Hi Silke, looking forward to your response, thanks!
> On 5 jul. 2016, at 19:06, Silke Helfrich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Am 05.07.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Orsan: >> >> , again it is not about individuals like you or me, but about >> culture we are supposed to support and nurture. > > you nailed it, Orsan. > that's what I thought, when I read your e-mail. > > More later, via the list > in a hurry > Greetings to all > Silke > > > In any case, I hear >> first time that you are not employed by P2P-F and your activities >> towards Wsf is not on behalf of the foundation, then to clarify; who are >> you doing it for, who is paying for your time and labour, and expenses. >> Do you reflect your preferences, philosophy and politics or the any >> organization, then p2p-f? Would appreciate if you clarify this to those >> following your and p2p-f's work. Again lack of my participation is not >> the issue, but division of labour, and differences in cultural >> reproduction is at stake here. Hope you and Michel, and others could >> understand and respond to this dimension rather then giving political >> answers. >> >> Best. >> Orsan >> >> On 5 jul. 2016, at 15:38, Kevin Flanagan <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> LI don't have time at the moment for a full detailed response but I >>> want to make a few things clear. >>> >>> 1) I am no longer employed by the P2P Foundation and the P2PF is not >>> providing any financial support or payment for my participation in the >>> FSM. >>> 2) Elisabetta Cangelosi and I initiated a discussion about the >>> presence of Commons at the FSM last year as an independent initiative. >>> Meaning the only connection with P2PF is that the mailing list was >>> hosted by P2PF. >>> 3) We created mailing list and invited you Orsan several times to >>> participate in the process. We value constructive input but your >>> participation or lack of is up to you. >>> >>> Kevin >>> >>> >>> On 5 July 2016 at 15:00, Örsan Şenalp <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Michel, in response to your reply I also like to direct this email to >>> the attention of Silke, David, Pat, James, Chico.. and other >>> self-claimed strategists, organisers, leaders, of global justice and >>> solidarity, and now commons movements.. >>> >>> First issue, is the one you avoid to respond; lack of prefiguration >>> hence moral - cultural leadership, neede for the hegemony you are >>> willing to build over first other movements, then against the ruling >>> classes. This is a general issue, and is a critique of all NGO sector; >>> 'progressive' or 'supportive' NGO cadre, degenerate 'solidairty and >>> justice' culture, by getting stuck and generate 'capitalist' >>> competitive culture. That is why, in a Gramscian sense, it would never >>> be possible to get real moral and intellectual leadership over the >>> progressive movements, like commons movement, that you are trying to >>> 'build' or mould out of real people's real struggles. >>> >>> In 2013, and 2014, together with others from most recent movements, >>> from Occupy, 15M, Arab spring, and including Carminda McLorin -from >>> Occupy Montreal and Classe, an initiative formed and called itself >>> 'Global Square'. We have designed and tried to open up an occupied >>> Commons Space, within the WSF in Tunis 2013 and 2014: >>> http://www.global-square.net/about/ >>> Carminda was had participated all calls and meetings of Global Square >>> actively and she become the face of the WSF Montreal local >>> coordination team (with Chico Whiteaker being on her side). Based on >>> unique experience we developed, in a really p2p and commoning way, >>> during 2011-2014 period, at Agora99, Frienze 10+10, WSF Tunis under >>> the Banner of Global Square (with combined methodologies) in 2014 I >>> tried out to scratch the below designs on the way to Montreal. I >>> shared it with you, and it has been picked up by you, and others; then >>> it was modified into un-P2P and un-common ways and translated in to >>> NGO format with carefully controlled access (over the funding >>> opportunities and competitiveness reasons I assume).. and we have a >>> modified Commons Space. Here is the Hackpad where Kevin, of the P2P >>> Foundation has been the main organiser from the beginning, with >>> Elisabetta of Transform: >>> https://commonsspace.hackpad.com/Commons-Space-k6rOCvUgyhC >>> >>> As response to your question what is the easy way to go to WSF and >>> finding support for that: I think your is a political answer, since it >>> is your choice not to go to WSF personally, you expressed it before; >>> so you are sending Kevin to do the ground work for the Foundation to >>> build an event I foresee and suggested to you last year -on the >>> Commons. Meanwhile, James of the P2P foundation, is responsible from >>> the Global Commons Conference, in Amsterdam where I live. You say you >>> would recommend me, to people, but about the idea I desingned and >>> shared with you, James, your secretariat is recommended. >>> >>> You are expected to be invited to WSF and paid for some other >>> organisations, while Kevin's participation and ground work labour is >>> paid by P2P Foundation. You personally are not able to go WSF, but P2P >>> Foundation is taking the responsibility to organise a major Commons >>> event at the WSF in August, and James organise another global event in >>> Amsterdam for the EU project of which P2P Foundation is a partner. >>> Which was originally my suggestion.. >>> >>> Here is the genuinely p2p and commons way design for WSF Commons Space >>> event, I designed in 2014: >>> Peer to Peer Transnational Networking for a Commons Humanity >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vRRHhASr9wfWolPJzq0Ec7gsomug2T-jeTFmqfzrE3U/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> The below design I made it in 2013 to ensure a broader alliance >>> between variety of forces; in an open and peer to peer solider way.. >>> based on ideas re the development of open spaces, towards and during >>> the WSF as well as other events. It was taken, modified and adopted to >>> NGO style. Below is how it was translated to NGO language by >>> Stacco,who was an occupy activist and ex-worker owned coop >>> practitioner, now professional expert hired by P2P Foundation: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Wud-VMjA89aE14GNWDE_YkUMNqIYsK-oLVLo4bVW-6Q/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> And during 2014, there was an email discussion about avoiding >>> cooptation and developing a pool resource for commoners, using the >>> funding recuperated by commons NGOs type organisations; supposed to be >>> supportive of commons. Discussion taken place mid 2014, before or >>> after Degrowth conference, and then Michel, you suggested the below >>> idea, which has not been implemented, yet. Open Coop development >>> agency idea: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/188Y7COujNwhU60pMiNypXHaRHgLrjKywVlfN6AyOdCY/edit >>> >>> Although I find EDGE Founders, under the leadership of commons >>> friendly Nicolas Krauzs of P2P Foundations funder FHP (Charles Leopold >>> Mayer Foundation), it is clearly an human-washorganisation with Soros' >>> open society and US' large corporate funders behind, they might have >>> been imposing their own agenda over the commons; about which you guys >>> have no idea. I will provide a deeper analysis of this, with proves. >>> But for the moment I just like to share the nice and sincere-open >>> reports of the events, documented by Pat Conaty and David Boiler, and >>> am guessing are the selective events organised and you have been able >>> to join: >>> This is the event on Open Cooperativism: >>> http://bollier.org/open-co-operativism-report >>> >>> And this is the top-down vision of alliance building: >>> Part >>> >>> I:http://commonstransition.org/a-new-alignment-of-movements-part-i-the-general-challenge/ >>> Part >>> >>> II:http://commonstransition.org/a-new-alignment-of-movements-part-ii-strategies-for-a-convergence-of-movements/ >>> >>> I like to reader to pay attention of funders, participants' >>> composition, and the content. The total picture is clearly top-down >>> movement building, beyond the closed doors. These are not supportive >>> nice, exchange wise productive events. >>> >>> To finish, I like to make one constructive suggestion. If you guys, >>> really really sincere, please consider use the some part of the >>> fundings getting collected -i take it recuperated from the public >>> resources stolen by state elite- and give it back to commoners, by for >>> instance creating totally autonomous spaces for them; so by time for >>> them; inviting commoners from the Global South, paying their >>> registration fees, arrange them a permentant space in the Montreal >>> WSF; in where they can have time and energy to exchange and build >>> their own agenda in their own ways and means. >>> >>> In solidarity, >>> Orsan >>> >>> PS: as promised below is the documentation of the "driver seat" >>> phenomenon... >>> >>> -- the date was beginning of 2015, not mid 2014, did confuse the >>> years. I pasted entire email exchange to give the contex: >>> >>> >>> John <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> >>> 07/01/2015 >>> to Pat, Michel, me, Brian, Michel, networkedlabour, e-mail, David, >>> Michael, margie >>> I like the four wheels. And us in the drivers seat! >>> >>> >>> On 15-01-07 6:17 PM, Pat Conaty wrote: >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> Touche and very good but some in this list our ends and others means. >>> So a bit more work involved, but getting there. >>> >>> As Polanyi argued, Commons solutions for land, money and people to >>> take them out of market are a sine qua non so money becomes servant >>> not master. With this focus we can get onto the right livelihoods >>> roadway of the Tools for Convivality arguments of Illich. >>> >>> The social-public partnership is crucial of course. The Guild >>> socialists understood this in the 1920s as did much of the left in >>> Europe before they were slaughtered by fascism. >>> >>> Pat >>> >>> >>> On 7 Jan 2015, at 15:03, Michel Bauwens <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> to take your wheel metaphor, >>> >>> if one wheel is the commons, the second wheel cooperatives , the third >>> weel sustainability, and the fourth wheel the partner state (necessary >>> civic infrastructures including things like the basic income) .. are >>> we missing a lot ? (I see social justice as part of that fourth wheel) >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Pat >>> Conaty<[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Orsan and Brian >>> > >>> > Great comments yet again. We are on to something here in this >>> exchange. So important for all of Europe as the Greek election >>> approaches. A bit like the Allende election it feels. >>> > The whole world this time is watching with instant news globally. >>> > >>> > When I talk about the solutions being as old as the industrial >>> hills, I mean that at each Long K-wave, offers a chance and this >>> time for a Great Transition in the way Kenneth Boulding >>> expressed this in the 1960s is at hand. Michel’s argument for a >>> Commons Transition is crucial as the unless the biosphere is >>> saved, we are heading for a 6 degree rise in global temperatures >>> as Naomi Klein’s latest book both highlights and points to a >>> common cause to unite social movements. She makes the parallel to >>> the movement to abolish slavery, but here the campaign and focus >>> should be on ending wage slavery. I think Gar Alperovitz offers us >>> far more than meets the eye. As a young researcher, he cut his >>> teeth in the 1960s working for Dr. Martin Luther King. In his >>> latest book he points out that if the US annual income was >>> equitably shared, each family could be provided a Basic Income of >>> $200,000 or $100,000 for a 20 hour week. Abundance is at hand if >>> co-operative economic root and branch solutions could be harnessed. >>> > >>> > Let me explain…... >>> > >>> > Boulding was an evolutionary economist following more closely >>> the path of Veblen then Schumpeter. He was also a pioneer of >>> systems theory and complexity analysis. He saw the Great >>> Transition along the lines of what Schumacher, Illich and others >>> were hoping might happen after the Opec oil crisis. They wanted to >>> jump from the information age to the social knowledge age. >>> Intermediate technology was a way to solve the gap between North >>> and South and to secure a convergence between green and red >>> thinking or social economics and ecological economics. >>> > >>> > Few among the New Left saw what they were forecasting and >>> understood the practical and positive hope they were offering. >>> Exceptions though were Erich Fromm and Andre Gorz who embraced the >>> ideas of Illich for Tools for Convivality. Fromm also in the 1950s >>> made these arguments and stood up on national US TV interviews to >>> the bogeyman of McCarthy. >>> > >>> > Gorz set this out in a series of books starting with his >>> Critique of Economic Rationality and early arguments for a Basic >>> Income. Also in the UK in the early 1980s the work of the Greater >>> London Council and the technology networks that Robin Murray and >>> Hilary Wainwright were moving forward on linked up with this >>> thinking and that of Mike Cooley in the work on the Lucas Plan and >>> the case for a radically new trade unionism. >>> > >>> > Co-operative solutions if only seen in relation to corporate >>> ownership are one dimension only of systems change. Only one wheel >>> when we need at least three or four. What you find though >>> historically is at or near to the K-wave turning points, say >>> 1880s, 1920s and indeed the 1970s you get a wider take that is >>> three or four dimensional in relation to co-operative economic >>> transition. This is the concept of ‘co-operative commonwealth’ >>> that is lost sight of again and again by younger generations >>> because of the say 50 year K-waves. >>> > >>> > Like Camus showed, we end up having to rebel without cause from >>> generation to generation and only and slowly slowly recover the >>> vernacular wisdom of our grandparents. >>> > >>> > Crucially here activists and thinkers alike when they rediscover >>> the full set of co-operative wheels at last, they then begin to >>> address the fundamental foundations of capitalism, namely the >>> taboo questions of land and money. Solving these two is the key to >>> ending wage labour slavery. >>> > >>> > You might find of interest this paper I presented at the >>> international Karl Polanyi conference in Montreal two months ago. >>> Earlier at the conference, Michael Hudson gave a superb speech >>> about financialisation and the casinos economy crisis. The vote in >>> Greece on 25 January may trigger a Lehman II crisis. Michael and I >>> talked and he fully agreed with this analysis and proposals. I >>> found out this second time I met Michael that in the late 1960s >>> and early 1970s he was working for Citibank as a collector of >>> Latin American sovereign debt. He then had his Pauline conversion, >>> quit Wall Street and moved to the New School for Social Research. >>> > >>> > My paper offers some practical solutions as to how to >>> de-commodify money and land. Michel has just posted it in recent >>> weeks a three part series on the P2P website. >>> > >>> > Without addressing these taboo questions positively, >>> transparently and practically, wars will loom larger. Greece, >>> Ireland, Spain and indeed the UK need a prisoners dilemma roadmap >>> out of expanding debt as the fiscal deficits are ballooning and >>> there is no Jubilee release in sight. >>> > >>> > All the best >>> > >>> > Pat >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 7 Jan 2015, at 11:28, Orsan <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > >>> > thanks Michel, this came very timely indeed, site looks great >>> and the content just answers in my opinion perfectly half of the >>> question Brian asks below, he also asked before and you have >>> given a perfect answer indicating what a site and platform as >>> you launch corresponds in reality. >>> > I think this work focusing and addressing state or political >>> society level/dimension of what needs to be done together, and >>> doing it extremely good. Plus the closer relationship emerged in >>> recent years between P2P-F, with Guerrilla Translation, CIC, and >>> Fair.coop closely, I think Michel and friends of P2P, with >>> open-commons-cooperative approach has moved much closer to the >>> recently converging grassroots activism to a position that can >>> greatly contribute to a bridge building activity, with normal >>> people the actual field of political movements and struggles. >>> > >>> > I continue in lines below: >>> > >>> > let me very appropriately I think, after enjoying the insights >>> of all, just briefly mention thathttp://commonstransition.orghas >>> been launched today, precisely meant as a global platform for >>> p2p/commons based policy making by global and local commoners, >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Brian >>> Holmes<[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Orsan, your ideas are tremendously interesting. Thank you. I >>> would appreciate it even more if you take some time to draw more >>> strategic conlcusions. What to do in the present situation? What >>> to do with the kinds of energies and cetworks and collaborations >>> in which we ourselves can participate? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> To me, the process packaged as Globalization, was the most >>> >>> peaceful possible form of the institutionalization project >>> aiming to >>> >>> rebuild the world as a small village connected by information >>> >>> highway of Bill Gates'. As Cox describes in the below >>> video, and I >>> >>> share the way he describes it, Asian crisis can be seen as a >>> >>> breaking point. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I could not agree more. For years I ran an intermittent seminar >>> called "Continental Drift" whose main these was exactly the above. >>> The question was: Why is it that exactly when the world comes >>> together (globalization) it begins to fall apart (continental blocs)? >>> >> >>> >> Slowly it became apparent to me that the US, which had been >>> well and truly hegemonic after WWII, could only solve the crisis >>> of the Keynesian-Fordist paradigm by internationalizing key power >>> functions. They believed this extension of hegemony could be >>> restricted to the two Northern core states which, not >>> coincidentally, had been destroyed in WWII and rebuilt under >>> American auspices: namely Germany/EU and Japan. So you would have >>> a Trilateral hegemony, or "Triad Power," as Kenichi Ohmae called >>> it (yen-euro-dollar: YE$). After '89 and First Gulf War, Clinton >>> believed that the colonization of the unified world market could >>> be managed, peacefully, by this troika, which had solved the >>> monetary crisis of the 70s and had also assembled the largest >>> military coalition in history in 1991. In fact, the world market >>> was unified by the new productive processes of Neoliberal >>> Informationalism. But the bid to retain hegemony by sharing it >>> proved illusory, especially because of the rise of Asia, and >>> especially China, after the Asian crisis of '98. Control >>> threatened to slip away into every semi-autonomous node of the >>> world market, and the US turned to preemptive warfare and >>> institutionalized counter-terrorism in a desperate and failing bid >>> to contain the genie that it had let out of the bottle. That genie >>> is nothing more or less than the deliriously productive forces of >>> fifth-wave industrial capitalism. >>> >> >>> >> This is why Neoliberal Informationalism is so hard to govern. >>> The old power is crumbling (very slowly though), the new one is >>> not yet ready to take command, and we are faced with the global >>> organic crisis of hegemony, which as Gramsci would say, is full of >>> morbid symptoms. In my view, however, this is a far better >>> situation than if China were ready to simply replace the US as >>> capitalist hegemon. Because it is not, we have the chance, in this >>> generation, to complete the task of building a critical and >>> constructive global civil society, able to face both climate >>> change and the constant threat of inter-regional war between the >>> fragmented blocs. The thing is, the Trilateral period spawned not >>> just TNCs, but also TNCS - transnational civil society, or what I >>> also call transnational culture sharing. For me, that is the deep >>> meaning of p2p. It's the other genie that got out of the bottle, >>> and this one is not industrial or capitalist. It is a practical, >>> constructive, dialogical way to build cooperation across the >>> scales - from local and urban to national, continental and global >>> - in order to tame, restrain and redirect (but also sometimes >>> topple) the rapacious elites who are now anarchically deploying >>> the powers of informationalism. >>> > >>> > >>> > totally agree here, again with reference to Gramsci, the organic >>> crisis emerging at point organic intellectuals can not function >>> and facilitate coherence and consensus amongst the ruling classes, >>> as in smoothing informal network spaces like Davos, Council of >>> Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg meetings, but >>> also at local level with Rotary-Lions, or Masonic Clubs, >>> especially at the time of miss-match between the sub-structure and >>> super-structure occurs. However you are right, focusing to knowing >>> enemy more then yourself is not an health way, and agree we need >>> to look for answers to, also in my opinion, most crucial point. >>> How we, as everyone else then elite, and ruling class members, and >>> their broader circles, will move forward, mobilizing and >>> organizing ourselves to act to protect our own, and others >>> dignity, lives and the cosmos, in practice. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> p2p = the possiblity of global government from below. This is >>> what progressive global grassroots networks have been >>> experimenting with since the mid-1990s, around the time that >>> Zapatismo emerged. And this is what Michel was calling "the >>> business model of Occupy" in a memorable article a couple years back. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > I see in the link Michel shared a growing interaction and mutual >>> learning that might also feed in more moral, creative, and >>> genuinely collaborative politics to emerge amongst new and old >>> left between Autonomists, European left, democratic socialist >>> groups. Such convergence would develop opening ups for >>> collaborative politics including greens and mainstream unions, >>> with positive and creative input might come most hopefully from >>> Podemos kind of experiments. Thinking for instance Rojava and the >>> role it can play here, if the Cantons in theory and practice are >>> linked to social houses, squatter and transition town networks, as >>> well as to urban cooperatives and peer producers. I believe the >>> professional politics is the last part to expect anything good at >>> the moment, or it needs to be thought as a last resort to hope >>> from but something to encourage to go for the real change by >>> showing. Since a possible convergence is indeed needed, as Anna >>> said earlier, if we want to reverse the worsening general situation. >>> > >>> > For a long time I have been busy thinking of and searching in, >>> on, behind, around, progressive political and societal >>> institutions, unions, NGOs, activist and political collectives, as >>> well as streets, actions, assemblies so on -being close and far >>> enough to the worlds of unionism, party politics, developmental >>> and progressive NGOism, and issue based social justice movements- >>> studying divisions, ideas and practices of alliances, tried to see >>> possibilities to realize sincere collaboration based on mutual >>> recognition between groups. What I have come to think most >>> recently is, a bit different than what Michel suggested by >>> prioritizing one of the many among who suffers the conditions of >>> today the peer producers as main protagonist to be protected and >>> flourished, actually probably he also meant it this way that, >>> creation of distributed p2p platforms and infrastructures that >>> allow people to liberate from capital and to get empowered to >>> become peer producers for themselves and for others. More in line >>> with what Peter Waterman cites often in my opinion, 'the network >>> is the vanguard'; to open up p2p, egalitarian self-organiased >>> networks of world working classes -for itself- is the vanguard, >>> not one of the enlightened or segments of them, or any entity that >>> claims to be acting on be half of masses, building on a position >>> of chosen class or class segment because of the historical and >>> strategic position it has occupy in the global >>> production-commodity networks. Which brings me to the point below. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> I will cut it here but before like to saying one last >>> thing about >>> >>> the similarity I do see between the netarhicalness of Walmart, >>> >>> Apple, and even Nike and Amazon on the one hand, and the >>> forms like >>> >>> Google, Facebook, Airbnb, and others who accumulate wealth by >>> >>> producing and selling meta-data to other businesses, on >>> the other. I >>> >>> see here similarity between these forms not in terms of >>> how they >>> >>> extract, capture and accumulate the value, but the way >>> they organise >>> >>> their production line in order to capture the value created. >>> > >>> > >>> > I will go back to the analysis I promised above in the next >>> email. Now I like to continue answering your question in relation >>> how we ourselves would be engaging in such (un)vanguard people's >>> political-economy networking; which I have been woking on a design >>> draft called 'FreeKonomia'. It is as a networked infrastructure >>> for totally free exchange of very high quality goods and services, >>> produced by love and care, which is to be supported by integrated >>> floss platforms. One aspect is for free transportation of people, >>> work force, and light material goods, as well as some portable >>> services. It is possible to be re-design a version of BlaBlaCar-Go >>> with Open-map embed showing the points to get on and get off, >>> handy if these are social centers, people's houses, as routes >>> between them to organize the car-go function. For building larger >>> projects and physical infrastructures we need to combine >>> scientific expertise, like those brought together in co-working >>> spaces such as OMNI in Oakland, and large Occupy camps, where >>> people could go camp, have fun and rest while working. What is >>> needed of course to be embedded also is an application that help >>> to match needs and offers of any kind is Sensorica kind, or NPR, >>> Bob and Lynn has been developing, including kind of admin and >>> tracking application, where everyone can see and show who needs >>> what, where, when, what amount. It is very key to manage this all >>> for Free as in Free Beer, and based on positive and encouraging >>> repetitional system, as the driving feed back loop mechanism. So >>> the more you share for free and high quality with others, both >>> system and participants gain value and trust. then freeness and >>> personality would become the anti-money so to speak, replacing and >>> killing the unconditional love and trust we used to give to stupid >>> and dirty papers and metals :) I think mass solidarity actions >>> towards Greek and Spanish social houses, Rojava and Ukrain, for >>> both peace and humanity, can be designed to build up such routes >>> and maps, and this can be linked to Sharing cities mapping-jam >>> organized by Shareable. These processes needs to be in tandem also >>> balancing the Podemos kind of projects, or Partner State >>> emergence. Then in the mid term if we can harmonize these with >>> first organizing the Exodus from Capital, and then a creative and >>> constructive-but also blokaida form of Golden Strike at the >>> weakest points of the system, we might make a good chance to win. >>> > >>> > Orsan >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >>> http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan >>> > >>> > P2P Foundation:http://p2pfoundation.net >>> -http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >>> > >>> > Updates:http://twitter.com/mbauwens;http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >>> > >>> > #82 on the (En)Rich list:http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >>> http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan >>> >>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net >>> -http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >>> >>> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens;http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >>> >>> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4 July 2016 at 19:22, Michel Bauwens <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > hi Orsan, >>> > >>> > this is my response only, I am not speaking for James or anyone >>> else, >>> > >>> > quick online reactions >>> > >>> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Orsan <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I will try to give a considered respond to your answer, which I am >>> >> guessing is the public reply James mentioned. >>> >> >>> >> > I think the realities of organizing events is underestimated. >>> They are >>> >> > two choices, one is the grassroots barcamp type events, in >>> which everyone is >>> >> > welcome, and everyone has to fund his own trip; these events >>> are great, and >>> >> > important, but have advantages as well as disadvantages One >>> disadvantage is >>> >> > that it excludes those who can't self-fund their trips. >>> >> >>> >> I assume it is more than me underestimate the realities of >>> organizing >>> >> event then organizers undervalue the practices of peer to peer and >>> >> commoners. In response to Boiler's book title 'Think like a >>> commoner', it >>> >> could be more then possible to 'Act like a commoner'. So it is >>> more of a >>> >> choices, philosophy and politics, more then 'realities' or >>> 'practices' of, >>> >> those who like to 'think' and 'research' about the real practices; >>> >> coincidentally this makes you star, solve income problems, and >>> moreover >>> >> allow one to deliver politics, and gain influence and power. I >>> think this is >>> >> not only underestimated, but totally absence in your response >>> Michel. Of >>> >> course there is not only two options, there are plenty of >>> alternatives. >>> >> Other wise realities of 'organizing' or 'organization', could >>> be only 'the >>> >> state' / 'corporation' or 'anarchy and there would be no commons, >>> >> commonning, peer to peer alternatives. Are they exist or not? >>> Are they >>> >> reliable or not? Are they believable or not.. Or only theorizing or >>> >> researching about them is important? I know you really believe >>> in p2p and >>> >> commons, but it is hardly possible to see any prefigurative >>> action and >>> >> practice Michel. This is a public and open critique, meaning >>> very sincere >>> >> and friendly way, you need to really think about it. >>> > >>> > >>> > I am not organizing any of those two events Orsan. I have lightly >>> > co-organized barcamps, enough to know how they work; I like them >>> but they >>> > can only go so far, it's not the only legitimate formula. >>> > >>> > The events I have co-organized more intensely were not on the >>> lines of such >>> > open access events, but selective events, like the ones you >>> organized for >>> > networked labour. What are the p2p/commons aspects about them ? >>> 1)They aimed >>> > at creating a diverse and balanced participation 2) they aimed >>> to balance >>> > self-organisation and prior organisation 3) they aimed to >>> balance inclusion >>> > and expertise 4) they aimed at being no-cost for the participants >>> > >>> > But like in your event, they were characterized by a careful >>> selection. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > The other choice is to go for paid conferences. This involves >>> other >>> >> > disadvantages, such as the rules imposed by funders (very >>> stringent demands >>> >> > for transparency for example with EU funding). But it has >>> some advantages >>> >> > ... one is the choice of speakers, which can be more focused >>> on past >>> >> > expertise; the other is that speakers' trip can be paid, as >>> well as small, >>> >> > or sometimes bigger stipends; the paid entries can help fund >>> those without >>> >> > the means of self-funding. >>> >> >>> >> Actually, and to be honest, I really wonder if you really ever >>> organized >>> >> something what you call barcamp type, self-organized, do it >>> yourself, peer >>> >> to peer event. Since I never saw any disadvantage then not >>> being able to >>> >> have star speakers, who would occupy all the space; and the >>> rest of the >>> >> participants who pay for the cost of starts, would only listen >>> and leave the >>> >> space with lots of frustration. May be only one disadvantage is >>> not being >>> >> able to make a show and attract media attention. The rest is >>> negligible in >>> >> my opinion. >>> > >>> > >>> > I have a different experience, I very much enjoy listening to >>> speakers with >>> > more experience than myself, I don't find that frustating. The >>> conferences I >>> > enjoy the most are 'mixed', i.e. they mix the opportunity to >>> listen to more >>> > experienced people, inclusionary sessions with panels, and the >>> opportunity >>> > for deep conversations in circle type events, i.e. they include >>> peer to peer >>> > dynamics, but not exclusively. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > So, in the case of the Synergia conference, this is an >>> entirely unfunded >>> >> > conference. The price was set taken into account the travel >>> costs and very >>> >> > small per diems for the teachers/speakers; and full lodging >>> of participants. >>> >> > In this context, the fee amounts to 900 EURO per week, full >>> pension, which >>> >> > is, in the context of the prices of Tuscany, actually very >>> cheap, though of >>> >> > course, will also exclude those with financial difficulties. >>> For this, you >>> >> > get access to a quite extraordinary roster of >>> teachers/speakers and intense >>> >> > dialogue with other participants. For people with jobs in the >>> cooperative >>> >> > economy, for which this conference is intended, the cost is not >>> >> > un-realistic. For those without income, the price is >>> prohibitive, but >>> >> > bursaries are available. According to John Restakis, the >>> program requires 15 >>> >> > paid students to achieve break-even; after that, bursaries >>> can be funded. >>> >> >>> >> Yes, Synergia conference... You say this 900 per week, several >>> thousands >>> >> euro per all course is, or should be okay for cooperative >>> workers, worker >>> >> owned cooperatives.. while you can not effort only your trip to >>> >> self-organized, barcamp events. >>> >> >>> >> > I for example, would not be able to attend neither Tuscany >>> nor the P2P >>> >> > Value events on my own, in either format, but I can attend >>> both because my >>> >> > travel and basic costs are provided for. This is not a gift, >>> but a small >>> >> > reciprocal payment for my contribution to the event. In >>> contrast, the >>> >> > self-organized barcamp absolutely preclude me from making a >>> living from my >>> >> > contributions. >>> >> >>> >> Would if you can not effort, how do you think workers, >>> cooperative owners, >>> >> peer producers could so. >>> > >>> > >>> > that's what I said, it requires effort and investment on the >>> part of the >>> > students, or of those institutions that fund them; it is mostly only >>> > realistic for those with links to institutions; I'm fully aware >>> of this; >>> > bursaries are a solution to attenuate this >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > The second issue is that of 'democracy'. The P2P Value event >>> has been >>> >> > organized and decided by all those involved in the research >>> project, i.e. a >>> >> > consortium of 8 organizations, and James was responsible for >>> organizing the >>> >> > event as part of the contract; in the Synergie case, this is >>> also a >>> >> > collaborative effort of many dozen people, involved in the >>> Synergia >>> >> > consortium, a voluntary association of cooperativists the >>> world over. >>> >> >>> >> Second issue is not only democracy, transparency, nor >>> participation. Not >>> >> about politics, but it is about generation of culture. It is >>> prefigurative >>> >> act. In case of its lack, or while main evangelists or preachers of >>> >> communism, would not see any problem in ruling people's soviets >>> from the >>> >> winter palace of the old-rulers, then that revolution is over >>> before it >>> >> started. P2P Revolution is going down before it starts, not >>> because it is >>> >> un-democratic, or as you argue against democracy that is it is >>> meritocratic. >>> >> I think including you, Silke, David, as well as all other >>> commoners, and >>> >> theory leaders do lack practical aspect that generates no >>> culture at the >>> >> 'strategist' level. >>> >> >>> >> About Restakis.. My remark was a reference to his email, >>> accidentally sent >>> >> to the list, in his response to you, Jason Nardi, Pat Conaty >>> and some others >>> >> about the four wheels of the 'radical change car'.. He was >>> making a joke of >>> >> 'you' as the strategists of commons transition, open >>> cooperativism, peer - >>> >> license, what ever.. Being on the 'driver seat'. Then there was >>> a cold >>> >> silence, no one replied or asked or commented on his joke. But >>> history >>> >> registered. I can find and redistribute that exchange if you like. >>> > >>> > >>> > please do redistribute, I haven't seen it >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > They take their decisions in good faith, given the funding >>> and other >>> >> > realities they contend with. Yes, it means not everyone can >>> attend, but >>> >> > within the parameters they work with, they strive for the >>> maximum inclusion >>> >> > of motivated participants, and find individual solutions when >>> possible. >>> >> >>> >> Division is not between 'not every body' and 'everybody'. But >>> 'organizers' >>> >> and 'organized'; 'agenda setters' and those agendas are set, >>> strategists and >>> >> strategised; so sort of masters and puppets. >>> >> >>> >> > Now the alternative of barcamps of the massively >>> self-organized WSF ... >>> >> > well, I can't afford to go those either, they exclude all >>> those that are not >>> >> > able to self-fund. So no system is perfect, >>> >> >>> >> Come on Michel, some one like you can easily receive support to >>> go there, >>> >> of any kind. >>> > >>> > >>> > the fact Orsan is that I haven't; nobody ever offered to finance my >>> > participation to the WSF; and until 2014, I was extremely >>> precarious and the >>> > P2P-F itself has zero funds; so if you know of easy forms of >>> support, please >>> > do forward >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > and both are easy to critique from the outside, by people who are >>> >> > unwilling to dive into the real difficulties and constraints >>> of organizing >>> >> > these events,As far as I can recall, Orsan, you organized >>> exclusive events >>> >> > with TNI, and you did that very well. Far from critiquing you >>> for these >>> >> > exclusionary events, I would commend you for it, for bringing >>> important >>> >> > players together, and for funding our trips and >>> participation. I feel the >>> >> > same about John Restakis and James Burke, and given their >>> efforts and >>> >> > responsibilities, I can find sympathy for their irritation >>> when they are >>> >> > critiqued by outsiders who are not contributing to the >>> organization of these >>> >> > events, and unaware of the constraints they are operating with. >>> >> >>> >> My critique of TNI, and end of my relationships with it is >>> declared by me >>> >> on several occasions. Now same critique, of NGO world in >>> general, is >>> >> covering to commons NGOs, which present same mistakes, same >>> fault lines, and >>> >> these are not a complain of some one humpy dumpy, it is >>> documented and >>> >> agreed wide spread critique. Of course people, individually >>> doing their >>> >> best, to survive and combine income and passion and idealism >>> would get >>> >> irritated. But what irritate us, ordinary people, is them >>> finding this not >>> >> enough and when that also like to tell us what to do, what to >>> say, what to >>> >> chose, what to like and dislike.. So when they feel power of >>> ideas, and wish >>> >> to define the course, on the driving seat of the 'radical' >>> change car. >>> > >>> > >>> > you are no more ordinary than anyone else; I dont think most >>> ordinary people >>> > would be irritated by open debate and exchange of opinions : I will >>> > certainly restrict my own rights of free speech on the basis of >>> other's >>> > irritations >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Well, without managing to combine applying self-labour, mental and >>> >> manually, apologies but this is not going to happen. Because, now, >>> >> irritation of being rule, is so high, and those who are wanted >>> to be managed >>> >> posses high skills, like political analysis. >>> > >>> > >>> > thanks for this exchange, end of my comments >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> In solidarity, >>> >> Orsan >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >>> http://commonstransition.org >>> > >>> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - >>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >>> > >>> > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; >>> http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >>> > >>> > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> https://twitter.com/flgnk >>> Skype: kev.flanagan >>> Phone: +353 87 743 5660 > > > -- > Silke Helfrich > www.commonsblog.de _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
