It often seems to me that the need to justify ones own position as opposed to, rather than in addition to, or including others, comes from the structural imperative to earn a living, which necessitates offering something different and therefore of value in 

the market place. This is the inevitable concomitant of a capitalist economy which requires people to have something of value which they can sell to earn a living - labour, intellect, care, etc.

Anna

On 3 Aug 2016, at 21:31, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen@gmail.com> wrote:

One of your comments resonated with me. We have pretty much abandoned
seeking funding and have also stopped responding to request from other
people to help them with funding. That leaves holes. But I think we
gotta figure out how to support our own activities as much as
possible. I know, not always possible.

We could try dues...that's what the old Nonpartisan League did and
they took over North Dakota and created the state bank, among other
things.

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Orsan <orsan1234@gmail.com> wrote:

Well I was expecting you and Peter would make this warning. And this argument is about the methodology of analysis, or as Madron put it, and Fabians would totally agree 'operational complexity management'. I think at the current point of time complexity managers has more advanced tools and infrastructures to manage the complexity that  opposition forces added on the complexity created by the intra-elite struggle. On the one hand there emerges an alliance of 'delayists' (around next system project, new economy alliance, de-growth so on) and on the radical left 'acclerationists' are forming a constellation (around Negri and so on). Some from left like Michael Aalbert, and parecon, David Harvey and rabel cities, negrists or cognitive captalists 'platform cooperatvism', Eric Olin Wright and real Utopias.. are counted in the next system alliance. On the driving seat, as John Restakis prompted sometimes ago, there are networks which are funded by OAK foundation of UK Royal-state, Rockefe

llar, Ford, Soros foundation so on. These formed a founder alliance called Edge Funders, whom Michel thinks are radicals. They fund all sort of spaces, from WSF, to Left Forum, from the events Michel and Pat mentioned, to Ripess -Synergia people (social solidarity economy discourse), from TNI to all sort of movement building hubs. Yes There are contradictions every where, there is a chaos too, but also there are some orders and regularities that are telling us something, and most worrisome is no one is talking about with the fear of not getting any funding and suffer economically. That state of 'being determines the consciousness'. The more no one is willing to talk about these openly the more things go worse. That is all I wanted to say..

Orsan

On 3 aug. 2016, at 22:03, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen@gmail.com> wrote:

I snipped the previous contents, they were overloading my email

viewer. And deleted the WSF from the distro list so they stop

complaining at me.

Dear Orsan, I agree that alliances with aspects of the powers-that-be

pose dangers. And co-optation happens. Fortunately, they don't want to

ally with me anyway, otherwise I would need to thread some of those

needles.

I would, however, repost what I understood from Peter's message. If we

are dialectical materialists, we gotta do a dialectical analysis of

all these forces and their contradictions and also and maybe

especially their internal contradictions.

And even after the revolution or transformation or whatever, there

will still be contradictions. That's life.

_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org
http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour