thanks Willi, I appreciate your response, though see a major problem with serious results of not thinking of we having this or being part of concrete real world, we are trying to transcend.

On 6 jul. 2014, at 16:57, willi uebelherr <[email protected]> wrote:

Am 06/07/2014 08:24, schrieb Orsan:

...

... "I think the conscious act of transforming network into meshwork (read p2p distributed) by creating all possibilities for all the noses to link up each other, as will as the core information related to that network (this I got form michel's 2005 seminal article on p2p), as well as spaces, and channels that would generate more interlocking nodes between many meshwork (acting kind of as the fellowship of the ring) is emerging as the new ethics and politics in the network movements. The direction taken is clearly towards the creation of a big global meshwork. Unity and convergence makes a new sense in this new paradigmatic multi layer matrix, from inner to individual, to inter personal and community levels, recognising the simultaneous situations of autonomy and oneness in any given time and space location."

Dear Orsan,

you start correct. mesh network as a P2P distributed network. But then you lost the way.

"Unity and convergence makes a new sense in this new paradigmatic multi layer matrix, ...". This is a very different thing. In our horizontally distributed network, based on the full connection of the elements, we have no "layer matrix", because this is a concept of vertical hierarchical systems.

May be in an ideally or analytically, but in the current situation there are these layers and the matrix they form. If there is a space where some people already transcended those layers and got out of the matrix, we should all go there. So what I tried to identify ontologically here is a transitory phenomenon.

We have to be clear in the using of our terms. Based on this principles i wrote my proposals for NetMundial and www.1net.org. In the archive of this list i found this mails.

Agree, and above not thought through terms can be misleading, so I will read your proposal and try to see especially those technical solutions which can enable to address problems Arises from historically, materially and dialectically constructed human-relational problems. Which are also in transition and still have those layers needs to be overcome, from cellular to social, and cosmological.

The basic step for that is the strong horizontal structure based on the local independent networks with her geografical position as the IP adress. This is the more technical view. But we have to be clear: without the technical definition based on our philosophical principles we never come to our P2P distributed network.

Kind of agree, but technical solution without consciousness and awareness of the social relationships being applied to, and when those technical solutions applied to social relationships are dialectically inter-connected, or integral to each other.

Our communication system, The InterNet, "the Inter-connection of local Net-works", is only oriented to the IP packet transport. All others can the people define self. The coding and decoding, the streaming process, the encryption. We transport the IP packet neutral. Only the physical difference, asynchron or synchron, we use.

This is a totally flat distributed system and this also means the term P2P. Following of this clear princip we never can use any hierarchical methods in our basic network. Over that, on the application level, the people can do what the want. But this is a virtual layer and his definition depend of the people self.

What about what happens when two local horizontal networks started to connect and interact? (like two different type of galaxies are clashing and then merging). it is kind of essential to be able to get a clear analysis on this, to see how will network movements will get on the same page, like local Gezi, Occupy, hacker,15m, networks and how they will encounter the netarchical ruling classes globally, while latter holding on the capitalist states and operating through transnational capitalist class networks and forging conscious counter and filtrating attacks on the emerging new reality.

many greetings, willi now: Medellin, Colombia

greetings, orsan

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

dear Willi,

In the center we have the needs of the people. Her interest for communication.

totally agree with the above,

And if the don't like it, they never create her local network and never any connection to her neighborhoods.

not totally agree with the above, since non-creation of the local network is not always the result of unwillingness. Most of the time it is oppressed and banned by the ruler or dominant forces, they either make nodes afraid and/or manipulate. One can say this is the own responsibility of the local people. This is a sensitive issue. What would you see that there is the case of oppression and exploitation and that avoids the formation of a local solidarity and the network?

Our base are the local networks. This are full functionally. They have all components what they need. But in general we break the seperation client/server. Only this people, they don't like to work on a server/client system, they can use the local server for her needs. This means, that we create full symetric transport capacities. The both direction, up and down, have in principal the same capacity (or bandwith). This we do, because the most stable structure we have if all the communication partners can act as client and server. Depend on the distributed structure, our principles, the local people have the responsibility to organize her local network self. We help, of course, we cooperate. But the decisions create always the local people.

agree that this is the way, might be good to exchange and elaborate on how to do that..

On this way we are confronted with the requirements for the design, construction and build our components to create our communication system. And this also, we do it together. But in a bigger area. And the local communities can act as regional groups, if they want.

understand the above

The only thing for our packet transport system is to define the IP header with our way to define the geografical based global IP adress. The local part is totally local defined.

but not the above, what do you mean with 'packet transport system' and in general i have a bad feeling about the IPs, because of the NSA and surveillance stories now worse. What is the difference between private IP and the one you describe. (do you mean local free and public int. providers, and all IPs are used as global address book, to locate people but just for facilitating free long distance material-exchanges? like food, seeds, other livelihoods, art so on? )

You see, that with the geografical definition of the global adress part in the IP adress all is very easy. For that, on the beginning, we look for a world coordinate system with a symetrical resolution. No more. And if we don't find a good way, we can use first the WC84 system. With 64 bits for the global adress part our resolution is more then necssary.

don't understand the above as well, i guess it is about prefect precision off the address location right, still have to read about WC84 system you mention. still this is about long distance material exchange between networks, so peoples' Internet of Things kind of ideas?

You wrote: "What about what happens when two local horizontal networks started to connect and interact? (like two different type of galaxies are clashing and then merging). it is kind of essential to be able to get a clear analysis on this, to see how will network movements will get on the same page, like local Gezi, Occupy, hacker,15m, networks and how they will encounter the netarchical ruling classes globally, while latter holding on the capitalist states and operating through transnational capitalist class networks and forging conscious counter and filtrating attacks on the emerging new reality."

Oh my dear Orsan, i never go in the cinema and never i look TV. So, i live in the reality. And in the reality, the movements are slow, because they have clear physical bases.

if you are close to nature, and away from cites, yes sure the movements as other things are slower and that might even be a good thing (like slow towns movement). But the urban-local networks, network-movements, in comparison to nationally or locally bounded ones, are pretty fast. May be because they are part of another dimension of the same reality. I do not go to the cinema too, and look very little at the TV. Instead I do watch live streams from the streets, read bloggers, look at action photos, read tweets, join mumble calls and IRchats with some of the people from new movements, meet some of them in squares, talk to some of those people face to face... there i see there is a sort of new reality, or new aspect of the same reality, sounds very different then the reality you describe. These urban local networks feels like they are being build as a local network at broader geography. So like national, regional and global-local networks we have, as if the national, regional and global levels are perceived as locality. In these urban networks things and changes, as well as self learning and reflection is relatively very fast.

In principal, the stability grows up with the distribution of self-organized systems. This we can always say and see. Following of that, we are on the right way if we decentralize all our systems and help the local people to extend her capacity. Based on this we create our networks (the packet transport system) over the world for our different task.

yes again agree with the above, yet would be good if you open up, what do you mean with the PTS, sorry may be i am the only one who do not know that? :)

many greetings, willi Medellin, Colombia

greetings, orsan

Am 06/07/2014 11:26, schrieb Orsan:

...

thanks Willi, I appreciate your response, though see a major problem with serious results of not thinking of we having this or being part of concrete real world, we are trying to transcend.

...

On 6 jul. 2014, at 16:57, willi uebelherr <[email protected]> wrote:

Am 06/07/2014 08:24, schrieb Orsan:

...

... "I think the conscious act of transforming network into meshwork (read p2p distributed) by creating all possibilities for all the noses to link up each other, as will as the core information related to that network (this I got form michel's 2005 seminal article on p2p), as well as spaces, and channels that would generate more interlocking nodes between many meshwork (acting kind of as the fellowship of the ring) is emerging as the new ethics and politics in the network movements. The direction taken is clearly towards the creation of a big global meshwork. Unity and convergence makes a new sense in this new paradigmatic multi layer matrix, from inner to individual, to inter personal and community levels, recognising the simultaneous situations of autonomy and oneness in any given time and space location."

Dear Orsan,

you start correct. mesh network as a P2P distributed network. But then you lost the way.

"Unity and convergence makes a new sense in this new paradigmatic multi layer matrix, ...". This is a very different thing. In our horizontally distributed network, based on the full connection of the elements, we have no "layer matrix", because this is a concept of vertical hierarchical systems.

May be in an ideally or analytically, but in the current situation there are these layers and the matrix they form. If there is a space where some people already transcended those layers and got out of the matrix, we should all go there. So what I tried to identify ontologically here is a transitory phenomenon.

...

We have to be clear in the using of our terms. Based on this principles i wrote my proposals for NetMundial and www.1net.org. In the archive of this list i found this mails.

Agree, and above not thought through terms can be misleading, so I will read your proposal and try to see especially those technical solutions which can enable to address problems Arises from historically, materially and dialectically constructed human-relational problems. Which are also in transition and still have those layers needs to be overcome, from cellular to social, and cosmological.

...

The basic step for that is the strong horizontal structure based on the local independent networks with her geografical position as the IP adress. This is the more technical view. But we have to be clear: without the technical definition based on our philosophical principles we never come to our P2P distributed network. Kind of agree, but technical solution without consciousness and awareness of the social relationships being applied to, and when those technical solutions applied to social relationships are dialectically inter-connected, or integral to each other.

...

Our communication system, The InterNet, "the Inter-connection of local Net-works", is only oriented to the IP packet transport. All others can the people define self. The coding and decoding, the streaming process, the encryption. We transport the IP packet neutral. Only the physical difference, asynchron or synchron, we use.

This is a totally flat distributed system and this also means the term P2P. Following of this clear princip we never can use any hierarchical methods in our basic network. Over that, on the application level, the people can do what the want. But this is a virtual layer and his definition depend of the people self.

What about what happens when two local horizontal networks started to connect and interact? (like two different type of galaxies are clashing and then merging). it is kind of essential to be able to get a clear analysis on this, to see how will network movements will get on the same page, like local Gezi, Occupy, hacker,15m, networks and how they will encounter the netarchical ruling classes globally, while latter holding on the capitalist states and operating through transnational capitalist class networks and forging conscious counter and filtrating attacks on the emerging new reality.

...

many greetings, willi now: Medellin, Colombia

greetings, orsan

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

I just read Gordon's report, it was very useful, to have a better picture, though obviously and partly rightly there was a bias, yet he warns reader at the beginning, so justified. I will read the one Michel you wrote and posted on the p2p blog again, and will look for other reports from others involved like Daniel, Bernardo so on. It can be good to have all those on the p2p wiki for FLOK. Although it must have been very annoying under such stress so far away from home, all process bears invaluable practical lessons and insights to gain for the future, next to the concrete papers came out as a bonus. We should see it as the experiments done in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. Seems to me under such time-space-finance-cultural and political context that generate massive pressure on the human particles collided, to get human conflicts and explosions like this... Yet as in the CERN experiments, one can even find the lost particles which can help us understand our universe better :) To avoid any negative impact for all the sides, I would humbly suggest, especially in terms of financial aspects, providing full transparency (Flok, P2P-F, Cook Consultancy, Ecuadorean ministries so on). And without practicing a sort of participatory budgeting, IMHO, there will always be shadows of doubts and questions hanging on these kinds of state-capital-funded projects. In terms of politics, and initial insights, Willi's below intervention, and Hellekein's opinions in Cook's report (on the FLOK context as well as in general about transition, and the need for real grassroots empowerment and networking are the key) what I feel personally closer to a common sense, which is also open to exchange and learn. And I am sure on one would deny these in principle. Yet there could be check and balance for networks themselves to see how much do they actually serve for such empowerment, and how much they do not. O.

On 6 jul. 2014, at 18:53, willi uebelherr <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Michel,

many thanks for your general answer. I will also use it to a more general answer.

The answer to the question for our relation to the state construction, always based on the roman constitutional law, follows immediately from our perspectives. I think, therein, we agree.

After then, we check what is the state. And then we can decide.

Based on my personal principles: 1) all people are equivalent. It follows a) all opeople have the equal rights b) all our working have the same values 2) never we accept the private ownership of common resources 3) all decisions about the way of life are taken local

Based on my principles of development as a result of the principles of the nature: a) massivly decentral b) massivly parallel c) massivly redundant

Immediatly we come to the concept of the world society as a network of local independent community. The P2P environment of local communities. This, because we live always in local communities and we act as a part of this communities. The stability of our lifebase is a direct function of our local independent economy. And this rest always on our local technical infrastructures.

The destination for me is, that the people in the local communities can create and build most of that, what they need or what they think, that they need. Also this is a local decision.

Because we know, that many task for that are more general, we follow the old principle: "global thinking, local doing".

This means, that all our theoretical work we do together in an open and free environment. Therefore, the communication system is so important. But in his inner structure we use our general and fundamental principles. The free access to the free communication for the free access to our free knowledge and information exchange.

Knowledge is always worldheritage. It is always a common resource.

Now to the state construction.

In general it is a system from the elites for the elites against the people, against the self-organisation of the local communities. In the political systems we have two poles: a) the representative systems b) the democratic, local self-decision systems

In the area of the representative system we have a big garden of different flowers. But in his core it is always the same. Incapacitation and centralization.

The elites need this to organize her parasitic existence. And, because it is not so easy, they need the violence apparatus and the bureaucratic instances. Always based on the incapacitation of the local people.

The private ownership of common resources is a necessary part of that. And to legitimate and stabilize this they need the control of the law system, based on the violence apparatus.

This is in short form my general view. And immediatly, we see, that never we can operate together with any state system that follows a way against our principles, agains the people.

States always are parasitic instances. They use but never they create or build. But in our perspective, we need the reduction of parasitic instances and change to a overall creative and productive activities. With that We can massively reduce the individual cost, the individual effort.

Om the blog of Robert Steele we find the sentence in the head: "the truth at any cost lowers all other cost". Maybe, this is a more free interpretation from me. But this is the core for distribution of the activity for our life.

If all people are part of the basical activities in the areas for our material existence then all people have enough time to study the laws of the nature to extent the reduction of the efforts for our material life-basics.

Of course, we can first disolve all not necessary instances, the parasitic instances. May be, this is the most effective part on our way. Likeany military and all infrastructure for that.

In the communication system we can see it very clear. All this parasitic instances we don't need any more. All this stupid instances of "Internet Governance" are superfluos. And we can massivly reduce the volume of packet transports.

The same we will find in all spheres of our life.

many greetings, willi now: Medellin, Colombia

Am 05/07/2014 21:22, schrieb Michel Bauwens:

...

Thanks for the first spate of reactions: orsan, willi, Kevin

First thing, yes Orsan, the hard politics of p2p transition in the existing context of capital-state-polity-policy-funding-culture.. that is the key issue we have to deal with, and I hope to add my own efforts to this, as soon as my homecoming fever is over ..

Willi and Kevin, you both pose the specific problem of the Partner State. I think there are really big misunderstandings if the relative failure of Ecuador is interpreted to mean that it means the failure of the Partner State.

The Ecuadorian state is not a partner state, it's a market state, though different from the neoliberal one. I interpret as a state that wants to rebalance the market state towards local sovereignity and the local bourgeoisie. It represented a different type of class alliance that wanted to strengthen the local state to tame international capital for its own ends. After a more radical phase after 2007, it is now slowly retreating and seeking a new accomodation with Empire. The results are a mixed bag of very strong social justice results, but a disempowering of civil society as a collective force. It is remarkable that after meeting more than 70 different civic groups, I could not find a single one that supported the government, and even the ones that one did, are now alienated from it. The Ecuadorian state is technocratic, 'knows best' and dislikes participation. They dislike indepedent civic groups as much as, if not more, than neoliberal capital. So-called neosocialism is a statist approach to make Ecuador fit for a socially better kind of capitalism. It's mostly better than what existed before (though quite a few civic groups disagree and say they have less freedom now), but it's neither socialism nor p2p nor participatory.

The second important point is that while we can never idealize the state, the big and central question remains:

1) is it possible to imagine a class society without a state ? My answer is no, as who would stop the homeless of going into empty houses, or elite paramilitaries to take away the land of the farmers ... While failed states are possible, they are generally worse. I am not aware of big migrations to Somalia, nor of colombian urban dwellers to the lands of the paramilitaries, but am only aware of the opposite. People able to vote with their feet, flee stateless regions

2) is it possible to imagine abolishing class society by fiat. My answer is no. Therefore in any transition period, there will be a state to defend the mass of the people and their democracy against attempts at restoration.

Thus the state is simply unavoidable.

So the question becomes, what kind of state. My answer is the partner state, a state where the people themselves are the state, and the historical precedents are of course the greek polis and the free medieval city states described by the anarchist Kropotkin. If you agree, I don't care what other name you use for it, that is the partner state we are talking about, nothing else can be it.

The third question is: what do we do in the meantime. My answer is 1) build autonomous social organisation 2) engage with the state to fight bad legislation and promote good legislation 3) create prefigurative partner state policies where the people's forces have majorities.

So back the question: does the relative failure of flok prove anything about the failure of the partner state concept ? My answer is: the opposite. Ecuador shows that anything but a partner state approach is relatively doomed. It wasn't a partner state, we thought a prefigurative experiment was possible, and it wasn't. But micro-experiments, like in Sigchos, are still possible, and worth fighting for.

Michel

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Dear friends, this is my comment to the text from Michel on the blog. http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/ecuador-as-a-state-form-the-proposal-for-a-par... many greetings, willi Dear Michel, on the P2P/F list i answer to your text. Yow don’t continue this important discussion on the list. Now, i read the same text in the blog. It’s not a good way to fly from a strong discussion base and act on different areas with the same thing without to continue the process of reflection. many greetings, willi now Bogota, Colombia Am 7/6/2014 11:53 AM, schrieb willi uebelherr:

Dear Michel,

many thanks for your general answer. I will also use it to a more general answer.

The answer to the question for our relation to the state construction, always based on the roman constitutional law, follows immediately from our perspectives. I think, therein, we agree.

After then, we check what is the state. And then we can decide.

Based on my personal principles: 1) all people are equivalent. It follows a) all opeople have the equal rights b) all our working have the same values 2) never we accept the private ownership of common resources 3) all decisions about the way of life are taken local

Based on my principles of development as a result of the principles of the nature: a) massivly decentral b) massivly parallel c) massivly redundant

Immediatly we come to the concept of the world society as a network of local independent community. The P2P environment of local communities. This, because we live always in local communities and we act as a part of this communities. The stability of our lifebase is a direct function of our local independent economy. And this rest always on our local technical infrastructures.

The destination for me is, that the people in the local communities can create and build most of that, what they need or what they think, that they need. Also this is a local decision.

Because we know, that many task for that are more general, we follow the old principle: "global thinking, local doing".

This means, that all our theoretical work we do together in an open and free environment. Therefore, the communication system is so important. But in his inner structure we use our general and fundamental principles. The free access to the free communication for the free access to our free knowledge and information exchange.

Knowledge is always worldheritage. It is always a common resource.

Now to the state construction.

In general it is a system from the elites for the elites against the people, against the self-organisation of the local communities. In the political systems we have two poles: a) the representative systems b) the democratic, local self-decision systems

In the area of the representative system we have a big garden of different flowers. But in his core it is always the same. Incapacitation and centralization.

The elites need this to organize her parasitic existence. And, because it is not so easy, they need the violence apparatus and the bureaucratic instances. Always based on the incapacitation of the local people.

The private ownership of common resources is a necessary part of that. And to legitimate and stabilize this they need the control of the law system, based on the violence apparatus.

This is in short form my general view. And immediatly, we see, that never we can operate together with any state system that follows a way against our principles, agains the people.

States always are parasitic instances. They use but never they create or build. But in our perspective, we need the reduction of parasitic instances and change to a overall creative and productive activities. With that We can massively reduce the individual cost, the individual effort.

Om the blog of Robert Steele we find the sentence in the head: "the truth at any cost lowers all other cost". Maybe, this is a more free interpretation from me. But this is the core for distribution of the activity for our life.

If all people are part of the basical activities in the areas for our material existence then all people have enough time to study the laws of the nature to extent the reduction of the efforts for our material life-basics.

Of course, we can first disolve all not necessary instances, the parasitic instances. May be, this is the most effective part on our way. Likeany military and all infrastructure for that.

In the communication system we can see it very clear. All this parasitic instances we don't need any more. All this stupid instances of "Internet Governance" are superfluos. And we can massivly reduce the volume of packet transports.

The same we will find in all spheres of our life.

many greetings, willi now: Medellin, Colombia

Am 05/07/2014 21:22, schrieb Michel Bauwens:

...

Thanks for the first spate of reactions: orsan, willi, Kevin

First thing, yes Orsan, the hard politics of p2p transition in the existing context of capital-state-polity-policy-funding-culture.. that is the key issue we have to deal with, and I hope to add my own efforts to this, as soon as my homecoming fever is over ..

Willi and Kevin, you both pose the specific problem of the Partner State. I think there are really big misunderstandings if the relative failure of Ecuador is interpreted to mean that it means the failure of the Partner State.

The Ecuadorian state is not a partner state, it's a market state, though different from the neoliberal one. I interpret as a state that wants to rebalance the market state towards local sovereignity and the local bourgeoisie. It represented a different type of class alliance that wanted to strengthen the local state to tame international capital for its own ends. After a more radical phase after 2007, it is now slowly retreating and seeking a new accomodation with Empire. The results are a mixed bag of very strong social justice results, but a disempowering of civil society as a collective force. It is remarkable that after meeting more than 70 different civic groups, I could not find a single one that supported the government, and even the ones that one did, are now alienated from it. The Ecuadorian state is technocratic, 'knows best' and dislikes participation. They dislike indepedent civic groups as much as, if not more, than neoliberal capital. So-called neosocialism is a statist approach to make Ecuador fit for a socially better kind of capitalism. It's mostly better than what existed before (though quite a few civic groups disagree and say they have less freedom now), but it's neither socialism nor p2p nor participatory.

The second important point is that while we can never idealize the state, the big and central question remains:

1) is it possible to imagine a class society without a state ? My answer is no, as who would stop the homeless of going into empty houses, or elite paramilitaries to take away the land of the farmers ... While failed states are possible, they are generally worse. I am not aware of big migrations to Somalia, nor of colombian urban dwellers to the lands of the paramilitaries, but am only aware of the opposite. People able to vote with their feet, flee stateless regions

2) is it possible to imagine abolishing class society by fiat. My answer is no. Therefore in any transition period, there will be a state to defend the mass of the people and their democracy against attempts at restoration.

Thus the state is simply unavoidable.

So the question becomes, what kind of state. My answer is the partner state, a state where the people themselves are the state, and the historical precedents are of course the greek polis and the free medieval city states described by the anarchist Kropotkin. If you agree, I don't care what other name you use for it, that is the partner state we are talking about, nothing else can be it.

The third question is: what do we do in the meantime. My answer is 1) build autonomous social organisation 2) engage with the state to fight bad legislation and promote good legislation 3) create prefigurative partner state policies where the people's forces have majorities.

So back the question: does the relative failure of flok prove anything about the failure of the partner state concept ? My answer is: the opposite. Ecuador shows that anything but a partner state approach is relatively doomed. It wasn't a partner state, we thought a prefigurative experiment was possible, and it wasn't. But micro-experiments, like in Sigchos, are still possible, and worth fighting for.

Michel