[P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] questions re funding of p2p value conference
Orsan
orsan1234 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 6 10:58:46 CEST 2016
Hi Silke, looking forward to your response, thanks!
> On 5 jul. 2016, at 19:06, Silke Helfrich <silke.helfrich at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
> --
> Silke Helfrich
> www.commonsblog.de
More information about the P2P-Foundation
mailing list