<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jul 26, 2014, at 11:18 PM, Michel Bauwens <<a href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Two quick reactions to Orsan and Gordon.<div><br></div><div>First, thanks Orsan for acknowledging the importance of the multi-perspectival work we are doing.</div><div><br></div><div>You mention the potential charge of 'reformism'. I do not consider my position 'reformist'. Revolutionaries were never against reforms and my ultimate goal is phase transition, i.e. overcoming infinite growth based capitalism, while at the same time being meliorist (as defined by William James). This means that, while the end goal is in mind, measures that advance the cause in any way, are seen as positive milestones. So I would call my position 'adaptive'.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Revolution as classically conceived, as a violent overthrow of one system by another, I consider as organic events (even Lenin wrote one month before the russian revolution: "unfortunately, I will not witness the revolution in my lifetime) that are outside of anyone's control, (most of all the revolutionaries themselves) and mostly caused by the inability of the previous system to adapt. If you look at the 'bourgeois revolutions', you will see a wide variety of revolutionary subjects (the russian star who abolished serfdom, the junkers in prussia, with bismarck instituting the first welfare state measures, the english radical religious reformers, and so on ..) .. the classic one, the French Revolution, may have been the most violent and led to the restoration by Napoleon; regarding so-called workers' revolutions (they weren't), again, Russia led to Stalinism, probably the worst outcome ...</div>
<div><br></div><div>My preference goes to the creation of maximally autonomous communities that engage in counter-economics, and produce social charters to reconstitute politics around p2p and the commons, as the athenians and free citizens of the middle ages did. The endgame is phase transition, but not waiting until it occurs, but instituting it through hyper-connected micro-scale initiatives .. scaling through scope, until we are a social force that can play at meso and macro-scale</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regarding Gordon, to explain my position. There has been a collective decision by the core members of the p2p foundation, asking me to refrain from further negative reactions, and I will abide by it.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes I know michel you have said that�. note the words negative�. positive reaction to the way you were treated are just fine</div><div><br></div><div>you say there has been</div><div><br></div><div>'collective decision by the core members of the p2p foundation asking you to refrain</div><div><br></div><div>OK who are they please? You will disclose surely</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div> However, our position is available on the wiki for those who search and ask, we are just not spreading it actively. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am asking for it. It is generally regarded that something like this might well should be announced� if it was i did not see it al though I have a seen a draft of a assessment scheduled for publication on july 17 that never came out and another scheduled for the 19th that was withdrawn as a result of threats made against you. That i believe is the meeting you are referring to</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>My associates estimated that anyone who needs to know, is already aware of the logic of the flok mgt team.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>who needs to know�. well michel please who does need to know. Have the flokista spaNIARDS DIVIVided the p2p movement in two? Into those who need to know and those who don't. That is something you'd expect to hear from the pentagon not from p2p<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<div><br></div><div>I regret that Gordon is focusing on me as a person in this whole affair</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>no I am focusing on you as the leader and founder of p2p who has pledged to the community he founded that after taking ill considered actions and getting himself in one hell of a mess has now back downed<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Why an open letter to the person who challenged the abuse, and not to those that conducted the abuse. It seems to me Gordon is focusing on the wrong person(s).</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>those who conducted the abuse have show they are not capable of rational trustworthy action.</div><div><br></div><div>It is YOU michel who need to act with utmost integrity at this point and not let these "bolsheviks" threaten you into silence.</div><div><br></div><div>You promised a detailed evaluation and the hyenas started to bray at your heels</div><div><br></div><div>My complaint with you at this point is that you apparently won't defend yourself any further and you try to cloak your decision behind the shadow of a collective request of the "core p2p group" and sorry i don't know what such a group is.</div><div><br></div><div>This collective request will likely turn out to be the most important action ever undertaken in the entire history of the organization that you have dedicated your life to building. Surely you will be more transparent about who the member are and the nature of the request�apparently it was thought knot capitulating would stand in the way of other more important p2p work. Hope that is not the first step down the slippery slope of the end justifying the means.</div><div><br></div><div><div style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; "><font color="#e63b7a"><b><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">You need to publish the evaluation because you announced it, as a matter of selfdefense, while under heavy attack, and claiming at the time that you would not be intimidated. Not only that, but after the mess, everybody is waiting for closure. If you don't provide close and you are not doing so then the rumor mills will be in full control. Not only of </span>flok but also of your reputation.</b></font></div><div style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; min-height: 13px; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">If you don't take that final step, the psychopaths will stand straight in their shoes and feel their power, and keep bullying everybody until someone else will confront them </span>at<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"> some point in the future, take the heat, and eventually shut their big mouths, or capitulate as you </span>area<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"> now very conveniently try to do - it was not my decision it was that </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"> the core group enter another loop. Abandoning now will give them the impression that "they won". Abandoning your solemn word will also </span>raise<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"> the question of whether people should trust you in the future.</span></div><div style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; min-height: 13px; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><font color="#ed719e" style="font-size: 18px;"><b>On the contrary, if you comply with your word, you will have closure for yourself, and for everybody else. Other people can then make their own minds about what happened, and you can safely disconnect from the conversation, as you will have said everything you needed to say. </b></font> But for the opponents, things will become a tad harder to play with: they will be caught red-handed, with their own image and only their own reflection to fight against. At this point, they'd better just shut up and move on, for they stand on moving sands, and third parties will have the whole history to judge anything they would say.</span></div><div style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">I am sick and tired of ecuador</span>�<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">. but I now have a portion of the history and i shall put it out in the open. let the </span>florists<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"> come </span>rabidly<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"> after me as you pointed out I am now getting to be an old man </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"> i care about my own legacy than their threats. I stand on my record.</span></div><div style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">You got into one god awful mess michel. Stand up in public and speak the truth. I am continuing to get new reports from ecuador. They aren't pretty and raise a lot of </span>suspicions. Only you know exactly what Daniel promised you. bernardo may be threatening to destroy you if you don't shut up, but for gods sake please do not capitulate. Even if the truth is not pretty. Please tell it.</div><div style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; ">What i am drafting is for YOU because i am working under the assumption that you can still be communicates with. Your Opponents have way over played their hand. We are hearing now that the presidents office didn't know about the folk project until the weekend before the summit. With 26 signature required to pay the bills that assumption seems rather absurd. There rate to many people with first hand knowledge to paste together something that safely buries this</div></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<div><br></div><div>Michel<br clear="all"><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>
_______________________________________________<br>P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br><a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>