#i hope it is clear in this that i wholeheartedly believe the problem is capitalism and not individuals

[inkskinned]

how many times can you live through the apocalypse?

when you were little there was this beach that was free to go to. you didn't really like it on account of the litter. at one point, a white bag caught around your ankle, and for a moment (fish child), you panicked about jellyfish. on the foam, the red-pink words read thank you, stacked on top of each other, tangled in the kelp.

they have a new program (three thousand american dollars) to send your dead relative to the moon. there is a lot of evidence that our local orbit is becoming ever-more dangerously populated with "micro" satellites - debris in a round miasma becoming a thick web above us. maybe angels cannot hear us through the pollution.

you used to picture deep space like a thick membrane, or a blanket. someone said to you once the universe has no edge and that fucked with you for a long time, trying to picture what shape infinity has. your coworker is writing a short story about ecological collapse, which she is submitting for a little side-money so she can survive the current economical collapse.

the birds haven't gone to sleep this winter. that is probably bad. something that actually freaks you out is the natural temperature of human bodies versus the survival temperature of certain fungi. there is a podcast called s-town, in which a man kills himself over climate anxiety. he was probably meant to seem sort of unhinged. it just seems like it is becoming increasingly clear he was being honest.

space is not empty, we have put our dead into the stars. at some point they will figure out how to put ads into our sleep. you need to pay for the greenlife subscription service to be able to save the world.

there is a lot of ways this poem ends. but you have been wearing the same jeans and shirts since you were, like, 18. it is a hard life, sometimes, watching the entire foundation crack. there was this one moment over the summer, where you were shaking with heat exhaustion and dehydration. you were offered a nestle water bottle.

for three thousand dollars, you can send your ashes into space.

instead, you wash out the peanut butter jar. you put the avocado-toothpick spiked seed ball into water (even though they never grow very far). you borrow what you do not want to buy. you pick up any litter you find. you do not have a lot of control, really. but where you do - if there is one thing you can do, you do it.

something about that. you need to believe that must be true for the rest of humanity. or maybe - you need to believe that to be true, or else there will not be a rest of humanity.

[alexsmitposts]

Fakes of the Belarusian Maidan

The "potato" revolution in Minsk, which some publications have already hastened to call "the first Telegram revolution", did not happen. "Chronicles of the coup attempt" could be seen in social networks, and this despite the Internet being disabled in places. The images and messages were full of tragedy. In Telegram channels and Twitter, colorful photos "from the scene of events" and even more colorful messages about almost "shootings arranged by riot Police", the crowd "rammed by car bombs", injured protesters and even the first victim from among the protest activists began to appear. We carefully looked at both the video and photos "from the scene". And what can you see on them? Youngster against the armed forces The first photos closely resembled staged shots taken during the Moscow protests: a proud young protester stands alone against a line of Riot police "cosmonauts" bristling with shields. First, it is beautiful, and second, incredibly touching – an unarmed youngster against the armed forces. This theme is constantly exploited. Of course, such photos were taken in Minsk.

This is a good picture for the Western media – almost children against the "chain dogs of the regime". Do you think the photo was taken "purely by accident"? It is clear that the production. Photo: EPA/Yauhen Yerchak/TASS. Another picture: a young couple on a moped passing by the same line of riot police. It is also a touching shot, especially the white long dress on the girl should be touching. Well, a little provocation, test the nerves of the security forces. But also in the trend: almost peaceful protest, which is about to be crushed by the police in armor and with shields. This is a good picture for the Western media – almost children against the "chain dogs of the regime". Do you think the photo was taken "purely by accident"? It is clear that the production. As well as the bloodied heads of the protesters in another photo, which immediately flew around all the European media with comments-they say, this is how dictator Lukashenko suppresses the peaceful protest of Belarusians, who wholeheartedly strive for European integration and freedom. It turned out to be alive Somewhere we have seen all this before, but then "accidentally" it turned out that the blood is actually ketchup. It was very awkward. The awkwardness was quickly forgotten. In Minsk, everyone will also quickly forget – about as quickly as they "forgot" about the "first sacred victim" of the protest, when the police allegedly began to crush the crowd of protesters with a car. As it turned out, the victim is quite alive and did not even want to stay in the hospital. We are talking about a certain Eugene Zaichkin, who last night jumped on the bumper of a MAZ-paddy wagon, drove it for a while, holding the handles over the hood of the truck, and then, unsuccessfully jumping off, was under the wheels of the car. Interestingly, Zaichkin not so long ago moved to live in Poland, but at the" right moment " was back in Minsk. The first aid to the activist was called by the riot police themselves, and in the hospital it turned out that the guy does not even have fractures and can go home. It didn't work out. Just as there was no crowd "rammed by a truck" - this can be well understood if you carefully watch the videos. As there is no evidence that the riot police beat women and children, and "dictator Lukashenko" hastily "escaped on his plane to Bodrum". Fakes, fakes, and more fakes. However, this is nothing new-it's all within the technology of color revolutions and the art of propaganda: "the more terrible the lie, the more willing to believe it" - we did not say. There will be no bouquets of violets The exact number of protesters in Minsk is not specified, and Telegram channels write about hundreds, thousands, and even tens of thousands of protesters. In the capital of Belarus, they gathered at three main points: at the stele "Minsk-hero city", on Victory square and on Nemiga street. It was difficult to estimate the number of people gathered in the dark, and they were constantly moving.

The protesters were managed and coordinated by the authors of several Telegram channels. The NEXTA channel, which operated from Poland, was particularly successful in this. Photo: Victor Lisitsyn/Globallookpress. Of course, the security forces used tear gas, water cannons, and stun grenades – the effect of the latter is clearly visible in the video footage, which also got into the Network. But let me ask you, in the same France free from dictators, the police met the "yellow vests" with bunches of violets? Of course not. An attempt to build a barricade on Masherov Avenue for the protesters was unsuccessful – fifteen minutes later, the security forces destroyed it. It turned out that waving flags and shouting is one thing, but getting into a fight with the riot Police is quite another, few people were ready for this, and there were no leaders among the participants of the action. Telegram-revolution on the March However, it is impossible to say that all these protests were spontaneous: before the problems with communication began, the protesters were managed and coordinated by the authors of several Telegram channels (which is why they called the events in Belarus the "Telegram revolution"). The NEXTA channel, which operated from Poland, was particularly successful in this. According to political strategist Marat Bashirov, NEXTA is registered to 22-year-old Stepan Putilo: The channel contains instructions on organizing riots and video streamers working in Belarus. Do you believe, Yes, that a 22-year-old guy organizes everything himself? Study. Many technologies will then be used in Russia in a year's time. Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who managed to call herself "the winner of the last elections", appealed to both the police and the protesters to stop the violence and prevent provocation, and then quietly left, without risking becoming a "banner and icon of protest". Of course, it's safer this way, but the people – well, they will be beaten up, well, they will take some number of protesters to the police stations. But this is all without her-the" technical function " of the candidate-housewife has fulfilled. Detention of Russian journalists – what was it? What is not a production is the detention of Russian reporters, at least five people. This was reported by the Union of journalists of Russia. We are talking about Semyon Pegov, Maxim Solopov, Yevgeny Oleinik, Anton Starkov and Dmitry Lysenko. The Russian foreign Ministry intervened, and Sergey Lavrov took the issue under his personal control. Russian journalists were soon released. They were in the Minsk center for the isolation of offenders. Semyon Pegov shared his story on Vladimir Solovyov's program: It was visible provocateurs in the crowd who run up to the riot Police and say something. And I have a feeling that after such a provocation, I "flew". Because of these people who jump out and try to provoke the security forces, as a result, they grab everyone who comes to hand. There are a lot of random people who are detained, and it's not a secret. But slowly now everyone is being released. "Take helmets and gas masks with you" Meanwhile, the protests in Belarus are not going down. Today they continue, as previously reported by the same telegram channel NEXTA, the publication of which States the following: Friends, after yesterday's events, Lukashenko cannot remain in power. He lost the election, he threw his punishers with weapons against unarmed and peaceful people, he shed a lot of blood and now hopes that people will tolerate dozens of victims and even killed. It is not known what" killed " the provocateur was talking about. According to official data, there are no victims either from the protesters or from the security forces. And there are sweat victims: 39 Riot police officers and 50 protesters were injured. In total, about 3,000 people were detained in 33 cities where clashes with security forces took place.

The protesters chanted slogans, burned flares and waved national flags. Photo: Victor Lisitsyn/Globallookpress. If in Kiev six years ago, initially called to go to the Maidan, taking with them "umbrellas, thermos of tea and a good mood," then in the scenario for Minsk, this stage was skipped. Participants are offered to take gas masks, protective helmets, or better, helmets, protective shields for the knees and elbows, and instead of a "thermos of tea" - a first-aid kit. Umbrellas, however, also remembered, but in order to "protect themselves from checkers". Spikes and nails, apparently brought by someone on purpose – they could not "completely accidentally" be in the places where protesters gathered, activists yesterday scattered on the roadway. Stones, rods, rebar, as it was in the city of Pinsk, were also used. Molotov cocktails were used" What's next? The second day of protests was marked by more violent skirmishes between protesters and police, with activists in the center of Minsk throwing "Molotov cocktails" at riot police, repeating the "Ukrainian scenario" of the Maidan. And again there were fakes: some Belarusian Telegram channels launched a message that "Russian special forces soldiers have been identified on the streets of Minsk". The same throw-in appeared on the NEXTA channel. The author even accompanied the message with a "creepy video" in which a special forces officer orders the girl to get out of the car. The statement about the "presence of the Russian military" is based on the words of two "witnesses". But the fake has already been dispersed through other channels. A General strike is scheduled for today. And then… Who knows what will happen next, where else will the NEXTA coordinator send the crowd?

[agentravensong]

I saw a play last night

It was my college’s production of “Stupid F*cking Bird” (click the link to see the Wikipedia article on it for context)

and uh

I think it might be my new favorite (non-musical) play. 

If you wanna hear me ramble about why, go ahead and click the read more. Letting you know now that there will be some general spoilers and discussion of specific scenes. Also, it gets pretty personal.

Okay.

For one, the play does that breaking the fourth wall in a thematically relevant way & rebelling against the narrative stuff that I love (see my undying appreciation for UnderTale/DeltaRune, The Stanley Parable, etc.)

But also the emotional core is very similar to Night in the Woods, one of my other favorites games. They both stress the importance of accepting the inevitable, unchangeable, sh*tty stuff about the world, and making the most of what you have in the time you have with the people you love. 

Now there are notable differences that make me slightly prefer the latter’s handling of its message. NitW has a greater emphasis on community and directly calls out capitalism as the source of a lot of the character’s problems (plus it has explicit queer rep). Meanwhile, SFB has a small cast, most of whom relate to each other in a romantic sense, and as an aroace person, seeing the characters spend most of their emotional outbursts on the pains of unrequited love kept me from connecting with them as much as I otherwise could have.

But that’s where the character of Eugene Sorn, a 56 year old doctor, comes in and triggers my feels. As the play’s oldest character, who has been married and divorced multiple times, he humorously comments a few times during the proceedings on how angsty the younger characters get over romance. So already I felt a bit more connected to him than most of the others. Plus he’s just a genuinely sweet dude. And then...

At the end of Act 1, when everyone else says they want to be loved, Sorn says he wants to love. When everyone else is spilling their guts about their deepest desires, Sorn’s only addition is, “I just want a hug, really.” 

In Act 2, he has a short scene where he points out how ironic it is that his job is to help people, when he himself hurts more than he’s ever let on. 

At his birthday party in Act 3, Sorn has a whole monologue about how he just can't comprehend how other people can genuinely feel emotions, particularly romantic love, so deeply, and how most of the time he's just performing emotions he doesn't really feel because that's what everyone else seems to be doing.

Now imagine you’re me: an autistic, touch-starved, aroace college freshman who tends to get overly attached to certain fictional characters. Someone who sees most of their emotional issues as less important than other people’s. Someone who struggles to keep up with everyone else in social situations, and often suppresses their own emotions in public to avoid embarrassing themself or being unintentionally rude.

And you see all that reflected on stage by someone in your choir group playing an old man.

FUCK, dude. Literally, during the previously mentioned Act 3 monologue, I was hopefully inaudibly muttering the word “f*ck” over and over, even before I realized why I was on the verge of tears.

So yeah, Eugene Sorn is autistic (as is his nephew, the protagonist) and somewhere on the aromantic and/or asexual spectrum(s). I mean, not explicitly canonically, but c’mon.

I don’t want to spoil any more of the play, since I sincerely believe you should check it out for yourself if it sounds like it would remotely interest you. I’ll just add that the very last scene, particularly the way my college staged it in comparison to how it’s outlined in the script I found online, was what actually made me cry. As dark as the show gets, it somehow manages to be meaningfully hopeful.

Oh hey, speaking of the script, I found a PDF of it via Google as soon as I got home from the show. Here’s the link if you want to read it! Just know going in that the show contains a lot of potentially triggering content, listed below:

Every character (except arguably one) is depressed at some point

Suicide and death are major plot points

Lots of characters consume alcohol throughout

A young female character gets into a relationship with an older man (which is not at all glorified to be clear)

The main character and his mother have a very complicated, often toxic, relationship 

One character briefly mentions having had an abusive stepdad

There’s one offhand comment that borders on antisemetic, I think?

If that’s all stuff you can stomach, then I wholeheartedly recommend you at least give it a glance. I NEED to have someone else to talk to about this. I might just look up the play it’s “sort of adapted” from to see what they changed. Tomorrow, anyway. Right now I need to get to sleep, lol.

[nonbinarysasquatch]

for the critical opinion on ships ask meme: dramione, rethaniel, joshbecca, grebecca?

Ah, yes, let’s see how many people I can piss off in one go. I’ll tackle these in reverse:

Grebecca: Maybe in some alternate universe these two could work out but not in the one we have. They were very toxic for each other and Greg, frankly, deserves better. I think It Was a Shit Show said everything about their relationship that needed to be said. It was terrible and Greg did the right thing by leaving. 

While I do think Rebecca loved him, as long her obsession with Josh and her on issues went unaddressed she would’ve continued to string him along and eventually they would’ve hated each other. I think they were a really good example of how love can’t save a toxic relationship and you shouldn’t destroy yourself trying to make a toxic relationship work.

I do think seeing all the shippers who harass Rachel and Aline have soured me further on this ship but I still love Greg as a character. He’s (in my opinion) the most realistically human character the show has had.

Joshbecca: Josh is a sweet guy but he’s not remotely emotionally intelligent enough to be with Rebecca. And frankly, they just don’t have much in common. The main way they connect at all is via his childishness but for Rebecca that’s not healthy (and I’d argue it’s not really healthy for Josh either.) 

There’s probably a universe where they could date for a few months and have fun but that’s it. They are just too different and in terms of the actual canon universe Rebecca has beyond treated him awfully and it’s only by the grace of the fact that Josh is the most forgiving and kind character on the show that he doesn’t hate her.

Rethaniel: Oh boy. Are you ever like, “Well, I’m about to say things that literally no one is going to be happy with”?

It’s been an interesting journey tracking my feelings about this ship. On my first watch through I was surprised by how much I was able to like Nathaniel, despite his flaws. But then I rewatched and was better able to analyse his actions (while watching season 3 live it became easy to forget things he had said and done and I didn’t pay attention to fan discussions at all.)

There are definitely Nathaniel moments I like. Actually, I still love his plot in Josh is Irrelevant because I really relate to him getting triggered in that episode for some personal reasons. It’s the only time I’ve found him relatable, though.

The funniest thing is that deciding to check out the CXGF fandom on Tumblr was the thing that really started to bring out my negativity about the ship. Simply because I was stunned to find out so many people... shipped them so wholeheartedly. It made me uncomfortable even though at that point I still hadn’t put an enormous amount of thought into it because frankly: I don’t care about Rebecca’s romantic life at all. It’s not why I watch the show. So my attitude has tended to be “she can have romantic stumbles and bad relationships as long as the end of the show isn’t about her romantic life.”

And I mean, that’s STILL my attitude. I know some people disagree but I’m fine with Rebecca having bad relationships and I know some people REALLY disagree but I think there is value to Nathaniel as a character (DON’T HATE ME LEAH) and deconstructing the privilege and abuses of wealthy straight white men in America.

Now, thankfully, my experience with Rethaniel shippers has all been great and most seem to be lovely people and many of them ARE critical of Nathaniel’s actions. So I don’t hold anything against them, and I’ve been forged in the fires of HP fandom where some truly gross ships are also some of the most popular so...

Anyhow, here’s why I’ve gone from kinda neutral on Rethaniel to them being actually something I’m against:

Look, before we get into any of Nathaniel’s behaviour and meta on his place on the show, I’ll just say: it’s really fucking hard to ignore that every female Jewish fan of the show I’ve interacted with hates Nathaniel. It’s not my place to comment on why that is but when an entire group is like “this dude makes us uncomfortable” I tend to listen.

Meta wise, we now know that Rebecca is Nathaniel’s Josh, aka object of obsession that he’s idealising. Which means that aside from any of his actual behaviour, once Nathaniel can get over that obsession it won’t be healthy for him to continue to interact with Rebecca.

Nathaniel sexually harassed Rebecca while they were trapped in an elevator.

He plotted to deport Josh’s father and to murder Josh’s grandfather so that he could get laid (though it’s debatable whether Nathaniel really thought he would have to go through with these things, I do think if Rebecca had been cool with them he would’ve let them happen and buried any guilt as per usual.)

He repeatedly bodyshames her.

He treats her mental health problems as cute and attractive.

When she breaks up with him he fires her out of spite (something he basically confesses to.)

Rachel Bloom has said that Rebecca is attracted to Nathaniel in part BECAUSE he negs her and that definitely tracks with Rebecca’s low self-esteem. She’s also said that her interactions with Paula’s dad factor why she goes and sleeps with Nathaniel after getting back to West Covina, so erm, unpack THAT.

For me the final clincher is “Nothing is Ever Anyone’s Fault” a song which I should note, I like (as a piece of satire and meta-commentary, which is a case for a lot of the show’s morally not great pieces.) After everything, Nathaniel doesn’t see anything he’s done as wrong. I do think he will eventually but the end of season 3 and the title being “Nathaniel is Irrelevant” to me send a clear message. 

I’m baffled that some people think “Nothing is Ever Anyone’s Fault” is a sweet, romantic song when everything about it is the opposite of the message the show is trying to convey. Rebecca and Nathaniel are saying in that moment that part of what has drawn them together is not taking responsibility for their actions and blaming everything on trauma. It’s destructive and toxic, not romantic. And this evidenced by the following scene in the courtroom where Rebecca rejects Nathaniels amorality and chooses her conscience (aka Paula.)

And like, soon I will finish my season 3 reviews and get into why the season 3 finale is genuinely one of my favourite things the show has done (as it was the next missing piece that I wanted the show to cover... they had dealt with what Rebecca’s underlying problems were but not fully dealt with her need to take responsibility for her actions.)

I think there’s hope for Nathaniel as a character. He can grow and be redeemed and learn to use his privilege to help people, rather than using it as a weapon and a shield. But he needs to stay away from Rebecca. I do think they love each other but their love is destructive.

My final thought I want to attach is that... I think there’s something to be said for the relevancy characters like Nathaniel have for Americans. In this country, our real life villains look like Nathaniel and his family. They represent white privilege and and cold, driven capitalism.

It’s not entirely surprising that so many of us find it easy to love Nathaniel and latch onto him as a character. I think it’s something we’ve been conditioned to as a way of coping with life in a capitalist hellscape.

Observe the way people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are treated by many liberals. Jeff is, to be fair, a liberal but he’s also the wealthiest man in the world and his company has some serious ethical problems with how their workers are treated at all levels (it’s not just the people working in the warehouses, I’ve known Amazon programmers in the past and the work conditions are nightmarish and not sustainable unless you are in perfect health and have no personal life.)

And Elon Musk is a libertarian who has donated to Republicans who want to take people’s rights away but he still gets weirdly treated like some sort of liberal icon.

And I don’t want to poison the well too much, but I would like to at least make a cursory gesture at our president, who is a privileged straight white man who openly sexually harassed women, is guilty endless racism, antisemitism, ableism, misogyny and has of course been accused numerous times of sexual assault. A complete list of why our president is awful would require an entire novel to itself...

But someone like our president was able to get elected. Half the country voted him in. 

And obviously... Nathaniel isn’t wealthy on the level of guys like that (or he wouldn’t be pissing about with a lawfirm like Whitefeather) and he’s mercifully not a monster like our president. But I do think our need to cope with our environment contributes to liking characters like him. If people like him can be good inside and can be redeemed then maybe there’s hope for this country.

But in reality... people like Nathaniel don’t grow and change. But I believe they can. And, for me anyhow, this is the value I see in Nathaniel. They can send a message to straight, white men about privilege and learning to fight back against the patriarchy that lifts you up. He can be a good person. But his road to that might be a little harder because men like Nathaniel don’t change because privilege protects them. Why change when society itself never allows you to fail?

But I think Nathaniel will grow and change. But I think it’s important he does that on his own. Rebecca can’t be his manic pixie dream girl (even though that’s literally how he sees her.) Rebecca’s journey is her own and it’s not about the men.

[everettaddamsmacleod-blog]

Elinor Ostrom’s Rules for Radicals - A review

The most important lesson for public policy analysis derived from the intellectual journey I have outlined here is that humans have a more complex motivational structure and more capability to solve social dilemmas than posited in earlier rational-choice theory. Designing institutions to force (or nudge) entirely self-interested individuals to achieve better outcomes has been the major goal posited by policy analysts for governments to accomplish for much of the past half century. Extensive empirical research leads me to argue that instead, a core goal of public policy should be to facilitate the development of institutions that bring out the best in humans. We need to ask how diverse polycentric institutions help or hinder the innovativeness, learning, adapting, trustworthiness, levels of cooperation of participants, and the achievement of more effective, equitable, and sustainable outcomes at multiple scales.1

This is a quote from the lecture Elinor Ostrom gave when accepting the not-actually-Nobel Prize in Economics. It’s a good thing, you should read it. But I’m not reviewing that today - instead, today I review this:

At the start of it, the author Derek Wall explains why he’s writing it. Elinor Ostrom’s work is eccentric, off the beaten path, and full of ideas he sees as useful for those of us on the left - despite her work often being classed as liberal and/or conservative. So, he argues, there needs to be an accessible introductory text from a left learning perspective in order to popularize her ideas, put them to use, and continue the discussion she meant to have.

Wall frequently sums up the core of Ostrom’s work as dealing with the structure of institutions, the problem of how to encourage participation and cooperation between people, and the management of shared resources in ways not necessarily attached to market forces or top down state action. If this is so, I wholeheartedly agree that we would do well to dig into her work further.

In the last year or so, I, like many other people, have taken up political activism and organizing. I’ve worked with (or at least attended events from) a number of different organizations, and while doing so I’ve been examining the major shared themes that are traversing through the extended activist circles I’m in.

After the election of 45, the major themes were about clarifying vision and storytelling. Proposed actions were about mission statements, communicating the stories of people impacted by policies, and coming up with clear, concise ways of articulating ‘our message’. There has been a distinct shift to how to build and/or revitalize institutions, how to actively work together, how to keep people engaged, and understanding and seizing power. Actual answers to these questions are...complex, if they exist at all.

While writing this review, even, an issue of The Jacobin belatedly2 arrived at my door, included in which was a poster/article titled “Our Road to Power”3 with the question “How should we understand a socialist party’s internal structure, its relation to its base, and its strategic vision?”

So Derek Wall may be on to something here, that we have a lot to learn from the work of Elinor Ostrom, who usually focused on approaches to the management of shared resources, deep democracy, and institutions to enable such. A digestible and popularizing book on that work would be of good use to leftist movements. This isn’t exactly that book. It comes close, and it has certainly piqued my interest in Ostrom’s work, but I can’t recommend it as an engaging and energizing read.

Wall does a serviceable job of explaining who Elinor Ostrom was and what she cared about, but never seems to go into the depth required to make any of those concepts really fleshed out. He has an annoying trend of finally building to some deeper ideas only to cut off abruptly to say “but we’ll cover that more in Chapter 9”. His tone is bone dry and boring, only getting to some amount of conviction and spirit in the final chapter of the book, where he brings in the Marxist critique he’s been itching to since the first pages.

However the book isn’t completely ineffective, as I’m still intrigued.

Here’s my main takeaway:

There is hope. 

Commons - shared resources like the grazing fields, the environment, Wikipedia, civic structures themselves - can be managed by the people that depend on them without being doomed to tragedy. However, this requires the active participation of those people in the democratic institutions that carry out that management. Therefore, a main challenge to policy makers and institution builders is how to shape systems to encourage cooperation, engagement and trust between people.

There are other parts of Wall’s writing that I found useful and enlightening outside of that main point-

For instance, he does make clear that the Ostrom’s work can be part of a strong refutation of lifeboat ethics, and in so doing lays out what exactly ‘lifeboat ethics’ means, where it comes from, and where you can poke holes in it.4 This is incredibly relevant and useful, as I see the lifeboat ethics argument frequently in crypto-fascist spaces as a white nationalist talking point. Solid refutations of it are vital.

He also covers some of the discussion around humans as selfish, rational actors - a key assumption of many economic models. It has been challenged by many people, Ostrom among them, but it still seeps into the thought of many mainstream economists. Tracing the more complex motivations of human beings is especially important when considering how to get those humans to cooperate, and this is a theme that underpins a decent amount of Ostrom’s work.

Ostrom’s problem-solving approach is also interesting to see, and is a mentality I would like to see more of in the world. Many movements/people like to start with grand-seeming ideals, and insist that every part of a system should conform to these beautiful simplistic ideals. This rarely works out well and tends to blind us to reality when it does not conform to the model. While we on the left can see this when it comes to the fundamental models of simple economics, we often forget it can happen to us, too. Starting from problems that need solving and pursuing different solutions by context can allow more flexibility and consequently more robust systems than starting with an ideal and building systems to conform to that.

The chapter on feminist economics5 was a highlight of the book as well, as it documents a lot of refutations of the core principles of market and capital based economic-political theory, and how a lot of those refutations are made clear just by using female/outsider perspectives. Wall also makes an interesting connection between Elinor Ostrom’s emphasis on polycentric approaches to problem-solving - approaches that depend on different people in different places trying different things - to intersectionality and the need for and value of diversity.6  She did not believe it was possible for any one person, any one authority, any one researcher, etc - to know all the answers or have enough experience to make decisions for a whole group, and so stressed the importance of both deep democracy and a diversity of experience and viewpoint.

But I still want to know more about her institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework, as I really didn’t see its function and shape in Wall’s writing on the topic. He builds it up as an important part of Elinor Ostrom’s work, and stresses the importance of institutions to democratic governance. However, when he got to explaining her thoughts around institutional analysis and the IAD framework/diagramming, I was a little disappointed. I really don’t know how Wall thought it a good idea to talk about a diagramming technique and not show an example of one of these diagrams.

I did find a general overview of the IAD online7, and I would try to sum it up here, though a) I’m not sure I have a full grasp of it yet and b)I’m still not sure if this particular method of analysis is any more important than just the idea that some kind of institutional analysis is an important tool in solving the overarching problem of building systems to ‘bring out the best in humans’. To quote roughly 80% of scientific studies, more research is needed.

Much of the book alluded to the need for well structured institutions that encourage and incentivize cooperation and trust, but I am left feeling like ideas for how to make that happen were lacking. If the central problem we need to solve is how to grow social trust and participation, then that is largely unanswered here.

In the start of the text, Wall pulls out some major themes of Ostrom’s work as “rules for radicals”. I think if he had tried to center these and pull in supporting text from Ostrom’s work, then I think the book would have been more compelling, as these are important lessons that we should take to heart. As it stands, he mentions these in the beginning but never references them again, so they’re easily lost and not clearly defined. On a re-read, you can find all of these hiding within what he writes, but he rarely crystallizes anything into a clear point on this list.

Think about institutions

Pose social change as problem solving

Embrace diversity

Be specific

Listen to the people

Self-government is possible

Everything changes

Map power

Collective ownership can work

Human beings are part of nature too

All institutions are constructed and so can be constructed differently

No panaceas

Complexity does not mean chaos

I like these. I’m not sure why Wall didn’t focus on them, as I think the text supports them and they get closer to the answer of ‘what do we need to do’. It’s just all a bit muddled in this text.

But, at the very least, the book does make me want more Elinor Ostrom in my life, so thank you for that, Mr. Wall.

Elinor Ostrom, Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems, Prize Lecture, December 8 2009, available https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2009/ostrom_lecture.pdf, p. 435

It's a quarterly mag and somehow I got two in one month.

Chibber, Vivek, Our Road to Power, Jacobin, Issue 27 Fall 2017

Wall, Derek. Elinor Ostrom's Rules for Radicals: Cooperative Alternatives beyond Markets and States. PlutoPress, 2017. p. 24

Ibid, Chapter 6

Ibid, p.71

McGinnis, Micheal D, Updated Guide to IAD and the Language of the Ostrom Workshop: A Simplified Overview of a Complex Framework for the Analysis of Institutions and their Development, http://php.indiana.edu/~mcginnis/iad_guide.pdf

[click2watch]

In Korea’s Ruling Party, A Lawmaker Commits to Ending the ICO Ban

This article originally appeared in CoinDesk Korea, a partnership with The Hankyoreh.

Opting to take the view ICOs are a form of fraud, speculation or gambling, the Korean government initiated a ban on the investment vehicle last September, one that sparked a strong backlash from domestic blockchain startups.

Still, some Korean lawmakers from the opposition party have piggybacked on these concerns and are advocating for the legalization of ICOs. In a situation where the incumbent government is struggling with economic issues, including a decline in employment and skyrocketing housing prices, it’s perhaps natural the opposition party would rally behind an emerging technology to try to establish an innovative image for itself.

However, Min Byung-doo is one member of the ruling Minjoo Party who has spoken out in favor of ICOs through a query submitted to the government, an unusual step for a prominent figure in the ruling party in that it doesn’t square with the government or Blue House line.

But not only is Min a leading figure, he is the Chairman of the National Policy Committee, considered the first hurdle to clear for those hoping to enact legislation on ICOs or cryptocurrency exchanges.

In an interview with CoinDesk Korea, Min expressed his thoughts on ICOs, cryptocurrencies and the blockchain industry, and their outlook in South Korea.

CoinDesk Korea: Why do you think ICOs should be permitted?

Min Byung-doo: There are some positive aspects to the regulations implemented by the government over the past year. A lot of the bubbles have burst and people have realized that this is not a market they should be recklessly rushing into. The laws have served as a big preventive injection, so even if the regulations on ICOs and exchanges were repealed, I don’t think people would be jumping into these markets without careful consideration. I think the vaccine has succeeded, and it’s now time to open up the market.

A number of countries including Switzerland, Malta, Estonia and Singapore have recently tried to bring ICOs within the boundaries of existing institutional frameworks, as well as France, who recently passed a new law. It seems that many countries have started focusing on the potential of ICOs.

Over the last two years, the total funds raised through ICOs were far higher than the figures for venture capital or angel investment. The trend is changing. All around the world, people are applying for blockchain-related patents and trying to come up with new business models. They believe that a new coin will emerge that takes things to the next level, and we have no reason to stand in the way of that possibility.

Anyone can found a unicorn (a company valued at more than $1 billion) or decacorn (a company valued at more than $10 billion) by making use of public blockchains. A dominating platform will eventually emerge in this market, and Korea shouldn’t miss out on that opportunity.

The problem is that even though this opportunity exists, the government is still blocking ICOs on the grounds that they could lead to ‘fraud, speculation or money laundering.’

CoinDesk Korea: The Office for Government Policy Coordination (OGPC) is expected to release the government’s official position on ICOs in November, but Financial Services Commission head Choi Jong-gu remains opposed to ICOs.

Min Byung-doo: The OGPC and FSC reached agreement in a special consultative meeting, and both have a negative view of ICOs. It seems that the government is satisfied with the regulatory measures they put in place between last October and January, and believes that regulating is their duty.

Whether the government releases a new set of regulations on ICOs (in November) or not, they will need to listen to a wide range opinions from the industry and justify their decision with some solid evidence. And if Korea’s blockchain industry fails to develop because of this, the government should be held accountable.

CoinDesk Korea: Some bills on blockchain have already been submitted to the National Assembly.

Min Byung-doo: Some of those bills are close to an outright ban on ICOs, while others are wholeheartedly devoted to promoting them. People have vastly different views on this issue. I think we are quickly running out of time.

Once the National Assembly’s regular session finishes, lawmakers will start looking towards next year’s general election and getting ready to campaign. The fact that the National Assembly is ignoring the desperate messages being sent by the industry is a big problem.

CoinDesk Korea: If the chairman of the National Policy Committee is in favor of ICOs, does that increase the chances that the committee will pass a law on this issue?

Min Byung-doo: Personally, I am strongly committed to this, and I hope that other lawmakers will bring their own expertise to the table and approach this issue with a strong sense of commitment as well. The FSC seems to be having a difficult time. The NPC is the committee in charge of this issue, so when I am speaking out in favor of ICOs and several dozen lawmakers have also made their voices heard through a series of debates, it places a lot of pressure on the government.

The government seems to feel a heavy burden when it comes to enacting laws or guidelines. I think they are afraid that enacting a law might come across as a tacit endorsement of crypto assets.

If you want to legislate, there is no need to enact a series of detailed provisions. You just need to focus on three key areas: the basic nature of the assets involved, duties and oversight. How should regulation differ depending on the nature of the asset? How can the government crack down on problems such as fraud, speculation and money laundering? How can regulations be used to guarantee the security of exchanges? How will white papers be verified? Will analysts be required to release regular reports? Which authority should be in charge of oversight? The only thing regulation needs to do is answer these questions.

An NPC-level public hearing or special meeting is expected to be held in November. The goal of this meeting is to hear what legal, financial and software experts have to say. Laws and guidelines should be as minimal as possible, but the deliberation prior to implementing such measures needs to be thorough and in-depth.

Accordingly, the National Assembly is planning to collate their views and urge the government to take action, whether that be through laws or guidelines.

CoinDesk Korea: Doesn’t the FSC or the Blue House hold the key when it comes to this issue?

Min Byung-doo: At present, the OGPC is the control tower that manages task forces on cryptocurrencies across all government departments. I am aware that some officials at the Blue House are also closely following this issue. It would be great if the president could just make a decision on this, but that is far from easy.

CoinDesk Korea: Bitcoin was created in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, while blockchain is rooted in the philosophy of decentralization. Isn’t it only natural that the government takes a negative view of such technology?

Min Byung-doo: I don’t think that cryptocurrencies would be able to avoid financial oversight. I don’t think that’s the case. I think the future brought about by decentralization or disintermediation would be bad at all.

Some governments may take a very passive stance while other countries will adopt a more active approach. But if some governments are actively trying to promote blockchain technology and this leads to the creation of globally dominant platforms like Amazon or Alipay, then will passive governments be able to stand in their way? If they can’t do anything in response, they will end up being colonized economically. Governments need to take action to ensure that they don’t get left behind in this competition.

CoinDesk Korea: What do you think of the ‘special blockchain zones’ being proposed by local governments such as Jeju?

Min Byung-doo: From the government’s perspective, there is no difference between permitting ICOs in special designated zones and allowing them across the whole country. Once the government has passed laws or guidelines, it will be possible for special zones to explore suitable models for development, but right now it is difficult to envision such a zone being granted special permission in advance.

Image via CoinDesk Korea

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','//connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');

fbq('init', '472218139648482'); fbq('init', '239547076708948'); fbq('track', "PageView"); This news post is collected from CoinDesk

Recommended Read

Editor choice

BinBot Pro – Safest & Highly Recommended Binary Options Auto Trading Robot

Do you live in a country like USA or Canada where using automated trading systems is a problem? If you do then now we ...

9.5

Demo & Pro Version Try It Now

Read full review

The post In Korea’s Ruling Party, A Lawmaker Commits to Ending the ICO Ban appeared first on Click 2 Watch.

More Details Here → https://click2.watch/in-koreas-ruling-party-a-lawmaker-commits-to-ending-the-ico-ban