Conviviality Part 2 Ft. Andrew

they can relax and have a great experience. We spoke about the illest multi hyphen it that is ivan Ilich. We spoke all the philosophical foundations of being built around for reality and what those implications have been on metaphysics and philosophical anthropology and epistemology and more. And so now we're going to get into the actual movement. So the first Manifesto was published by the Center for Global Cooperation

Research in twenty fourteen. It discusses some of our current threats, including global warming and its consequences, ecosystem degradation, nuclear disaster risk, resource karse ty, poverty, wealth disparities, political disintegration instate conflicts, terrorism and security, criminal networks, influences, e specultive financial politics, blah blah blah blah blah. You know, you know the drill. If you're in this space, everything sucks. It could happen here.

That's the name of the show, et cetera. The central challenges that we could drive ourselves to extinction right now, and if we don't turn this car around, and we could take most of the world with us. This particular manifesto, which is asking four basic questions and their considerations and what we should consider about them. Right For one, for moral question, what may individuals legitimately aspire to and where

must they draw the line? And the Manifesto answers with considering that every individual has a legitimate aspiration to be treated with equal dignity, to have access to the necessary material conditions for their vision of a good life, or considering other's perspectives, and participate meaningfully in political life and

decision making. However, individuals must also avoid exceed in bounds and succumb into this infantile desire for power and control, which jeopardizes social cohesion and the principle of common humanity. What that means is that we need to actively be combatant corruption, refusing to engage in actions that compromise please vive personal gain, opposing the corruption others to the extent

of wuntabilities encourage fighting hierarchy. I mean to Manifestor doesn't say a thing about fighting hierarchy, which I think is a faul to the manifesto. But I think for an anarchist reading that the implications are pretty clear. And that's what I have to do with a lot of stuff I read, you know, like read between the lines and pick up the points that the author missed. And so that's the moral consideration, right, What should we aspire to?

Where must we draw the line? We aspire to being trud with equal dignity, have an access to decision making power, having a good life by having access to material conditions met. And we try to avoid exceeding boundaries our social boundaries, and we should try to avoid exceeding social boundaries related to hierarchy and control and power. The second question is political.

It asks us which are the legitimate political communities. So the Manifesto argues that the establishment of a single world state in their future is unlikely and the political organization will continue to be based on the plurality of states, and that I think demonstrates the limitations of this Manifesto's

imagination are configurabism. That's what happens when you have this clearly radical idea and you try to squeeze the radical idea into a fundamentally unradical and statistical idea as nation states. But let me not excessively editorialize. I'm just presenting this

movement and what its proponents have been arguing. Right according to their perspective, states and political institutions are considered legitimate only if they uphold principles such as common humanity, common sociality, individuation, and managed conflict. To me, that's wishful thinking. But I digress submit states and it pains me to even say this,

but just communicating, just communicating what the manifesto argues. The legitimate states extend rights beyond civil and political rights, encompass economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights. They ensure a minimum income for the poorest citizens, while also implemented a maximum income to prevent excessive wealth accumulation. The legitimate states maintain a balance between private, common, collective, and public goods and promote associational activities within a global

civil society. They view digital networks as cools, as tools for democratization, and treat them as commons, foster and openness, free access and partiality and sharing. And they also revive the tradition of public service and prioritize the preservation of existing common goods while promoting the developments of new common goods for the benefit of humanity. Again, it goes without

saying I take issue with this investment in states. I think a lot of their goals are noble, if not if they were not so tied down whether this investment in this state structure, because for an anarchist perspective, many of these ideas are not compatible with the structure of

a state. And even theoretically, even hypothetically, if a state would implement all these changes where people had full prisipery involvement and decision making, where the where the hierarchies were flattened, and where everyone had free access and open access and their commons and all this laddida some anarchists, not every but some anarchists wouldn't even consider that to be a

state anymore. But let's just get into the weeds of anarchist discourse and we're moving on the third question that the Manifesto ask is an ecological question, which is what we may take from nature, and which is what we must take from nature? Which is what we may take from nature and what we must give back? And the Manifesto asks us to consider that human beings should no longer see themselves as owners and masters of nature, but

rathers interconnected with it. Right to ensure ecological justice and preserve a well managed natural heritage for future generations, humans mus establish a relationship with nature based on giving back

as much or more than they take. The Manifesto argues that the level of material prosperity that can be sustainably extended to the entire planet is roughly comparable to the average wealth of the wealthiest countries in the nineteen seventies, and that wealthier nations must be the responsibility to reduce their demand on nature relative to nineteen seventy standards, even

as they maintain their current quality of life. Priorities of this Manifesto include reducing to two emissions, emphasize and renewable energy sources over nuclear and fossil fuels, and shifting away from viewing animals as mere resources for industry. The principles of gift and interdependence should thus guide relationships with animals

and the earth as a whole. Lastly, the first Manifesto leaves us with an economic question, which is how much material wealth we may reproduce and how should we go about producing it? If we had to remain true to the answers given to the moral, political, and ecological questions, Manifesto asks us to consider there's no proven connection between monetary or material wealth and happiness which promotes any then

to explore alternative forms of prosperity beyond economic growth. As you can see early on, we're making those connections to the idea of de growth. More on that later, and so this cause for a plural economy that balances the market, the public sector, and social solidarity economy based on the

nature of goods and services involved. Again their perspective, but while the markets and profitability are legitimate, they must align with principles of common humanity, social cohesion, and ecological considerations.

And by addressing the issues of the financial economy such as renterrorism and speculation through strict regulation, oversight, market restrictions, and elimination of tax events, humanity can tap into a broader spectrum of riches beyond economic and material wealth, including fulfillment derived from duty, solidarity, enjoyment, and createivity inferious domains, which of course highlights the importance of creativity and meaningful

relationships with others as an essential component of a prosperous society,

even if not materially or monetarily prosperous. The manifesto goes on to define convirivulism, the term that they use to describe all those elements and existing systems of belief that help us identify principles for enabling human beings simultaneously to compete and cooperate with one another with a shared concern to safeguard the world and the full knowledge the reformed part of that world and that its natural resources are finite.

When it comes to Convivialism's crucial for us to hold on certain principles that can guide us imagine conflict, prioritizing cooperation while being mindful of the limitations posed by scarce resources, recognizing respect, alter into viewpoints and doctrines, opening the doors, engage in die logue and praise to perspectives, and being open to question and growth. All of that this manifesto

sees as essential to the idea of configulis. It even goes on to propose convivialist policies, right, you know, the minimum maximum income, protecting natural resources through various reforms and regulations, tackling unemployments, promoting reduced working hours, supporting the growth of the Associationists economy. Of course, I feel that's where the manifesto falls short. But I do appreciate they had some of the ideas that it introduces or that it expounds upon.

I mean, I'd appreciate all of the answers to the questions that itself that it raises, but I appreciated raising those questions, even if I might have slightly different answers to them. This thesis of this manifestore seems to be that a different kind of word is not just possible, but crucial and agently necessary. I don't like that it doesn't call out capitalism sufficiently or really at all.

only one that there can be. I'm sure by this particular passage they mean that there will be socialist orientations of convivialism and liberals of convivialism, and Christian orientations of convivialism, and et cetera, because they don't see convivialism as incompatible with any of them. I think I might take some

issue with, I guess, not refining contrivialism. Further, I appreciate that they themselves didn't refine it, because you know, they're clearly quite liberal, But I think that contribualism as an

idea is something at least we uh distilled. Further, because when you have this sort of free for all everybody and everything goes approach to the ideology, I think it opens up a lot of room for states and corporations and NGOs to kind of slip in there and be like, oh, look at us, we are going to add confrivilism to our constitution and that kind of thing. Like then they

go and everyone applause and like wow, xyz. Government just added contribualism to their constitution and three chairs for them. And then the government just continues doing what it usually was doing before it added convidism to its constitution. You know, it's like with the whole I spoke about with my Vivere podcast episode. Yeah, it's kind of like a situation Yasuni it t right. Ecuadorian government was like, we are

going to protect this forest. We're not gonna drill for oil in this forest, even though it has a bunch of oil in this forest, over six billion dollars with oil in this forest. We're just gonna ask the international community for like three point six billion of that oil and once you'll pay that, we're not going to drill the oil. And we want to set this precedent for other countries to follow, and YadA YadA, and we added

to our constitution and all our cash money. Right, but then they got like two hundred million dollars worth of pledges and then they were like, actually, you know, we're still going to do it even though we didn't get all the money, and then he lad, They're like, nah, we're not going to do it anymore. And then a couple of years after that they started drilling in the National Park, and then a couple of years after that, yeah, they started drilling even for the even closer to indigenous

territories within the park. So you know, that's like it caught up in the fluffy words of states and corporations.

And it's like, well, yeah, it to be fair, you know, there are politicians and governments that are doing better than other politicians and governments, and I'm I'm not going to like blind my eye to that, but yeah, you know, at the end of the day, there's still politicians, there's still governments. They're still doing their pr putting out their best image, put on the best foot forward to hold on to whatever power they have.

living together and outlining normative principles to guide that. In deeval second manifesto of Concriviualism emphasizes the need for a new political philosophy to challenge neoliberalism drast global issues. Pause. This idea of it's something that you see a lot, particularly in that sort of Engio space, right, A lot of not radical organizations and movements will speak about challenging neoliberalism. And it could usually tell because they specify new liberalism.

They don't say capitalism. They're not anti capitalists, they're just anti neoliberalism, which in itself is not radical because newliberalism in itself is just a recent permutation of capitalism.

nicer capitalism, that is something to keep in mind. Even if you were and even if you know you take part in the movement, nothing wrong with that, still something to keep in mind. So the second matter of fest to it also highlights the interconnectedness of young people's concerns

about climate change and environmental degradation. Talks about the struggles of those seeking freedom from dictatorships or those being forced to migrate, and it aims to offer and would say, into vision for a post neoliberal world where promoting shared values and the sense of agency. Furious intellectuals, activists, writers and artists so all committed to this collective project with the aim of creating this globally shared vision for the

future that is more inclusive and more participatory. The manifesto, the second manifestor, like the first one, talks about the post World War two growth in principles and human rights and the shift in capitalism towards speculative and rent their practices, talks about the decline of liberal democracies and the rise of illiberal democrateurs, and speaks about resentment growing from past

clear domination and radical movements including al Qaeda, Reflecting that animosity. Again, like the previous manifesto, it talks about ecological threats like global warming and air pollution, oceanic pollution and accumulation of plastic waste, nuclear disasters, weekends, ecosystems, rise and employment, job displacement, wealth inequality, lack of regulation for transnational companies, political fragmentation,

and terrorism. All that fun stuff, and this time the second manifesto outlines five principles to form the basis of policies or ethics or organizational actions. Right common naturality, common humanity, common sociality, legitimate individuation, and creative opposition. These principles emphasize one the interconnectedness of humans with nature to the importance

of respecting the shared humanity of all individuals. Three the value of social relationships for the need for individuals to develop the individuality or respecting others, and five the recognition of peaceful rivalry for the common good. These principles are meant to be guided by the imperative of hubrist control, which promotes cooperation and prevents the desire for power and excess. The manifesto all symphasizes the importance of balance and these

principles to avoid their potential negative consequences. One of the things that the Manifesto is really trying to get at in particular, and the reason that it even establishes this imperative for hubrist control, is because it argues that ideologies focus primarily on satisfying material needs and overlook the crucial role of recognition and desire, and that by reducing part the fulfillment of needs, ideologies fail to address the problem

of limiting the desire for power and control. To me, it just seems like the people who wrote this manifesto aren't familiar with anarchism and anarchism's centuries long confrontation with power, control and the desire for it that has altered the course of very hvarious human societies. Right digress, The manifesto instead points to religions as playing the historical role of

trying to curb our desire for power and control. That seems to me like a very poor argument considering the history of religion, but The point that the Manifestoro is trying to make is that modern democratic discourses struggle to restrain limitless desire and often reproduce the humors that they aim to combat. And so the role of a convivialist movement then should be in part on persuading individuals to renounce the desire for dominance and reinforce the principles of

common humanity, sociality, naturality in legitimate interviewation and creative opposition. Again, I don't think that the direction people are taking convivialists and is radically enough because I think it leaves room for it to fall into existing structures. I mean, the manifest even talks about creating a convivialist party to reignite hope and liberal democracy.

hunky dory. Like nah, there's still there's still like you still haven't confronted the way that that structure, that position incentivizes certain behavior. But like I said before, I'm an anarchists. I take what I like, I leave what I don't. They're also saying a manifest so they're confibulism longs to nobody. So I've decided that, you know, my version of confivuloism is not going to be this water down, watercress salad kind of pathy, weak limpristed take on, you know, world

alter and structural change. Lastly, I didn't want to touch on because I could say I would the significant role that conviviality is played in the de growth movement, particularly highlighted in texts like the Growth of Vocabulary for a New Era inspired by Ivan's ideas. Conviviality and the growth has referred to native society that values joyful sobriety, responsible consumption and the use of limited tools that are emmansipiratory

and responsor to human needs. The ideas that Ivan outlined and tools of conviviality which I spoke on in the first part. This two parter is considered part of the intellectual roots of the growth as an idea itself, and conviviality is often discussed in relation to technologies, including digital technologies, and how technology is suitable to a de growth society

must be convivial. One particular tool has been developed for self assessment, political education and researcher lining with convivial principles, and that is the matrix for contrivial technology or MCT. And the matrix for convivial technology is to go with

a very basic definition, a normative schema that forsters. Discussion concerning degrowth technologies in context of political education them city is meant first to reflect on the dimensions of the materials we use in technology is and how we produce those technologies, how we use the technologies, how the technologies fit into the infrastructure, how accessible they are, how interactive they are with the environment, how adaptable they are, and

change in circumstances and much more, how appropriate they are and much more. But beyond the MSCT, conviviality is also being used in the de growth space to describe public spaces, goods, conservation movements, and even humans. Within the growth literature, transitioning to a convivial society is considered to be one of the core objectives of the de growth movement, one of the core shifts that needs to take place for us

to de grow as a society. And so that's the all in short of it, the convivialist manifesto, convivialism and contriviality as ideas how they've changed and been adapted, and how people have been building on the ideas therein in the sphere of philosophy and politics, education and technology and more food for thought. I hope you appreciated this brief exploration.

As I like to say at the end of my videos, and I consider it particularly aptain in the context of conviviality and convivial technology is all power to all the people. Once again, you could find me Andrew on YouTube dot com slash aneurism and support me on feature dot com slash saying true. And as usual, this has been it could Happen Here, Where things happen, we talk about stuff.