[P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] new text: Proposed_Strategy_for_the_Commons_Movement_in_2015

[Orsan]

Unless willi, I do share almost all the analysis put forward in general lines by Michel, but since there is a rigorous lack in power and class based global analysis behind it, especially about the below suggestion I do have serious doubts: 

> On 31 aug. 2015, at 13:59, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
> 
> this is the necessary work of the creation of platform cooperatives, and the conference organized by Trebor Scholz and Nathan Schneider in New York in November, will be a good start to evaluate the state of the art.

First of all, the relationships and networks surrounding the new school is very counter productive, in terms of power structures you are talking about it is an obviously wrong place and actors to start. It would be working in the opposite direction we already have been going. 

For instance, Carnegie Mellon Design from Carnegie Mellon University, founded by those who heavily involved in and linked to creation of Operation Research units located in Silicon Valley it is beyond my senses to get the objective here. Given Andrew Carnegie himself has been a top 1%er, the founder of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think thank ranking top third in 2014 in the most influential think thanks list (not as a civil NGO of course); it is not so hard to see dangers. Other organizers of the event The Free Lancers' union is a creating of the usual suspects, as Rockefeller, Ford and others all funded the project, and Horowicth has shown as most promising business women by Forbes with this invention called 'union'. The other guy, Google's head of research is being invited every event with such critical content.  

This all may sound like a contradiction, since the new school is also known as a sort of capital of systemic academic critic, at the empire side of the atlantic; one would argue that would be pretty strange if these giant 1% funders, top elite, give away crucial support to most critical work targeting the very foundations of the system they try to save, and critically looking beyond capitalism. Are they desperate, stupid, or up to something, can we benefit from them?  

What for the god's sake, and who, with what logic brings Carnegie Mellon design, head of google's research, free lancers union, with left institutions like rosa Luxembourg, and others on the same page? this is not converging systemic differentiation, in my opinion to avoid the worse coming. This is quite an opposite stage to be built to move towards what you MIchel suggest or propose in order to counter the structural dynamics leading all of us to a systemic collapse or catastrophe. To converge resistances that can create a new harmony for a peaceful or non-cathastorphic transition the address is a parallel wsf in Monteal, not i=even the wsf itself. 

With this regard, I believe there is an urgent practical need to start laying down a global 'state-of-the-power' map, to provide a guidance, base, in form of an interactive net to be developed and analyzed collectively, that would include ties and nodes interlocking personalities and organizations, especially from activism, struggles to ruling class - elite networks (such as mont Pellerin society, carnegie, national endowment. Brooklyn institute, Rockefeller, Ford, Club of Rome so on. Since trusting and believing naively that it would help to influence ruling class networks from progressive side with string hold ideas is one thing, giving most valuable systemic data and analysis to enemy-hands is another. 

To me, one of the most urgent tasks for the win is getting clarity, in terms of real obstacles and real strengths we oppressed people has. With this regard, although every one knows or thinks about infiltration and manipulation strategies of the rulers, it is always good to realize that the network of some most radical looking academics and activists has been willingly or unwillingly serving to the other-side, with or without good wil. Today there is a highest need to scientifically and systemically analyze and clarify what serves whose and what purpose without allowing anarco-liberal-right-wing tasted (shared by all these) conspiracy kind of scholastic accusations destructing any chance of real convergence amongst really naive and good forces of radical change aiming to move beyond capitalism, and the worst alternative to it.     

Believing you Michel, as Willi, and many on the list is from this camp, I would add on top of all the items you count Michel, a strong, sharp, clear, power-network-complexity analysis of the commons movements. 

Best, Orsan