to be honest, I was thinking the last few days why I spent my time like this, my ordinary days are filled with movement and project construction with individuals who love cooperating with each other and advancing in prefigurative practices, it's not that this is always conflict-free, but people who are co-constructing commons are bound by a common love and enthusiasm which more easily transcends what is happening here is quite different, I see the people I love admire and so so much to build the movement, like Silke and David, or like Kevin and Elisabetta, accused unjustly .. I have seen the openness of the process only marginally, but enough to see that it was conducted in a totally open manner, over mailng lists and common pads and the like, so I'm just at a loss to understand how this can be translated in a NGO-based conspiracy ; call for participation in this preparation have gone out far and wide, including on this mailing list; if anyone wanted to co-construct the program, it was entirely up to that individual to participate and contribute so unlike Pat, and therefore less diplomatically, I don't think this is a serious and genuine conversation at all, it is one thing to make informed analysis of NGO-influence or the role of capitalist cooptation, but it is another to bring charges against individuals that have no basis in fact, and are just projections, people who make personal accusations, certainly on a list like this, should be extra careful to make sure it is based on factual events, so I hope this can be a list that discusses and supports, with carefully thought out critiques if necessary, what laborers and commoners are doing to make our world a better and more inclusive place Michel On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7:39 PM, peter waterman <[email protected]> wrote:

I am not going to get involved in this exchange because, from a casual view of the original and of Michel's response, my feeling is that this is one that could better take place between concerned individuals and not for even a concerned public.

I do feel that public exchanges between people concerned with emancipatory projects need to be carefully expressed, bearing in mind both the expertise, the experience and the capacities of those involved in such.

I have complained before, Orsan, of the distance between exchanges on this list and anything to do with actually-existing workers, of actually-existing labour movements and even with those activists themselves involved in emancipatory online networking, commons-creating, activity.

I am sure you do not want to get into that kind of accusatory, nit-picking, self-righteous mode so typical of the 20th century vanguardist left.

I already myself feel I am a marginal follower of/contributor to this list. I do not want to leave it. But I am more centrally involved in exchanges of a more productive nature, in which differences (also about NGO or state-funding, for example) can be discussed AS differences and not in terms of either sleeping with the enemy or preserving some self-defined revolutionary purity.

Best as always,

Peter

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:

...

my replies are after the << inline

Michel, in response to your reply I also like to direct this email to the attention of Silke, David, Pat, James, Chico.. and other self-claimed strategists, organisers, leaders, of global justice and solidarity, and now commons movements..

<< you are one of them Orsan, there is no us and them there

First issue, is the one you avoid to respond; lack of prefiguration hence moral - cultural leadership, neede for the hegemony you are willing to build over first other movements, then against the ruling classes. This is a general issue, and is a critique of all NGO sector; 'progressive' or 'supportive' NGO cadre, degenerate 'solidairty and justice' culture, by getting stuck and generate 'capitalist' competitive culture. That is why, in a Gramscian sense, it would never be possible to get real moral and intellectual leadership over the progressive movements, like commons movement, that you are trying to 'build' or mould out of real people's real struggles.

I absolute do not refuse to respond; I can't talk for the others, but for myself, walking the talk and being prefigurative is essential ; as for strategy, my own strategy is entirely invitational, i.e. I never lobby and never ask for any invitation nor leadership position ; however, I do generally respond positively to any request for assistance ; I do ask for my costs to be re-imbursed, and to be paid for lectures when I have no other income (for example, here in the US, I get paid for a project, so I don't ask for any lecture fees while here); the p2p-f and CSG apply commons and p2p governance principles ; no one in these organizations command others ; that is even normally the case when funding is possible ; for example, Kevin asked for exceptional funding to be able to go to the WSF, and there was zero interference from us in his work there

you refer to occupy etc .. note that these had strong meritocratic and contributory principles, i.e. you had no voice if you did not participate >>

In 2013, and 2014, together with others from most recent movements, from Occupy, 15M, Arab spring, and including Carminda McLorin -from Occupy Montreal and Classe, an initiative formed and called itself 'Global Square'. We have designed and tried to open up an occupied Commons Space, within the WSF in Tunis 2013 and 2014: http://www.global-square.net/about/ Carminda was had participated all calls and meetings of Global Square actively and she become the face of the WSF Montreal local coordination team (with Chico Whiteaker being on her side). Based on unique experience we developed, in a really p2p and commoning way, during 2011-2014 period, at Agora99, Frienze 10+10, WSF Tunis under the Banner of Global Square (with combined methodologies) in 2014 I tried out to scratch the below designs on the way to Montreal. I shared it with you, and it has been picked up by you, and others; then it was modified into un-P2P and un-common ways and translated in to NGO format with carefully controlled access (over the funding opportunities and competitiveness reasons I assume).. and we have a modified Commons Space. Here is the Hackpad where Kevin, of the P2P Foundation has been the main organiser from the beginning, with Elisabetta of Transform: https://commonsspace.hackpad.com/Commons-Space-k6rOCvUgyhC

<< so you are accusing Kevin and Elisabetta of creating an uncommons space and derailing your initiative ? Kevin already responded that he is not on the funding roll of any organization ; while I did not participate, I have seen the occasional emails pass by, and my impression is that it was an entirely open, contributory and collegial process, through the email list and the hackpad, seeking consensus ; personally, I think your accusations are unfair and fantastical, but they can speak for themselves

...

...

As response to your question what is the easy way to go to WSF and finding support for that: I think your is a political answer, since it is your choice not to go to WSF personally, you expressed it before;

<< no, this is NOT the case, I would love to go the WSF and if dates are compatible, would accept such an invitation ; I have no political objections whatsoever about participating in the WSF, we just don't have the means to do so ; last time's participation by Kevin, funded by us, was very exceptional ; we've never done it before and may never do it after ; my colleagues work in the same spirit as myself I believe ; they go where there are invited and can be useful, and also do not have funds for this : kevin can reply about how he funded his present engagement

so you are sending Kevin to do the ground work for the Foundation to build an event I foresee and suggested to you last year -on the Commons. Meanwhile, James of the P2P foundation, is responsible from the Global Commons Conference, in Amsterdam where I live. You say you would recommend me, to people, but about the idea I desingned and shared with you, James, your secretariat is recommended.

<< no, we did not send Kevin, he asked for our assistance ; and we thought of course that it was a good think to establish connections that we did not have previously ; but Kevin was not sent there with instructions ; Orsan, I would certainly recommend you for activities around labor, given your experience and interests ; I did not recommend you to James specifically because I'm not aware of your expertise in value practices ; however, had you asked me, even without that expertise, I would certainly have recommended you, but I'm not aware of such a query>>

You are expected to be invited to WSF and paid for some other organisations, while Kevin's participation and ground work labour is paid by P2P Foundation. You personally are not able to go WSF, but P2P Foundation is taking the responsibility to organise a major Commons event at the WSF in August, and James organise another global event in Amsterdam for the EU project of which P2P Foundation is a partner. Which was originally my suggestion..

<< I am not expecting any invitation from the WSF and nothing is due to me Orsan, but I am happy to go whenever people believe I can be useful ; I was just stating a fact there, and confirm, I have never been invited nor funded to attend WSF meetings and since I have prior experience with them, I have no idea how that works either ; but again, we are not an organization trying to push views and lobby for them, we are a pluralistic platform and we go where we are invited, because people themselves have decided that it could be useful for them ; you may want to read up on the concept of servant leadership it is entirely different from the kind of activities and politics you are assuming ; about the role of James ; so, there is a EU-funded research consortium with 8 organizations researching p2p value; the p2p-f was contracted to do communication and conference organizing for this event ; James and others have been funded to do that. along with others in the p2p-f network (for the record, I have received no penny from this project, ; as far as I know, I won't be paid for my participation in Amsterdam either) >>

Here is the genuinely p2p and commons way design for WSF Commons Space event, I designed in 2014: Peer to Peer Transnational Networking for a Commons Humanity

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vRRHhASr9wfWolPJzq0Ec7gsomug2T-jeTFmqfzr...

The below design I made it in 2013 to ensure a broader alliance between variety of forces; in an open and peer to peer solider way.. based on ideas re the development of open spaces, towards and during the WSF as well as other events. It was taken, modified and adopted to NGO style. Below is how it was translated to NGO language by Stacco,who was an occupy activist and ex-worker owned coop practitioner, now professional expert hired by P2P Foundation:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Wud-VMjA89aE14GNWDE_YkUMNqIYsK-oLVLo4bVW...

And during 2014, there was an email discussion about avoiding cooptation and developing a pool resource for commoners, using the funding recuperated by commons NGOs type organisations; supposed to be supportive of commons. Discussion taken place mid 2014, before or after Degrowth conference, and then Michel, you suggested the below idea, which has not been implemented, yet. Open Coop development agency idea:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/188Y7COujNwhU60pMiNypXHaRHgLrjKywVlfN6AyO...

Although I find EDGE Founders, under the leadership of commons friendly Nicolas Krauzs of P2P Foundations funder FHP (Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation), it is clearly an human-washorganisation with Soros' open society and US' large corporate funders behind, they might have been imposing their own agenda over the commons; about which you guys have no idea.

<< for the record, we are extremely happy with the support given by FPH , which has been very limited, but tremendously important in finally attenuating the precarity of the core group of contributors ; they're support is unconditional and structural, which is exactly what organizations like ours need, since it fully protects our freedom ; of course, it is entirely possible that they have a secret agenda, though from my end, I have seen no trace of it, they have been genuinely interested in promoting the commons as a new structural alternative, but in any case, since we operate in total freedom, I am not worried about this; we would refuse any conditional funding that would force us to do things that are not in line with our values and strategic priorities)

I will provide a deeper analysis of this, with proves. But for the moment I just like to share the nice and sincere-open reports of the events, documented by Pat Conaty and David Boiler, and am guessing are the selective events organised and you have been able to join: This is the event on Open Cooperativism: http://bollier.org/open-co-operativism-report

And this is the top-down vision of alliance building: Part I: http://commonstransition.org/a-new-alignment-of-movements-part-i-the-general... Part II: http://commonstransition.org/a-new-alignment-of-movements-part-ii-strategies...

I like to reader to pay attention of funders, participants' composition, and the content. The total picture is clearly top-down movement building, beyond the closed doors. These are not supportive nice, exchange wise productive events.

<< I was there Orsan, and I can tell you, there are amongst the nicest, most supportive and productive events that I have been lucky to attend. Let me explain how this works. These events are aiming at creating bridges between movements to attentuate gaps. So for example, our events aimed at: 1) building bridges between physical and digital commons (first big conf in berlin, 2010), 2) to build bridges between the three Polanyian fictitious commodities and see how they would function as commons i.e money , labour and land); 4) to create bridges between peer production communities and ethical finance 5) to create bridges between cooperativists and the solidarity economy, and commons/peer production actors, etc ... So how, does this work? Silke, David and I discuss what we believe are the urgents tasks of the commons movement; we consult with our networks about who the interesting players are in these different submovements ; all this is done with intensive consultation and consensus; we compile lists, discuss how to best create balanced groups, and then look at balances, i.e. age groups, gender, north-south. The meetings themselves are only minimally structured,i.e. very short framings at the beginning of the day ; the dialogue is entirely free flow.

Of course, there is undoubtedly an elitist aspect to this ... the idea is to bring thoughtful activists together, so that they can learn from each other, and build more connections. Trips and lodging are paid, otherwise no fees are given. In conclusion, these events are a mix of selections and peer to peer dynamics. Attendees generally find them very useful, because there are simply very few occasions in life, including activist lives, in which people can take time to talk, and create bridges with movements they are not normally encountering. What comes out of it is always unexpected, usually rich, and leads to all kinds of new joint initiatives. Silke, David and I are happy to initiative these dialogues, but have otherwise no influence on what happens afterwards between the people who attended.

Now, of course one could prefer other types of meetings, in which the self-selected activists who can afford it, come together, but that would exclude in other ways. I personally feel there should be diversity in forms, not just one. I feel the formula we work with has been very fruitful.>>

To finish, I like to make one constructive suggestion. If you guys, really really sincere, please consider use the some part of the fundings getting collected -i take it recuperated from the public resources stolen by state elite- and give it back to commoners, by for instance creating totally autonomous spaces for them; so by time for them; inviting commoners from the Global South, paying their registration fees, arrange them a permentant space in the Montreal WSF; in where they can have time and energy to exchange and build their own agenda in their own ways and means.

<<so far, our support has come from HBF (taxation funds) and FPH (private endowment in Switzerland from many decades ago, dedicated to advancing global governance). The WSF is hugely funded by NGO's and other funders already, and is able to attract tens of thousands of participants. I'm pretty sure HBF and FPH are already doing what your suggest, i.e. supporting various people who can't afford it, to go and participate in the WSF, and specifically the commons activities in Montreal. So your wish has already been granted.>>

In solidarity, Orsan -- 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

-- *Click here for Peter's recent writings* <https://www.dropbox.com/s/o8s52g2y905rq6w/WatermanGmailSignaturePanel%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Updated.docx?dl=0>

-- 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/