[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