[p2p-research] - Re: [Commoning] augmenting the movement¹s collective intelligence

Sun Dec 26 16:06:36 CET 2010

Thanks Michel for your reply.

yes, ... The "*Iron Law of Bureaucracy*".

- profond soupir / deep sigh -

thanks for mentioning it.

I guess the current attempts at organizing research and cooperative
structures related to the p2pfoundation are an interesting experiment for
the ones involved in them.

I am curious to see how it unfolds.

Some more comments below, just in case some of us want to read on...

Two main topics below : the first one being distributed "connectivity" and
interdependencies ,
and the second one being "how to enable hybrid systems" as to benefit from
access to bureaucratically controlled resources, with some very broad
examples in relation to EU funds.

In both cases, I like the prospect of alternative currency architectures" to
enable such forms of emergent intelligence. - I do not mention which kind of
architectures, but this can be further discussed.

------------------------------------

Yes, attempt to circumvent it, possibly using a equipotential open source
approach meme.

Yet bureaucracies often seem to control over certain scarce resources, such
as grant money, or infrastructure.

I somehow have the feeling this may me a recurring theme. Not only
capitalist enclosure, but possibly also bureaucratic enclosure.

Is there a prospect of accessing resources coming from bureaucracies, as to
enable support for p2p dynamics. Such as with Open Government
Licenses<http://eaves.ca/2010/10/01/uk-adopts-open-government-license-for-everything-why-its-good-and-what-it-means/>
,
but for "scarce" funding ?

The main conceptual solutions to this I have up until now,
for answering *"how to mobilize the periphery, against the attacks from the
center?"*
would be* setting up distributed interdependency information systems such as
creating various types of emergent "alternative currency architectures" that
would enable choice, on both sides, and eventually also transparency, if
required.*

I would hope it could *avoid a need for "information/propaganda wars" by
making contracts and interdependencies more transparently available.*

----

As for trying to find a way to converge available bureaucratic resources,

For example, how could one make benefit of ( grants from )
the "2011 European Year for Volunteering"

http://europa.eu/volunteering/en/home2

... while avoiding the NGO's to use such funds merely for a "tokenism" type
of volunteering ?

http://partnerships.typepad.com/civic/images/ladder-of-citizen-participa-1.jpg

Another example :

How can we avoid this type of wasted potential, in terms of resource
allocation - hundreds of billions of euros ( although the matching funds are
usually a requirement to reduce corruption and ensure seriousness of
projects )

http://thebureauinvestigates.com/2010/11/29/top-story-3/

EU funds to build a stronger Europe are tied up in red tape :: The Bureau of
Investigative Journalism<http://thebureauinvestigates.com/2010/11/29/top-story-3/>
Billions of euros of EU funds to promote growth in Europe’s rundown regions
are lying idle because cash-strapped national governments cannot find the
necessary matching funds to release the money.
// Internal documents from the European Commission, obtained by the
investigation, show that the EU has paid out only 10 per cent of the €347bn
allocated by its flagship fund, even though it is more than halfway through
its seven-year spending cycle.

Ah, I also feel like
excerpting from Wikipedia , Pournelle's version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy

*"Pournelle's Iron Law of
Bureaucracy"<http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail408.html#Iron>
*, which states:

*"In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy
itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the
bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and
sometimes are eliminated entirely."*

On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Dante,
>
> what you describe here is the iron law of bureaucracy, already described by
> Weber at the turn of the 20th century, and seemingly unavoidable wherever
> there are scarce resources to contend with,
>
> the best is you can hope for is a measure of formal democracy and
> accountability, which introduces conflict and compromise in this process
>
> p2p comes in by creating a layer of abundance engineering around resources
> that are not subjected, or not designed, for scarcity
>
> I would say that once you 'have' something, it seems natural to our nature
> to 'defend' it, and for others to attempt to take it away, leading to a
> mutual dynamic of inside against outside
>
> the prize is always the comfortable life, vs. continued precarity for those
> who fail in that game
>
> the question becomes, if it cannot fully be fought or avoided, is how to
> embed it in other dynamics, such as p2p, reciprocity, sharing, etc ..
>
> in your case an interesting approach could be, how to mobilize the
> periphery, against the attacks from the center?
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <
> dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Michel,
>>
>> one more concrete example I remember of the "Entraide et Fraternites"
>> meeting ( they are based in Brussels )
>>
>> http://www.entraide.be/spip.php
>>
>> In addition to the increasing opposition between a "managment" catapulted
>> from outside directly to the top ( a new financial manager with a slavic
>> accent, but with experience in NGO's in London )
>>
>> is that the financial manager - who is officially the one who is in charge
>> -
>> ends up saying that one of their priorities is to "fight" the "pirate"
>> projects.
>>
>> What they call "pirate" projects are direct small scale funding of
>> projects done through the church networks accross the globe,
>> networks the organization helped fostering,
>> but that the new managment wants to "break down" as it reduces direct
>> funding through their own platform.
>>
>> In effect, instead of supporting small scale "p2p" approaches, the new
>> "corporate" style managment tries to re-centralize control, as to boost
>> figures on their financial sheet books.
>>
>> Hence "destroying" value, instead of creating value.  Which is contrary to
>> the mission of the organization, but becomes a need according to the new
>> managment as to further increase their development.
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Another problem I noticed, this time with a smaller organization called
>> http://fyeg.org ,
>> is that as they try to become "more professional", and as an "elite"
>> becomes more and more powerful ( even changing their own rules in their own
>> favor ),
>> there is less and less transparency.
>>
>> I remember writing posts, such as
>>
>> http://www.fyeg.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=48
>>
>> http://www.fyeg.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=11&sid=24fefaab8f1f98b0e073761aeb668c82
>>
>> What finally happened, is , well, nothing much to create it more inclusive
>> or transparent.
>> What did happen, after that, is quite the contrary :
>>
>> there has been a severe case of playing with the finances of the
>> organization, following such lack of transparency, with a member of the
>> board stealing substantial sums of money.
>>
>> The organization survived because of ( financial ) support from the Green
>> Party.
>>
>> This organization is supposed to represent what some may call
>> "progressives",
>> and basically enables its young politicians to access politics at a
>> european level.
>>
>> Understanding how organizations work from the inside, really makes one
>> feel alarmed about the prospects of governance for our societies.
>>
>> And do not seem to encourage "collective intelligence".
>>
>> Hopefully we can individually support alternative emergent movements of
>> collective intelligence for the governance of our societies and
>> civilizations.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <
>> dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Michel
>>>
>>> I would like to draw your attention in this question :
>>>
>>> from personal experience,
>>>
>>> I also see "capitalist" management techniques used more and more in ( big
>>> ) Not For Profit organizations,
>>>
>>> including within the "Christian Movements" supported by church donations,
>>> such as
>>>
>>> http://www.entraide.be/spip.php
>>>
>>> <http://www.entraide.be/spip.php>What I hear from people that work for
>>> such organizations ( or ended up leaving them ) and have
>>> undergone management change in the last years,
>>>
>>> is increased inequalities within the organization,
>>> increase of pressure, sense of loss of meaning, competition,
>>> non-collaborative incentives.
>>>
>>> And the reason why the organization had to change management approach,
>>> and employ a "London trained" manager, is that its "management" approach did
>>> not correspond to needs required by foundations or organizations who fund
>>> them.
>>>
>>> This despite grants only being around half of total funds ( as the other
>>> half came from church donations ).
>>>
>>> I went to one of their meetings ( entraide et fraternite ),
>>> and could see the different "fractions" within the organization.
>>>
>>> One which aims at "numbers" and , "performance", and "competitiveness" (
>>> the new management catapulted to the top of the organization , and coming
>>> from a different organizational culture ),
>>>
>>> and another which aims at the core values of the organization itself,
>>> experiencing it within the organization.
>>>
>>> Before the new management arrived, the employees all received the same
>>> compensation.
>>> Since the new managment, the divides grew bigger and bigger, and
>>> solidarity within the organization apparently starts to break.
>>>
>>> The managment style was more "cooperative", and ended up becoming more
>>> "corporate".
>>>
>>> How can alternatives to corporate style management be offered to such not
>>> for profit organizations, which work on a global scale, and have significant
>>> budgets ?
>>>
>>> I also noticed such approach in smaller organizations, including european
>>> youth organizations.  Because of financing requirements, top down control
>>> structures are being created and reiforced, often further diminishing a
>>> sense of collaborative camaraderie, while rather incentivizing competition
>>> and information hoarding instead of sharing,
>>> which ends up with a centralized organization supposed to represent 40
>>> 000 youth all over europe, but basically only operating within a small elite
>>> of around 10 people, who use it as a way to legitimize their power, and
>>> their access to more power.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear George,
>>>>
>>>> I think that both strategies have advantages and limitations, but as for
>>>> our own p2p-foundation practice, it IS aligned with your ideas, and I have
>>>> no real interest, in adopting mass marketing strategies, which I see as
>>>> problematic and in tension with p2p values,
>>>>
>>>> I've seen the transition regarding Ponoko, which used to regard me as an
>>>> adult and partner in their communication, but now communicates with me as if
>>>> I was a childish consumer in need of excitement ...
>>>>
>>>> I've also seen how Greenpeace uses mass marketing techniques that are
>>>> the same as capitalist companies
>>>>
>>>> and I don't think that is the way forward,
>>>>
>>>> however, shareable magazine practices, of making complex messages easily
>>>> understandable and focusing on practices that everyone can implement, is I
>>>> think very compatible,
>>>>
>>>> Michel
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 1:47 PM, George Por <
>>>> george at community-intelligence.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Neal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> From a communications strategy standpoint, the challenge to grow a
>>>>> >> movement from a small core to a mass movement is this that you have
>>>>> to
>>>>> >> find messages that expand your base of support (new adherents)
>>>>> without
>>>>> >> splintering or alienating the base (the true believers).  This is
>>>>> what
>>>>> >> the Green Party in Vienna was struggling with five years ago.  As it
>>>>> >> was told to me, the factions within the core group had problems
>>>>> >> developing effective messaging around the platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> What worked well for the Greens as a political party may not work that
>>>>> well for a policentric social movement such as the commons. Some of the
>>>>> critical issues that I see for the latter is not as much how to get the
>>>>> message out and recruit adherents but rather:
>>>>>
>>>>> - how to increase connectivity among the nodes for augmenting the
>>>>> movement’s collective intelligence?
>>>>>
>>>>> - how to develop better functioning collective sensing organs and
>>>>> meaning-making practices?
>>>>>
>>>>> - how to facilitate the emergence of a coherent theory of society,
>>>>> culture and economics, which both reflects and supports the struggles and
>>>>> innovation by the multitudes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is anybody interested to explore further any of these questions, maybe
>>>>> even engage in a rigorous, collaborative inquiry around them? Does any of
>>>>> those questions speak to CSG?
>>>>>
>>>>> george
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Commoning mailing list
>>>>> Commoning at lists.wissensallmende.de
>>>>> http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>
>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>
>>>> Think tank:
>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Commoning mailing list
>>>> Commoning at lists.wissensallmende.de
>>>> http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20101226/7a32fe73/attachment-0001.html>