[P2P-es] A parting of ways with Bernardo Gutierrez

Dom Jul 6 04:58:18 CEST 2014

I welcome attempts to keep the discussion on the high ground of political
lessons.

But since this is a spanish list and my spanish skills are insufficient, I
am only sending this reply, which is part of the discussion on the english
p2p list. It deals with the key issue of the partner state.

<<Thanks for the first spate of reactions: orsan, willi, Kevin

First thing, yes Orsan, the hard politics of p2p transition in the existing
context of capital-state-polity-policy-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 ..

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.

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.

The second important point is that while we can never idealize the state,
the big and central question remains:

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

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.

Thus the state is simply unavoidable.

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.

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.

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.

On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Daniel <daniel en alabs.org> wrote:

> Hola!
>
> Me apena ver que a veces todas (incluso personas muy inteligentes)
> pierden o perdemos la perspectiva sobre discusiones/estrategia, entrando
> en anÃ¡lisis de pobre calidad mÃ¡s guiados por sentimientos o pesimismo
> que sobre posibilidades, personalizando y en negativo frente a la linea
> mÃ¡s interesante de analizar en colectivo y pensar en vÃas de superaciÃ³n,
> en acciones que abran el escenario y permitan seguir avanzando con
> transformaciones que son un sueÃ±o.
>
> Por supuesto, toda crÃtica o anÃ¡lisis es bienvenido, yo al menos me
> permito descartar los que no considero relevantes, por falta de tiempo,
> pero tambien ya sea en algunos casos por superficiales o por no incidir
> en construcciÃ³n colectiva.
>
> QuizÃ¡s lo hago por que es obvio que no existe un proceso de medio o gran
> tamaÃ±o sin fallos, o porque los personalismos o fallos humanos en una
> acciÃ³n colectiva me resultan irrelevantes, prefiero centrarme mÃ¡s en las
> posibilidades que se abren.
>
> Desde ahÃ, el post de Michel es comprensible, tras un proceso de trabajo
> muy complejo en muy poco tiempo como ha sido FLOK me parece mÃ¡s un post
> de desahogo de estres que cualquier tipo de anÃ¡lisis meditado, creo que
> leyÃ©ndolo se ve claro, y que no hay que darle mÃ¡s transcendencia que
> esa. Obviamente no es su mejor contribuciÃ³n, pero tampoco tiene porquÃ©
> serlo, Michel puede y debe escribir lo que quiera.
>
> A Michel y a Bernardo hay que darles las gracias por lo que han hecho,
> incluso aunque ellos o yo nos hayamos equivocado en cosas (imposible no
> hacerlo en un reto de 8 meses, debatiendo con mÃ¡s de 1500 personas,
> hablando con mÃ¡s de 45 instituciones y decenas de colectivos y decenas
> de expertos) han contribuido con sus aportes (al igual que las otras
> 25-30 personas que tambiÃ©n han colaborado directamente, ni mÃ¡s ni menos)
> a que ahora mismo un montÃ³n de movimientos sociales y acadÃ©micos estÃ©n
> debatiendo con las instituciones cÃ³mo aplicar las polÃticas pÃºblicas
> propuestas que hemos construido de forma colectiva.
>
> Y mientras esa multitud se organiza, debate y construye, algunas miran
> nombres y apellidos y se enredan en ver una "telenovela" muy personal;
> la pena es que mientras lo hacen o lo hacemos se pierden o nos perdemos
> algo increÃble, mucho mÃ¡s grande que cualquier nombre y apellido, se
> pierden que lo que querÃamos que sucediera estÃ¡ sucediendo, las
> propuestas de polÃticas pÃºblicas caminan hacia su implementaciÃ³n (no
> todas serÃ¡n posibles, que sean muchas dependerÃ¡ de nuestra inteligencia
> colectiva) en instituciones clave. Los proyectos pilotos van todavÃa un
> poco mÃ¡s atrÃ¡s y hay que empujarlos, esas serÃ¡n las prioridades de los
> colectivos y expertos Ecuatorianos que la semana que viene comienzan a
> trabajar el plan de implementaciÃ³n, un lujo poder verlo :)
>
> Un abrazo, seguimos con temas mÃ¡s interesantes.
>
> P.D: Ahora mismo vivo con 2 compaÃ±eros del equipo de investigaciÃ³n de
> FLOK, y es un lujo pensar y analizar con ellos, nuestras emocionantes
> discusiones van algo mÃ¡s allÃ¡ de los clÃ¡sicos atrasos de cualquier
> administraciÃ³n pÃºblica en realizar pagos, andan apasionados por empujar
> los proyectos pilotos que discuten con muchos compis ecuatorianos, ojalÃ¡
> podemos seguir ayudÃ¡ndoles con eso.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 05/07/14 09:20, Bernardo GutiÃ©rrez escribiÃ³:
> > Hello you all
> >
> > I think there are several misunderstandings and some unfair accusation.
> > Try to be polity and to explain the problems:
> >
> >     In the last few days, I have been harassed and threatened by
> >     Bernardo Gutierrez, who tried to suppress the publication of an
> >     evalution of the FLOK process, which you can find here:
> >
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/a-provisional-informal-assessment-of-the-flok-transition-process-in-ecaudor/2014/07/01
> >
> >
> > It is complitily false. Never tried .In fact, it is the first time that
> > I know that you published in the blog. Our discussion started when I
> > told you that it was not propor to share in FACEBOOK (it is quite clear
> > in all of our mails), now, those critics to FLOK process, right now.
> > Having had several problems, It is an important moment to know what it
> > is going to happen. May it does not help. I valu your version, but
> > desagree in several points. Correa (the president) invited the guest of
> > the FLOK to the Cambio de Guardia. He spoke about FLOK in Sabatina. We
> > were working with high level politicians, as Cancilleria (minister
> > PatiÃ±o), Senplades and even people from presidency. So, I think it was
> > not such an unknow project. In fact, it became, during and after the
> > Summit a quite important project for the Whole Ecuatorian Goverment
> >
> >
> >     In this text, I simply make a political evalution of my 6 months in
> >     Ecuador, as I see it, as I believe was both my right (of free
> >     speech), and a duty to the p2p community, who has been asking for
> >     it. It is in my view a moderate and considered political evaluation,
> >     though of course, as my opinion, open to critique and
> >     counter-argumentation.
> >
> >
> > I think it is good, Michel, And you are an importante person in the
> > process.
> >
> >
> >
> >     While I would have accepted a conversation asking me to postpone it,
> >     in order to safeguard some potential backroom deal in Ecuador,
> >     instead BG thought it would be useful to publicly threaten the
> >     publication of my private emails, thinking this would frighten me.
> >     It doesn't, as I don't believe I write anything in private that
> >     can't see the light of the day. But private email involves other
> >     persons and I find it very ethically objectionable that he would use
> >     this as a threat.
> >
> >
> > Another big misanderstanding. I think it  horrible to publish any
> > private conversation. In fact, I am super critic with private
> > conversation going public. I was joking and exagerating the fact that
> > Gordon Cook violated privacy and made a report with that. Publishing in
> > networks some things is not good. So, If you understand that, I am
> > sorry. We have more people in that conversation, that probably did not
> > undestand that.
> >
> >
> >
> >     This is not the first time, a few months ago, Bernardo tried to
> >     suppress any balanced treatment of Fora do Eixo
> >     (http://p2pfoundation.net/Fora_do_Eixo) and even objected to the
> >     mention of chilean groups that were somehow one day, connected with
> >     FdO. BG's totally unfounded accusation then was that "I defended FdO
> >     because I was getting a free PhD from Ivana Bentes".
> >
> >
> > That is a private mail. PRIVATE CONVERSATION, Michel. But, well, I think
> > that is my personal opinion, yes. I donÂ´t need to hide it.
> >
> >
> >     It gave me a first insight into his unfair mindset. To be clear, I
> >     was not then nor  am I now, neither defending nor attacking FdO, but
> >     the p2p-f is conceived as a pluralistic network to show different
> >     perspectives on an issue, helping people make their own decisions.
> >     We don't want to be factional and choose one side or another within
> >     the broad p2p community. I found it strange then that Bernardo was
> >     exerting pressure to have only one side of the story seen as
> >     legitimate, and refused an open debate on the merits of the
> >     critique. I could only be radically against FdO, no nuance was
> >     permitted.
> >
> >
> >
> > That is not true. I asked you how did you make the list of p2p projects
> > of the year. Almost all the node sof Brazil P2P branch were disgusted
> > with that, none was consulted. . At the end, we knew it was more your
> > list than P2p List. I am specially critic with FdO, but it is on you the
> > aproach
> >
> >
> >     The second incident came with the aftermath of the FLOK. In the
> >     above evaluation, I avoid studiously to mention or critique internal
> >     matters, believing that it would only make matters worse. But I have
> >     had to suffer there the systematic unfounded accusations against my
> >     friends and associates: BG has simply reiterated and continue to
> >     spread unfounded accusations against excellent people I had the
> >     opportunity to work with : BT,, AD, GC, the research team , the
> >     communication team ...
> >
> >
> > You are again publishing private conversations. With Gordon Cook we
> > argued in the list, that is true. Not the rest. So I will deny that,
> > because is quite far from reality. You also make big critics to many
> > people (some of this list) in our conversations But I think it is not
> > proper to divulgate here, Michel. Private conversation (me and you ) is
> > private.
> >
> >
> >
> >     What is worse, even when I sent information to BG advising him not
> >     to re-iterate these accusations based on facts that I provided to
> >     him, he would continue spreading them, totally ignoring the
> >     counter-factuals I had sent him. For example, BG has coninued to
> >     spread disinfo about Gordon Cook that he is a neocon, opposed to
> >     copyleft, and other falsehoods, even after receiving documentation
> >     to the contrary.
> >
> >
> > I feel sorry, Michel. But Gordon Cook  has been publishing with Copy
> > Right ever. He has a lot of problems, health, as well. The problem began
> > when he told FLOk that he could only travel in business, because of his
> > health problems. The management team tryed, but could no be that. The
> > quality of the drafts sent was not good. Neither shape of paper neither
> > quality. You did a nice job editing the second one amd transforming it
> > into a goog paper. But for many reason, it was impossible to get the
> > business ticket. And he started a war. The burocracy was terrible and he
> > could not be paid (just coming to Ecuador). Believe that has nothing to
> > do with me. After the dirty war he began (violating privacy and laws),
> > he deserve to not be paid, in my opinion.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Bernardo's attempt to suppress an independent evaluation is a proof of
> > the latter. How would a healthy p2p process be endangered by an open
> > discussion? The truth is that the flok attempted to create a mythology
> > of success, and of political and social support that wasn't there, and
> > that Bernardo's highly stage-managed twitter storms were part of that
> > effort. "
> >
> > I am not trying to suppress anything, Michel! I just told you that it
> > was not propor to publish now in Facebook!!! in the moment of the
> > reshaping of  the project. I feel really sorry of your accusation about
> > communication strategy. A Twitter Storm is a 1% of what we did. We
> > created a strong participatory process, wiht personal meetings,
> > seminars, speeches. We did wordk shop in 24 cities, with 500 local
> > leaders (who were in the summit). we published more than 100 post un few
> > months, we did many hang outs (many with researchers), p2pbeer. We
> > worked with Cancilleria (international affair minister), with their
> > Ecuela RevoluciÃ³n, people from 40 countries. We made meeting in
> > squatters (with Restakis, researcher), we made cultural collaborative
> > mappings, Mumble meetings etc etc. We presented in MAdrid, in the
> > arab-latin american summit, in Media Lab Prado. All of that is
> > communication. Communication is conection, and that is what happened. A
> > twitter storm never work if there is no network. And we got it, with a
> > lot of difficulties. At the begining it was a top down project. It
> > became more organic. So, It is not a twitter storm, Michel.
> >
> >
> > "The very reason that BG is attempting to suppress an evualuation of the
> > FLOK, is that it endangered potential backroom deals. My thesis is: if
> > they are endangered by an open discussion, what value do these deals
> > ultimately have?
> > I'm preparing an evaluative essay on "Hacker Bolchevism, the paranoid
> > style of politics in p2p' to critique the non-prefigurative politics
> > that were so  characteristic of the FLOK internal process"
> >
> >
> > Your critics are necessary. In fact, I respect them. But I think that
> > you do them in the wrong places (Facebook, this list, for example). The
> > last Facebook schandal, some months ago, when they ought some money, was
> > proper and worked. Not this one.
> >
> >
> > "Stalinistic tactics have no place in an open p2p culture".
> >
> > It is commom sense, Michel. this mail of you, for examplo, is out of
> > place in this moment
> >
> > "I do not intend to pollute the p2p lists with these personal
> > antagonisms (even as they reveal antagonistic value systems and
> > political and metholodgical approaches). I will at most respond once to
> > the counter-accusations that will undoubtedly follow this, but I can't
> > tolerate public and private intimidation when I am  no longer part of
> > the flok team".
> >
> > Sorry, but I think this is pollution. No one accusated you in any list.
> > I never would do it.
> >
> >
> > It is me who think you should reconsider your position. We all have
> > (researchers, management team, communication team)  done an interesting
> > and innovative worlk, begining from you and ending with the secretary.
> > It would be a pitty to espoil that
> >
> > Best
> > Bernardo
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint
> Lista https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es
>
>

-- 
*Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no
record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..*

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-lang-es/attachments/20140706/82351f7d/attachment-0001.htm 