There is nothing wrong, to my mind, with levels of expertise. I’m more concerned actually with a number of different things: 1) internal socialisation processes that produce unanimity in any group 2) reactive politics that starting from a original trauma, become group politics; it wouldn’t be the first that a group claiming victimization, becomes itself dominant and exploitative against those it sees as exploiters, in fact, history is rife with those examples; 3) correct identification of the core of exploitation; in my opinion, language dominance is derivative and is the wrong focus; 4) best allocation of resources. The most important thing that any person our group can do is do pay attention to its own shadow (Jung), to process trauma, and to transform reactivity into an integrative approach to politics. For many reasons, I feel that it is really wrong to accuse working class people who speak english of being imperialist class exploiters, for the mere fact that they have chosen to put energy in a global language that makes them understood by many; (as I heard several times from people in Spain that have been at the receiving end of such critique). Any attention to language dominance can take many positive forms, and I seriously think that an aggresive focus on Esperanto as a marker of difference carries serious dangers of consolidating cultic tendencies. The tendency of in group vs out group dynamics is present in any group, but needs to be kept in check. Esperanto is fine for me as an added option to be discussed by conference organizers and participants, but I have serious problems in making an acceptance of that concept a sine qua non for cooperation. I have zero problems in participating in conferences using any language, as long as provisions are made for at least one language that I speak. Otherwise, pragmatically speaking, it makes no sense to attend, although I respect any choices that a group may make, which makes most sense for them.

The only question is: do people speak freer in their own language or in English? If you ask to normal people, not only to rich people educated in English speaking private universities, the big majority will say, undoubtedly that they will prefer to speak their own language.

And we want to listen them.

Dear David:

During my last trip, when we met in Madrid, you gave me a long and detailed explanation that the las indias coop was organized like the guilds and masonic orders, i.e. the 3 degree system of apprentice, fellow, and master craftsman. Is that incorrect?

I thought that I had mistaken your proposal for funding the esperanto translation in a meeting on Economic Democracy, with Orsan’s proposal for the Agora 99 meeting on P2P Democracy, what you call ‘going crazy’, but in any case, you will realize that 1) you cannot possibly fund all p2p meetings ; 2) that it diverts funds and efforts from other applications in building the movement. My objection is to making this language issue so central in your approach and debates, not an opposition to efforts for language diversity, not even for supporting Esperanto as an add on to convince people in practice. As I said, what is essential is that people decide by themselves on language issue.

I have no objection to cooperation, even though the emotional exchange will not have made it easier, but that is life and politics.

Given the goal of transforming our society and economy towards p2p dynamics, is it wise to put such a central attention to the language issue?

In friendship, and I will certainly continue to spread the world about the valuable and innovative work that Las Indias is doing in many areas,

Michel Bauwens

During all this debate I really asked myself many times why were you trying so hard to confuse the discussion and its terms:

1. we offered ourselves to organize and to fund an interpretation system for all the participant languages whith technology based in Esperanto.
2. you got crazy about it (in fact you had to sorry in your last email)
3. when things seems to go back to rationality you write this post…

Im very sad about it specially as we are working very hard in order to organize and fund the meeting you proposed us to do. But, has any sense co-organize anything after this post?? To me it is clear you have decided not to work with us and you are preparing how to explain it presenting us as talibans and writing tales such as the «masonic organization», etc.