[P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] a short response to queries about the p2p'f workings in WSF

Mon Aug 15 19:33:13 CEST 2016

Sorry for typo, wrote on the phone without glasses :) 

I meant: 

"certainly there is no similar revolutionary treat, or politics that can go out of rulers control to pose a treat in near future to the current system, in this front." 

To be honest, before going to TNI to volunteer first, also TIE (transnationals information exchange) I did read Carroll's text in an article form. I had my doubts about structural Soros funding; then it was 2007. Since them Soros funding went to TNI also its US sister IPS. I just ask if you were Soros and saw any doubtful relation or idea coming out from these politics or research wouldn't you consider to cut down your support? This is most extreme case : over 15 years continuous monetary support.. It's like an organic tie, isn't it? Or as Wall Street spread credit without asking any payback do they spread millions of dollars around? May be we should let the other half dying from hunger to apply for such free money?

Orsan 

> On 15 Aug 2016, at 19:22, Orsan Senalp <orsan1234 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Peter, first of all, I don't condemn or accuse directly, but critically question of the limits of work-policy-political activism combination where money comes structurally from the 1%; what would dependent position mean in such cases. You say let's assume for the best and hope for good will of the individuals. I know the details of Lenin's German relations and for how long did it go before and after the revolution, yet even in that case Germany might count on and support Lenin for their calculations in the war with other imperialist block at their eastern front of the war. In today's conjuncture such support I would argue is given with a similar purposes, and/or for other; yet certainly there is no similar revolutionary threat, or politics that can go out of rulers control to pose a turret to Queen's system, in this front. 
> 
> Or, it is there and I am missing that? 
> 
> Orsan
> 
> 
>> On 15 Aug 2016, at 17:57, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Orsan:
>> 
>> I have not yet read the document to which you refer. But I am hoping that you are not condemning it - without trial, judge or jury - as 'Guilty by Funding'. This would not be the same as an ad hominem attack. But it would seem to have the similar characteristic of addressing the author/publisher rather than the content.
>> 
>> Now, I may have here been misunderstanding your argument concerning that P2P document. But I have to say that I am quite exhausted by the assumption that Funding Inevitably Taints. 
>> 
>> There is literature concerning both the funding of NGOs (in the USA), and the Left foundations (internationally) that are presumably dependent on funders.
>> 
>> The first is, of course, 'The Revolution Will Not Be Funded' which, despite its brilliant title, I seem to recall as allowing that - even in the extreme conditions surrounding such funding in the US - it did not inevitably taint outcomes.
>> 
>> The other is a study of these progressive international think-tanks by Bill Carroll, which includes the TNI, the GCS Centre in Durban, South Africa, and various others. It's just out and available online for, I think, E. 25.
>> 
>> So, I would suggest that any further criticism of NGOs, Leftist think tanks, etc, would require first reading these texts, thus adding some empirical and conceptual weight to any evaluation of their operations.
>> 
>> Finally, did you know that in addition to paying for and facilitating the famous  'sealed train' that brought Lenin back to Russia during WW1, that Lenin also brought with a considerable amount of German Imperial funding. 
>> 
>> Thus suggesting that the 'The Revolution Can be Funded'?
>> 
>> P
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Orsan Senalp <orsan1234 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Michel, 
>>> 
>>> This is the outcome of that collaborative effort on the hackpad, of which production professional individuals, which means, whose work in this field in one or another way paid by one or other sources. As for the contributions they made is compensated, according to your own definition the outcome not be peer produced commons [space or politics]: 
>>> http://wiki.remixthecommons.org/images/Final_Program_Commons_Space.pdf
>>> 
>>> As you can see P2P-f is amongst the organizers and at the end there is the logo of Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation, whose CEO is also on this list and head of Edge funders coalition; which were also organizing commons related event at the WSF. As you declared before this is a 'radical funders' coalition who wish to change the world in a radical way; so commons bade peer production can replace the world they live in; property relations their lives and sociality depends on. And you are/were certain before that they have given to you full autonomy; so can you confirm that in this initiative of 'commons space' Kevin acted with full autonomy from you and P2p foundation; as Elisabetta from Transform; so that collective efforts that could be made in a totally an open and independent from the represented organizations and their funder; in other word any outcome including any radical vision, that would oppose or mismatch with the political properties and policy agenda of the Leopold Mayer and Edge funders' vision or vision of other organizations took part in the production of a wsf agenda for the Commons and commons transition? 
>>> 
>>> Orsan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 15 Aug 2016, at 10:20, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Kevin may yet respond to Orsan queries and the suspicions that the p2p-f is setting the agenda in the WSF and elswhere.
>>>> 
>>>> My understanding of the events at the WSF is that they were organized by a large team of commoners from different countries but under the impulse originally of Kevin and Elizabetta, who took a personal initiative on this.
>>>> 
>>>> The process was done entirely openly on hackpads and mailings lists with everyone welcome to contribute which was in the end several dozen people who did a really great job. My understanding is that Orsan did not wish to contribute to these efforts, which was entirely his decision. Kevin asked us to use our server to open a mailing list to help this project. This does not mean that these events were orchestrated in any particular way by the P2P Foundation, though various sympathizers of our work, such as Kevin, will have contributed a lot of time and effort to make it happen, along with many others from other organizations as well as non-affiliated.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> But here is my take, so that people may understand better how we function in that regard. The questions from Orsan seem to be predicated on a in my view old-fashioned view of conspirational hierarchical organizations that does not reflect our practice.
>>>> 
>>>> I very emphatically want to declare that there was not a single meeting as p2p-f in which any decisions were made outside of that process on the hackpad and mailing list, and outside of the free dialogue of all the contributors. I was personally not involved at all except for a requested intervention on coops which I did not fullfil for health reasons.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> so here is a one paragraph summary explanation:
>>>> 
>>>> "It is important to realize that the p2p-f is an organized network and not a NGO (the 'stichting' is just a legal structure to be able to accept research grants etc ..). As a network , there is no membership but people can self-declare themselves symphatizers and as long as they stay in the broad framework of pluralistic support for p2p and the commons, there will be no objection to it (just as they did with occupy for example). So individuals in our network are free to declare their affiliation to the p2p-f in personal capacity. They may call themselves members or contributors, but there is no formal membership. This does not mean they represent the whole of the network. It also means they are not 'dispatched' by the P2P-F with a specific agenda. In addition, because of the accrued prestige of our work for a decade, we are often asked to add our name to the organizational rosters and sponsors of an event. This is often of mutual benefit and so readily accepted. Here also, it does not mean that the P2P Foundation is necessarily a co-organizer on the ground, though symphatizes may have contributed and collaborated to the event in different fashions. Today, the core group of the p2p-f consists of 6 individuals operating on a shoestring budget, and mostly they are responsible for their own income. We intend at some point to function in a more organizational way but this is still a very emergent practice so far. Most of the time, we operate as a service organization and act upon invitation and requests, this means we are sure that what we are doing is useful for the social movement we support, since they directly reflect their expressed needs."
>>>> 
>>>> I hope this makes sense,
>>>> 
>>>> Michel
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org  
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Click here for Peter's recent writings
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20160815/8f77bf81/attachment.html>