Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] a short response to queries about the p2p'f workings in WSF
Peter, first of all, I don't condemn or accuse directly, but critically question of the limits of work-policy-political activism combination where money comes structurally from the 1%; what would dependent position mean in such cases. You say let's assume for the best and hope for good will of the individuals. I know the details of Lenin's German relations and for how long did it go before and after the revolution, yet even in that case Germany might count on and support Lenin for their calculations in the war with other imperialist block at their eastern front of the war. In today's conjuncture such support I would argue is given with a similar purposes, and/or for other; yet certainly there is no similar revolutionary threat, or politics that can go out of rulers control to pose a turret to Queen's system, in this front. Or, it is there and I am missing that? Orsan
On 15 Aug 2016, at 17:57, peter waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
Orsan:
I have not yet read the document to which you refer. But I am hoping that you are not condemning it - without trial, judge or jury - as 'Guilty by Funding'. This would not be the same as an ad hominem attack. But it would seem to have the similar characteristic of addressing the author/publisher rather than the content.
Now, I may have here been misunderstanding your argument concerning that P2P document. But I have to say that I am quite exhausted by the assumption that Funding Inevitably Taints.
There is literature concerning both the funding of NGOs (in the USA), and the Left foundations (internationally) that are presumably dependent on funders.
The first is, of course, 'The Revolution Will Not Be Funded' which, despite its brilliant title, I seem to recall as allowing that - even in the extreme conditions surrounding such funding in the US - it did not inevitably taint outcomes.
The other is a study of these progressive international think-tanks by Bill Carroll, which includes the TNI, the GCS Centre in Durban, South Africa, and various others. It's just out and available online for, I think, E. 25.
So, I would suggest that any further criticism of NGOs, Leftist think tanks, etc, would require first reading these texts, thus adding some empirical and conceptual weight to any evaluation of their operations.
Finally, did you know that in addition to paying for and facilitating the famous 'sealed train' that brought Lenin back to Russia during WW1, that Lenin also brought with a considerable amount of German Imperial funding.
Thus suggesting that the 'The Revolution Can be Funded'?
P
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
Michel,
This is the outcome of that collaborative effort on the hackpad, of which production professional individuals, which means, whose work in this field in one or another way paid by one or other sources. As for the contributions they made is compensated, according to your own definition the outcome not be peer produced commons [space or politics]: http://wiki.remixthecommons.org/images/Final_Program_Commons_Space.pdf
As you can see P2P-f is amongst the organizers and at the end there is the logo of Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation, whose CEO is also on this list and head of Edge funders coalition; which were also organizing commons related event at the WSF. As you declared before this is a 'radical funders' coalition who wish to change the world in a radical way; so commons bade peer production can replace the world they live in; property relations their lives and sociality depends on. And you are/were certain before that they have given to you full autonomy; so can you confirm that in this initiative of 'commons space' Kevin acted with full autonomy from you and P2p foundation; as Elisabetta from Transform; so that collective efforts that could be made in a totally an open and independent from the represented organizations and their funder; in other word any outcome including any radical vision, that would oppose or mismatch with the political properties and policy agenda of the Leopold Mayer and Edge funders' vision or vision of other organizations took part in the production of a wsf agenda for the Commons and commons transition?
Orsan
On 15 Aug 2016, at 10:20, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Kevin may yet respond to Orsan queries and the suspicions that the p2p-f is setting the agenda in the WSF and elswhere.
My understanding of the events at the WSF is that they were organized by a large team of commoners from different countries but under the impulse originally of Kevin and Elizabetta, who took a personal initiative on this.
The process was done entirely openly on hackpads and mailings lists with everyone welcome to contribute which was in the end several dozen people who did a really great job. My understanding is that Orsan did not wish to contribute to these efforts, which was entirely his decision. Kevin asked us to use our server to open a mailing list to help this project. This does not mean that these events were orchestrated in any particular way by the P2P Foundation, though various sympathizers of our work, such as Kevin, will have contributed a lot of time and effort to make it happen, along with many others from other organizations as well as non-affiliated.
But here is my take, so that people may understand better how we function in that regard. The questions from Orsan seem to be predicated on a in my view old-fashioned view of conspirational hierarchical organizations that does not reflect our practice.
I very emphatically want to declare that there was not a single meeting as p2p-f in which any decisions were made outside of that process on the hackpad and mailing list, and outside of the free dialogue of all the contributors. I was personally not involved at all except for a requested intervention on coops which I did not fullfil for health reasons.
so here is a one paragraph summary explanation:
"It is important to realize that the p2p-f is an organized network and not a NGO (the 'stichting' is just a legal structure to be able to accept research grants etc ..). As a network , there is no membership but people can self-declare themselves symphatizers and as long as they stay in the broad framework of pluralistic support for p2p and the commons, there will be no objection to it (just as they did with occupy for example). So individuals in our network are free to declare their affiliation to the p2p-f in personal capacity. They may call themselves members or contributors, but there is no formal membership. This does not mean they represent the whole of the network. It also means they are not 'dispatched' by the P2P-F with a specific agenda. In addition, because of the accrued prestige of our work for a decade, we are often asked to add our name to the organizational rosters and sponsors of an event. This is often of mutual benefit and so readily accepted. Here also, it does not mean that the P2P Foundation is necessarily a co-organizer on the ground, though symphatizes may have contributed and collaborated to the event in different fashions. Today, the core group of the p2p-f consists of 6 individuals operating on a shoestring budget, and mostly they are responsible for their own income. We intend at some point to function in a more organizational way but this is still a very emergent practice so far. Most of the time, we operate as a service organization and act upon invitation and requests, this means we are sure that what we are doing is useful for the social movement we support, since they directly reflect their expressed needs."
I hope this makes sense,
Michel
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
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
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Click here for Peter's recent writings
Sorry for typo, wrote on the phone without glasses :) I meant: "certainly there is no similar revolutionary treat, or politics that can go out of rulers control to pose a treat in near future to the current system, in this front." To be honest, before going to TNI to volunteer first, also TIE (transnationals information exchange) I did read Carroll's text in an article form. I had my doubts about structural Soros funding; then it was 2007. Since them Soros funding went to TNI also its US sister IPS. I just ask if you were Soros and saw any doubtful relation or idea coming out from these politics or research wouldn't you consider to cut down your support? This is most extreme case : over 15 years continuous monetary support.. It's like an organic tie, isn't it? Or as Wall Street spread credit without asking any payback do they spread millions of dollars around? May be we should let the other half dying from hunger to apply for such free money? Orsan
On 15 Aug 2016, at 19:22, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
Peter, first of all, I don't condemn or accuse directly, but critically question of the limits of work-policy-political activism combination where money comes structurally from the 1%; what would dependent position mean in such cases. You say let's assume for the best and hope for good will of the individuals. I know the details of Lenin's German relations and for how long did it go before and after the revolution, yet even in that case Germany might count on and support Lenin for their calculations in the war with other imperialist block at their eastern front of the war. In today's conjuncture such support I would argue is given with a similar purposes, and/or for other; yet certainly there is no similar revolutionary threat, or politics that can go out of rulers control to pose a turret to Queen's system, in this front.
Or, it is there and I am missing that?
Orsan
On 15 Aug 2016, at 17:57, peter waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
Orsan:
I have not yet read the document to which you refer. But I am hoping that you are not condemning it - without trial, judge or jury - as 'Guilty by Funding'. This would not be the same as an ad hominem attack. But it would seem to have the similar characteristic of addressing the author/publisher rather than the content.
Now, I may have here been misunderstanding your argument concerning that P2P document. But I have to say that I am quite exhausted by the assumption that Funding Inevitably Taints.
There is literature concerning both the funding of NGOs (in the USA), and the Left foundations (internationally) that are presumably dependent on funders.
The first is, of course, 'The Revolution Will Not Be Funded' which, despite its brilliant title, I seem to recall as allowing that - even in the extreme conditions surrounding such funding in the US - it did not inevitably taint outcomes.
The other is a study of these progressive international think-tanks by Bill Carroll, which includes the TNI, the GCS Centre in Durban, South Africa, and various others. It's just out and available online for, I think, E. 25.
So, I would suggest that any further criticism of NGOs, Leftist think tanks, etc, would require first reading these texts, thus adding some empirical and conceptual weight to any evaluation of their operations.
Finally, did you know that in addition to paying for and facilitating the famous 'sealed train' that brought Lenin back to Russia during WW1, that Lenin also brought with a considerable amount of German Imperial funding.
Thus suggesting that the 'The Revolution Can be Funded'?
P
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
Michel,
This is the outcome of that collaborative effort on the hackpad, of which production professional individuals, which means, whose work in this field in one or another way paid by one or other sources. As for the contributions they made is compensated, according to your own definition the outcome not be peer produced commons [space or politics]: http://wiki.remixthecommons.org/images/Final_Program_Commons_Space.pdf
As you can see P2P-f is amongst the organizers and at the end there is the logo of Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation, whose CEO is also on this list and head of Edge funders coalition; which were also organizing commons related event at the WSF. As you declared before this is a 'radical funders' coalition who wish to change the world in a radical way; so commons bade peer production can replace the world they live in; property relations their lives and sociality depends on. And you are/were certain before that they have given to you full autonomy; so can you confirm that in this initiative of 'commons space' Kevin acted with full autonomy from you and P2p foundation; as Elisabetta from Transform; so that collective efforts that could be made in a totally an open and independent from the represented organizations and their funder; in other word any outcome including any radical vision, that would oppose or mismatch with the political properties and policy agenda of the Leopold Mayer and Edge funders' vision or vision of other organizations took part in the production of a wsf agenda for the Commons and commons transition?
Orsan
On 15 Aug 2016, at 10:20, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Kevin may yet respond to Orsan queries and the suspicions that the p2p-f is setting the agenda in the WSF and elswhere.
My understanding of the events at the WSF is that they were organized by a large team of commoners from different countries but under the impulse originally of Kevin and Elizabetta, who took a personal initiative on this.
The process was done entirely openly on hackpads and mailings lists with everyone welcome to contribute which was in the end several dozen people who did a really great job. My understanding is that Orsan did not wish to contribute to these efforts, which was entirely his decision. Kevin asked us to use our server to open a mailing list to help this project. This does not mean that these events were orchestrated in any particular way by the P2P Foundation, though various sympathizers of our work, such as Kevin, will have contributed a lot of time and effort to make it happen, along with many others from other organizations as well as non-affiliated.
But here is my take, so that people may understand better how we function in that regard. The questions from Orsan seem to be predicated on a in my view old-fashioned view of conspirational hierarchical organizations that does not reflect our practice.
I very emphatically want to declare that there was not a single meeting as p2p-f in which any decisions were made outside of that process on the hackpad and mailing list, and outside of the free dialogue of all the contributors. I was personally not involved at all except for a requested intervention on coops which I did not fullfil for health reasons.
so here is a one paragraph summary explanation:
"It is important to realize that the p2p-f is an organized network and not a NGO (the 'stichting' is just a legal structure to be able to accept research grants etc ..). As a network , there is no membership but people can self-declare themselves symphatizers and as long as they stay in the broad framework of pluralistic support for p2p and the commons, there will be no objection to it (just as they did with occupy for example). So individuals in our network are free to declare their affiliation to the p2p-f in personal capacity. They may call themselves members or contributors, but there is no formal membership. This does not mean they represent the whole of the network. It also means they are not 'dispatched' by the P2P-F with a specific agenda. In addition, because of the accrued prestige of our work for a decade, we are often asked to add our name to the organizational rosters and sponsors of an event. This is often of mutual benefit and so readily accepted. Here also, it does not mean that the P2P Foundation is necessarily a co-organizer on the ground, though symphatizes may have contributed and collaborated to the event in different fashions. Today, the core group of the p2p-f consists of 6 individuals operating on a shoestring budget, and mostly they are responsible for their own income. We intend at some point to function in a more organizational way but this is still a very emergent practice so far. Most of the time, we operate as a service organization and act upon invitation and requests, this means we are sure that what we are doing is useful for the social movement we support, since they directly reflect their expressed needs."
I hope this makes sense,
Michel
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
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
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Click here for Peter's recent writings
Hello Orsan and Michel, My response is inline. On 8 August 2016 at 09:09, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote:
Kevin, by no means to criticize you or Michel, and I know it is just too busy to reply for you at the moment, I just wanted to return this thread since:
Yes we have had busy week and it went well. Thanks for asking.
1. Michel confirmed in his response that you asked for funding to go WSF about to work on these things you initiated.
Who are you working for again? Why do I have to answer any of these question? In 2015 when I was working for the P2P Foundation yes my participation in Tunis was supported by P2PF. In 2016 I did not ask Michel to fund my participation in the WSF. Remix were keen to have someone from the P2PF participate in the Commons Space. Seeing as I no longer work for the foundation and my involvement as an organiser of the Commons Space was an independent initiative I felt I would be too busy and that it would not be appropriate that I represent the P2PF. For these reasons I preferred that someone else could have attended the forum on behalf of the P2PF. The only persons employed by the P2PF that I invited were Michel and Stacco but they were not available. I also invited other participants in the P2PF network including Rachel O Dwyer and Penny Travlou to participate but they were not available either. John Restakis who lives in Vancouver also previously worked with P2PF and is connected with Social Solidarity Economy networks in Canada and I invited him to represent the P2PF in the session Cooperatives and Commons. I did ask Michel if the P2PF would fund Johns travel expenses (This is the funding request I believe Michel is referring to and which you enquire about ) but this funding was not possible and in the end it was not possible for John to participate. We did not know John would not be able to participate in the Commons Space until 2 weeks before the WSF. So at the last minute seeing as no one I invited could attend I agreed to Michel's earlier proposal that I could if necessary represent the P2PF in some sessions during the WSF. 2. You created the e-list with p2p-foundation domain name to follow up on
the process, and all was okay with it, me too. Yet although you have claimed not representing or working for the foundation, if it is not you, how do you explain the existing of P2p foundation's name as co-organizer of the commons space activities? I asked the same question to Michel, since he was also claiming no involvement personally or as foundation.
It is not a claim it is a statement of fact that I do not work for P2PF anymore. It was a mistake on the Commons Space program to say that the Commons Space was an initiative of P2PF. The P2P Foundation is a 'supporter' in the sense that they provided the mailing list, and gave me access to the blog and social media to promote the Commons Space. So more accurately the P2PF was a supporter but not an 'initiator' of the Commons Space. As I mentioned above, in the end I agreed that I could represent P2PF at the forum. In practical terms this amounted to my participation in a video interview with Alain Ambrosi who asked if I would present the Post Capitalist Transition strategy of the P2PF, while I presented the ideas the P2PF advocates, I made no claims to represent the foundation officially and make it clear in the video that I 'previously' worked with the P2PF. 3. In relation to this, just to clarify, are you just using some
independent funding to voluntarily contribute these organizational efforts, which I find it very useful and productive, yet limited and constrained only with NGO sort of activities, very similar to what we have saw in the history of the WSF.
There was no funding to support our organising activities when we began last year and this was the case until Remix got involved. In May 2016 Frederic Sultan submitted a proposal to FPH and they agreed to support the initiative making it possible for me and others to fly to Montreal and participate in the WSF. Otherwise I have no money and no regular income. Please remind me how you support your activities? And since you did not attend or participate in any of the organising activities I find your uninformed dismissal and NGO characterizing of so many peoples activities in the Commons Space patronising and insulting so say the least. A question comes to minds then, to direct commons space event organizers,
how do you assure and guarantee to reflect not your personal and organizational interest or views,crashed then commoners that are not able to or has no time or interest in participating such events, like new movements often being addressed or talked about?
Do you think you or I or anyone who attends the forum should try to represent those that are not able to attend or have no time or interest in participating? People are not talked about. The people who participate speak for themselves or for their organisations. All that we can do as organisers is make an open call for participation and to encourage and invite diverse people and initiatives to participate. We sent that invite to the P2PF list and others many times over the past year. We did not have the money or technical capacity to do live streaming of video but some people did participate in sessions via Skype. Orsan you were also invited many times and you planned some activities in the Commons Space on Global Commons Charters which you were unfortunately unable to attend as a result of problems with your flight. You previously questioned my motivations as to why I was organising activities at the WSF? So to answer that here is my little critique of P2P/Commons activism - I realized in Tunis that I had been living in a P2P/Commons filter bubble, reading the nice new P2PF blog one could be forgiven for believing that P2P/Commons as a paradigm for rethinking economy and society is taking off everywhere but this is not quite the case. No doubt more people are engaging with these ideas which is positive but it is more marginal than we might like to think. Yes many people common and many lecture, give workshops, organise/attend conferences but most ordinary people I meet outside of these circles, lists and events don't know about Commons. There is a long long way to go if that is to ever change. One of my hopes in participating in the forum is that it would be an opportunity for dialogue with people from all over the world. Discourse on the Commons and P2P is largely among westerners. There are better connections with Central and South America certainly but what about Africa, Middle East, Asia, Russia? Unfortunately that kind of diversity was not very evident at the forum this year. Another thing about new social movements, it is not the case that we have people protesting in the streets and making demands for the protection of Commons in most cases people are not using this language. If you really believe that these ideas about commons have something to offer humanity then as activists we need to start speaking with people outside of our comfort zones and our circle of friends. Back to the topic of funding lets consider some numbers because I also think it is important to put things in perspective. Here is one source on the finances of The Heritage Foundation Total Revenue: $96,969,906, Total Expenses: $82,107,321, Net Assets:$217,141,676 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heritage_Foundation#cite_note-hf990-46 This is one of 1000's of Neoliberal foundations and this is what activists and commoners are up against. Hayek and the Mont Pelerin Society built their international network of neoliberal think tanks and foundations over 50 years. Keeping people like us down is their reason for being, it is their business model. What percentage of $217,141,676 do you think the P2PF annual budget is? How many full time staff does the P2PF have? 1 or 2? How much do they earn? Having worked with the P2PF for a number of years I can make a pretty well informed guess about the budget. From the nature of your emails I suspect you are under some illusions about the finances and influence of the P2PF. Michel has 12 k followers on twitter there are teenagers doing makeup videos on youtube that outnumber him 100 to 1. I'm a sorry but this whole conversation about the funding of P2PF and the Commons Space is so uninteresting it feels like more talking in circles or talking to the wall. I've known and worked with Michel for over 5 years, like all of us he has his quirks and we might not agree on all things but when it comes to P2P and Commons he is 100% committed in his actions. He has integrity and I respect and trust in him. I don't expect that to be good enough for you but it's good enough for me. As for you Orsan I do not know you at all. So excuse me if I am not interested in entertaining these kinds of discussion where I am expected to explain myself to someone I don't know. I have given you the details above accept them or reject them I don't care but I am not spending another day reading your posts or replying on this topic. I have better things to do with my time. For anyone who is actually interested in what happened during the forum I will produce some short reports over the next week but in summary - So what will come out of this Commons Space at the WSF? We will see. The sessions all went well. Over 150 people turned up for the Post Capitalist convergence. The participatory methodology worked well for the short time we had 2hrs. If I were to do it again I would invite proposals in advance of the forum and then repeat the convergence assembly each of the 3 days to support the dialogue and actions further. At the Agora on Sat there was a smaller circle to review and summarize the activities of the convergence this was also open to anyone to participate. Out of maybe 20 people who attended I was the only person from the Commons Space organising group. I presented the 12 initiatives and outcomes from the convergence and invited participants to discuss and make further suggestions which they did. The summary is both a statement of shared values and actions. I presented this to the WSF Agora on behalf of those who participated in the convergence and the circle. I made it clear that participants should take responsibility for the actions they propose. I have a list of email contacts. When the summary of initiatives is submitted to the WSF later this week I will also send a single email inviting those participants to the wsf mailing list to reconnect and follow up on the proposed actions. From there it is really up to the participants to follow through on their proposals. For me some of the more interesting initiatives are that some of us will work together to promote commons charters, there was a convergence of mapping initiatives to work together and a convergence of activists working on alternative and community currencies to develop shared protocols for international exchange. This is a learning process and as always there are things I would like to do differently but overall both the organising team and participants were happy with the outcomes. Regards Kevin Flanagan
participants (2)
-
Kevin Flanagan -
Orsan Senalp