[P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] The class structure of the "solidarity economy" or any alternative community

[Örsan Şenalp]

The hard evidence for such stuff can come from insiders. May be p2p
open intelligence guy (Robert Atllee?), or John Robb, or their contact
in special operation units, or intelligence could give better insight
about how these things work. In case you have time to go through, such
evidence is for long is made public by wikileaks. This is one single
example about Turkey and Gulen:
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/37/379052_fw-ct-former-turk-intel-guy-says-gulen-is-cia-front-in.html

This is Graham Fuller, CIA regional desk director for middle east
-based in Turkey for long, on Gulen:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/gulen-movement-not-cult_b_11116858.html

To compare Gulen with the Moon cult:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon

Also please google, or search wikileaks files on Gulen, Vatican, and
Moon relationships.

But I think anyone can try to develop clearer and informed argument,
using scattered intelligence on rulers and their global operations.

Which would takes a good article; in the end no one would read, or get
it, or don't want to get it :) as in Dmytri's article case, articles
can not change the world.

As for the moment, I can remind and try to compile some of the
different posts and links I shared in various context, while they were
all inter-related to me. They were linking, in my mind, or mapping the
historical inter-related developments of military deception, special
operation units, organisational science, TNCs and supply chains,
complex systems management, behavioural social-mass-movement
management (as in Canvas - Otpor story), and finally today's big data
based Minerva projects as complementary operations to PRISM and
others.

Gulen and Moon is extremely important, since they were 'left projects'
of radical democracy: known as long march through the institutions.
Rulers, get these left-'radical' reflections and implement them. In 30
years, Gulen occupied all high ranks at state institutions; starting
from armed forces, army and police, and jurisdiction and education.
Now they have been every where. The guys, both were related to Gladio,
and were prominent anti-communists; both become global liberal
religious 'movements'.

May be historically 'liberal' activists, as you see them as part of
the 'left', as in the US mainstream media and commonsense, Gulen and
Moon are used for soft-religious movements in Islamic and eastern
christian worlds. unification Church of Moon, or 'Dialogue' between
Religions project of Gulen, have been part of surrounding China, and
Russia since the end of 90s. In a sense, the rock-star left-activism
of Bob Geldof, Bono, Angelina Jolie, John Cossack, or Matt Damon for
that matter, is very related to the liberalism of Moon and Gulen. Not
in terms of radical social system change at all, but liberally
conserving or managing the complexities of the change process; so that
any change would not dis-allow 'being' famous, or 'being' millioners
-in which to them there is nothing wrong; but exactly because of this
they fell on the 'right' today, instead of 'left'.

I think Peter and you mean well, when you argue, for 'Dialogue', or
possibilities that are independent from what is being calculated,
choreographed, executed, or screened, as part of any ruling class
project or 'plots', as 'UBI' or 'Commmons', or 'Green New Economy',
neo-keinesianism so on; since nothing can be totally calculated there
can be positive and unexpected outcomes coming about. I think, no one
would disagree with this.

Yet, both in your arguments one can not hear about the limitations and
structural strait-jackets designed and put on such unexpected
'anomalies', or dangerous social complexities tried to be manged. I
would recommend you Pasquinelli's writings on 'systemic anomaly'
tracing algorithm as a supporting evidence about the size and scope of
the modern Panopticon; or clashes of Panopticons.  I think what is
thought as power of liberal democracy, in political-philosophical
sense, also reflects its biggest weakness. In relation to your
question Michel: 'how and why would CIA fund or back movies that
destroys its image?' this point is essential to grasp (not sure if you
watched any of the Bourne or Bond movies): any total or out-come
message sent by these movies is not serving to destruct the image of
the CIA, at all. In opposite it provide clearing for first 'liberal
democracy' in the US (as it remained at all), and then the truly
patriotic soul-elements within CIA that are constantly treated by
individual free riders, criminals, wrong doers; and blocked by them to
serve and save their country. This is not a destruction of the public
image of the CIA, opposite it is a part of deceptive image-cleaning
operation, imho.

As, in the scene, where Bourne meets someone appears in a terrorist
outlook, even darker skin, but who clearly represent Assange, wants to
expose 'all misdoing and fucked up institutions of the system'; and
Bourne clearly accuse him by exploiting the informant girl -just
killed by criminals running the 'agency- and he says he is not on
'their side'. Then there is the Google guy, whose owning the Deep
Dream, which got allowed by criminal aspects in CIA to be billioner,
and in returned asked to create 'Iron Hand' structure, to be able to
follow and record all private and public communication. Clearly film
represents the reality, as the CEO stands with CIA-gang, and good
guys, like the owner of Google, Bourne, and idealist potentially new
female candidate for directorship of the agency forms an alliance for
the future. There is no place to Assange, so he gets killed by Bourne
after he tries to get the files by killing him.

At a time internal fighting between the almost equally forces of
liberal and conservative ruling class fractions, such in-fights derail
the legitimacy of the entire system. Then out of the widening cracks,
there emerges right wing and fascist alternatives, in the midst of
increasingly delegitimation of the parlimantair liberal democracy;
casued by the publication of the darkness of the rulers through their
countering accuasations via films, media services, news, public
debates so on so forth. This constitute the weakness of the
power-balance, that is perceived as 'liberal democracy' to masses.
When this balance is broken, to a level, and losing control becomes a
real threat for liberals (as for conservatives) then they call for
stronger but domesticated 'left' voices, public figures, religious
cults... so on. Again look at Fuller's and other CIA linked
intellectuals writings for regional or world politics. To me, Matt
Damon, Bono, and other left-activists are popularising figures what
Graham Fuller was wishing more (left movement in Turkey). I would
argue, this is not a call, this is a talk in operational terms, and
they make this call globally and in general.

People like Fuller, knows that system without alternative is doomed to
collapse, and they want to create and manage the emergence of
left-alternatives. Weather p2p, commons, new economy,.. they want to
be in charge in the creation of The Next System.

O.













in