Dear friends, this is my comment to the text from Michel on the blog. http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/ecuador-as-a-state-form-the-proposal-for-a-partner-state-and-lessons-for-future-commons-transition-strategies/2014/07/10#comment-797174
many greetings, willi Dear Michel, on the P2P/F list i answer to your text. Yow don’t continue this important discussion on the list. Now, i read the same text in the blog. It’s not a good way to fly from a strong discussion base and act on different areas with the same thing without to continue the process of reflection. many greetings, willi now Bogota, Colombia Am 7/6/2014 11:53 AM, schrieb willi uebelherr: > > Dear Michel, > > many thanks for your general answer. I will also use it to a more > general answer. > > The answer to the question for our relation to the state construction, > always based on the roman constitutional law, follows immediately from > our perspectives. I think, therein, we agree. > > After then, we check what is the state. And then we can decide. > > Based on my personal principles: > 1) all people are equivalent. It follows > a) all opeople have the equal rights > b) all our working have the same values > 2) never we accept the private ownership of common resources > 3) all decisions about the way of life are taken local > > Based on my principles of development as a result of the principles of > the nature: > a) massivly decentral > b) massivly parallel > c) massivly redundant > > Immediatly we come to the concept of the world society as a network of > local independent community. The P2P environment of local communities. > This, because we live always in local communities and we act as a part > of this communities. The stability of our lifebase is a direct function > of our local independent economy. And this rest always on our local > technical infrastructures. > > The destination for me is, that the people in the local communities can > create and build most of that, what they need or what they think, that > they need. Also this is a local decision. > > Because we know, that many task for that are more general, we follow the > old principle: > "global thinking, local doing". > > This means, that all our theoretical work we do together in an open and > free environment. Therefore, the communication system is so important. > But in his inner structure we use our general and fundamental > principles. The free access to the free communication for the free > access to our free knowledge and information exchange. > > Knowledge is always worldheritage. It is always a common resource. > > Now to the state construction. > > In general it is a system from the elites for the elites against the > people, against the self-organisation of the local communities. In the > political systems we have two poles: > a) the representative systems > b) the democratic, local self-decision systems > > In the area of the representative system we have a big garden of > different flowers. But in his core it is always the same. Incapacitation > and centralization. > > The elites need this to organize her parasitic existence. And, because > it is not so easy, they need the violence apparatus and the bureaucratic > instances. Always based on the incapacitation of the local people. > > The private ownership of common resources is a necessary part of that. > And to legitimate and stabilize this they need the control of the law > system, based on the violence apparatus. > > This is in short form my general view. And immediatly, we see, that > never we can operate together with any state system that follows a way > against our principles, agains the people. > > States always are parasitic instances. They use but never they create or > build. But in our perspective, we need the reduction of parasitic > instances and change to a overall creative and productive activities. > With that We can massively reduce the individual cost, the individual > effort. > > Om the blog of Robert Steele we find the sentence in the head: > "the truth at any cost lowers all other cost". Maybe, this is a more > free interpretation from me. But this is the core for distribution of > the activity for our life. > > If all people are part of the basical activities in the areas for our > material existence then all people have enough time to study the laws of > the nature to extent the reduction of the efforts for our material > life-basics. > > Of course, we can first disolve all not necessary instances, the > parasitic instances. May be, this is the most effective part on our way. > Likeany military and all infrastructure for that. > > In the communication system we can see it very clear. All this parasitic > instances we don't need any more. All this stupid instances of "Internet > Governance" are superfluos. And we can massivly reduce the volume of > packet transports. > > The same we will find in all spheres of our life. > > many greetings, willi > now: Medellin, Colombia > > > > Am 05/07/2014 21:22, schrieb Michel Bauwens: >> 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. >> >> Michel > _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
