I remember Kevin's response quite well, since he indicated that political correctness 'did not exist'. For those interested, I'd like to make some corrections to Kevin's statement, * my opposition to identitarian (not identity politics) politics are my own and not those of the P2P Foundation * I have never ever alleged that BLM or MeToo strive for reverse hierarchy , I broadly sympathize with these movements and with all civil rights movements that I know of such as those as african-americans, women, lbgt etc.. Always have, and always have. * I specifically critique a form of identitarianism that itself makes claims (so this is far from a 'bar' interpretation, as they claim it themselves) for reversing hierarchies based on oppression (I think we should eliminate these hierarchies, not reverse them), and in particular those attaching oppression to skin colour and gender characteristics; this is not a interpretation by the way, but their very own claims. For those who want to learn about this movement, see the series on Evergreen State College by Benjamin Boyce * I have never shared to my knowledge , any alt-right material, except material critical of them or explaining them (such as the significance of pepe the frog meme) * I did share IDW material, very occasionally, from Brett Weinstein and other progressives that are part of it (the IDW has a center-right gravity, but has no relation to the alt-right) * the conflict last August was very specific and around the following issues: 1) was it pertinent to critically evaluate the Jordan Peterson phenomena, I believe it was 2) is it possible to share pluralistic content from various political perspectives, I insist this must be possible 3) it is allowable for people to shut down debate on the basis of gender/race characteristics , I am strongly opposted to this The reason I do not like the identitarian stress on reductionist group identity are multiple, but basically can be summarized as follows: 1) we are all complex individuals, identity is important, but we have usually multiple ones, and they never fully define us ; therefore, it is inappropriate to demand that people only speak for their groups and are critiqued when they have divergent opinions 2) abandoning class analysis for theories of white supremacy or even the primacy of patriarcy over capitalism generate multiple theoretical and practical problems, and is not empirically and scientifically viable 3) aggressive identitarianism creates very strong counter-reactions that generate victories for the political right, and very often implosions of social movements. If anyone is interested in these critiques, I have assembled a vast amount of documentation, most of these movements own sources Concerning the specific issue of p2p and the commons, and why aggressive identitarianism is anti-thetical to it: * if you see speech exclusively as an expression of power over, and not as that of a complex and autonomous individual, you have destroyed my equipotential rights to contribution to the discourse of the community * explicitely ranking speech rights and the allocation of resources according to biological characteristics, as in progressive stacking, is in my opinion, plain wrong and leads to resentment (see the practice at Evergreen and the implosion of registration and attendance); it is simply not acceptable to me that people of colour are denied speech rights because 'they are not dark enough', or do not have the right genitalia * deplatforming and other speech restrictions of non-authoritarian people (I leave open the debate of deplatforming real fascists) with divergent views i profoundly dangerous for societal minorities, as it justifies counter-measures by the real oppressive powers : I have similar difficulties with the weaponizing of racism ('only whites can be racist, because only they have power') There is a case to be made, that nearly every single characteristic of these identitarian movements has a direct relationship with totalitarian practices not just of the left (i.e. the relation of calling out culture to the struggle sessions of the Cutural Revolution in China), but also of the fascist right. So , apologies, and really sorry to see Kevin write this, but my opposition to neo-racialiation is not peripheral to p2p and the commons, but a part of the mix. What I find particularly galling though in Kevin's statement that apart from the many mischaracterisations (understandable as Kevin had it only from hearsay and from redacted snippets from facebook selected by others) is that he includes a phrase like this: <behind the scenes to campaigns harassing and attempting to discredit them. This is despicable.> In general, Kevin's statement is not based on much that is real, he has simply taken over the claims of the identitarians that left the p2p group. I dare Kevin to prove that I claim anywhere anytime, that BLM and Metoo are movements that aim for reverse hierarchy; I also challenge Kevin to provide any proof of any campaign of myself against these individuals. I don't like what they stand for, I oppose their politics, but I do not engage in personal retribution. I have literally never done this in my life and don't intend too. I am actively conflict-averse and see only negatives in retribution. But let me venture a guess about what is behind this claim, the people who deplatformed me in Berlin object to my publicising of their action, in order for me to find an alternative venue. This is simple self-defense, if they wish to deplatform, they cannot expect this to be a secret, as it is a anti-democratic action. It is their right, but it comes with a price tag, and it can indeed backfire (jordan peterson essentially thanks his popularity to those that attempted to deplatform him, he was an unknown before). I can assure readers here that there have been zero such campaigns; the reality is rather different, there is a campaign by this group of people, who are constantly sending screenshots of small bits of phrases from myself and others, and send them out to people like Kevin; (mostly, merely discussing JP is considered to be a hate crime) The reality is the contrary of what Kevin affirms, I have actively been deplatformed by them; on my side, there has literally been nothing else than the defensive debates on the Open P2P forum, where I have to defend my speech rights and that of our pluralistic community. About 40-50 people left last August after the intense altercations, while several hundreds came on. I expelled 5-6 people because it was impossible to keep the peace in a community of 6,000 when a few are constantly accusing all the others of being sexist, racist, etc.. for the mere fact of having a disagreement. Personal attacks and racial statements have always been against our statutes. I take the responsibility for policing this. In conclusion, it is clear to me that there is no longer a place, on the p2p forums that I manage, for people who favor racial and gender rankings. I respect their preferences, but do not wish them to take place in our forums. Do not for one minute think that these people are on the left or progressives, they have very systematically overturned these principles in their contrary. They are a clear and present danger to the future of our democracy and the very possibility of civilized life. They favour a politics of constant fragementation and inter-group strife, and their incessant demands for purity create the conditions for a totalitarian disater. Think of them as the cousins of the alt-right. I have a huge database of documentation for those that have any doubts that any of my claims about this movement are untrue, or just an interpretation. I urge people to watch the multi-part documentary of Benjamin Boyce on the troubles in Evergreen State College, which are the events that opened my own eyes to the reality of this toxic evolution. Since Kevin is seemingly aligning himself with identitarianism, I must admit this came as a great surprise, as nothing in his books previously indicated this penchant, it is good and proper that our ways separate. I fear this will lead to a further implosion of the left, but have hope that the Sanders/Warrensof this world will continue to focus on issues that can unite rather than divide and fragment. The way to pacify this is simple, we need to stay out of each other''s way. Let me do my curation in the p2p group, as I have done for 10 years, in a open and pluralistic way, without propaganda for any particular group. All are welcome but the obvious 'rankists', since that is incompatible with the p2p ethos. People interested in these approaches, can join the P2P Left group on Facebook, it's a guaranteed safe space for those who agree with it. Michel Bauwens
1. Statement on the P2P Foundation (Kevin Carson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 11:33:29 -0500 From: Kevin Carson <[email protected]> To: p2p-foundation <[email protected]> Subject: [P2P-F] Statement on the P2P Foundation Message-ID: < CANETeEzp6NMMBB3p2hzWePC4CgFnnGuWhaqawoG3Oao-W7izxA@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
It grieves me to write this, but I feel I have no choice but to do so if I want to be able to live with myself in good conscience.
I remember some time ago that Michel posted something on the P2P Foundation email list reflecting the mindset of Jordan Peterson and/or Quillette (I forget the details) and expressed my negative reaction to it, and didn't think any more about it afterwards because I didn't notice anything further along those lines on-list and the Blog has also apparently steered clear of such issues.
But earlier this year a comrade at C4SS.org informed me that such material -- alt-right or "Intellectual Dark Web"-adjacent -- was appearing on the P2PF Facebook group, which I don't follow because I'm not on Facebook. They suggested I might want to think about how closely I associated myself with the Foundation, and avoid any public interviews or guest articles that promoted them. That made me uneasy enough that I minimized the amount of P2PF material I shared on Twitter and limited it to the stuff I considered genuinely indispensable, and any material I saw on the Blog I shared from the original source rather than the P2PF Blog reprint as I would have earlier.
I still wasn't prepared to make a sharp, public break because I had no idea just how toxic things had gotten.
But in the past couple of days it's come to my attention that the Facebook group is rife with tropes from the Intellectual Dark Web, along with explicit promotions of Quillette, Aero and the like as antidotes to "Political Correctness" and "identity politics." Michel and others have also explicitly iterated common alt-right "reverse hierarchies" tropes suggestive that those in movements like Black Lives Matter and Me Too, as the common bar room refrain puts it, "don't just want to be equal, they want to be superior!" The wrong-headed (and just plain incorrect) assessment that "identity politics" promotes disunity in economic- or class-based movements also makes a predictable appearance, as does the spurious claim that these things "push people farther right."
On top of everything else, those who have called out Michel and others for the direction they are taking have been banned from the Facebook group, and have been subjected behind the scenes to campaigns harassing and attempting to discredit them. This is despicable.
As I noted at the outset, this is very hard for me. Michel has shown me great kindness in the past and promoted my work on the P2PF Blog in ways that have been invaluable. Aside from such personal considerations, a great deal of earlier work by Michel, Franco Iacomella and others is still of monumental importance, and I will continue to cite it in my own work when appropriate.
Nevertheless, I cannot continue to associate myself with an organization whose internal culture has been overrun and contaminated with such ideas, and where such ideas are actively promoted by the leadership. You are giving aid and comfort to a toxic ideology that came to prominence thanks to utterly wretched movements, hatched in the bowels of 8chan, like GamerGate and ComicsGate, which proliferated on social media and in turn gave birth to the alt right, and are now being mainstreamed by Quillette, the "Intellectual Dark Web," and pundits ranging from Reason's Robby Soave and Cathy Young on the right to people like Aimee Terese, Jimmy Dore and Michael Tracey on the "Dirtbag Left."
For this reason, I publicly disassociate myself from the Peer-to-Peer Foundation, Michel Bauwens and anyone else engaged in the activities I described above. I will unsubscribe from the Foundation's email list and no longer promote its content on social media. When I do cite their valuable older work in future publications, I will always add a footnoted disclaimer stating my views on the course they have chosen to take.
I urge Michel and others sharing his views to strongly rethink the direction in which they are headed. The possibilities of Wikileaks, and its accomplishments in 2010-11 in helping to launch the Arab Spring, M15 and Occupy, were of inestimable value. Julian Assange chose to undermine and compromise Wikileaks by hijacking it as a personal marketing and propaganda vehicle, using it to promote his anti-"SJW" agenda and his alt right allies, and pursuing a personal grudge by intervening in support of the GOP in the American 2016 election. This was an act of utter selfishness and amounted to sabotage of Wikileaks' potential. I believe that Michel's embrace and promotion of the ideas he has chosen to identify with have discredited and sabotaged the Foundation for Peer-to-Peer Alternatives, and seriously undermined its mission.
To repeat, I beg you to rethink this and take action to restore your credibility. If nothing else, this is required by the P2P ethos itself, and by the stake many people and groups not represented in your inner circle have had in the success in your original mission.
If anyone still affiliated with the P2P Foundation shares my concerns, I ask you to make your voice heard and use your influence to the best of your ability within the organization, to rescue it from this cancer.
Sincerely, Kevin A. Carson