[P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] questions re funding of p2p value conference

Orsan Senalp orsan1234 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 6 09:40:56 CEST 2016


My request from Carminda (local wsf committee, Chico (and the IC), and you guys, to try to effort to create a Commons Space; during the Wsf, somewhere central and fixed, to gather day and evening assemblies, to exchange and strategize as commoners; not commons NGOs; a space produced and taken care of all participating equally and horizontally ... Something that is at least little bit similar to your Remix the Commons charter describes:

What is Remix the Commons?
Remix the Commons is an open intercultural space for sharing and co-creating multimedia documents about the commons. Remix the Commons supports production, animation and distribution projects on the commons.

What are the shared resources of Remix the Commons?
Remix the Commons offers a catalogue of documents in different forms about the commons, categorized by type of commons and by issue for the movement of the commons.

What can Remix the Commons do for you?
The website of Remix the Commons allows you to distribute and share your documents, to use and freely remix the documents that have been added by users who have authorized it. Remix the Commons also offers pedagogical, technical and operational assistance to people with production, animation and remixing projects.

Who can use Remix the Commons?
The resources shared by Remix the Commons are made available to everyone, including individuals and organizations.

What are your responsibilities?
To share and take part in Remix the Commons by adhering to its mission, its values and its rules of functioning.
To pay special consideration to people, particularly to the authors and contributors, and take care of the tools and media of Remix the Commons.
To contribute to the media catalogue, help with maintenance and the improvement of the pedagogical, logistic, conceptual, material and technical resources and participate in the governance of Remix the Commons.
To contribute to the documentation of the project, the shared resources and the governance of Remix the Commons.

How are the resources shared in Remix the Commons?
The documents
The media documents shared by Remix the Commons are the property of their authors and are put under the intellectual property license of their choice. The media files are put under a free license : CC BY, CC.BY.SA, Dom Pub, C0, and can be added to the Remix the Commons collection, as well as hosted and distributed on the Remix platform.

Remix the Commons encourages the authors of the original media documents and remixed documents to put their work under an intellectual property license that permits the remixing and the reuse of the contents and insures the viral distribution of these documents.

The catalogue
The catalogue of media documents of Remix the Commons is a collective and collaborative work within which the contents are put under a Creative Commons BY SA license so that each contributor owns the rights to his or her contributions.

The platform
The tools, the developed processes and the documentation of Remix the Commons are based on software and technologies that are open source or under copyleft licenses.

How is Remix the Commons governed?
Remix the Commons is a common good. Its governance is collective and collaborative.
By governance, we mean a process of reflection, decision making and evaluation based on open and enlightened partnerships between the different stakeholders of the project, at the local as well as global level and in an intercultural group dynamic.

Remix the Commons’ governance is horizontal. Remix the Commons’ decisions are taken by the general assembly of users who wish to become a part of the collective. This collective meets regularly and the decisions are made by means of a discussion list of which the archives are made public. The decisions are adopted by consensus or on the principle that one person equals one voice.

The authentically open governance of Remix the Commons respects the principles of communication and participation of the public. Remix the Commons ensures that genuinely accessible means are made available in terms of ergonomics, accessibility and limiting technical pre-requisites. Remix the Commons has the vocation to liberate itself from the heart of its founding collective.

Who can contribute and finance Remix the Commons?
Remix the Commons’ means are assembled through the pooling of resources from individual and organizations volunteers. They ensure not to report separately to the same donors and to keep public their financing and contributions to the project.

What Remix the Commons is not?
Remix the Commons is not a library or encyclopedia on the commons.
Remix the Commons is not a multimedia production company.
Remix the Commons is not a space which collects all media managed in the commons. It is not a substitute of Wiki Commons for example.

Version 0.2 – December 17th 2011

The Remix the Commons Charter is a tool in constant evolution that develops with the project’s contributors."

Not only at WsF but along the way, towards a genuinely global commons movement. I say the main trajectory so far, has been exactly the same to old WsF and NGO sector structures and culture..

It shouldn't be hard to remix these..





> On 06 Jul 2016, at 03:44, Frédéric Sultan <fredericsultan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Orsan,
> No doubt that each of us can have his/her idea on the choices made by P2PF and Commons Strategies Group. But my personal experience is that it was always possible to discuss these positions with the people I know in these organizations and sometime people have change their ideas, sometime it was me that have changed mine. And sometime we just let the issue open. No need to be aggressive against person with a such "procès d'intention". You add some théorie du complot based arguments and denied the right to people to have political arguments for their strategical choices because "we are supposed to support and nurture ..." but actually who is the "we" when your "constructive suggestion" start by supposing that I (and other people involved in this dynamic, but I speak only in my name) am not "really really sincere" and that your supposed "we" have to create a "totally autonomous spaces for commoners"... so I suppose that I am not a commoner or not enough pure ?
> The Commons Space is open to participation and to critics. It is the result of agreement with a fondation. It has its agenda and we (the organizations that have signed the invitation) have our owns. The existence of this commons space reveals that there are compromises between these visions.
> For me it will be more interesting to debate about the quality and the strategical interest of the proposals developed within the commons space, including yours, and their possible interactions for building an open and diverse culture, politic of the commons, for me, for you and for the people interested. But it is not an issue just for the fun and if I love trolls at 2 AM, I am preparing a workshop with activists working on the ground with their neighbours, so I would like to know if your complaint against Commons space is just "un effet colatéral" when you are bombing against the major groups P2PF and CSG, or something else.
> Best
> Frédéric Sultan
> Le 05/07/2016 19:06, Silke Helfrich a écrit :
>>> Am 05.07.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Orsan:
>>> , again it is not about individuals like you or me, but about
>>> culture we are supposed to support and nurture.
>> you nailed it, Orsan. that's what I thought, when I read your
>> e-mail.
>> More later, via the list in a hurry Greetings to all Silke
>> In any case, I hear
>>> first time that you are not employed by P2P-F and your activities
>>> towards Wsf is not on behalf of the foundation, then to clarify;
>>> who are you doing it for, who is paying for your time and labour,
>>> and expenses. Do you reflect your preferences, philosophy and
>>> politics or the any organization, then p2p-f? Would appreciate if
>>> you clarify this to those following your and p2p-f's work. Again
>>> lack of my participation is not the issue, but division of labour,
>>> and differences in cultural reproduction is at stake here. Hope you
>>> and Michel, and others could understand and respond to this
>>> dimension rather then giving political answers.
>>> Best. Orsan
>>> On 5 jul. 2016, at 15:38, Kevin Flanagan <kev.flanagan at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:kev.flanagan at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> LI don't have time at the moment for a full detailed response but
>>>> I want to make a few things clear.
>>>> 1) I am no longer employed by the P2P Foundation and the P2PF is
>>>> not providing any financial support or payment for my
>>>> participation in the FSM. 2) Elisabetta Cangelosi and I initiated
>>>> a discussion about the presence of Commons at the FSM last year
>>>> as an independent initiative. Meaning the only connection with
>>>> P2PF is that the mailing list was hosted by P2PF. 3) We created
>>>> mailing list and invited you Orsan several times to participate
>>>> in the process. We value constructive input but your
>>>> participation or lack of is up to you.
>>>> Kevin
>>>> On 5 July 2016 at 15:00, Örsan Şenalp <orsan1234 at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:orsan1234 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> Michel, in response to your reply I also like to direct this
>>>> email to the attention of Silke, David, Pat, James, Chico.. and
>>>> other self-claimed strategists, organisers, leaders, of global
>>>> justice and solidarity, and now commons movements..
>>>> First issue, is the one you avoid to respond; lack of
>>>> prefiguration hence moral - cultural leadership, neede for the
>>>> hegemony you are willing to build over first other movements,
>>>> then against the ruling classes. This is a general issue, and is
>>>> a critique of all NGO sector; 'progressive' or 'supportive' NGO
>>>> cadre, degenerate 'solidairty and justice' culture, by getting
>>>> stuck and generate 'capitalist' competitive culture. That is why,
>>>> in a Gramscian sense, it would never be possible to get real
>>>> moral and intellectual leadership over the progressive movements,
>>>> like commons movement, that you are trying to 'build' or mould
>>>> out of real people's real struggles.
>>>> In 2013, and 2014, together with others from most recent
>>>> movements, from Occupy, 15M, Arab spring, and including Carminda
>>>> McLorin -from Occupy Montreal and Classe, an initiative formed
>>>> and called itself 'Global Square'. We have designed and tried to
>>>> open up an occupied Commons Space, within the WSF in Tunis 2013
>>>> and 2014: http://www.global-square.net/about/ Carminda was had
>>>> participated all calls and meetings of Global Square actively and
>>>> she become the face of the WSF Montreal local coordination team
>>>> (with Chico Whiteaker being on her side). Based on unique
>>>> experience we developed, in a really p2p and commoning way,
>>>> during 2011-2014 period, at Agora99, Frienze 10+10, WSF Tunis
>>>> under the Banner of Global Square (with combined methodologies)
>>>> in 2014 I tried out to scratch the below designs on the way to
>>>> Montreal. I shared it with you, and it has been picked up by you,
>>>> and others; then it was modified into un-P2P and un-common ways
>>>> and translated in to NGO format with carefully controlled access
>>>> (over the funding opportunities and competitiveness reasons I
>>>> assume).. and we have a modified Commons Space. Here is the
>>>> Hackpad where Kevin, of the P2P Foundation has been the main
>>>> organiser from the beginning, with Elisabetta of Transform:
>>>> https://commonsspace.hackpad.com/Commons-Space-k6rOCvUgyhC
>>>> As response to your question what is the easy way to go to WSF
>>>> and finding support for that: I think your is a political answer,
>>>> since it is your choice not to go to WSF personally, you
>>>> expressed it before; so you are sending Kevin to do the ground
>>>> work for the Foundation to build an event I foresee and suggested
>>>> to you last year -on the Commons. Meanwhile, James of the P2P
>>>> foundation, is responsible from the Global Commons Conference, in
>>>> Amsterdam where I live. You say you would recommend me, to
>>>> people, but about the idea I desingned and shared with you,
>>>> James, your secretariat is recommended.
>>>> You are expected to be invited to WSF and paid for some other
>>>> organisations, while Kevin's participation and ground work labour
>>>> is paid by P2P Foundation. You personally are not able to go WSF,
>>>> but P2P Foundation is taking the responsibility to organise a
>>>> major Commons event at the WSF in August, and James organise
>>>> another global event in Amsterdam for the EU project of which P2P
>>>> Foundation is a partner. Which was originally my suggestion..
>>>> Here is the genuinely p2p and commons way design for WSF Commons
>>>> Space event, I designed in 2014: Peer to Peer Transnational
>>>> Networking for a Commons Humanity
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vRRHhASr9wfWolPJzq0Ec7gsomug2T-jeTFmqfzrE3U/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> The below design I made it in 2013 to ensure a broader alliance
>>>> between variety of forces; in an open and peer to peer solider
>>>> way.. based on ideas re the development of open spaces, towards
>>>> and during the WSF as well as other events. It was taken,
>>>> modified and adopted to NGO style. Below is how it was translated
>>>> to NGO language by Stacco,who was an occupy activist and
>>>> ex-worker owned coop practitioner, now professional expert hired
>>>> by P2P Foundation:
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Wud-VMjA89aE14GNWDE_YkUMNqIYsK-oLVLo4bVW-6Q/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> And during 2014, there was an email discussion about avoiding
>>>> cooptation and developing a pool resource for commoners, using
>>>> the funding recuperated by commons NGOs type organisations;
>>>> supposed to be supportive of commons. Discussion taken place mid
>>>> 2014, before or after Degrowth conference, and then Michel, you
>>>> suggested the below idea, which has not been implemented, yet.
>>>> Open Coop development agency idea:
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/188Y7COujNwhU60pMiNypXHaRHgLrjKywVlfN6AyOdCY/edit
>>>> Although I find EDGE Founders, under the leadership of commons
>>>> friendly Nicolas Krauzs of P2P Foundations funder FHP (Charles
>>>> Leopold Mayer Foundation), it is clearly an
>>>> human-washorganisation with Soros' open society and US' large
>>>> corporate funders behind, they might have been imposing their own
>>>> agenda over the commons; about which you guys have no idea. I
>>>> will provide a deeper analysis of this, with proves. But for the
>>>> moment I just like to share the nice and sincere-open reports of
>>>> the events, documented by Pat Conaty and David Boiler, and am
>>>> guessing are the selective events organised and you have been
>>>> able to join: This is the event on Open Cooperativism:
>>>> http://bollier.org/open-co-operativism-report
>>>> And this is the top-down vision of alliance building: Part
>>>> I:http://commonstransition.org/a-new-alignment-of-movements-part-i-the-general-challenge/
>>>> Part
>>>> II:http://commonstransition.org/a-new-alignment-of-movements-part-ii-strategies-for-a-convergence-of-movements/
>>>> I like to reader to pay attention of funders, participants'
>>>> composition, and the content. The total picture is clearly
>>>> top-down movement building, beyond the closed doors. These are
>>>> not supportive nice, exchange wise productive events.
>>>> To finish, I like to make one constructive suggestion. If you
>>>> guys, really really sincere, please consider use the some part of
>>>> the fundings getting collected -i take it recuperated from the
>>>> public resources stolen by state elite- and give it back to
>>>> commoners, by for instance creating totally autonomous spaces for
>>>> them; so by time for them; inviting commoners from the Global
>>>> South, paying their registration fees, arrange them a permentant
>>>> space in the Montreal WSF; in where they can have time and energy
>>>> to exchange and build their own agenda in their own ways and
>>>> means.
>>>> In solidarity, Orsan
>>>> PS: as promised below is the documentation of the "driver seat"
>>>> phenomenon...
>>>> -- the date was beginning of 2015, not mid 2014, did confuse the
>>>> years. I pasted entire email exchange to give the contex:
>>>> John <restakis at gmail.com <mailto:restakis at gmail.com>>
>>>> 07/01/2015 to Pat, Michel, me, Brian, Michel, networkedlabour,
>>>> e-mail, David, Michael, margie I like the four wheels. And us in
>>>> the drivers seat!
>>>> On 15-01-07 6:17 PM, Pat Conaty wrote:
>>>> Michel
>>>> Touche and very good but some in this list our ends and others
>>>> means. So a bit more work involved, but getting there.
>>>> As Polanyi argued, Commons solutions for land, money and people
>>>> to take them out of market are a sine qua non so money becomes
>>>> servant not master. With this focus we can get onto the right
>>>> livelihoods roadway of the Tools for Convivality arguments of
>>>> Illich.
>>>> The social-public partnership is crucial of course. The Guild
>>>> socialists understood this in the 1920s as did much of the left
>>>> in Europe before they were slaughtered by fascism.
>>>> Pat
>>>> On 7 Jan 2015, at 15:03, Michel Bauwens
>>>> <michel at p2pfoundation.net <mailto:michel at p2pfoundation.net>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> to take your wheel metaphor,
>>>> if one wheel is the commons, the second wheel cooperatives , the
>>>> third weel sustainability, and the fourth wheel the partner
>>>> state (necessary civic infrastructures including things like the
>>>> basic income) .. are we missing a lot ? (I see social justice as
>>>> part of that fourth wheel)
>>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Pat
>>>> Conaty<pat.commonfutures at phonecoop.coop
>>>> <mailto:pat.commonfutures at phonecoop.coop>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Orsan and Brian
>>>>> Great comments yet again. We are on to something here in this
>>>> exchange. So important for all of Europe as the Greek election
>>>> approaches. A bit like the Allende election it feels.
>>>>> The whole world this time is watching with instant news
>>>>> globally.
>>>>> When I talk about the solutions being as old as the industrial
>>>> hills, I mean that at each Long K-wave, offers a chance and this
>>>> time for a Great Transition  in the way Kenneth Boulding
>>>> expressed this in the 1960s is at hand. Michel’s argument for a
>>>> Commons Transition is crucial as the unless the biosphere is
>>>> saved, we are heading for a 6 degree rise in global temperatures
>>>> as Naomi Klein’s latest book both highlights and points to a
>>>> common cause to  unite social movements. She makes the parallel
>>>> to the movement to abolish slavery, but here the campaign and
>>>> focus should be on ending wage slavery. I think Gar Alperovitz
>>>> offers us far more than meets the eye. As a young researcher, he
>>>> cut his teeth in the 1960s working for Dr. Martin Luther King. In
>>>> his latest book he points out that if the US annual income was
>>>> equitably shared, each family could be provided a Basic Income
>>>> of $200,000 or $100,000 for a 20 hour week. Abundance is at hand
>>>> if co-operative economic root and branch solutions could be
>>>> harnessed.
>>>>> Let me explain…...
>>>>> Boulding was an evolutionary economist following more closely
>>>> the path of Veblen then Schumpeter. He was also a pioneer of
>>>> systems theory and complexity analysis. He saw the Great
>>>> Transition along the lines of what Schumacher, Illich and others
>>>> were hoping might happen after the Opec oil crisis. They wanted
>>>> to jump from the information age to the social knowledge age.
>>>> Intermediate technology was a way to solve the gap between North
>>>> and South and to secure a convergence between green and red
>>>> thinking or social economics and ecological economics.
>>>>> Few among the New Left saw what they were forecasting and
>>>> understood the practical and positive hope they were offering.
>>>> Exceptions though were Erich Fromm and Andre Gorz who embraced
>>>> the ideas of Illich for Tools for Convivality. Fromm also in the
>>>> 1950s made these arguments and stood up on national US TV
>>>> interviews to the bogeyman of McCarthy.
>>>>> Gorz set this out in a series of books starting with his
>>>> Critique of Economic Rationality and early arguments for a Basic
>>>> Income. Also in the UK in the early 1980s the work of the
>>>> Greater London Council and the technology networks that Robin
>>>> Murray and Hilary Wainwright were moving forward on linked up
>>>> with this thinking and that of Mike Cooley in the work on the
>>>> Lucas Plan and the case for a radically new trade unionism.
>>>>> Co-operative solutions if only seen in relation to corporate
>>>> ownership are one dimension only of systems change. Only one
>>>> wheel when we need at least three or four. What you find though
>>>> historically is at or near to the K-wave turning points, say
>>>> 1880s, 1920s and indeed the 1970s you get a wider take that is
>>>> three or four dimensional in relation to co-operative economic
>>>> transition. This is the concept of ‘co-operative commonwealth’
>>>> that is lost sight of again and again by younger generations
>>>> because of the say 50 year K-waves.
>>>>> Like Camus showed, we end up having to rebel without cause
>>>>> from
>>>> generation to generation and only and slowly slowly recover the
>>>> vernacular wisdom of our grandparents.
>>>>> Crucially here activists and thinkers alike when they
>>>>> rediscover
>>>> the full set of co-operative wheels at last, they then begin to
>>>> address the fundamental foundations of capitalism, namely the
>>>> taboo questions of land and money. Solving these two is the key
>>>> to ending wage labour slavery.
>>>>> You might find of interest this paper I presented at the
>>>> international Karl Polanyi conference in Montreal two months
>>>> ago. Earlier at the conference, Michael Hudson gave a superb
>>>> speech about financialisation and the casinos economy crisis. The
>>>> vote in Greece on 25 January may trigger a Lehman II crisis.
>>>> Michael and I talked and he fully agreed with this analysis and
>>>> proposals. I found out this second time I met Michael that in the
>>>> late 1960s and early 1970s he was working for Citibank as a
>>>> collector of Latin American sovereign debt. He then had his
>>>> Pauline conversion, quit Wall Street and moved to the New School
>>>> for Social Research.
>>>>> My paper offers some practical solutions as to how to
>>>> de-commodify money and land. Michel has just posted it in recent
>>>> weeks a three part series on the P2P website.
>>>>> Without addressing these taboo questions positively,
>>>> transparently and practically, wars will loom larger. Greece,
>>>> Ireland, Spain and indeed the UK need a prisoners dilemma
>>>> roadmap out of expanding debt as the fiscal deficits are
>>>> ballooning and there is no Jubilee release in sight.
>>>>> All the best
>>>>> Pat
>>>>>> On 7 Jan 2015, at 11:28, Orsan <orsan1234 at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:orsan1234 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> thanks Michel, this came very timely indeed, site looks great
>>>> and the content just answers in my opinion perfectly half of the
>>>> question Brian asks below, he also asked before and you have
>>>> given   a perfect answer indicating what a site and platform as
>>>> you launch corresponds in reality.
>>>>> I think this work focusing and addressing state or political
>>>> society level/dimension of what needs to be done together, and
>>>> doing it extremely good. Plus the closer relationship emerged in
>>>> recent years between P2P-F, with Guerrilla Translation, CIC, and
>>>> Fair.coop closely, I think Michel and friends of P2P, with
>>>> open-commons-cooperative approach has moved much closer to the
>>>> recently converging grassroots activism to a position that can
>>>> greatly contribute to a bridge building activity, with normal
>>>> people the actual field of political movements and struggles.
>>>>> I continue in lines below:
>>>>> let me very appropriately I think, after enjoying the insights
>>>> of all, just briefly mention thathttp://commonstransition.orghas
>>>> been launched today, precisely meant as a global platform for
>>>> p2p/commons based policy making by global and local commoners,
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Brian
>>>> Holmes<bhcontinentaldrift at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:bhcontinentaldrift at gmail.com>>wrote:
>>>>>> Orsan, your ideas are tremendously interesting. Thank you. I
>>>> would appreciate it even more if you take some time to draw more
>>>> strategic conlcusions. What to do in the present situation? What
>>>> to do with the kinds of energies and cetworks and collaborations
>>>> in which we ourselves can participate?
>>>>>>> To me, the process packaged as Globalization, was the most
>>>>>>> peaceful possible form of the institutionalization project
>>>> aiming to
>>>>>>> rebuild the world as a small village connected by
>>>> information
>>>>>>> highway of Bill Gates'. As Cox describes in the below
>>>> video, and I
>>>>>>> share the way he describes it, Asian crisis can be seen as
>>>>>>> a breaking point.
>>>>>> I could not agree more. For years I ran an intermittent
>>>>>> seminar
>>>> called "Continental Drift" whose main these was exactly the
>>>> above. The question was: Why is it that exactly when the world
>>>> comes together (globalization) it begins to fall apart
>>>> (continental blocs)?
>>>>>> Slowly it became apparent to me that the US, which had been
>>>> well and truly hegemonic after WWII, could only solve the crisis
>>>> of the Keynesian-Fordist paradigm by internationalizing key
>>>> power functions. They believed this extension of hegemony could
>>>> be restricted to the two Northern core states which, not
>>>> coincidentally, had been destroyed in WWII and rebuilt under
>>>> American auspices: namely Germany/EU and Japan. So you would
>>>> have a Trilateral hegemony, or "Triad Power," as Kenichi Ohmae
>>>> called it (yen-euro-dollar: YE$). After '89 and First Gulf War,
>>>> Clinton believed that the colonization of the unified world
>>>> market could be managed, peacefully, by this troika, which had
>>>> solved the monetary crisis of the 70s and had also assembled the
>>>> largest military coalition in history in 1991. In fact, the world
>>>> market was unified by the new productive processes of Neoliberal
>>>> Informationalism. But the bid to retain hegemony by sharing it
>>>> proved illusory, especially because of the rise of Asia, and
>>>> especially China, after the Asian crisis of '98. Control
>>>> threatened to slip away into every semi-autonomous node of the
>>>> world market, and the US turned to preemptive warfare and
>>>> institutionalized counter-terrorism in a desperate and failing
>>>> bid to contain the genie that it had let out of the bottle. That
>>>> genie is nothing more or less than the deliriously productive
>>>> forces of fifth-wave industrial capitalism.
>>>>>> This is why Neoliberal Informationalism is so hard to
>>>>>> govern.
>>>> The old power is crumbling (very slowly though), the new one is
>>>> not yet ready to take command, and we are faced with the global
>>>> organic crisis of hegemony, which as Gramsci would say, is full
>>>> of morbid symptoms. In my view, however, this is a far better
>>>> situation than if China were ready to simply replace the US as
>>>> capitalist hegemon. Because it is not, we have the chance, in
>>>> this generation, to complete the task of building a critical and
>>>> constructive global civil society, able to face both climate
>>>> change and the constant threat of inter-regional war between the
>>>> fragmented blocs. The thing is, the Trilateral period spawned
>>>> not just TNCs, but also TNCS - transnational civil society, or
>>>> what I also call transnational culture sharing. For me, that is
>>>> the deep meaning of p2p. It's the other genie that got out of the
>>>> bottle, and this one is not industrial or capitalist. It is a
>>>> practical, constructive, dialogical way to build cooperation
>>>> across the scales - from local and urban to national, continental
>>>> and global - in order to tame, restrain and redirect (but also
>>>> sometimes topple) the rapacious elites who are now anarchically
>>>> deploying the powers of informationalism.
>>>>> totally agree here, again with reference to Gramsci, the
>>>>> organic
>>>> crisis emerging at point organic intellectuals can not function
>>>> and facilitate coherence and consensus amongst the ruling
>>>> classes, as in smoothing informal network spaces like Davos,
>>>> Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg
>>>> meetings, but also at local level with Rotary-Lions, or Masonic
>>>> Clubs, especially at the time of miss-match between the
>>>> sub-structure and super-structure occurs. However you are right,
>>>> focusing to knowing enemy more then yourself is not an health
>>>> way, and agree we need to look for answers to, also in my
>>>> opinion, most crucial point. How we, as everyone else then elite,
>>>> and ruling class members, and their broader circles, will move
>>>> forward, mobilizing and organizing ourselves to act to protect
>>>> our own, and others dignity, lives and the cosmos, in practice.
>>>>>> p2p = the possiblity of global government from below. This
>>>>>> is
>>>> what progressive global grassroots networks have been
>>>> experimenting with since the mid-1990s, around the time that
>>>> Zapatismo emerged. And this is what Michel was calling "the
>>>> business model of Occupy" in a memorable article a couple years
>>>> back.
>>>>> I see in the link Michel shared a growing interaction and
>>>>> mutual
>>>> learning that might also feed in more moral, creative, and
>>>> genuinely collaborative politics to emerge amongst new and old
>>>> left between Autonomists, European left, democratic socialist
>>>> groups. Such convergence would develop opening ups for
>>>> collaborative politics including greens and mainstream unions,
>>>> with positive and creative input might come most hopefully from
>>>> Podemos kind of experiments. Thinking for instance Rojava and
>>>> the role it can play here, if the Cantons in theory and practice
>>>> are linked to social houses, squatter and transition town
>>>> networks, as well as to urban cooperatives and peer producers. I
>>>> believe the professional politics is the last part to expect
>>>> anything good at the moment, or it needs to be thought as a last
>>>> resort to hope from but something to encourage to go for the real
>>>> change by showing. Since a possible convergence is indeed needed,
>>>> as Anna said earlier, if we want to reverse the worsening general
>>>> situation.
>>>>> For a long time I have been busy thinking of and searching in,
>>>> on, behind, around, progressive political and societal
>>>> institutions, unions, NGOs, activist and political collectives,
>>>> as well as streets, actions, assemblies so on -being close and
>>>> far enough to the worlds of unionism, party politics,
>>>> developmental and progressive NGOism, and issue based social
>>>> justice movements- studying divisions, ideas and practices of
>>>> alliances, tried to see possibilities to realize sincere
>>>> collaboration based on mutual recognition between groups. What I
>>>> have come to think most recently is, a bit different than what
>>>> Michel suggested by prioritizing one of the many among who
>>>> suffers the conditions of today the peer producers as main
>>>> protagonist to be protected and flourished, actually probably he
>>>> also meant it this way that, creation of distributed p2p
>>>> platforms and infrastructures that allow people to liberate from
>>>> capital and to get empowered to become peer producers for
>>>> themselves and for others. More in line with what Peter Waterman
>>>> cites often in my opinion, 'the network is the vanguard'; to open
>>>> up p2p, egalitarian self-organiased networks of world working
>>>> classes -for itself- is the vanguard, not one of the enlightened
>>>> or segments of them, or any entity that claims to be acting on be
>>>> half of masses, building on a position of chosen class or class
>>>> segment because of the historical and strategic position it has
>>>> occupy in the global production-commodity networks. Which brings
>>>> me to the point below.
>>>>>>> I will cut it here but before like to saying one last
>>>> thing about
>>>>>>> the similarity I do see between the netarhicalness of
>>>> Walmart,
>>>>>>> Apple, and even Nike and Amazon on the one hand, and the
>>>> forms like
>>>>>>> Google, Facebook, Airbnb, and others who accumulate
>>>> wealth by
>>>>>>> producing and selling meta-data to other businesses, on
>>>> the other. I
>>>>>>> see here similarity between these forms not in terms of
>>>> how they
>>>>>>> extract, capture and accumulate the value, but the way
>>>> they organise
>>>>>>> their production line in order to capture the value
>>>>>>> created.
>>>>> I will go back to the analysis I promised above in the next
>>>> email. Now I like to continue answering your question in
>>>> relation how we ourselves would be engaging in such (un)vanguard
>>>> people's political-economy networking; which I have been woking
>>>> on a design draft called 'FreeKonomia'. It is as a networked
>>>> infrastructure for totally free exchange of very high quality
>>>> goods and services, produced by love and care, which is to be
>>>> supported by integrated floss platforms. One aspect is for free
>>>> transportation of people, work force, and light material goods,
>>>> as well as some portable services. It is possible to be re-design
>>>> a version of BlaBlaCar-Go with Open-map embed showing the points
>>>> to get on and get off, handy if these are social centers,
>>>> people's houses, as routes between them to organize the car-go
>>>> function. For building larger projects and  physical
>>>> infrastructures we need to combine scientific expertise, like
>>>> those brought together in co-working spaces such as OMNI in
>>>> Oakland, and large Occupy camps, where people could go camp, have
>>>> fun and rest while working. What is needed of course to be
>>>> embedded also is an application that help to match needs and
>>>> offers of any kind is Sensorica kind, or NPR, Bob and Lynn has
>>>> been developing, including kind of admin and tracking
>>>> application, where everyone can see and show who needs what,
>>>> where, when, what amount. It is very key to manage this all for
>>>> Free as in Free Beer, and based on positive and encouraging
>>>> repetitional system, as the driving feed back loop mechanism. So
>>>> the more you share for free and high quality with others, both
>>>> system and participants gain value and trust. then freeness and
>>>> personality would become the anti-money so to speak, replacing
>>>> and killing the unconditional love and trust we used to give to
>>>> stupid and dirty papers and metals :) I think mass solidarity
>>>> actions towards Greek and Spanish social houses, Rojava and
>>>> Ukrain, for both peace and humanity, can be designed to build up
>>>> such routes and maps, and this can be linked to Sharing cities
>>>> mapping-jam organized by Shareable. These processes needs to be
>>>> in tandem also balancing the Podemos kind of projects, or Partner
>>>> State emergence. Then in the mid term if we can harmonize these
>>>> with first organizing the Exodus from Capital, and then a
>>>> creative and constructive-but also blokaida form of Golden Strike
>>>> at the weakest points of the system, we might make a good chance
>>>> to win.
>>>>> Orsan
>>>>> -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at:
>>>> http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan
>>>>> 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/
>>>> -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at:
>>>> http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan
>>>> 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/
>>>> On 4 July 2016 at 19:22, Michel Bauwens
>>>> <michel at p2pfoundation.net <mailto:michel at p2pfoundation.net>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> hi Orsan,
>>>>> this is my response only, I am not speaking for James or
>>>>> anyone
>>>> else,
>>>>> quick online reactions
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Orsan <orsan1234 at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:orsan1234 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> I will try to give a considered respond to your answer, which
>>>> I am
>>>>>> guessing is the public reply James mentioned.
>>>>>>> I think the realities of organizing events is
>>>>>>> underestimated.
>>>> They are
>>>>>>> two choices, one is the grassroots barcamp type events, in
>>>> which everyone is
>>>>>>> welcome, and everyone has to fund his own trip; these
>>>>>>> events
>>>> are great, and
>>>>>>> important, but have advantages as well as disadvantages
>>>>>>> One
>>>> disadvantage is
>>>>>>> that it excludes those who can't self-fund their trips.
>>>>>> I assume it is more than me underestimate the realities of
>>>> organizing
>>>>>> event then organizers undervalue the practices of peer to
>>>>>> peer
>>>> and
>>>>>> commoners. In response to Boiler's book title 'Think like a
>>>> commoner', it
>>>>>> could be more then possible to 'Act like a commoner'. So it
>>>>>> is
>>>> more of a
>>>>>> choices, philosophy and politics, more then 'realities' or
>>>> 'practices' of,
>>>>>> those who like to 'think' and 'research' about the real
>>>> practices;
>>>>>> coincidentally this makes you star, solve income problems,
>>>>>> and
>>>> moreover
>>>>>> allow one to deliver politics, and gain influence and power.
>>>>>> I
>>>> think this is
>>>>>> not only underestimated, but totally absence in your
>>>>>> response
>>>> Michel. Of
>>>>>> course there is not only two options, there are plenty of
>>>> alternatives.
>>>>>> Other wise realities of 'organizing' or 'organization',
>>>>>> could
>>>> be only 'the
>>>>>> state' / 'corporation' or 'anarchy and there would be no
>>>>>> commons, commonning, peer to peer alternatives. Are they
>>>>>> exist or not?
>>>> Are they
>>>>>> reliable or not? Are they believable or not.. Or only
>>>> theorizing or
>>>>>> researching about them is important? I know you really
>>>>>> believe
>>>> in p2p and
>>>>>> commons, but it is hardly possible to see any prefigurative
>>>> action and
>>>>>> practice Michel. This is a public and open critique, meaning
>>>> very sincere
>>>>>> and friendly way, you need to really think about it.
>>>>> I am not organizing any of those two events Orsan. I have
>>>>> lightly co-organized barcamps, enough to know how they work; I
>>>>> like them
>>>> but they
>>>>> can only go so far, it's not the only legitimate formula.
>>>>> The events I have co-organized more intensely were not on the
>>>> lines of such
>>>>> open access events, but selective events, like the ones you
>>>> organized for
>>>>> networked labour. What are the p2p/commons aspects about them
>>>>> ?
>>>> 1)They aimed
>>>>> at creating a diverse and balanced participation 2) they aimed
>>>> to balance
>>>>> self-organisation and prior organisation 3) they aimed to
>>>> balance inclusion
>>>>> and expertise 4) they aimed at being no-cost for the
>>>>> participants
>>>>> But like in your event, they were characterized by a careful
>>>> selection.
>>>>>>> The other choice is to go for paid conferences. This
>>>>>>> involves
>>>> other
>>>>>>> disadvantages, such as the rules imposed by funders (very
>>>> stringent demands
>>>>>>> for transparency for example with EU funding). But it has
>>>> some advantages
>>>>>>> ...  one is the choice of speakers, which can be more
>>>>>>> focused
>>>> on past
>>>>>>> expertise; the other is that speakers' trip can be paid,
>>>>>>> as
>>>> well as small,
>>>>>>> or sometimes bigger stipends; the paid entries can help
>>>>>>> fund
>>>> those without
>>>>>>> the means of self-funding.
>>>>>> Actually, and to be honest, I really wonder if you really
>>>>>> ever
>>>> organized
>>>>>> something what you call barcamp type, self-organized, do it
>>>> yourself, peer
>>>>>> to peer event. Since I never saw any disadvantage then not
>>>> being able to
>>>>>> have star speakers, who would occupy all the space; and the
>>>> rest of the
>>>>>> participants who pay for the cost of starts, would only
>>>>>> listen
>>>> and leave the
>>>>>> space with lots of frustration. May be only one disadvantage
>>>>>> is
>>>> not being
>>>>>> able to make a show and attract media attention. The rest is
>>>> negligible in
>>>>>> my opinion.
>>>>> I have a different experience, I very much enjoy listening to
>>>> speakers with
>>>>> more experience than myself, I don't find that frustating. The
>>>> conferences I
>>>>> enjoy the most are 'mixed', i.e. they mix the opportunity to
>>>> listen to more
>>>>> experienced people, inclusionary sessions with panels, and the
>>>> opportunity
>>>>> for deep conversations in circle type events, i.e. they
>>>>> include
>>>> peer to peer
>>>>> dynamics, but not exclusively.
>>>>>>> So, in the case of the Synergia conference, this is an
>>>> entirely unfunded
>>>>>>> conference. The price was set taken into account the
>>>>>>> travel
>>>> costs and very
>>>>>>> small per diems for the teachers/speakers; and full
>>>>>>> lodging
>>>> of participants.
>>>>>>> In this context, the fee amounts to 900 EURO per week,
>>>>>>> full
>>>> pension, which
>>>>>>> is, in the context of the prices of Tuscany, actually very
>>>> cheap, though of
>>>>>>> course, will also exclude those with financial
>>>>>>> difficulties.
>>>> For this, you
>>>>>>> get access to a quite extraordinary roster of
>>>> teachers/speakers and intense
>>>>>>> dialogue with other participants. For people with jobs in
>>>>>>> the
>>>> cooperative
>>>>>>> economy, for which this conference is intended, the cost is
>>>>>>> not un-realistic. For those without income, the price is
>>>> prohibitive, but
>>>>>>> bursaries are available. According to John Restakis, the
>>>> program requires 15
>>>>>>> paid students to achieve break-even; after that, bursaries
>>>> can be funded.
>>>>>> Yes, Synergia conference... You say this 900 per week,
>>>>>> several
>>>> thousands
>>>>>> euro per all course is, or should be okay for cooperative
>>>> workers, worker
>>>>>> owned cooperatives.. while you can not effort only your trip
>>>>>> to self-organized, barcamp events.
>>>>>>> I for example, would not be able to attend neither Tuscany
>>>> nor the P2P
>>>>>>> Value events on my own, in either format, but I can attend
>>>> both because my
>>>>>>> travel and basic costs are provided for. This is not a
>>>>>>> gift,
>>>> but a small
>>>>>>> reciprocal payment for my contribution to the event. In
>>>> contrast, the
>>>>>>> self-organized barcamp absolutely preclude me from making
>>>>>>> a
>>>> living from my
>>>>>>> contributions.
>>>>>> Would if you can not effort, how do you think workers,
>>>> cooperative owners,
>>>>>> peer producers could so.
>>>>> that's what I said, it requires effort and investment on the
>>>> part of the
>>>>> students, or of those institutions that fund them; it is mostly
>>>> only
>>>>> realistic for those with links to institutions; I'm fully
>>>>> aware
>>>> of this;
>>>>> bursaries are a solution to attenuate this
>>>>>>> The second issue is that of 'democracy'. The P2P Value
>>>>>>> event
>>>> has been
>>>>>>> organized and decided by all those involved in the
>>>>>>> research
>>>> project, i.e. a
>>>>>>> consortium of 8 organizations, and James was responsible
>>>>>>> for
>>>> organizing the
>>>>>>> event as part of the contract; in the Synergie case, this
>>>>>>> is
>>>> also a
>>>>>>> collaborative effort of many dozen people, involved in the
>>>> Synergia
>>>>>>> consortium, a voluntary association of cooperativists the
>>>> world over.
>>>>>> Second issue is not only democracy, transparency, nor
>>>> participation. Not
>>>>>> about politics, but it is about generation of culture. It is
>>>> prefigurative
>>>>>> act. In case of its lack, or while main evangelists or
>>>> preachers of
>>>>>> communism, would not see any problem in ruling people's
>>>>>> soviets
>>>> from the
>>>>>> winter palace of the old-rulers, then that revolution is
>>>>>> over
>>>> before it
>>>>>> started. P2P Revolution is going down before it starts, not
>>>> because it is
>>>>>> un-democratic, or as you argue against democracy that is it
>>>>>> is
>>>> meritocratic.
>>>>>> I think including you, Silke, David, as well as all other
>>>> commoners, and
>>>>>> theory leaders do lack practical aspect that generates no
>>>> culture at the
>>>>>> 'strategist' level.
>>>>>> About Restakis.. My remark was a reference to his email,
>>>> accidentally sent
>>>>>> to the list, in his response to you, Jason Nardi, Pat Conaty
>>>> and some others
>>>>>> about the four wheels of the 'radical change car'.. He was
>>>> making a joke of
>>>>>> 'you' as the strategists of commons transition, open
>>>> cooperativism, peer -
>>>>>> license, what ever.. Being on the 'driver seat'. Then there
>>>>>> was
>>>> a cold
>>>>>> silence, no one replied or asked or commented on his joke.
>>>>>> But
>>>> history
>>>>>> registered. I can find and redistribute that exchange if you
>>>> like.
>>>>> please do redistribute, I haven't seen it
>>>>>>> They take their decisions in good faith, given the funding
>>>> and other
>>>>>>> realities they contend with. Yes, it means not everyone
>>>>>>> can
>>>> attend, but
>>>>>>> within the parameters they work with, they strive for the
>>>> maximum inclusion
>>>>>>> of motivated participants, and find individual solutions
>>>>>>> when
>>>> possible.
>>>>>> Division is not between 'not every body' and 'everybody'.
>>>>>> But
>>>> 'organizers'
>>>>>> and 'organized'; 'agenda setters' and those agendas are set,
>>>> strategists and
>>>>>> strategised; so sort of masters and puppets.
>>>>>>> Now the alternative of barcamps of the massively
>>>> self-organized WSF ...
>>>>>>> well, I can't afford to go those either, they exclude all
>>>> those that are not
>>>>>>> able to self-fund. So no system is perfect,
>>>>>> Come on Michel, some one like you can easily receive support
>>>>>> to
>>>> go there,
>>>>>> of any kind.
>>>>> the fact Orsan is that I haven't; nobody ever offered to
>>>> finance my
>>>>> participation to the WSF; and until 2014, I was extremely
>>>> precarious and the
>>>>> P2P-F itself has zero funds; so if you know of easy forms of
>>>> support, please
>>>>> do forward
>>>>>>> and both are easy to critique from the outside, by people
>>>> who are
>>>>>>> unwilling to dive into the real difficulties and
>>>>>>> constraints
>>>> of organizing
>>>>>>> these events,As far as I can recall, Orsan, you organized
>>>> exclusive events
>>>>>>> with TNI, and you did that very well. Far from critiquing
>>>>>>> you
>>>> for these
>>>>>>> exclusionary events, I would commend you for it, for
>>>>>>> bringing
>>>> important
>>>>>>> players together, and for funding our trips and
>>>> participation. I feel the
>>>>>>> same about John Restakis and James Burke, and given their
>>>> efforts and
>>>>>>> responsibilities, I can find sympathy for their irritation
>>>> when they are
>>>>>>> critiqued by outsiders who are not contributing to the
>>>> organization of these
>>>>>>> events, and unaware of the constraints they are operating
>>>>>>> with.
>>>>>> My critique of TNI, and end of my relationships with it is
>>>> declared by me
>>>>>> on several occasions. Now same critique, of NGO world in
>>>> general, is
>>>>>> covering to commons NGOs, which present same mistakes, same
>>>> fault lines, and
>>>>>> these are not a complain of some one humpy dumpy, it is
>>>> documented and
>>>>>> agreed wide spread critique. Of course people, individually
>>>> doing their
>>>>>> best, to survive and combine income and passion and idealism
>>>> would get
>>>>>> irritated. But what irritate us, ordinary people, is them
>>>> finding this not
>>>>>> enough and when that also like to tell us what to do, what
>>>>>> to
>>>> say, what to
>>>>>> chose, what to like and dislike.. So when they feel power of
>>>> ideas, and wish
>>>>>> to define the course, on the driving seat of the 'radical'
>>>> change car.
>>>>> you are no more ordinary than anyone else; I dont think most
>>>> ordinary people
>>>>> would be irritated by open debate and exchange of opinions : I
>>>> will
>>>>> certainly restrict my own rights of free speech on the basis
>>>>> of
>>>> other's
>>>>> irritations
>>>>>> Well, without managing to combine applying self-labour,
>>>>>> mental
>>>> and
>>>>>> manually, apologies but this is not going to happen. Because,
>>>> now,
>>>>>> irritation of being rule, is so high, and those who are
>>>>>> wanted
>>>> to be managed
>>>>>> posses high skills, like political analysis.
>>>>> thanks for this exchange, end of my comments
>>>>>> In solidarity, Orsan
>>>>> -- 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/
>>>> -- https://twitter.com/flgnk Skype: kev.flanagan Phone: +353 87
>>>> 743 5660
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20160706/cc654325/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the P2P-Foundation mailing list