P2P dual language - en dos idiomas
Am 7/17/2014 1:33 PM, schrieb Bernardo Gutiérrez:
Estimado Willi
Gracias por tu aporte. El idioma de la lista p2p-es es el español, por lo que no es buena idea "to bring this two language spaces together" imponiendo el inglés, como no lo es enviar el mismo mail a listas con diferentes idiomas. Tú mismo criticaste a los que escribían en inglés a las listas de FLOK. Lo correcto es enviarlo a diferentes listas, cada una con su idioma, o escribir en todos los idiomas para todas
Un abrazo Bernardo
Dear Willi
Thanks for your comment. The commom language of p2p-es is Spanish, so I think it is not a good idea "to bring this two language spaces together" imposing English, as it is not a good practice to send the same mail with just one language to different lists. You were critic with those who wrote in English in FLOK lists. The proper could be to send the message in different languages to different lists or to write in both languages and send the message
Best Bernardo
Dear friends, this is a very clear and correct position. I think, the writers write in two languages, if they addressed the two language spaces. Normally it is enough to use google translation between english and spanish to understand. A good english we can translate and understand. A good spanish also. (not for me, because my english is very bad). The other is our interest to distribute some texts from one language space to the other. We need the support from this people, they speak both languages. many greetings, willi Querid@s amig@s, esta es una posición muy clara y correcta. Creo que, los escritores escriben en dos idiomas, si se dirigían los dos espacios lingüísticos. Normalmente es suficiente con utilizar traducción de Google entre Inglés y español para entender. Un buen Inglés podemos traducir y entender. Un buen español también. (no para mí, porque mi inglés es muy malo). El otro es nuestro interés para distribuir algunos de los textos de un espacio idioma a otro. Necesitamos el apoyo de este pueblo, hablan los dos idiomas. Muchas saludas, willi
It May sound off the track, yet while I was checking FLOK management page, I did see list of experts and advisors and who suggested them. I saw that Daniel Vasquez did recommend as macro economic advisor famous ex head of IMF, later it's self-critical economist!! Can anyone confirm and explain what is the logic of appointing Joseph Stiglitz as an high level expert and advisor to a project like this, aiming Ecuador's transition to a FLOK society? For me these are kind of really problematic co-optative steps needs to be avoided and criticized. I have been waiting and waiting from Bernardo, Xabier and Daniel any kind of reaction or self-reflexive report, noting heard anything or am not yet aware of. Than I started to get suspicious are there Conscious steps taken and are we being pulled in alternative p2p - commons Keynesian project? So partner state can be sounding very nice theory, yet at the end it can turn into they are state, some of us partners and business goes usual for the billions, and the commons.. What kind of consciousness and check and balance we will be able to build. Another initiative I found about is Global Marshall Plan initiative to which some of out dear friends got involved, under the UN framework promoting An idea of Commons Charters instead of Millennium Goals, which was scheduled to 2015. I again am not against involvement and engagement with the state to open, transform, and dissolve it from bottom to up, yet with giant capitalist partners like al gore, bill gates, bono, Soros, elite groups like club of Rome, club of Budapest, ... A child can guess where would the game end up! Do not want to judgmental but we have seen this movie many times, perfect ideas and hypotheses, communism itself may easily be spoiled. P2p and commons should be protected carefully... Orsan
On 18 Jul 2014, at 04:23, willi uebelherr <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 7/17/2014 1:33 PM, schrieb Bernardo Gutiérrez:
Estimado Willi
Gracias por tu aporte. El idioma de la lista p2p-es es el español, por lo que no es buena idea "to bring this two language spaces together" imponiendo el inglés, como no lo es enviar el mismo mail a listas con diferentes idiomas. Tú mismo criticaste a los que escribían en inglés a las listas de FLOK. Lo correcto es enviarlo a diferentes listas, cada una con su idioma, o escribir en todos los idiomas para todas
Un abrazo Bernardo
Dear Willi
Thanks for your comment. The commom language of p2p-es is Spanish, so I think it is not a good idea "to bring this two language spaces together" imposing English, as it is not a good practice to send the same mail with just one language to different lists. You were critic with those who wrote in English in FLOK lists. The proper could be to send the message in different languages to different lists or to write in both languages and send the message
Best Bernardo
Dear friends,
this is a very clear and correct position. I think, the writers write in two languages, if they addressed the two language spaces. Normally it is enough to use google translation between english and spanish to understand. A good english we can translate and understand. A good spanish also. (not for me, because my english is very bad).
The other is our interest to distribute some texts from one language space to the other. We need the support from this people, they speak both languages.
many greetings, willi
Querid@s amig@s,
esta es una posición muy clara y correcta. Creo que, los escritores escriben en dos idiomas, si se dirigían los dos espacios lingüísticos. Normalmente es suficiente con utilizar traducción de Google entre Inglés y español para entender. Un buen Inglés podemos traducir y entender. Un buen español también. (no para mí, porque mi inglés es muy malo).
El otro es nuestro interés para distribuir algunos de los textos de un espacio idioma a otro. Necesitamos el apoyo de este pueblo, hablan los dos idiomas.
Muchas saludas, willi
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
hi Orsan, not sure who exactly the original idea came from, but the high level expert group and the names came to me via Carlos Prieto, I do not share the qualms about working with someone like Stiglitz, because in the context in which we are working, high level moderate progressive economist do lend legitimacy to proposals and projects broad social change needs broad coalitions and stiglizs is in my view at the side of the labour and social movements in the end this high level group, which would also have included post-autonomistts like andrea fumagally etc .., never got funded nor materialized Michel On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
It May sound off the track, yet while I was checking FLOK management page, I did see list of experts and advisors and who suggested them. I saw that Daniel Vasquez did recommend as macro economic advisor famous ex head of IMF, later it's self-critical economist!! Can anyone confirm and explain what is the logic of appointing Joseph Stiglitz as an high level expert and advisor to a project like this, aiming Ecuador's transition to a FLOK society? For me these are kind of really problematic co-optative steps needs to be avoided and criticized. I have been waiting and waiting from Bernardo, Xabier and Daniel any kind of reaction or self-reflexive report, noting heard anything or am not yet aware of. Than I started to get suspicious are there Conscious steps taken and are we being pulled in alternative p2p - commons Keynesian project? So partner state can be sounding very nice theory, yet at the end it can turn into they are state, some of us partners and business goes usual for the billions, and the commons.. What kind of consciousness and check and balance we will be able to build. Another initiative I found about is Global Marshall Plan initiative to which some of out dear friends got involved, under the UN framework promoting An idea of Commons Charters instead of Millennium Goals, which was scheduled to 2015. I again am not against involvement and engagement with the state to open, transform, and dissolve it from bottom to up, yet with giant capitalist partners like al gore, bill gates, bono, Soros, elite groups like club of Rome, club of Budapest, ... A child can guess where would the game end up! Do not want to judgmental but we have seen this movie many times, perfect ideas and hypotheses, communism itself may easily be spoiled. P2p and commons should be protected carefully... Orsan
On 18 Jul 2014, at 04:23, willi uebelherr <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 7/17/2014 1:33 PM, schrieb Bernardo Gutiérrez:
Estimado Willi
Gracias por tu aporte. El idioma de la lista p2p-es es el español, por lo que no es buena idea "to bring this two language spaces together" imponiendo el inglés, como no lo es enviar el mismo mail a listas con diferentes idiomas. Tú mismo criticaste a los que escribían en inglés a las listas de FLOK. Lo correcto es enviarlo a diferentes listas, cada una con su idioma, o escribir en todos los idiomas para todas
Un abrazo Bernardo
Dear Willi
Thanks for your comment. The commom language of p2p-es is Spanish, so I think it is not a good idea "to bring this two language spaces together" imposing English, as it is not a good practice to send the same mail with just one language to different lists. You were critic with those who wrote in English in FLOK lists. The proper could be to send the message in different languages to different lists or to write in both languages and send the message
Best Bernardo
Dear friends,
this is a very clear and correct position. I think, the writers write in two languages, if they addressed the two language spaces. Normally it is enough to use google translation between english and spanish to understand. A good english we can translate and understand. A good spanish also. (not for me, because my english is very bad).
The other is our interest to distribute some texts from one language space to the other. We need the support from this people, they speak both languages.
many greetings, willi
Querid@s amig@s,
esta es una posición muy clara y correcta. Creo que, los escritores escriben en dos idiomas, si se dirigían los dos espacios lingüísticos. Normalmente es suficiente con utilizar traducción de Google entre Inglés y español para entender. Un buen Inglés podemos traducir y entender. Un buen español también. (no para mí, porque mi inglés es muy malo).
El otro es nuestro interés para distribuir algunos de los textos de un espacio idioma a otro. Necesitamos el apoyo de este pueblo, hablan los dos idiomas.
Muchas saludas, willi
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- *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/
Yes thanks Michel for the reply, Daniel also replied to Spanish list, and Bernardo translated and sent it to me. Since the two language and two list solution is producing more confusion I will prefer just to concentrate on English discussion and try to make productive contribution. The thing is, I do agree with the fact that there were really good names from critical world, yet people like Stiglitz, or Rifkin,.. I return these guys, organic intellectuals of the ruling classes, at the end.. It was in my mind for a long time, yet after these discussion I returned to read about the partner state (also other approaches like bio regional state) approach and your interpretation of it. After initial scanning, I have come to an agreement with Kevin that, partner state is a kind of process and project with an objective of dissolution of political-social power into civil society in time. http://p2pfoundation.net/Partner_State since it is envisaged and co-argued -with V.Kostakis- openly, and also your argument have been openly talking about and taking into account the class positions, when thinking of the transition(s) to happen. In this sense, I find the findings and papers from Ecuador important not only for and in Ecuador contest, but in the broader context of developing perspectives on and understanding of 'transition' in networked age. This is one thing. And since Ecuadorian state is one of the existing forms of really existing states, the fate of the practical implementation of this projects does not tell essentially about the ideas towards the envisaged (optional) transition processes themselves. this is the second thing. May be I was the only one, yet I think it is really important, for all who like to contribute meaningfully to this discussion to read those relevant texts as the ones here online: http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:P2P_State_Approaches or an earlier text: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-basic-orientation-of-p2p-theory-towards-so... To go beyond the critics of who and how was the flok project implemented -so getting rid of an exchange contained with rumour kind of soft-data. Then we could elaborate a stronger debate drawing more insights out of the Ecuadorian experience. That can be re-thought and make impact somewhere else as well. My problems with the framework of Partner State and 'transition' projections, although the Michel and Kostakis' analyses takes the different forms of state and class struggle seriously, they do not deliver deeper perspective or elaboration (yet) on the role of intra and inter class struggles currently taking place in the changing complex global-geographical political economy framework, the historical structure so to speak, that is making an ultimate impact on the agency and politics at the moment. People like Rifkin and Stizglitz are too close to evil, and swimming in the wealth. Check this recent Alternet article out about the findings of a research on a..holes: http://www.alternet.org/culture/ahole-effect-what-wealth-does-brain?paging=o... may be one can insist that exceptions are there so we can get them in broader alliance for commons.. but those who are hired by the ruling elite, and accepting to serve them personally, or becoming the head of an institution like IMF, can not be on the side of labour or farmers, or good people, nor the commons. I found Mckenzie Wark's analysis on verctoral class, very useful in this sense: https://www.academia.edu/182789/A_Hacker_Manifesto as well as his alternative broader alliance of workers, farmers, and hackers. In case we think of a broader alliance at the top, that make sense to talk to people like Rifkin and Stiglizt -even directly with Soros and Eric Schmit. Yet then one has to forget about the formation of a real grassroots alliance. Orsan On 19 July 2014 06:29, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
hi Orsan,
not sure who exactly the original idea came from, but the high level expert group and the names came to me via Carlos Prieto,
I do not share the qualms about working with someone like Stiglitz, because in the context in which we are working, high level moderate progressive economist do lend legitimacy to proposals and projects
broad social change needs broad coalitions and stiglizs is in my view at the side of the labour and social movements
in the end this high level group, which would also have included post-autonomistts like andrea fumagally etc .., never got funded nor materialized
Michel
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
It May sound off the track, yet while I was checking FLOK management page, I did see list of experts and advisors and who suggested them. I saw that Daniel Vasquez did recommend as macro economic advisor famous ex head of IMF, later it's self-critical economist!! Can anyone confirm and explain what is the logic of appointing Joseph Stiglitz as an high level expert and advisor to a project like this, aiming Ecuador's transition to a FLOK society? For me these are kind of really problematic co-optative steps needs to be avoided and criticized. I have been waiting and waiting from Bernardo, Xabier and Daniel any kind of reaction or self-reflexive report, noting heard anything or am not yet aware of. Than I started to get suspicious are there Conscious steps taken and are we being pulled in alternative p2p - commons Keynesian project? So partner state can be sounding very nice theory, yet at the end it can turn into they are state, some of us partners and business goes usual for the billions, and the commons.. What kind of consciousness and check and balance we will be able to build. Another initiative I found about is Global Marshall Plan initiative to which some of out dear friends got involved, under the UN framework promoting An idea of Commons Charters instead of Millennium Goals, which was scheduled to 2015. I again am not against involvement and engagement with the state to open, transform, and dissolve it from bottom to up, yet with giant capitalist partners like al gore, bill gates, bono, Soros, elite groups like club of Rome, club of Budapest, ... A child can guess where would the game end up! Do not want to judgmental but we have seen this movie many times, perfect ideas and hypotheses, communism itself may easily be spoiled. P2p and commons should be protected carefully... Orsan
On 18 Jul 2014, at 04:23, willi uebelherr <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 7/17/2014 1:33 PM, schrieb Bernardo Gutiérrez:
Estimado Willi
Gracias por tu aporte. El idioma de la lista p2p-es es el español, por lo que no es buena idea "to bring this two language spaces together" imponiendo el inglés, como no lo es enviar el mismo mail a listas con diferentes idiomas. Tú mismo criticaste a los que escribían en inglés a las listas de FLOK. Lo correcto es enviarlo a diferentes listas, cada una con su idioma, o escribir en todos los idiomas para todas
Un abrazo Bernardo
Dear Willi
Thanks for your comment. The commom language of p2p-es is Spanish, so I think it is not a good idea "to bring this two language spaces together" imposing English, as it is not a good practice to send the same mail with just one language to different lists. You were critic with those who wrote in English in FLOK lists. The proper could be to send the message in different languages to different lists or to write in both languages and send the message
Best Bernardo
Dear friends,
this is a very clear and correct position. I think, the writers write in two languages, if they addressed the two language spaces. Normally it is enough to use google translation between english and spanish to understand. A good english we can translate and understand. A good spanish also. (not for me, because my english is very bad).
The other is our interest to distribute some texts from one language space to the other. We need the support from this people, they speak both languages.
many greetings, willi
Querid@s amig@s,
esta es una posición muy clara y correcta. Creo que, los escritores escriben en dos idiomas, si se dirigían los dos espacios lingüísticos. Normalmente es suficiente con utilizar traducción de Google entre Inglés y español para entender. Un buen Inglés podemos traducir y entender. Un buen español también. (no para mí, porque mi inglés es muy malo).
El otro es nuestro interés para distribuir algunos de los textos de un espacio idioma a otro. Necesitamos el apoyo de este pueblo, hablan los dos idiomas.
Muchas saludas, willi
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- 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/
This is Democracy Now talking with Stiglizt, Michel just shared also on facebook: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/17/nobel_economist_joseph_stiglitz_hails_... listening Stiglizt, under the light of Warks' chapter on class, as well as abstraction and education (Stiglitz's new book's title is about building a learning society), reminded me the Kautsky-Lenin debate on ultra-imperialism. Kautsk, as you may know, was infamously defending the thesis of imperialism being policy, and he highlighted the 'peace prone' nature of the ultra capitalists operating world wide their imperialist policies. Therefore their rule could have been more peaceful for all, since it needed secure financial environments, so even workers and other dominated/ruled classes would find that a preferred situation. Lenin of course attacked him fiercely, doing so he also developed and promoted his own counter thesis saying that imperialism was structurally and objectively new stage in the historical and material development path of capitalist mode of production. Very briefly after Kautsky's put forward his thesis the world war started, so debate ended there for a moment. To be clear, I do not compare Michel's position on transition with Kautksy at all, yet there are links to look at. So, instead I like to identify and share a vital strategical pattern that occurs in the history of intra-class warfare. Which gets worse in times of organic or terminal crises followed by geographical power shifts (Arrighi tells in detail of this). The fact that in times of big crisis like this one, historically founded political positions of capitalist class fractions gets, and appears very complicated. Because of the transnational nature of the struggles taking place and political elite interference. So that, conservative old-boys from one country, that are trying to prevent the existing hierarchies and statue-quo at the global level could engage with the liberal new comers that tries to takeover the commanding heights on the ruling class ladder in one national context. And vice e verse, globally operating new giants, could enter alliances with traditional elite being about to dispossess from power and wealth in his garbage. At every national context states loses relativity and loses its 'democratic' legitimacy. I agree with Wark on that, today there is a newly emerging class fraction (he calls Vectoral class -around Silicon Valley like spaces and Google, Facebook, Twitter kind of corporate entities), that threatens the old boys industrialist capitalists every where and in every domain/sector. Since they are increasingly able to dis-connect from their rivals' networks and re-connect to its lower level valorization cycles, which gives this class structural advantages. However they are not holding yet stronger positions in the state(s). Sending Google's Eric Schimit from Egypt to South Korea for instance, is about getting hold on power in states to be emerged after 'velvet revolutions'.. so this is kind of a process we see everywhere . Now, listening Rifkin's and Stiglizt's redefined and rewritten positions, one can clearly see their move-away from the new-green keynesianism concept to the distributed-netarchical (end of-) capitalism discourse. Rifkin takes the role of linking up with the vectoral class interest, and Stiglitz interlocks keynesian liberals' interest resulting in a syntetic abstraction. However the approximation of Al Gore-Soros-Clinton-Gates line of liberal transnational capitalist class fractions to the vectoral class position only signifies the letter's increasing power and formers decline. Conservatives after moving in with 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, .... gained ground by 'real politization' of the global chess board. The competition between Facebook, Google, Apple so on has been giving mixed signals about their choice of alignment yet the balance is by now by far slided to the direction of liberal capital and vectoral capital's marriage (fuse / and political alliances). The nature of the PRISM, is thoughtful in this sense. This picture needs to be analysed for other countries, as well as transnational interactions forming the global level: where Chinese, or BRICs in general are going, how and which partnerships, interlocking directories so on are operating along these intra-ruling class struggles implies for the general balance between liberal-vectoral class alliance against conservative old-boys, that are pushing and being pushed to launch corrective-wars every where. As Kautsk's position is proven to be wrong, alignment of progressive left forces would push the war prone conservatives to the corner and make the global war real, in my opinion. Although one might suggest it didn't work, because it didn't happen or it was too late, or the conditions today are different... I am not sure on that. In essence Kautsky's idea bear the possible alliances with emerging financial capital -as the most liberal and pacific ruling class fraction, which was obvious and repeated in the work of Negri for instance. And many progressive NGOs and left alliances today openly pursue this politics. However scary is the upcoming wars, and disasters, for the upper classes its destruction was and always have been far from higher classes, the elite so on. To form as broader as possible and as inclusive as (also from higher levels, different ideological sphares) alliance, we do not need to engage in these kind of ruling class driven thinkers and their thinking, i believe. It is unnecessary. Yet I agree that it is essentially important to follow, understand and engage with the emerging discourse, share and openly reflect about these, while we assertively criticise them. Another practical problematic, would be -much more destructive to such valuable efforts and networking- are the secret and suspicious networking and cooptation activities pursued by the netarchical environment these people grew out. So getting in touch with one of such elite, would leave very difficult to restore conspiracies dirt on anybody. just continuing with the brain storming.. On 21 July 2014 13:21, Örsan Şenalp <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes thanks Michel for the reply,
Daniel also replied to Spanish list, and Bernardo translated and sent it to me. Since the two language and two list solution is producing more confusion I will prefer just to concentrate on English discussion and try to make productive contribution. The thing is, I do agree with the fact that there were really good names from critical world, yet people like Stiglitz, or Rifkin,.. I return these guys, organic intellectuals of the ruling classes, at the end..
It was in my mind for a long time, yet after these discussion I returned to read about the partner state (also other approaches like bio regional state) approach and your interpretation of it. After initial scanning, I have come to an agreement with Kevin that, partner state is a kind of process and project with an objective of dissolution of political-social power into civil society in time. http://p2pfoundation.net/Partner_State since it is envisaged and co-argued -with V.Kostakis- openly, and also your argument have been openly talking about and taking into account the class positions, when thinking of the transition(s) to happen.
In this sense, I find the findings and papers from Ecuador important not only for and in Ecuador contest, but in the broader context of developing perspectives on and understanding of 'transition' in networked age. This is one thing.
And since Ecuadorian state is one of the existing forms of really existing states, the fate of the practical implementation of this projects does not tell essentially about the ideas towards the envisaged (optional) transition processes themselves. this is the second thing.
May be I was the only one, yet I think it is really important, for all who like to contribute meaningfully to this discussion to read those relevant texts as the ones here online: http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:P2P_State_Approaches or an earlier text: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-basic-orientation-of-p2p-theory-towards-so...
To go beyond the critics of who and how was the flok project implemented -so getting rid of an exchange contained with rumour kind of soft-data. Then we could elaborate a stronger debate drawing more insights out of the Ecuadorian experience. That can be re-thought and make impact somewhere else as well.
My problems with the framework of Partner State and 'transition' projections, although the Michel and Kostakis' analyses takes the different forms of state and class struggle seriously, they do not deliver deeper perspective or elaboration (yet) on the role of intra and inter class struggles currently taking place in the changing complex global-geographical political economy framework, the historical structure so to speak, that is making an ultimate impact on the agency and politics at the moment.
People like Rifkin and Stizglitz are too close to evil, and swimming in the wealth. Check this recent Alternet article out about the findings of a research on a..holes:
http://www.alternet.org/culture/ahole-effect-what-wealth-does-brain?paging=o...
may be one can insist that exceptions are there so we can get them in broader alliance for commons.. but those who are hired by the ruling elite, and accepting to serve them personally, or becoming the head of an institution like IMF, can not be on the side of labour or farmers, or good people, nor the commons. I found Mckenzie Wark's analysis on verctoral class, very useful in this sense: https://www.academia.edu/182789/A_Hacker_Manifesto as well as his alternative broader alliance of workers, farmers, and hackers.
In case we think of a broader alliance at the top, that make sense to talk to people like Rifkin and Stiglizt -even directly with Soros and Eric Schmit.
Yet then one has to forget about the formation of a real grassroots alliance.
Orsan
On 19 July 2014 06:29, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
hi Orsan,
not sure who exactly the original idea came from, but the high level expert group and the names came to me via Carlos Prieto,
I do not share the qualms about working with someone like Stiglitz, because in the context in which we are working, high level moderate progressive economist do lend legitimacy to proposals and projects
broad social change needs broad coalitions and stiglizs is in my view at the side of the labour and social movements
in the end this high level group, which would also have included post-autonomistts like andrea fumagally etc .., never got funded nor materialized
Michel
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
It May sound off the track, yet while I was checking FLOK management page, I did see list of experts and advisors and who suggested them. I saw that Daniel Vasquez did recommend as macro economic advisor famous ex head of IMF, later it's self-critical economist!! Can anyone confirm and explain what is the logic of appointing Joseph Stiglitz as an high level expert and advisor to a project like this, aiming Ecuador's transition to a FLOK society? For me these are kind of really problematic co-optative steps needs to be avoided and criticized. I have been waiting and waiting from Bernardo, Xabier and Daniel any kind of reaction or self-reflexive report, noting heard anything or am not yet aware of. Than I started to get suspicious are there Conscious steps taken and are we being pulled in alternative p2p - commons Keynesian project? So partner state can be sounding very nice theory, yet at the end it can turn into they are state, some of us partners and business goes usual for the billions, and the commons.. What kind of consciousness and check and balance we will be able to build. Another initiative I found about is Global Marshall Plan initiative to which some of out dear friends got involved, under the UN framework promoting An idea of Commons Charters instead of Millennium Goals, which was scheduled to 2015. I again am not against involvement and engagement with the state to open, transform, and dissolve it from bottom to up, yet with giant capitalist partners like al gore, bill gates, bono, Soros, elite groups like club of Rome, club of Budapest, ... A child can guess where would the game end up! Do not want to judgmental but we have seen this movie many times, perfect ideas and hypotheses, communism itself may easily be spoiled. P2p and commons should be protected carefully... Orsan
On 18 Jul 2014, at 04:23, willi uebelherr <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 7/17/2014 1:33 PM, schrieb Bernardo Gutiérrez:
Estimado Willi
Gracias por tu aporte. El idioma de la lista p2p-es es el español, por lo que no es buena idea "to bring this two language spaces together" imponiendo el inglés, como no lo es enviar el mismo mail a listas con diferentes idiomas. Tú mismo criticaste a los que escribían en inglés a las listas de FLOK. Lo correcto es enviarlo a diferentes listas, cada una con su idioma, o escribir en todos los idiomas para todas
Un abrazo Bernardo
Dear Willi
Thanks for your comment. The commom language of p2p-es is Spanish, so I think it is not a good idea "to bring this two language spaces together" imposing English, as it is not a good practice to send the same mail with just one language to different lists. You were critic with those who wrote in English in FLOK lists. The proper could be to send the message in different languages to different lists or to write in both languages and send the message
Best Bernardo
Dear friends,
this is a very clear and correct position. I think, the writers write in two languages, if they addressed the two language spaces. Normally it is enough to use google translation between english and spanish to understand. A good english we can translate and understand. A good spanish also. (not for me, because my english is very bad).
The other is our interest to distribute some texts from one language space to the other. We need the support from this people, they speak both languages.
many greetings, willi
Querid@s amig@s,
esta es una posición muy clara y correcta. Creo que, los escritores escriben en dos idiomas, si se dirigían los dos espacios lingüísticos. Normalmente es suficiente con utilizar traducción de Google entre Inglés y español para entender. Un buen Inglés podemos traducir y entender. Un buen español también. (no para mí, porque mi inglés es muy malo).
El otro es nuestro interés para distribuir algunos de los textos de un espacio idioma a otro. Necesitamos el apoyo de este pueblo, hablan los dos idiomas.
Muchas saludas, willi
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- 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/
dear Orsan, I don't disagree with your characterisation of the rifkin/stieglitz positioning, but I have perhaps a different view on 'class' or social alliances, certainly in the west, there is a clear process of the dwindling of the industrial working class (between 17 and 23% of the european working population); a clear de-proletarisation (both through access to means of production, and through non-salaried precarisation) but the growth of a networked knowledge-based working class ...but this class is multi-layered and very flexible in its social conditions: it can be salaried one day, freelancing the other, in start-up mode, etc .. a substantial minority of this 'class' is both allied to commonsproducing communities and enterpreneurial .. so to be clear: if traditional labour is dwindling, the whole classic debate about class alliances led by the working class become very problematic .. and: if the precarious knowledge labour class is facing changeable social conditions which include enterpreneurialism, then a hostility to it is equally problematic so my approach is to look for a broad coalition, not for a violent social transformation, but for the creation of commons-friendly state and private structures, that allow for a deep autonomisation of civil society and ethical enterpreneurship the coalition I propose entails: the precarious knowledge workers, and their digital culture political expressions (pirates, platform parties, digital commons orientation); what remains of the govt'al and industrial working class (the new transformative left parties like syriza, podemos, i..e. industrial commons); the greens (older knowledge working class, natural commons orientation), and the progressive enterpreneurial forces (alternativet). I do not call for a class alliance with elite forces (as hardt and negri suggested we do), nor with radical right forces who are also against big government and big banks (the nader approach), but I do call for an alliance with those that want to reform the market dynamics. In this sense, I don't see rifkin/stieglitz with a vision of a half empty glass, but as half-full, as individuals who, despite their elite affiliations, represent steps in the right direction. We are not talking here about alliances with right wing parties, we are talking about a critical but positive interpretation of what their emergence means. when you mention kautsky and lenin ... do you know that kautsky and the SD members voted against the war, but they were over-ruled by the trade union faction of their party so I suggest a third position, that of rosa luxemburg, who strongly warned lenin against relying on only one governance form, that of the soviets, and suggested keeping the parliament and representative institutions as a counterweight .. lenin ended up outlawing all political forces but his own, preparing the emergence of Stalinism .. was he really right ? of course we can be critical of rifkin/stieglizt and stress their insufficiencies, but that doesn't mean that at this stage, it is useful or productive to seem them as enemies ; in my understanding, they both support democratisation of politics and the ethicalisation of economics, goals which are in alignment with my own goals .. I'm in favour to combine a radical agenda of structural transformation, with an ongoing co-constructive and meliorist politics based on pragmatic alliances around common goals, that doesn't mean working with everyone, you will notice that I don't even mention social-democrats nor the right parties in my proposal for a coalition of the commons I'm recently thinking about how to conceive of class alliance parties, like the christian democrats .. (I know they are very right wing in the netherlands, but not so in belgium, where they have progressive wings) ... the reason is that social-catholic movements are reacting very positively to p2p ideas Michel On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Örsan Şenalp <[email protected]> wrote:
This is Democracy Now talking with Stiglizt, Michel just shared also on facebook:
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/17/nobel_economist_joseph_stiglitz_hails_... listening Stiglizt, under the light of Warks' chapter on class, as well as abstraction and education (Stiglitz's new book's title is about building a learning society), reminded me the Kautsky-Lenin debate on ultra-imperialism. Kautsk, as you may know, was infamously defending the thesis of imperialism being policy, and he highlighted the 'peace prone' nature of the ultra capitalists operating world wide their imperialist policies. Therefore their rule could have been more peaceful for all, since it needed secure financial environments, so even workers and other dominated/ruled classes would find that a preferred situation. Lenin of course attacked him fiercely, doing so he also developed and promoted his own counter thesis saying that imperialism was structurally and objectively new stage in the historical and material development path of capitalist mode of production. Very briefly after Kautsky's put forward his thesis the world war started, so debate ended there for a moment.
To be clear, I do not compare Michel's position on transition with Kautksy at all, yet there are links to look at. So, instead I like to identify and share a vital strategical pattern that occurs in the history of intra-class warfare. Which gets worse in times of organic or terminal crises followed by geographical power shifts (Arrighi tells in detail of this).
The fact that in times of big crisis like this one, historically founded political positions of capitalist class fractions gets, and appears very complicated. Because of the transnational nature of the struggles taking place and political elite interference. So that, conservative old-boys from one country, that are trying to prevent the existing hierarchies and statue-quo at the global level could engage with the liberal new comers that tries to takeover the commanding heights on the ruling class ladder in one national context. And vice e verse, globally operating new giants, could enter alliances with traditional elite being about to dispossess from power and wealth in his garbage. At every national context states loses relativity and loses its 'democratic' legitimacy.
I agree with Wark on that, today there is a newly emerging class fraction (he calls Vectoral class -around Silicon Valley like spaces and Google, Facebook, Twitter kind of corporate entities), that threatens the old boys industrialist capitalists every where and in every domain/sector. Since they are increasingly able to dis-connect from their rivals' networks and re-connect to its lower level valorization cycles, which gives this class structural advantages. However they are not holding yet stronger positions in the state(s). Sending Google's Eric Schimit from Egypt to South Korea for instance, is about getting hold on power in states to be emerged after 'velvet revolutions'.. so this is kind of a process we see everywhere .
Now, listening Rifkin's and Stiglizt's redefined and rewritten positions, one can clearly see their move-away from the new-green keynesianism concept to the distributed-netarchical (end of-) capitalism discourse. Rifkin takes the role of linking up with the vectoral class interest, and Stiglitz interlocks keynesian liberals' interest resulting in a syntetic abstraction. However the approximation of Al Gore-Soros-Clinton-Gates line of liberal transnational capitalist class fractions to the vectoral class position only signifies the letter's increasing power and formers decline. Conservatives after moving in with 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, .... gained ground by 'real politization' of the global chess board. The competition between Facebook, Google, Apple so on has been giving mixed signals about their choice of alignment yet the balance is by now by far slided to the direction of liberal capital and vectoral capital's marriage (fuse / and political alliances). The nature of the PRISM, is thoughtful in this sense.
This picture needs to be analysed for other countries, as well as transnational interactions forming the global level: where Chinese, or BRICs in general are going, how and which partnerships, interlocking directories so on are operating along these intra-ruling class struggles implies for the general balance between liberal-vectoral class alliance against conservative old-boys, that are pushing and being pushed to launch corrective-wars every where. As Kautsk's position is proven to be wrong, alignment of progressive left forces would push the war prone conservatives to the corner and make the global war real, in my opinion. Although one might suggest it didn't work, because it didn't happen or it was too late, or the conditions today are different... I am not sure on that.
In essence Kautsky's idea bear the possible alliances with emerging financial capital -as the most liberal and pacific ruling class fraction, which was obvious and repeated in the work of Negri for instance. And many progressive NGOs and left alliances today openly pursue this politics.
However scary is the upcoming wars, and disasters, for the upper classes its destruction was and always have been far from higher classes, the elite so on. To form as broader as possible and as inclusive as (also from higher levels, different ideological sphares) alliance, we do not need to engage in these kind of ruling class driven thinkers and their thinking, i believe. It is unnecessary. Yet I agree that it is essentially important to follow, understand and engage with the emerging discourse, share and openly reflect about these, while we assertively criticise them.
Another practical problematic, would be -much more destructive to such valuable efforts and networking- are the secret and suspicious networking and cooptation activities pursued by the netarchical environment these people grew out. So getting in touch with one of such elite, would leave very difficult to restore conspiracies dirt on anybody.
just continuing with the brain storming..
On 21 July 2014 13:21, Örsan Şenalp <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes thanks Michel for the reply,
Daniel also replied to Spanish list, and Bernardo translated and sent it to me. Since the two language and two list solution is producing more confusion I will prefer just to concentrate on English discussion and try to make productive contribution. The thing is, I do agree with the fact that there were really good names from critical world, yet people like Stiglitz, or Rifkin,.. I return these guys, organic intellectuals of the ruling classes, at the end..
It was in my mind for a long time, yet after these discussion I returned to read about the partner state (also other approaches like bio regional state) approach and your interpretation of it. After initial scanning, I have come to an agreement with Kevin that, partner state is a kind of process and project with an objective of dissolution of political-social power into civil society in time. http://p2pfoundation.net/Partner_State since it is envisaged and co-argued -with V.Kostakis- openly, and also your argument have been openly talking about and taking into account the class positions, when thinking of the transition(s) to happen.
In this sense, I find the findings and papers from Ecuador important not only for and in Ecuador contest, but in the broader context of developing perspectives on and understanding of 'transition' in networked age. This is one thing.
And since Ecuadorian state is one of the existing forms of really existing states, the fate of the practical implementation of this projects does not tell essentially about the ideas towards the envisaged (optional) transition processes themselves. this is the second thing.
May be I was the only one, yet I think it is really important, for all who like to contribute meaningfully to this discussion to read those relevant texts as the ones here online: http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:P2P_State_Approaches or an earlier text:
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-basic-orientation-of-p2p-theory-towards-so...
To go beyond the critics of who and how was the flok project implemented -so getting rid of an exchange contained with rumour kind of soft-data. Then we could elaborate a stronger debate drawing more insights out of the Ecuadorian experience. That can be re-thought and make impact somewhere else as well.
My problems with the framework of Partner State and 'transition' projections, although the Michel and Kostakis' analyses takes the different forms of state and class struggle seriously, they do not deliver deeper perspective or elaboration (yet) on the role of intra and inter class struggles currently taking place in the changing complex global-geographical political economy framework, the historical structure so to speak, that is making an ultimate impact on the agency and politics at the moment.
People like Rifkin and Stizglitz are too close to evil, and swimming in the wealth. Check this recent Alternet article out about the findings of a research on a..holes:
http://www.alternet.org/culture/ahole-effect-what-wealth-does-brain?paging=o...
may be one can insist that exceptions are there so we can get them in broader alliance for commons.. but those who are hired by the ruling elite, and accepting to serve them personally, or becoming the head of an institution like IMF, can not be on the side of labour or farmers, or good people, nor the commons. I found Mckenzie Wark's analysis on verctoral class, very useful in this sense: https://www.academia.edu/182789/A_Hacker_Manifesto as well as his alternative broader alliance of workers, farmers, and
hackers.
In case we think of a broader alliance at the top, that make sense to talk to people like Rifkin and Stiglizt -even directly with Soros and Eric Schmit.
Yet then one has to forget about the formation of a real grassroots
alliance.
Orsan
On 19 July 2014 06:29, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
hi Orsan,
not sure who exactly the original idea came from, but the high level
group and the names came to me via Carlos Prieto,
I do not share the qualms about working with someone like Stiglitz, because in the context in which we are working, high level moderate progressive economist do lend legitimacy to proposals and projects
broad social change needs broad coalitions and stiglizs is in my view at the side of the labour and social movements
in the end this high level group, which would also have included post-autonomistts like andrea fumagally etc .., never got funded nor materialized
Michel
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
It May sound off the track, yet while I was checking FLOK management
page,
I did see list of experts and advisors and who suggested them. I saw that Daniel Vasquez did recommend as macro economic advisor famous ex head of IMF, later it's self-critical economist!! Can anyone confirm and explain what is the logic of appointing Joseph Stiglitz as an high level expert and advisor to a project like this, aiming Ecuador's transition to a FLOK society? For me these are kind of really problematic co-optative steps needs to be avoided and criticized. I have been waiting and waiting from Bernardo, Xabier and Daniel any kind of reaction or self-reflexive report, noting heard anything or am not yet aware of. Than I started to get suspicious are there Conscious steps taken and are we being pulled in alternative p2p - commons Keynesian project? So partner state can be sounding very nice theory, yet at the end it can turn into they are state, some of us partners and business goes usual for the billions, and the commons.. What kind of consciousness and check and balance we will be able to build. Another initiative I found about is Global Marshall Plan initiative to which some of out dear friends got involved, under the UN framework promoting An idea of Commons Charters instead of Millennium Goals, which was scheduled to
expert 2015. I
again am not against involvement and engagement with the state to open, transform, and dissolve it from bottom to up, yet with giant capitalist partners like al gore, bill gates, bono, Soros, elite groups like club of Rome, club of Budapest, ... A child can guess where would the game end up! Do not want to judgmental but we have seen this movie many times, perfect ideas and hypotheses, communism itself may easily be spoiled. P2p and commons should be protected carefully... Orsan
On 18 Jul 2014, at 04:23, willi uebelherr <[email protected]
wrote:
Am 7/17/2014 1:33 PM, schrieb Bernardo Gutiérrez:
Estimado Willi
Gracias por tu aporte. El idioma de la lista p2p-es es el español, por lo que no es buena idea "to bring this two language spaces together" imponiendo el inglés, como no lo es enviar el mismo mail a listas con diferentes idiomas. Tú mismo criticaste a los que escribían en inglés a las listas de FLOK. Lo correcto es enviarlo a diferentes listas, cada una con su idioma, o escribir en todos los idiomas para todas
Un abrazo Bernardo
Dear Willi
Thanks for your comment. The commom language of p2p-es is Spanish, so I think it is not a good idea "to bring this two language spaces together" imposing English, as it is not a good practice to send the same mail with just one language to different lists. You were critic with those who wrote in English in FLOK lists. The proper could be to send the message in different languages to different lists or to write in both languages and send the message
Best Bernardo
Dear friends,
this is a very clear and correct position. I think, the writers write in two languages, if they addressed the two language spaces. Normally it is enough to use google translation between english and spanish to understand. A good english we can translate and understand. A good spanish also. (not for me, because my english is very bad).
The other is our interest to distribute some texts from one language space to the other. We need the support from this people, they speak both languages.
many greetings, willi
Querid@s amig@s,
esta es una posición muy clara y correcta. Creo que, los escritores escriben en dos idiomas, si se dirigían los dos espacios lingüísticos. Normalmente es suficiente con utilizar traducción de Google entre Inglés y español para entender. Un buen Inglés podemos traducir y entender. Un buen español también. (no para mí, porque mi inglés es muy malo).
El otro es nuestro interés para distribuir algunos de los textos de un espacio idioma a otro. Necesitamos el apoyo de este pueblo, hablan los dos idiomas.
Muchas saludas, willi
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- 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/
-- *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/
Hi Michel, thanks for the reply! I tried to reply back and clarify what I meant, in between lines.. "I don't disagree with your characterisation of the rifkin/stiglitz positioning, but I have perhaps a different view on 'class' or social alliances," Fair enough! "certainly in the west, there is a clear process of the dwindling of the industrial working class (between 17 and 23% of the European working population); a clear de-proletarisation (both through access to means of production, and through non-salaried precarisation) but the growth of a networked knowledge-based working class ...but this class is multi-layered and very flexible in its social conditions: it can be salaried one day, freelancing the other, in start-up mode, etc .. a substantial minority of this 'class' is both allied to commons producing communities and entrepreneurial .." Though, reading your answer above and below, I realised that that was not clear what I meant. Actually, as far as I am aware of, you or those writers-thinkers or practitioners who organically tied to or associated with P2P– Commons-Transition ideas, who are helping to expand these debates publicly, are yet to deliver full analysis of the class enemies of the commons. As Sun Tzu once said, it is mortally important to know the enemy so well so that you can really see who is a friend. So in my opinion knowing the enemy problem is kind of prerequisite, and if I do not make a mistake it is not yet answered or widely debated yet amongst the lists or blogs related to these discussions. So it is about the nature or contradictions shaping the Class War of which Warren Buffet, the second richest capitalist who occupies the Wall Street, has been talking about. Or why he was talking about, addressing to who after the crisis he was part of, and as if who was not one of the front line warriors! So what I was referring the intra-capitalist or ruling class struggle and alliances / historic blocs (within the West, the rest, and transnationally) being formed by the ruling classes. "so to be clear: if traditional labour is dwindling, the whole classic debate about class alliances led by the working class become very problematic .. and: if the precarious knowledge labour class is facing changeable social conditions which include enterpreneurialism, then a hostility to it is equally problematic so my approach is to look for a broad coalition, not for a violent social transformation, but for the creation of commons-friendly state and private structures, that allow for a deep autonomisation of civil society and ethical entrepreneurship the coalition I propose entails: the precarious knowledge workers, and their digital culture political expressions (pirates, platform parties, digital commons orientation); what remains of the govt'al and industrial working class (the new transformative left parties like syriza, podemos, i..e. industrial commons); the greens (older knowledge working class, natural commons orientation), and the progressive enterpreneurial forces (alternative)." I stated the above, because I sincerely believe that without having an, as clear as possible, analysis on the configuration (but also strategy, strength, and weakness of) struggling ruling classes –at least one comparable to one you just give about the labour or partly other ‘ruled’ classes and [collaborative P2P] alliances amongst them you identified below- remains mainly ideational, meaning political-analytic, if not arbitrary. "I do not call for a class alliance with elite forces (as hardt and negri suggested we do), nor with radical right forces who are also against big government and big banks (the nader approach), but I do call for an alliance with those that want to reform the market dynamics. In this sense, I don't see rifkin/stieglitz with a vision of a half empty glass, but as half-full, as individuals who, despite their elite affiliations, represent steps in the right direction. We are not talking here about alliances with right wing parties, we are talking about a critical but positive interpretation of what their emergence means. "Here, is the thin line. An alignment can be on the discourse level, organically and networked. As alignment occurs by including key personal ties between and via organic intellectuals and institutions –those who are trying to manage a new historic blocs and save the entirety of the system. The increasingly efficient form networked- hierarchical alliances [working like marketing chains, lower layers earns lower bonuses]. So in my opinion all these three aspects needs to be analysed well, to evaluate the intra-, inter-, or cross-class alliances. Here are some good articles and books, which I can share: http://netglobalcapitalism.wordpress.com/articles/ http://web.uvic.ca/~wcarroll/research.htm http://jebsprague.blogspot.nl/ In relation to workers and unions role in relation to capital today I liked this analysis of Bill Fletcher, since it is close to how I see it: https://usilive.org/iss14-capitalism-anti-capitalism-and-the-trade-union-mov... "when you mention kautsky and lenin ... do you know that kautsky and the SD members voted against the war, but they were over-ruled by the trade union faction of their party" I would vote for peace, whenever and whatever it takes, or may be would not vote at all.. but do something hard for peace.. have to read about the context of the above event. "so I suggest a third position, that of rosa luxemburg, who strongly warned lenin against relying on only one governance form, that of the soviets, and suggested keeping the parliament and representative institutions as a counterweight .. lenin ended up outlawing all political forces but his own, preparing the emergence of Stalinism .. was he really right ?" Here, since Lenin had the feeling that one has to attack fiercely who ever oppose him -even a sincere revolutionist, communist, Bolshevik doesn’t matter since it was about making what you believe so your analysis/thesis structurally powerful in the hierarchical-party organs, the emancipatory social organisation was itself conflicting with the idea of emancipation. Here is the key inter-locking argument to link up with the other tread [with Fabio and Michel] that today, there is this p2p advancement via internet and other changes in society and substructure, it is possible to imagine, design and form collaborative alliances between ideologically or in terms of analysis standing in varying positions. One might choose to get in direct or indirect solidarity with other, even there is no organic/weak ties in between it is possible to support an action, community, event etc. "of course we can be critical of rifkin/stieglizt and stress their insufficiencies, but that doesn't mean that at this stage, it is useful or productive to seem them as enemies ; in my understanding, they both support democratisation of politics and the ethicalisation of economics, goals which are in alignment with my own goals .. I'm in favour to combine a radical agenda of structural transformation, with an ongoing co-constructive and meliorist politics based on pragmatic alliances around common goals, that doesn't mean working with everyone, you will notice that I don't even mention social-democrats nor the right parties in my proposal for a coalition of the commons I'm recently thinking about how to conceive of class alliance parties, like the christian democrats .. (I know they are very right wing in the netherlands, but not so in belgium, where they have progressive wings) ... the reason is that social-catholic movements are reacting very positively to p2p ideas" "As a mid-conclusion, one might choose with which agency and to what extend in what forms. P2P infrastructures and networks allow us to see and analyse that and decide to what level engagment with those nodes is possible and needed. This possibility, brings about the chance to form counter-vectoral class alliance and transformative power [in analogy with Wark’s vectoral class] that can generate harminse transformative impact at various levels societies divided in. To know the enemy here is the key again, and making the network maps of the enemy public, as Wikileaks managed to show the glimpse of how can that be done, with idea-practice-courage-quantum logic-and the network. orsan
participants (4)
-
Michel Bauwens -
Orsan Senalp -
willi uebelherr -
Örsan Şenalp