Re: [P2P-F] an evaluation of the flok
Just responding to some of Gordon's points. I did meet Carlos, repeatedly, after arriving in Quito. Just to make a few points: the contradictions of the project became apparent very very fast, since we didn't get paid because of it, until the end of March. I'm not sure if everyone appreciates how serious that it for precarious activist-scholars, i..e most of our team. (only the flok mgt had a basic income) We had to pay our tickets, rent guaranties, rent, food etc .. without an income and reserves. And the stress of not knowing when it would be solved, but the main issue of course: why the hell where we invited if the project was not supported, why were we invited and sabotaged at the same time. I knew the reasons of the conflict since October, but only experienced its effects as of January. It is only 2 days after I went public with the issue, that it was resolved. After the departure of our rector, we were refunded and things improved. Since I had won my case by threatening to leave, it frankly didn't make any sense to leave having obtained satisfaction.
From then on, we just did what we could, in imperfect and hard circumstances, and tried to respond as best as we could to the huge expectations that the flok generated. I still don't think an early departure would have a better option. Because of the depth of the abuse that Gordon was subject too, I understand he has a different view of it, but the research team had to take into account many factors and expectations.
I just want to make a point that though, for someone who has lived under the poverty level / minimum wage for years, though the income was very important to me and my family, it is not something that can keep me quiet. If money was the factor, I would not have taken a 90% pay cut since 2002. This is why I have always continued to speak out against the abuses, as can be readily seen in the public mailing list of the project. My main aim was to react against the systematic defamation that was used as a mgt tool, but otherwise leave the hierarchical process as is because I was powerless to change it. I just ignored the many entreaties to ask for permission for my activities. so the research team operated fairly autonomously outside of the ambit of the hierarchical process. We have been entirely free in our research and expression of our research results. The mgt team has always systematically tried to minimize the role of the research team and my role in particular, but I don't think it was very effective. The willful defunding of the translation of the transition document was rather easily circumvented by an appeal for volunteers; the way the summit was organized was similarly carefully calibrated to diminish my role, but the flok mgt team proceeded from the mistaken assumption that my reputation was a threat to them, while the truth is , my strategy is entirely invitational. Nevertheless, I see the purposeful policy to refuse a discussion on the transition proposals, as a huge strategic mistake. While they were hoping for the backroom deals that never materialized, though some may ultimately come to fruition, let's hope, the generic discussion about the commons is exactly what was needed to have a lasting impact. I make my work as interesting and signficant as I know to, and respond to invitations. I never see myself as competing or as needing to push away anyone else to do this. It's not something they are able to see from their scarcity-driven point of view, but I entirely adapt this and never push against such attempts. I proceed from the pov that quality work ends up being noticed. As Bethany argued elsewhere, while many of the papers and concrete proposals may soon be forgotten because of the lack of engagement of the authorities, the general ideas and concrete human connections are exactly the lasting impact that our work will have there. Michel -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* 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/
Thanks Gordon, and thanks Michel, also for the latter one you sent, for these open honest and detailed emails. Though I didn't mean to force you to wrote down all these details, I believe, at least for my self, they have been pretty helpful to get a broader and clearer picture of what happened, actors involved, and what can happen in the future. Hope we could hear details from Daniel, Carlos, Bernardo, so on, to complete the picture. That I believe that picture will provide a very important even historical resource/record feeding in processes of building political alliances from bottom up. Like we have people who have roots on the ground, they prefer that, they believe in it; then we have those who is good and interested in interlocking various networks horizontal and vertical, and then we have those who are good, experienced and want to focusing on changing vertical ones from the top or middle.. historically there have been all sort of conflicts between these, so neither convergence nor unity was impossible... today we all know it very well and sincerely that none of these can win alone, nor by making deals with the powerful on their behalf. Today is a good day to make it work, so that the survival of the life on the planet, even not anymore the humanity can be secured. That takes successfully collaborating 'layers' free globally connected local networks, as Willi corrected me before. Yet mean while there can be some social protocols for p2p or flat networks, adoptable to local context, showing the way. Also release futile tensions and stress, by giving nodes chance to rest in awareness, easing the way for collective mindfulness, allowing broader self and mutual recognition. Orsan
On 7 jul. 2014, at 05:44, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Just responding to some of Gordon's points.
I did meet Carlos, repeatedly, after arriving in Quito.
Just to make a few points: the contradictions of the project became apparent very very fast, since we didn't get paid because of it, until the end of March. I'm not sure if everyone appreciates how serious that it for precarious activist-scholars, i..e most of our team. (only the flok mgt had a basic income) We had to pay our tickets, rent guaranties, rent, food etc .. without an income and reserves. And the stress of not knowing when it would be solved, but the main issue of course: why the hell where we invited if the project was not supported, why were we invited and sabotaged at the same time. I knew the reasons of the conflict since October, but only experienced its effects as of January. It is only 2 days after I went public with the issue, that it was resolved. After the departure of our rector, we were refunded and things improved. Since I had won my case by threatening to leave, it frankly didn't make any sense to leave having obtained satisfaction.
From then on, we just did what we could, in imperfect and hard circumstances, and tried to respond as best as we could to the huge expectations that the flok generated. I still don't think an early departure would have a better option. Because of the depth of the abuse that Gordon was subject too, I understand he has a different view of it, but the research team had to take into account many factors and expectations.
I just want to make a point that though, for someone who has lived under the poverty level / minimum wage for years, though the income was very important to me and my family, it is not something that can keep me quiet. If money was the factor, I would not have taken a 90% pay cut since 2002. This is why I have always continued to speak out against the abuses, as can be readily seen in the public mailing list of the project. My main aim was to react against the systematic defamation that was used as a mgt tool, but otherwise leave the hierarchical process as is because I was powerless to change it. I just ignored the many entreaties to ask for permission for my activities. so the research team operated fairly autonomously outside of the ambit of the hierarchical process. We have been entirely free in our research and expression of our research results.
The mgt team has always systematically tried to minimize the role of the research team and my role in particular, but I don't think it was very effective. The willful defunding of the translation of the transition document was rather easily circumvented by an appeal for volunteers; the way the summit was organized was similarly carefully calibrated to diminish my role, but the flok mgt team proceeded from the mistaken assumption that my reputation was a threat to them, while the truth is , my strategy is entirely invitational. Nevertheless, I see the purposeful policy to refuse a discussion on the transition proposals, as a huge strategic mistake. While they were hoping for the backroom deals that never materialized, though some may ultimately come to fruition, let's hope, the generic discussion about the commons is exactly what was needed to have a lasting impact.
I make my work as interesting and signficant as I know to, and respond to invitations. I never see myself as competing or as needing to push away anyone else to do this. It's not something they are able to see from their scarcity-driven point of view, but I entirely adapt this and never push against such attempts. I proceed from the pov that quality work ends up being noticed.
As Bethany argued elsewhere, while many of the papers and concrete proposals may soon be forgotten because of the lack of engagement of the authorities, the general ideas and concrete human connections are exactly the lasting impact that our work will have there.
Michel
-- Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..
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/ _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
I hesitate to comment on this project, as I have only followed this from a distance. However a good number of comments in this threat make me really nervous. I am reading that 'seeds have been planted', that the FLOK research papers can become part of the commons movement in Equador, that lessons have been learnt and that it is all about doing it better next time. I'd rather see this as a one-off project and hope sincerely there is no next time where a bunch of experts are aiming to create profound changes in a society they are not really familiar with. This is a post-colonial approach and should be rejected. It is as easy as that. Every undergraduate anthropology student knows that it is highly problematic to conduct western research in non-western spaces. This is about otherness and authority, about who speaks and who is being researched. All this is common knowledge since the 'writing culture' debate in the mid 1980s. How much more dubious and arrogant is the FLOK approach, which was not just about researching another (indigenous) society, but about so called experts giving advice for a better living in a country they don't know well. This is so naïve, it is actually embarrassing. It is us who should learn from them. Sorry for these harsh words addressed to researchers that I respect a great deal. But nobody has made this critique so far. I cringe at the idea that lessons are being learnt so we can do it better next time. For me this project was politically and ethically wrong. Digital technologies don't make localities disappear. Let's please support p2p structures and the commons movements where we live and where we struggle. All best, andreas
Not surprisingly Andreas i agree with you 100%. Everyone should bear in mind that the originators of this ill guided fiasco were spaniards by citizenship. NOT ecuadorans. Michel was summoned by daniel to quito. Met carlos via a teleconference and then announced to the world that the government of ecuador had asked for his help and would use the folk society to develop a plan to revision the ecuadoran state along the lines of a peer2peer commons. They had the promise of funding from three government entities but if you look at david bolliers announcement on i think sept 20 it was stated that the government of the country was behind the reform. That was certainly my impression. I did not do any due diligence until far too late Michel undoubtedly HOPED it was the truth but it was NOT. because it has been pointed out that daniel and bernardo are now negotiating within he presidents office for further support for the folk and on another public list michel and bernardo have lowered their level of hostilities and bernardo offered a CV of his non psychopathic background. [see the paste in below.] But ecuador despite the fact that correa has redistributed some wealth and gives sanctuary to assange is NOT a pretty place as i learned when having gotten daniels boot in my face i started doing my own research. I had relied on michel's opinion that this was a country sincerely interested in reform and like a too trusting fool barged right in trying to help. That a spaniard should have budgetary authority in quito is bizarre but thanks to cores promoteo program it represents ecuadoran reality. evidently I was being referred to as a CIA agent neo con etc and michel has publicly stated that he delayed looking at my policy draft for six weeks because of this. I continually complained to him that i was working in the dark and got tired of having it be this way. And yet he never said gordon things are pretty bizarre down here they are saying you are some kind of foreign agent and your work is not to be trusted. Had he done so i would have withdrawn then. I said to him as late as about april 20th i quit. he very politely encouraged me not to quit… said my work was really needed. Why would he not tell me what was really going on? Probably because doing so would damage his own position. And the promise of reward and followup projects that were being held out to him along with the possibility of punishment. NO money. in my long report http://www.cookreport.com/pdfs/July-augCRecuadorfinal.pdf I reached a similar conclusion that, although he tried to build some links to the "people," it was essentially top down and foreign imposed. Michel points out that the seven foreign researchers were supposed to be joined by seven ecuadorians, but gosh…looks like the money wasn't in the budget. I suggest reading bethany horns report on the indigenous peoples under correa and then the amazon watch report on the yasuni and the interamerican and amazon watch reports on the chinese loans that are keeping correa afloat. and now on the spanish p2p list after parting ways with bernardo we have this
Asunto: Re: [P2P-es] A parting of ways with Bernardo Gutierrez Fecha: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:06:29 -0300 De: Bernardo Gutiérrez <[email protected]> Responder-a:: P2P Foundation - Lista de correo en españ ol <[email protected]> A: P2P Foundation - Lista de correo en españ, ol <[email protected]> CC: p2p-foundation <[email protected]>
Hello you all (perdón por el inglés para la lista en español).
Nice to see that hostility is going down, Michel. As you know, the whole process and futures fork of FLOK are quite important. Having commited all the parts mistakes and havind a such a difficult scenarium (it is politic!), it would be childish to keep on fighting among us. I think that the 1%, the elite, is quite united, and that they will be enyoing this. But, anyway, the discussion, being constructive is always good.
You always speak about Gordon Cook, Michel. Among all the things you say..., by my side side there are just two things, that by, the way I just wrote in a mail feed (just one) in the most intense moment of the fight (before the summit) and never insisted in mailing lists, networks etc Even feeling that Cook Report is not fair and that he got private information from private communication, I did not comment it anywhere, never. I said that Gordon published copyright his whole life, until Cook Report. And that is ture. I said, in that moment, that 'defending a neocon' that uses NSA tactics (violating privacy) was not good idea. Reading some of his works, may be yes, he is not the classeical neocon, even more progressive than I thougt, havind some clear liberal ideas, that I respect, of course. So, I can beg your pardon Gordon, for saying that defending a neocon is not a good idea. And feel quite happy that your are not and that I am able to recognize mistakes!
But what we need is more version, stories about the FLOK not just yours, Michel. I understand that your not so optimistic now and that you felt dissapointed by some things. But there are such fantastic things that happened and that are still happening around the process, that it would be nice to light the positive things. Above, you can see a mail to a Spanish list from Daniel VÃ zquez, director of the FLOK. Michel was in charge of the research that was part of a quite bigger process. I see, with some perspective, see some fantastic points of FLOK process:
-FLOK as Method. A new method for connecting academy with civil society, for connecting academy to politics, for connecting networks and movements to public policy. We have to remember that FLOK started as a quite top down project, more Goverment than civil society. And that now is completly different . The Summit was the prove that so many movements, networks, local leaders, indigenous people, hackers, worked hand by hand with politicians from local, regional and State.
-FLOK as a prototype. It was fantastic: all the papers of the research were considered drafts. A source code improved by collective intelligence. it is not easy for researchers to acknowledge that. And we have to flatter all of them. It was exciting to see George Dafermos, Restakis and Michel Bauwes seated with local people, working in this new academic prototype, real time public policy method. Just as an academic prototype it is quite an innovation. Here the PAD we created in Communication Team for openning the research: http://floksociety.org/pad/p/comunicainvestiga Even having done just a part, the work made, leaded by Michel, the one who used more networked methods in the research, was amazing. So, FLOK is an academic new sorce font remixing method.
-Extitutions: new institucionality. Some how, FLOK became a new type of institution, and in-out institution, a liquid one, not exactly State not exactly civil society, with some independet corners, commosn oriented, working inside the machine to create public policy. I like very much the concept of Extitución (spanish link), former institution  http://viveroiniciativasciudadanas.net/2012/07/05/extitucion-netizens-y-mas/Â
 For all of this, It would be nice to get more versions of FLOK. Now, there are 14 ecuatorian leaders working with the last part of this first era of FLOK and thinking how to implement de pilot projects. For me, It would complete this source font of the research with real projects, real time prorotypes. And would be wonderfull. Let´s ask them!
About the Partner State, Michel. I think that may be Ecuador is not prepared . I am sure that your commitment will develop this in other country in the next years. In my opinion, in Ecuador, the prototyping method of public policy has more chances of being real than the Partner State.
Thanks for flattering now the communication strategy, at least the guerrilla part. But in my 20 years in communication and have done (and do) many different things beyond guerrilla. From El Pais to Squire, from National Geographic to La Repubblica, from CLarin to Al Jazzera, I have publish (still do ) in some of the most important newspapers and magazines of the world. In the last years, my commitment with copylef is so big that I just write in copyleft media (many, just look for my name in the web). I research in academy (in the group of Manuel Castells), do consultant work for the commons, publish books (the last, collective, with Michael Hardt and Toni Negri) and I am jury of differente prizes, now ofr Gabriel GarcÃa Márquez Journalims Prize (the most important in Latin America), in Technology field. So, I have some differente communicational aproches to share. I did share them in FLOK process. And, being honest, I think it worked in the creation of participation.
On Jul 7, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Andreas Wittel <[email protected]> wrote:
I hesitate to comment on this project, as I have only followed this from a distance. However a good number of comments in this threat make me really nervous. I am reading that 'seeds have been planted', that the FLOK research papers can become part of the commons movement in Equador, that lessons have been learnt and that it is all about doing it better next time. I'd rather see this as a one-off project and hope sincerely there is no next time where a bunch of experts are aiming to create profound changes in a society they are not really familiar with. This is a post-colonial approach and should be rejected. It is as easy as that. Every undergraduate anthropology student knows that it is highly problematic to conduct western research in non-western spaces. This is about otherness and authority, about who speaks and who is being researched. All this is common knowledge since the 'writing culture' debate in the mid 1980s. How much more dubious and arrogant is the FLOK approach, which was not just about researching another (indigenous) society, but about so called experts giving advice for a better living in a country they don't know well. This is so naïve, it is actually embarrassing. It is us who should learn from them. Sorry for these harsh words addressed to researchers that I respect a great deal. But nobody has made this critique so far. I cringe at the idea that lessons are being learnt so we can do it better next time. For me this project was politically and ethically wrong. Digital technologies don't make localities disappear. Let's please support p2p structures and the commons movements where we live and where we struggle.
All best, andreas
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
participants (4)
-
Andreas Wittel -
Gordon Cook -
Michel Bauwens -
Orsan