inline On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Antonis Broumas <[email protected]> wrote:

Two objections :

In my conception of the state, the latter is an institution separated from society. Therefore, any kind of social power structure should not be equalised with the state, if it is embedded in society. In this sense, citizen militias or communal courts with wide participation cannot be considered state institutions. Yet, if they are to be considered as such [i.e. state institutions], I have no problem supporting such a "state".

the ideal of the partner state is that situation, and as Vasilis probably explained, the origin of the idea lies in the role of the FLOSS Foundations and other for-benefit associations that are active in enabling peer production. These are to my mind, mostly democratic institutions (with great varieties) . The problem of course, is that we do not have such a state. and so the issue becomes, how do we deal with the existing state. I was just listening to a greek anarchist squatter movement leader (I think), who explained that they started with extreme hostility towards the state, but were generally defeated and now they seek agreements with both owners and state officials, and have been able to expand and maintain squats (not sure who it was, could only hear its voice, https://www.facebook.com/events/1710124239215992/?object_id=1710124239215992... )

The welfare state is of a twofold nature. It is a result of workers' struggles and, at the same time, a consolidation of state power over society and a cooptation of the dangerous social movements of the past by the power of capital. In retrospect, the welfare state has never functioned as a vehicle to overcome capitalism. Private or state property was not disputed. Workers' self management was actually never part of the project. It was a project to humanise capitalism and, noble as such, never exceeded this horizon. I would never say that a "partner state" to the commons would ever accede the welfare state. This argument has appeal for social democratic policy makers and might be useful for them to swallow the partner state and commons policies. But we are talking about something significantly different, a subversive project to empower society. And this empowerment will be at the cost of the social power of the capital - state complex. There will be no win - win situation here. We will be winning some stakes, if they will be losing those same stakes.

agreed on the dual nature of the welfare state which incorporated the labour leadership in the bureaucratic state structures; yet the welfare state embedded great social progress, for example in the de-commodification of labour (pensions, social security mechanisms, unemployment support) . These can be commonified, but they can also be used as stepping stones. I wish our wiki was working as I could point you to the typology of anti-capitalist social struggle from erik olin wright (smashing capitalism, taming capitalism, escaping capitalism, eroding capitalism). Since I am sceptical of the first strategy, which I believe may be yours, I am much more oriented toward the latter and therefore don't see it as a win-lose game; i.e. I don't think every social advance can only be obtained through this strategy. My strategy would be to be systematically strenghten the capacities of post-capitalist commons production, until that time as the social balance of power allows for bigger shifts in political and social power. And there is a lot of interstitial work that can be done, as well as measures that do not necessarily be absolutely confrontational. For example, the german feed-in tariff has been absolutely essential in creating a renewable energy commons, and has been used to great effect by the community energy movement.

P.S. Corporations that "embrace" commons projects do this to monetize upon user communities, outsource R&D, outpace / dislocate competitors and, in general, maximise profits. There is only one case where capital utilises intellectual commons in a way that differs from the logic of individual capitalists and addresses inherent contradictions. This is the case where corporations of the same sector form consortia, which administer commons at strategic resources, in order to avoid tragedies of the anticommons. This is interesting but again should not be considered as partnership but rather as contradiction to be exploited from our side.

yes, yet we have to admit that, perhaps because they are labour aristocracies, the free software commoners have found a mutual adaptation with these forces. Again, my alternative is to use the copyfair licensing to keep the value within the commons sphere itself, rather than allow it to leak out to the corporate sphere.

Apart from these two objections, I fully agree with your points.

As I come from the autonomous tradition, I have seen in practice the deadly impact for the movements, when we pretend to ignore the state. What we need is a leninist strategy vis a vis the state, but an anti-state Lenin who this time is on our side. This means that we should exploit any contradictions available within the state apparatus and experiment with ways of confronting with it. This has been actually done in practice by the movements all around the globe. I am afraid that the case with Syriza is completely lost, i.e. there will be no contradictions to exploit. Yet, at the municipal level we might stand better chances. The problem with the vast majority of the Greek left is that it comes from the stalinist tradition and is unable of processing tactics against postmodern decentralised capitalism that are non - state centred. I think that Italians are much more evolved in this, even if they currently lack electoral successes.

do you also consider Syriza as descending from that stalinist left ? my impression was that they were substantially different and apart from the eurocommunists (fully social-democratized ex-stalinists), was drawn from different traditions of course, even with that difference, the leadership fully compromised with the neoliberal state and ended up on the right of social democracy, Michel

a.

Στις 2:05 μ.μ. Τρίτη, 11 Αυγούστου 2015, ο/η Michel Bauwens < [email protected]> έγραψε:

thank you Anna,

my definition applies internally, i.e. a body that is capable to enforce the minimal agreed civilisational norms for a particular territory (say, forbidding executions, corporal punishments, wife beating, including towards those communities that believe this is acceptable)

of course, by definition, a partner state would be fully democratic and participatory, but 'prefigurative partner state experiences' need not conform to an abstract ideal, just go into that direction

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:58 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

I think there is a confusion here between the state ability to enforce rules internally, and the use of force to protect. As I understand Zapatistas, the collective institution does not interfere with local consensus, rules and norms are only agreed locally.

I would prefer to see a definition that rests on recognition by the people that they are part of a state, rather than on the capacity of the state to enforce rules and norms.

But really no need to get hung up on definitions. We can define as we want.

The debate for Michel seems to be whether such a project/state could exist without the capacity to enforce norms and rules, internally. I think this is a really important discussion, whether there is a need for an overarching body to enforce norms and rules.

So here is an example of a something 'done by purely free and contingent agreements between individuals and groups'. Existing in spite of the state from which they have to protect themselves by force. And there is no reason that such an autonomous state, if you want to call it that, based on conscious recognition, could not exist in other situations. Hard to imagine- yes, but not impossible.

Whether there is a need for an overarching body in the transition phase, when traditional values are being challenged, may well differ from place to place according to the education, commitment and development of the citizens involved.

Anna

On 11 Aug 2015, at 11:16, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:

here is a very broad possible definition of the state

a collective institution in charge of a territory and population, that has the capacity to enforce rules and norms

IS THAT TOO BROAD ?

the important debate for me is with those that absolutely deny the need for such a body, and believe that everything can be done by purely free and contingent agreements between individuals and groups

so how would this be applied to say chiapas and rojava

both these regions are administered by very democratic local and regional councils, in my understanding,

but they can only exist because there was a failed state, which allowed this self-organisation and regional armies to protect them

would this be a partner state,

to the degree that the local and regional councils , which for me are state forms, enable and empower autonomous citizenry and economic activities by the population; I believe this to be so, hence, I believe these quality as partner state institutions in my understanding

but these are not typical circumstances, i.e. in which war has destroyed the capacity of the existing state to impose coercion,

for a considerable period of time, this is hard to imagine in many other countries, including europe, both in terms of objective realities (non-failed states) and in terms of the will of the people (will to radically abolish existing state form)

Michel

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:

I think this is a gate to a nice exchange. Yet I think needs more deep discussion. Definiton and form of The state has a long historical background, also The role of The classes involves. As not every armed Group controlling territorry is a state, as paramiliter groups, Mafia, Jakuza, so on, nor Germany and Japan which were not allowed to have armies after The war didnt sieze to be state. There is money printing and taxing functions for modern capitalist Nation state in The definiton but of course here concept is a design for future, and it can be referring ideal from, as socialist and other forms envisaged for future. Also discussion on EU, if it is a state, or Global-transnational state discussion is relevant here. So it is valuable and fruıitful to think in this direction anyway. Looking forward to it! Orsan

On 10 Aug 2015, at 16:10, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:

https://www.academia.edu/14169439/Commons_Movements_and_Progressive_Governme...

Not sure if it was bob or peter asking me for a comment on the critique of the partner state proposal

I can't copy paste the one paragraph here, but do a 'find' for Bauwens and the single paragraph will pop up

I can't imagine he has thoroughly read about our concept,

1) he believes it is platonian: can't be further from the truth since the partner state is rooted in already really existing practice, i.e. those of the FLOSS Foundations

2) he calls rojava and chiapas non-state institutions, but this is for me problematic, both of them have armies that protect the carocoles (chiapas) and comunes (rojava); since the state has also been defined as a body of armed men existing separately from society, I believe myself these are new state forms, i.e. they exist separately from any contract between sovereign individuals or communities, and cover a whole territory; in other words, to the degree they permit the autonomous existence of the councils, they are actually the best possible example of a partner state; and if you add that at least rojava is centered our cooperative enterprise, they are very close to the model proposal by Vasilis and myself.

3) he believes states won't do anything responsible for their own undoing. In essence, this is correct, which is why the partner state is about radical transformation of the existing state form. Nevertheless, social democrats were historically responsible for a deep transformation of the western state, and neoliberalism actually an example of the state dismantling itself to a large degree. What I think is realistic today are prefigurative examples of partner state approaches , certainly at the local level, and given a change in the political balance of power, a transformation of the state form. Given the historical experience, which has shown multiple examples of this, to believe this is impossible flies in the face of historical reality.

To achieve a partner state in the context of the current market state, seems to me illusory however,

Michel social praxis apart from

_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour

-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour

-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour

-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/