[P2P-F] [Networkedlabour] open budget

Tue Jul 15 08:12:53 CEST 2014

here is the text:

An assessment of the FLOK process and why the P2P Foundation will not use
the FLOK brand in the future
<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/an-assessment-of-the-flok-process-and-why-the-p2p-foundation-will-not-use-the-flok-brand-in-the-future/2014/07/17>
[image: photo of Michel Bauwens]

Michel Bauwens
17th July 2014

(note: this version was originally written at the request of Jay
Wallsjasper of On the Commons, slightly expanded and updated on July 13;
it’s a little more elaborate than the first informal assessment shared here
before)

Michel Bauwens:

We’re nearing the end of June , the day of my departure from Quito and my
direct involvement in the FLOK process, where I have been director of the
research team. Many people have asked about my assessment of the results of
the process. The FLOK process was a complex process and the assessment can
only be complex as well.

One of the first questions, and critiques, is about the relationship with
the government itself.

Let us start with the general statement that there are only very imperfect
governments in the world, and that power politics are everywhere difficult
and rather unpleasant processes. Nevertheless, if we compare the
achievements and workings of the government here, then Ecuador has made
significant achievements since the advent of power of the Correa
administration. The control over the state and the government by private
business has been significantly reduced; state-led redistribution and
infrastructure building has significantly improved the economic situation
of most of its citizens. There have been significant improvements in
poverty, literacy, education, crime, etc .. Political stability and popular
endorsement of government policies are significantly higher than in the
very unstable neoliberal period that preceded it. The state and many
institutions have been modernized. The new press legislation has reduced
corporate control and created a whole new sector of community-based radios
and media outlets.

On the other hand, there seems to be a growing schism between civil society
actors and a government that was originally derived from it. The government
has embarked on an extractivist policy against its own promises and plans
(Yasuni), disbanded oppositional civil organisations like the Pachamama
Foundation, and exerted pressures against critics in the press. There is a
growing schism between the beautiful and enthusing political programs and
principles as expressed in the Constitution and the National Plan, and the
actual policies that are often contrary to it, and many of those that
believed in these ideas are increasingly isolated in institutions like
Senplades and Senescyt. They are losing power and influence. The radical
sounding ‘neo-socialist’ language of the government is not matched by
structural reforms that go into the direction of anything that is beyond
capitalism. On the contrary, the real policies, even though to the left of
European social-democracy, are essentially redistributionist and actually
aim to create better conditions for capitalist development. The poor are
less poor, a middle class is being created, but the economic policies do
not fundamentally challenge the global political economy. The current
direction seems to be towards more adaptation to the demands of the global
system. But there is no doubt that the situation of the country and its
people has improved.

When we started the FLOK process, it was presented to us as a project that
was strategic for the Ecuadorian government, as supported by the Ministry
of Knowledge and the Secretariat of Innovation and would systematically
move the country to a social knowledge economy, and that would be
enthusiastically received by civil organisations. The reality we
encountered was quite different. First of all, despite an intensive effort
at participation, and many meetings with local groups, the general attitude
of civic organisations was, though sympathetic for the aims of FLOK, at the
same time distrustful of it as a government-sponsored project. The pressure
for participation came from us, not from civil society.

Our experience with the government was very problematic from the start.
First of all, because of factional fighting within and without the
institution we were formally working for (IAEN), the staff of the project
remained unpaid for 3-5 months, until the end of March, with an active and
successful campaign to defund the FLOK. At one point, we were prepared to
leave at the end of March because the funding had been cut, and we were all
facing extremely challenging material situations. Once the factional fight
was concluded with the departure of the rector who had initiated FLOK
(Carlos Prieto), we were refunded, and funds were also liberated for the
Buen Conocer Summit at the end of May. Our personal and collective
situation dramatically improved from that point onwards.

Nevertheless, as research director of the FLOK team, in charge of a
theoretically strategic project, I was at no time able to meet with any of
our sponsoring ministers. All planned meetings (more than a dozen) between
myself and Rene Ramirez and Guillaume Long, were systematically cancelled.
The very day before the launch of the Buen Conocer Summit on May 27th, it
transpired that the Minister of Knowledge had forbidden his staff to
participate in the summit (he reversed this decision on that very last
day); and that President Correa had not been aware of the FLOK process at
all (I have this info from a person in the Communications Dept. of the
President and several other witnesses).

Whatever the reasons for this state of affairs, the only realistic
conclusion is that this was not considered as a strategic project. To this
day, because we were unable to have conversations with our nominal
sponsors, we can ony speculate as to the real motivations.

Nevertheless, we have to look at the positive aspects of the government’s
involvement as well. First of all, the project was indeed funded, and
nowhere else in the world could it have taken place at this stage. Second,
we operated in total freedom: the research team was entirely free in its
research and proposals, with zero interference. Third, and this is very
important for the future of our recommendations, there has been distinct
enthusiasm for the aims and process of the FLOK from lower level officials
in several governmental institutions, with concrete efforts to fund and
carry out important pilot projects.

And , even though the pressure and social basis of the FLOK process was
weak in civil society, there was nevertheless a quite intense participatory
process. 24 provincial workshops were held with actors from civil society;
several multi-day visits to poorer communities were organized with intense
mutual exchanges; participatory lectures were held in different
institutions with high interest and attendance; workshops were held in
various universities. All this input was integrated in the first drafts of
our proposals. (An open letter to global commoners also yielded several
dozen proposals). The highlight was a stay in Sigchos, the country’s third
poorest district, where we met an enthusiastic mayor (Mario Andino) and a
supportive local assembly of the people eager to apply open agricultural
projects. This gave us a clear indication that with dynamic leadership, the
local people that matter (mostly indigenous and farmers), where totally
behind the key ideas of a transition to a commons-based society, and
endorsed its logic and potential. The second phase of the participatory
process entailed open commentary on digital comments, yielding many useful
suggestions. But finally, what was very important was the success of the
Buen Conocer summit May 27 to 30. The combination of local civic invitees,
committed pubic officials, and foreign guests led to a very enthusiastic
social dynamic in which the FLOK proposals were substantially improved.

One of the key lessons though is that we have to abandon the romantic idea
that we can ‘hack a country’. A country, and its people, are not an
executable program. For future projects, it will be necessary to ascertain
with more due dilligence, the maturity of both the political will and the
social basis of such a transition. Commons transition programs should be
embarked upon as a more clear co-production process , and not undertaken as
political gamble. Commons transition should be bottom-up supported
processes, enabled and facilitated by supportive public authorities (or
without them if that support is not forthcoming).

One of the important lessons of the project is how not to administer it in
the future. The administrative process was a purely hierarchical one, with
personalistic and secretive control of the budget and decisions. The
research team was entirely shut out of the design and organisation of the
Summit for example. Simple requests for information were not looked kindly
upon and were seen as interference. People who disagreed with management
did not just have to arbitrarily and unilaterally leave the project,
without any due process, but were maligned and subject to active
disinformation campaigns involving charges of spying etc … I was subjected
to public threats to publish private emails in order to discourage any
independent evaluation, which is what prompted to add this specific
paragraph about the internal workings of the FLOK process. Engagements to
third parties were routinely changed and unilaterally adapted created all
kinds of embarassements towards those parties and endangering our trust and
reputational capital. There was a regular use of private and public
intimidation, including a threat of physical intimidation during the very
summit, including against members of the research team to discourage them
from sharing their point of view on the public discussion list.
Strategically mistaken decisions, such as the defunding of the spanish
translation of the Commons Transition Plan, were made from narrow political
reasons. Such practices clearly should not have a place in future projects
and are one of the reasons the P2P Foundation will not use the FLOK moniker
and ‘brand’ in future Commons Transition projects. We believe our internal
practices should be prefigurative of the kind of society we are aiming for
and not in contradiction to it. This is how the research team functioned,
and in the future, it is how a whole project should function. Our aim here
therefore is not to inflame conflicts, but rather to warn third parties of
a potential systemic flaw in the approach to such projects:
authoritarianism can have no place in open and participatory transition
projects.

Nevertheless, despite the problems and failures in Ecuador, along with the
relative success we tried to describe above, we can hope that seeds of new
thinking about transformation have been sown, and that some pilot projects
will be successfully carried out.

Indeed, the FLOK project also has a global impact, and I am quite
optimistic about this. First of all, this is the first time that an
integrated Commons Transition Plan has been crafted, representing a new
political and policy orientation towards achieving a post-capitalist
society based on shared knowledge, that has both a theoretical
underpinning, and fifteen concrete legislative frameworks. This means that
from now on, a concrete third way that is different from both statism and
neoliberalism, does exist and can be discussed. Despite the local
difficulties of the process, we believe that because of the relative
legitimacy and credibility involved in a national project, the commons
transition is now a geo-political fact, it’s a historical pivot. This
assessment is confirmed by the consistent interest that is expressed
towards the project, with inquiries of cities and regions as to the
possibility of other transition projects. The FLOK is now both a
participatory and scientific research process, and a already existing body
of work, that can be creatively adapted (and changed, or abandoned
altogether), in other locales. The emerging commons, sharing, and p2p
movements can now be more than concrete local practice of grassroots
communities, they can become a force for social change at the political and
policy level.

The value of the experience in Ecuador, with all the people that
contributed to it, is that it signifies a new beginning, the creation of a
new social imaginary about commons oriented transition towards a
sustainable and more just society. The clock is now ticking, and the arrow
of time cannot be reversed. We are beginning to find a politics and policy
for the 21st century. This is not a minor achievement and I am proud I have
been able to contribute to it.

I urge people to have a serious look at the Commons Transition Plan, and to
think about the new political concepts that are the expression of the
nascent and growing global commons movement.

The proposals are here at http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan.

Let’s improve them continuously and produce a pattern language for
successful social change.

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>
wrote:

> this is the more expanded evaluation of the flok process, to be published
> on the 17th after a review of the typo's,
>
> I long hesitated about the assessment of the internal process, but after
> showing it internally in the network, most people find it important that
> this is shared as well,
>
> Michel
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>
> wrote:
>
>> ok, if you resend me the text you want to be clarified (you can do it
>> privately), I'll see what I can do,
>>
>> Michel
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:14 AM, peter waterman <
>> peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Michel:
>>>
>>> Thanx for posting this. I would not, however, want to post it further
>>> (or even see it further posted) since it would require considerable inside
>>> knowledge to make sense of it. I myself cannot do so, tho I do have some
>>> background knowledge of Ecuador and a sceptical posture towards the '21st
>>> century socialist', or whatever, process occurring there.
>>>
>>> So, I am wondering whether you would not be able to 'translate and
>>> improve'* your own account. That would mean making the information
>>> available to the wider community - even if this is taken only to be the
>>> NetLab and p2p lists.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> P
>>>
>>> *this is the phrase on a poster advertising a performance in Yiddish of
>>> Shakespeare's 'Hamlet', in an isolated Jewish community of 19thC Poland. It
>>> was signed by the translator, Shmuel Cohen.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Örsan Şenalp <orsan1234 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michel, many thanks for this detailed response.
>>>>
>>>> Actually my intention was posting on the networked labour list only
>>>> the personal or official reports coming from or about the FLOK project
>>>> which you led it's research part and concluded last month in Ecuador.
>>>>
>>>> As for the request you replied below, actually I meant to address the
>>>> impotence of adopting open or participatory budgeting practise in
>>>> general. Otherwise did not mean to question anybodies' integrity or
>>>> so. I believe, as you do, for building p2p or distributed ethical
>>>> economies figuratively, and for especially these kind of projects this
>>>> is an essential point.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, in my opinion, it may be useful for those who are on the
>>>> networked labour list so not very much aware of the exchanges going on
>>>> about the project process so on; so who were  not able to read the
>>>> whole email in which I made the request from you and others. If you
>>>> agree and find it useful or necessary to give a brief background
>>>> please feel free. So it is up to you.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>> Orsan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7 July 2014 06:43, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
>>>> > Orsan, you write:
>>>> >
>>>> > <To avoid any negative impact for all the sides, I would humbly
>>>> suggest,
>>>> > especially in terms of financial aspects, providing full transparency
>>>> (Flok,
>>>> > P2P-F, Cook Consultancy, Ecuadorean ministries so on). And without
>>>> > practicing a sort of participatory budgeting, IMHO, there will always
>>>> be
>>>> > shadows of doubts and questions hanging on these kinds of
>>>> > state-capital-funded projects.>
>>>> >
>>>> > Orsan, the budget was highly secretive and tightly  controlled by the
>>>> flok
>>>> > mgt team; in fact, AD was removed (though they are claiming he removed
>>>> > himself, so I'm not sure), largely because he tried to get a regular
>>>> and
>>>> > open budget done controlled by the institution. It was the key area of
>>>> > contention and why he has been called a spy.
>>>> >
>>>> > Here is my guesswork:
>>>> >
>>>> > * the project was tri-funded by the Min of Knowledge, the Senescyt
>>>> > innovation secretariat and the IAEN  institution
>>>> >
>>>> > * the entire process with wages may have reached $400k , with an
>>>> additional
>>>> > $300k plus for the summit
>>>> >
>>>> > The wage issue was highly contentious, from before I reached the
>>>> project.
>>>> > The rector wanted to pay intl' level wages to foreign researchers,
>>>> and this
>>>> > was not taken well by the locals. On the other hand, the institution
>>>> payed
>>>> > some people very well who never showed up, and trying to get rid of
>>>> them  is
>>>> > one of the causes that caused him the loss of his job. The ratio of
>>>> staff to
>>>> > students is incredibly skewed at the IAEN but I can't remember the
>>>> ratio,
>>>> > but much more staff than students.
>>>> >
>>>> > My understanding is that most of the research team got $4k and I got
>>>> $5.x as
>>>> > 'director'. There is no doubt that this is well paid, but it is still
>>>> less
>>>> > for a month than a private consulting gets for a day. So, if the FLOK
>>>> is a
>>>> > genuine transition project, that was not outside of decency. There is
>>>> a lot
>>>> > of discussion about the other salaries, which are shrouded in
>>>> secrecy. One
>>>> > of the most often expressed critiques directed at me and the research
>>>> team:
>>>> > how can you guys make so much noise when you are paid so well,
>>>> 'aren't you
>>>> > ashamed'; on the other hand, 'flok mgt works tirelessly for nearly
>>>> nothing'.
>>>> > This is the mythology, used again and again, but I'm not sure it is
>>>> the
>>>> > truth; from very good accounting sources, I was informed that they
>>>> earned
>>>> > four times their claims, but I can't prove this. But as I've learned
>>>> not to
>>>> > trust anything said coming from the flok mgt, I tend to give credence
>>>> to my
>>>> > source.
>>>> >
>>>> > As for me,  yes, I was well paid, after living under the minimum wage
>>>> for
>>>> > seven years. We had to pay our own tickets, rent and rent guarantees,
>>>> all
>>>> > internal job-related travels, and because of the length of the
>>>> engagement, I
>>>> > had to bring my family for two months (this was a stated condition of
>>>> my
>>>> > employment, even if I had to finance it myself). Because of the
>>>> structurally
>>>> > late payments, I had to pay 40% more for these tickets, and on
>>>> average,
>>>> > since we all had to take loans, 20% interest fees. So, just to say,
>>>> despite
>>>> > appearances, none of us got rich from this, and we worked tirelessly,
>>>> in
>>>> > very tough circumstances, 12 to 14 hours a day, including many
>>>> weekend days.
>>>> > So, we are  certainly not victims, privileged for sure, but not
>>>> getting rich
>>>> > on this assignment either. Neither of us asked for anything, we
>>>> accepted an
>>>> > invitation with its conditions, so I think the whole wage controversy
>>>> is
>>>> > really a side issue.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not suggesting any budget malfeasance, the opacity of the budget
>>>> was
>>>> > exclusively an issue of political control. You should also take into
>>>> account
>>>> > that due to the structural non-payment, the flok mgt had to make
>>>> superhuman
>>>> > efforts for the project to merely survive. Two full-time staff were
>>>> engaged
>>>> > just to speed up our payments (they achieved a 6 week average delay
>>>> due to
>>>> > superhuman efforfts): I was told, but can't verify this, that 26
>>>> signatures
>>>> > were needed each month for each wage, a sign of terrible bureaucracy.
>>>> (while
>>>> > I critique the hierarchical aspects of the mgt process we should not
>>>> forget
>>>> > the extreme structural stress they were facing day in day out).
>>>> >
>>>> > Also, apart from the real work, we were forced to produce partly
>>>> fictitious
>>>> > 'products', taking 2-3 working days to produce, as proof of our work.
>>>> These
>>>> > had to be delivered 10 days before the end of each month, hence
>>>> having a 10
>>>> > day 'future narrative' included. You have no idea of the level of
>>>> > dysfunctional bureaucracy that was prevalent. This is not exclusively
>>>> a flok
>>>> > and IAEN problem, as the young and mosty precarious Prometheo
>>>> researchers
>>>> > also are routinely not paid for the first four months of their work.
>>>> Unless
>>>> > you have strong reserves to withstand such delays, I would not
>>>> recommend any
>>>> > foreigner to work as a scholar in Ecuador for the moment. But if you
>>>> have
>>>> > reserves and go for the experience and engagement with local people,
>>>> it's
>>>> > worthwhile, it's a spectacular place. The structural situation in
>>>> Ecuador is
>>>> > that most of the education funding goes to Yachai, a rather terrible
>>>> > neoliberal experiment in a green desert, signing secret deals with
>>>> > Microsoft, etc ..  There is really nothing there, and won't be, for a
>>>> very
>>>> > long time. While the existing universities are being underfunded, this
>>>> > artificial place, which will be structurally incapable of atracting
>>>> the
>>>> > creative class (even richard florida thinks it's a terrible idea), is
>>>> > getting all the attention and funding. It's a little bit like the
>>>> anti-FLOK
>>>> > project, though funded by the same Ministry, one of the many
>>>> contradictions
>>>> > of the project and the political situation in Ecuador. Just as it was
>>>> > impossible to find a single civic mvt with a positive view of the
>>>> government
>>>> > (at least amongst the 70 we spoke with); it was equally impossible to
>>>> find a
>>>> > single university administrator or scholar that supported the current
>>>> > education policy. It's part of the divorce between the intellectual
>>>> class
>>>> > and the government that I discussed earlier,
>>>> >
>>>> > 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/
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > NetworkedLabour mailing list
>>>> > NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
>>>> > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>>>> >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NetworkedLabour mailing list
>>>> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
>>>> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>    1. *EBook, November 2012: Recovering Internationalism
>>>    <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/recovering_internationalism/>.  [A
>>>    compilation of papers from the new millenium. Now free in two download
>>>    formats] <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/>
>>>    <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/>*
>>>    2.
>>> *EBook (co-editor), February 2013: World Social Forum: Critical
>>>    Explorations http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/
>>>    <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/> *
>>>    3. *Interface Journal Special (co-editor), November 2012: For the
>>>    Global Emancipation of Labour <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>*
>>>    4. *Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.
>>>    <http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.> *
>>>    5. *Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor) Social Movement
>>>    Internationalisms. See Call for Papers <http://www.interfacejournal.net/>,
>>>    (Deadline: May 1, 2014). *
>>>    6.
>>> *Needed: a Global Labour Charter Movement (2005-Now!)
>>>    <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interface-1-2-pp255-262-Waterman.pdf>*
>>>    7. *Under, Against, Beyond: Labour and Social Movements Confront a
>>>    Globalised, Informatised Capitalism
>>>    <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/>(2011) Almost 1,000
>>>    pages of Working Papers, free, from the 1980's-90's.*
>>>    8. *Google Scholar Citation Index:*
>>>     *http://scholar.google.com.pe/citations?user=e0e6Qa4AAAAJ
>>>    <http://scholar.google.com.pe/citations?user=e0e6Qa4AAAAJ> *
>>>
>>>
>>>    -
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetworkedLabour mailing list
>>> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
>>> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *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/
>

-- 
*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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20140715/dec53d6b/attachment-0001.htm 