[P2P-F] [P2P-es] P2P dual language - en dos idiomas

[Örsan Şenalp]

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_new
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 <orsan1234 at gmail.com> 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-societal-reform-transforming-civil-society-the-private-and-the-state/2011/07/12
>
> 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=off&current_page=1#bookmark
>
> 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 <michel at p2pfoundation.net> 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 <orsan1234 at gmail.com> 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 <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
>>> > 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 at s amig at 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/