanterns in Africa at the moment.

RH: You’ve just published a book called The Energy of Nations. Could you just tell people in a nutshell what they might expect to find in there?

JL: I worry that the energy industry is in the process of repeating systemically the mistakes of the financial sector, and on multiple fronts. I talk in the book about five big systemic risks that I think they’re running, and the risks that they’re taking get worse and worse as time goes by. I tell the story linearly from 2004 when the oil crisis started to go up. I tell it as a narrative of these five risks and intercut diary extracts from my life as I’ve seen this risk-taking grow and grow, to try and make the point about the five risks as a narrative really, as a story, a true story.

RH: It’s really compelling, it reads like a thriller. One of the things that was difficult in the early days of peak oil was to make those arguments that peak oil and climate change needed to be looked at as overlapping issues. The climate change people didn’t want to talk about peak oil because it complicated things, and the peak oil people were often just focused on how to get new sources of oil.  Over time, those communities have come closer together, partly through your work and other people’s. But recently, that’s become a harder narrative to hold together, with people saying there’s more than enough fossil fuels to finish the climate off. What you’ve done is very skilfully here is to bring those two issues back together again. How do you see the overlap, the relationship between those two issues?

JL: No matter who’s right in the peak oil debates, there has always been easily enough oil and gas, combined with coal, to wreck the climate and bring down civilisation. I don’t think there’s any dispute about that in a world where we’re at 420 parts per million of CO2 equivalent already. The thing that’s so striking, even for me writing the book, was how in just a few years the dominant narrative, the widely accepted narrative has gone from one of real constraint on oil supply, indeed transparent, palpable alarm from the International Energy Agency for example, right through to 2011 to where now we’re in some cornucopian paradise for the fossil fuel heads of America heading for Saudi-America status, energy independence, all the rest of it.

This has happened on the basis of evidence that is really flimsy but has been hyped to high heaven by, I think, a very desperate incumbency locked into an almost religious enculturated belief system which is behaving very dangerously. Very dangerously indeed.

RH: One of the things that’s really compelling, as you say, is the extracts from your diary through that time, of different meetings and events.  They really leave the reader scratching their head about the detachment from reality and the strange bubble that many of the people who work as executives in the energy industry and the finance industry operate in.  Where does that come from, do you think? Where does that stubbornness and cultural oddness come from?

JL: It’s not so surprising when you look at what the neuroscientists are discovering about how our brains work, how we think individually and collectively. As I describe in the book, that’s something I didn’t know about until in the course of my work I went to a couple of seminars on this wave of discoveries in neuroscience.

The neuroscientists tell us that their research shows that we’re individually and collectively very prone to lock into belief systems easily and quickly and then when we do, we defend them, we don’t like to be presented with any kind of rational evidence that we’re wrong in that set of beliefs; we have an incumbency effect we prefer to believe in the potency of things and systems that we have as opposed to other alternatives that might be rationally much more appropriate.

It doesn’t surprise the anthropologists either. When they look at the history of civilisations and how civilisations have failed, they see time and time again this belief in myths and magic that emerges towards the end, as civilisations are about to go under. The parallels are very clear here. They see the power of the markets – all the things that a modern capitalist is supposed to believe in - the market forces and the validity of basing an economic system on the combustion of hydrocarbons that undermine your climate and therefore your ability to even continue with feeding yourself and providing yourself with clean water.

I try and convey that part of the story as well. It’s not all bleak because I think the neuroscientists also tell us that we have this great yearning as human beings for community and all the rest of it, and individualistic or selfish, perhaps what people on the right of the political spectrum constantly try and persuade us that we are. That all points towards the possibility of a road to renaissance and that’s why I titled the book The Energy of Nations: Risk Blindness and the Road to Renaissance. I talk about the importance of things like the Transition movement as the building blocks for this road to renaissance.

RH: You say there will probably be "only one shot at capitalising a 21st century energy structure".  You also talk about how the UK government has been "busy plotting gas nirvana with the oil industry", and the UK appears to be set on becoming a "gas hub" through exploiting shale gas.  But also presumably, since the book was published, we've seen the public announcement of the UK also moving towards becoming a nuclear hub. Have the decisions, do you think, been made about what that energy infrastructure is going to look like, or is there still time and an opportunity to shape it?

JL: Yes, there’s definitely time and opportunity. They may think that they’ve made the decisions, but look at the extent to which the backing of shale is based on transparent myths for anyone who’s prepared to dig below the surface. Just the notion that the United Kingdom, rural Britain, can be peppered with the density of fracked wells that they’ve had in Texas, Pennsylvania and North Dakota, it’s laughable when you look at the public opposition to the first single well. It wasn’t even a fracked well in Sussex. We are not going to tolerate it, the British people. That’s the first thing, that is bewildering.

The second thing is, of course, the mounting evidence that the whole North American shale gas boom story is actually yet another one of these bubbles that we’re terribly good at inflating, and people are losing so much money because of the low gas price, that they’re not going to be able to service the vast amount of debt that they’re borrowing from Wall Street and so that whole system will come off the rails, even in America.

There are real questions as to whether the Osborne-ite and Cameron gas tendency are going to get away with their ludicrous plans. As for nuclear, well, they’ve made a crazy decision to commit vast numbers of billions of our money far into the future for a French and Chinese nuclear power plant on the coast of Somerset. But the first thing they have to do is get state aid permission from the European Union to do that. That decision won’t be taken for quite a while, so I don’t see that they’re going to be able to get away with even that one white elephant nuclear power plant, much less the crazy nuclear renaissance that they’re plotting.

Meanwhile, the energy industry is a civil war zone. That includes in the Conservative party. Not everyone is lined up behind this craziness. There are some Conservatives who really believe in the green industrial revolution and the localisation of power to the people and all the sorts of things that the Transition movement thinks about. That element of the civil war will continue to play on. Even within the big energy companies, you’ve got people who just know in their hearts that the status quo business models are flawed and probably dying in the water for the big utilities, and are thinking of alternative, localised, people power types of alternative models.

When you look at the growth, what’s growing? What’s growing is renewables, and in Europe over the last three years we’ve put in more renewables than we have fossil fuel and nuclear. More money is going into renewables than is going into fossil fuels and nuclear combined, despite all the wrecking tactics deployed by the energy incumbency. So there are reasons to be cheerful.

RH: One of those that comes through in the book repeatedly is Germany's Energiewende and what they’re doing there. What can we learn from Germany, do you think in terms of practicality and in terms of ambition?

I think that it’s altogether very encouraging indeed. We can learn that it’s possible to renewably power a modern economy like Germany 100% with renewables, and do it much quicker than people anticipate. We can also see that the ownership structures can change radically, so that people power comes into the mainstream. As you know, more than half the renewable assets in Germany are owned by people, by people and communities.

That’s not just the small energy co-ops that are being set up by the multiple hundreds, but whole cities are talking about taking their own power into their own hands, even Berlin, with a membership movement to take control of the way that energy is created in cities. Germany is vital in the whole narrative going forward.

You can see the big energy utilities dying basically. The top twenty European energy utilities were worth a trillion Euros in 2008. Now they’re worth half a trillion. That’s simply because of the way wind and solar particularly, but also other renewables have driven down the wholesale price and literally taken power out of the monopoly hands of the utilities. It’s very exciting.

RH: You talk in the book about, for example, how Shell have meetings with ministers and reflect on what it would be like if actually the renewable sector had even half the access to ministers, the ability to organise meetings with them, that the non-renewable sector has. Is there any way to break that, do you think? Is there any way of turning that around?

JL: It’s a very potent force and a very malign way of operating, so it will be difficult.  I think one of the things I’ve learnt during the adventures I describe in the book is that most of these big companies are incapable of change, and they have to be defeated rather than changed. That’s something that I think is a little sobering.

Some of them will change at the margins and ultimately one or two may change wholesale. But you see the way they dig in, the way they defend to the death in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, i.e. BP pulling out of solar energy at a time when the price falls to the point of being competitive in multiple markets. They pull out completely and retreat into unconventional gas and all the rest of it. This is not a company that’s going to change.

It’s a company that will have to be ultimately driven out of business. Shell are pretty much in the same category, not quite so badly. The big energy utilities, EDF, you don’t get any sense that they’re capable of changing culturally. Others are maybe different; RWE are clearly going through some kind of soul searching at the moment and may make it through in the way that IBM managed to change, when main computers were replaced by micro computers.

But ultimately, the whole fabric of society is going to be changed on the road to renaissance by the continuing emergence of people power. People and communities taking control of their own energy, taking control of their own finance. That’s going to be very important as well, with the growth of crowd funding, peer to peer lending, green bonds, retail bonds, and all the rest of this kind of thing.  Even the assistant director general of the Bank of England, Andy Haldane has said this is showing signs of becoming such a trend, such a potential mega-trend, that it could disenfranchise the main banks, the high street banks in the way that I think some of these trends in renewable energy are going to disenfranchise the energy incumbency.

RH: Is there any merit at all to that argument that shale gas can be a bridge fuel, that it displaces coal so therefore it has a role as a bridge fuel, or not?

JL: If people were capable of being collectively rational...  Clearly we can’t bring in renewables overnight. When we think of how fast we need to bring them in in order to stay below 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent and ideally getting a lot lower than that to have a chance at defeating climate change. But we can’t do that overnight, no matter how fast we mobilise. If you can contain the leaks, gas actually works very well with solar as a combined heat and energy, combined heat and power with relatively low emissions.

The problem, as I say in the book, is that so much of the gas industry has retreated from the mantra that gas is the bridge to the low carbon future and are now pushing this ludicrous myth that gas actually is the bridge to the gas powered future, that unconventional gas is the route to the unconventional gas powered future. And of course, they deploy their lobbyists and their wrecking tactics to try and stall renewables and indeed kill renewables.

Since I finished writing the book, 10 of Europe’s biggest utilities have rocked up in Brussels and told the European Commission, and in Strasbourg the European Parliament, that what they want is all subsidies for renewables stopped, essentially a cap put on renewables, and gas opened up as the main route to powering Europe and also somehow, they say, fighting climate change.

RH: One of the things that you did before this book came out was the Carbon Tracker report about 'the carbon bubble', and arguing that 4/5 of the reserves that we know about need to stay in the ground, and that could lead to a big financial bubble. Could you just say a little bit about that, and about how that report has been received and any impact it may have had?

JL: Carbon Tracker is the little financial think tank that I have the privilege of chairing and being able to help to the extent that I can. The folk behind it, Mark Campanale and others have really done something amazing. I think I’ve never seen an argument get more traction with the policy world, the financial world. I’ve never seen an argument upset and discomfit the energy incumbency as much as this one does.

It’s not even recognised at the first level, in the accounting of companies, on the balance sheets. What Carbon Tracker is saying is let’s start recognising the risk. Of course, as soon as the language is put like that, in the terms of the capital markets, it’s difficult for the regulators and the people who should recognise a risk like the accountants and the auditors and the actuaries and all these folk, right across the financial chain to say "no, we’re not going to recognise the risk".

Some of them are, in their different ways. Some of the financial institutions have already started pulling large sums of investment out of fossil fuels as a result of this whole risk dialogue. It’s terrifically exciting, and I actually think that this could be the argument that breaks the log jam on climate change. I’m that optimistic about it.

RH: One of the things that I couldn’t find in the Carbon Tracker report was any analysis of issues around energy return on investment and whether it would even be economically feasible, even if people wanted to, to extract and burn all of that carbon. What are the economics that underpin that?

JL: The assumption is every time any company brings resources to the market, unless you’re a public offering and ask for money to turn them into reserves, the assumption is that of course all of it can be burnt without constraint. You and I know that there are going to be profound energy return on investment implications. But that’s the next level of argumentation. It’s difficult enough to get traction with these folk just on the basic carbon arithmetic arguments without energy return on investment, dysfunctional as that situation is.

I think if we can continue to make as much headway as we are on simple carbon logic, carbon arithmetic, carbon fuel asset stranding risk arguments then maybe there’s a bridge there to allow the very small number of brilliant folks who are working on energy return on investment to get their voices heard too.

RH: You say at one point in Energy of Nations, “I’m now convinced that capitalism as we know it is torpedoing our prosperity, killing our economies, threatening our children with an unliveable world. It needs to be re-engineered root and branch.” Does capitalism still have a place? What would re-engineered capitalism look like, and what does that mean for economic growth?

JL: It depends on your definition of capitalism. Economic growth as it’s currently measured? I think its days are over. That used to be that the mantras of the people classified as the lunatic fringe, but not any more. You can read this kind of thinking in the commentary in the Financial Times. In a world with a global economy on route to six degrees, how can such a system be viewed as sane any more, much less survivable?

The more of us who start using this language, this new type of capitalism – others won’t call it capitalism at all of course – a new type of capitalism. Certainly my point in the book is that modern capitalism, the form of capitalism that’s evolved in the last few decades is basically suicidally dysfunctional and we have to turn our backs on it and introduce an alternative set of systems. That’s what I think we have the opportunity to do in building the road to renaissance.

RH: It reads like you see that as lying in a combination of large and small things. You talk about a localisation mega-trend and peer-to-peer lending and community-led initiatives like Transition and others, need to sit alongside the bigger things as well in terms of investment etc. How do you see those two things sitting alongside each other?

JL: I think that’s right. The electricity grid might be a very good example of how this will play out. Right now, very few people question the assumption that we need to keep feeding this monster of a national electricity grid system, which is massively capital intensive, very difficult to figure out a way in which that could be upgraded and made fit for purpose decades into the future using new kinds of financing and the rest of it.

But I think inevitably what’s going to happen whether people like it or not, is that communities, towns, individual houses are going to get themselves off that grid and the march of technology is going to help them. People and communities are going to become increasingly self-sufficient.  When you do that, where’s the role for the national electricity grid, at a certain point? Where’s the role for a giant company like National Grid?

Aren’t we just going to be devolving down into community-based companies, co-ops and all the rest of it. I think it’s an exciting vision, because you get all sorts of spin-off benefits from a transition of that kind. I don’t have a blueprint template of how we get from A to B, the globalised national, international infrastructure world to the localised world. I think that’s a work in progress that we’re all going to have to be active players in the architecture of.

RH: In the popular media at the moment, a lot of the stuff around energy seems to be becoming an increasingly selfish perspective of "I don’t care about green energy taxes because I want my bills to be cheaper". Like it is with food, it’s all about cheap – how do we make energy as cheap as possible. The narrative that comes through very strongly in the book is about how a renewable energy revolution could meet all of our needs much better. We could have cheaper energy, we could have a healthier world. You paint that picture very powerfully. But that doesn’t seem to be yet coming through in the national debates, which seem to be more focused on how do we get rid of all these annoying windmills and pesky green taxes that push my bills up. Is that voice not coming through just because of powerful lobbying at certain levels? Why do you think this message isn’t being heard and how can we make it more heard?

JL: Because the incumbency has a nice little scam going hasn't it? They can pretend to be cheap by using an accounting system that takes their subsidies off the balance sheets, so they get tax breaks and they get their subsidies in different ways than the Feed in Tariffs. But all forms of energy have subsidy, as those of us who pay attention to the game know. The incumbency sits there righteously talking about "the cost of green taxes" and all the rest of it and it's a desperately unfair tactic.

The other issue that they don’t talk about is the third dimension: time going forward. Our costs and prices are coming down all the time, for the most part, whereas theirs are going up and up. Even where they aren’t, in the case of the US shale gas, they’re dysfunctionally low. So low that the marginal cost of drilling these fracked shale wells is so high that the companies are being driven slowly towards bankruptcy. As Art Berman calls it, the US gas industry is "an industry engaged in a suicide pact" as things stand.

Slowly, these things will become clear to people. People are so busy, they don’t have time to look below the mantras, and very often it’s easy to accept these mantras. But there’s so much fibbing going on and myth-spinning going on as a result of the poisoned belief system of the energy incumbency.

RH: The story that really comes through in the book, as much as anything, is your own personal story. It’s your own story of going in and out of endless, vastly frustrating meetings and meeting people whose heads are deeply in the sand. Half the stories are you just banging your head against a brick wall, it feels like. How, through all of that, have you sustained yourself? Where does the motivation to get up the morning after those dreadful meetings come from?

JL: There are so many grains of hope scattered around everywhere. One of the beauties of working on the front lines of the solar industry is that you see that seeing is believing effect time and time again.  Every person who gets a solar roof and sees that this technology works really well, that’s a joy to behold. It’s true of a middle-class Brit getting a solar roof for the first time in our country, and it’s true of African families getting a solar lantern instead of a kerosene lantern for the first time, and realising that they’ve instantly freed up 40% of their family income to spend on other stuff simply on savings against the price of kerosene.

All that kind of hope-laden stuff is very important to me, and of course on the policy front, we have our victories as well. We don’t just get frustrated and have setbacks. The Carbon Tracker is a joy to watch the way that is causing discomfort and anguish to the incumbency. It’s sometimes difficult not to be vindictive in enjoying that discomfort, when big energy companies are confronted with the source of their capital simply being withdrawn from them. I like seeing the looks on their faces.

RH: One of your previous books was called The Carbon War. Does this feel like a war to you as well?

JL: Absolutely. It’s a civil war. Like all civil wars, it’s complex and there are people with opposing belief systems operating under the same roof all the time. That’s been the case with every civil war in history probably. But here you see it very clearly. There are people in the same energy companies who have radically different views of the future. There are people in the same political parties, including the Conservatives, who have radically different views of the future.

It’s not a black and white thing, but a civil war it is, and make no mistake, the threatened incumbency, as they see and smell the ultimate demise of their belief system, ever more clearly, are fighting as in many wars, the most bitter and horrid fighting is done towards the end of the war. You saw that with the Second World War in particular. The same thing is happening in the energy civil war right now.
.