<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>I think this is a gate to a nice exchange. Yet I think needs more deep discussion. Definiton and form of The state has a long historical background, also The role of The classes involves. As not every armed Group controlling territorry is a state, as paramiliter groups, Mafia, Jakuza, so on, nor Germany and Japan which were not allowed to have armies after The war didnt sieze to be state. There is money printing and taxing functions for modern capitalist Nation state in The definiton but of course here concept is a design for future, and it can be referring ideal from, as socialist and other forms envisaged for future. Also discussion on EU, if it is a state, or Global-transnational state discussion is relevant here. So it is valuable and fruıitful to think in this direction anyway. Looking forward to it! </div><div>Orsan</div><div><br>On 10 Aug 2015, at 16:10, Michel Bauwens <<a href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.academia.edu/14169439/Commons_Movements_and_Progressive_Governments_as_Dual_Power_The_Potential_for_Social_Transformation_in_Europe">https://www.academia.edu/14169439/Commons_Movements_and_Progressive_Governments_as_Dual_Power_The_Potential_for_Social_Transformation_in_Europe</a><div><br></div><div>Not sure if it was bob or peter asking me for a comment on the critique of the partner state proposal</div><div><br></div><div>I can't copy paste the one paragraph here, but do a 'find' for Bauwens and the single paragraph will pop up</div><div><br></div><div>I can't imagine he has thoroughly read about our concept,</div><div><br></div><div>1) he believes it is platonian: can't be further from the truth since the partner state is rooted in already really existing practice, i.e. those of the FLOSS Foundations</div><div><br></div><div>2) he calls rojava and chiapas non-state institutions, but this is for me problematic, both of them have armies that protect the carocoles (chiapas) and comunes (rojava); since the state has also been defined as a body of armed men existing separately from society, I believe myself these are new state forms, i.e. they exist separately from any contract between sovereign individuals or communities, and cover a whole territory; in other words, to the degree they permit the autonomous existence of the councils, they are actually the best possible example of a partner state; and if you add that at least rojava is centered our cooperative enterprise, they are very close to the model proposal by Vasilis and myself.</div><div><br></div><div>3) he believes states won't do anything responsible for their own undoing. In essence, this is correct, which is why the partner state is about radical transformation of the existing state form. Nevertheless, social democrats were historically responsible for a deep transformation of the western state, and neoliberalism actually an example of the state dismantling itself to a large degree. What I think is realistic today are prefigurative examples of partner state approaches , certainly at the local level, and given a change in the political balance of power, a transformation of the state form. Given the historical experience, which has shown multiple examples of this, to believe this is impossible flies in the face of historical reality. </div><div><br></div><div>To achieve a partner state in the context of the current market state, seems to me illusory however,</div><div><br></div><div>Michel<br><div class="ff4" style="white-space:nowrap;padding:0px;margin:0px;border:none;line-height:1;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(241,241,241)"><span class="a" style="border:none;padding:0px;margin:0px;height:1px;line-height:1;word-spacing:1px"><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">social praxis apart from </font></span></div>
</div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>NetworkedLabour mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>