<div dir="ltr">Thanks for the first spate of reactions: orsan, willi, Kevin<div><br></div><div>First thing, yes Orsan, the <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px">hard politics of p2p transition in the existing context of capital-state-polity-policy-</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px">funding-culture.. that is the key issue we have to deal with, and I hope to add my own efforts to this, as soon as my homecoming fever is over ..</span></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Willi and Kevin, you both pose the specific problem of the Partner State. I think there are really big misunderstandings if the relative failure of Ecuador is interpreted to mean that it means the failure of the Partner State.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">The Ecuadorian state is not a partner state, it's a market state, though different from the neoliberal one. I interpret as a state that wants to rebalance the market state towards local sovereignity and the local bourgeoisie. It represented a different type of class alliance that wanted to strengthen the local state to tame international capital for its own ends. After a more radical phase after 2007, it is now slowly retreating and seeking a new accomodation with Empire. The results are a mixed bag of very strong social justice results, but a disempowering of civil society as a collective force. It is remarkable that after meeting more than 70 different civic groups, I could not find a single one that supported the government, and even the ones that one did, are now alienated from it. The Ecuadorian state is technocratic, 'knows best' and dislikes participation. They dislike indepedent civic groups as much as, if not more, than neoliberal capital. So-called neosocialism is a statist approach to make Ecuador fit for a socially better kind of capitalism. It's mostly better than what existed before (though quite a few civic groups disagree and say they have less freedom now), but it's neither socialism nor p2p nor participatory.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">The second important point is that while we can never idealize the state, the big and central question remains:</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">1) is it possible to imagine a class society without a state ? My answer is no, as who would stop the homeless of going into empty houses, or elite paramilitaries to take away the land of the farmers ... While failed states are possible, they are generally worse. I am not aware of big migrations to Somalia, nor of colombian urban dwellers to the lands of the paramilitaries, but am only aware of the opposite. People able to vote with their feet, flee stateless regions</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">2) is it possible to imagine abolishing class society by fiat. My answer is no. Therefore in any transition period, there will be a state to defend the mass of the people and their democracy against attempts at restoration.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Thus the state is simply unavoidable.</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">So the question becomes, what kind of state. My answer is the partner state, a state where the people themselves are the state, and the historical precedents are of course the greek polis and the free medieval city states described by the anarchist Kropotkin. If you agree, I don't care what other name you use for it, that is the partner state we are talking about, nothing else can be it.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">The third question is: what do we do in the meantime. My answer is 1) build autonomous social organisation 2) engage with the state to fight bad legislation and promote good legislation 3) create prefigurative partner state policies where the people's forces have majorities.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">So back the question: does the relative failure of flok prove anything about the failure of the partner state concept ? My answer is: the opposite. Ecuador shows that anything but a partner state approach is relatively doomed. It wasn't a partner state, we thought a prefigurative experiment was possible, and it wasn't. But micro-experiments, like in Sigchos, are still possible, and worth fighting for.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Michel<br clear="all"></font><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div><b>Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..</b></div>
<div><br></div>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br><br><a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank"></a>Updates: <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br>#82 on the (En)Rich list: <a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/</a> <br></div>
</div></div>