needless to say Stefan, I'm really disappointed by the personal attitude that shines true in this reply of yours, and the refusal for a normal conversation with facts, arguments (feelings are also okay, but loading shit on another person is not okay).
So let me be clear that I'm not responding to you, as I have no desire to continue this type of exchange, but for the community. Since I could only discern one cogent counter-argument, here is my reply to that one:
* <in fact all peer production projects *are* self-sustaining. That
is part of their positive feedback cycle. Probably you are talking of
something else.>
Peer production projects can be collectively sustainable by relying on a continuous stream on voluntary contributions, but they do presently not sustain their members, who are usually paid by for-profit companies or as freelancers on a marketplace ... i.e. the commons is not independently sustainable for its members; this is why I propose that commoners/peer producers create their own structures for a more autonomous cycle of reproduction.
Hi Michel!
Finally I got through to your mail. Frankly I'm surprised how big the
gap actually is between you and anybody else I know. I hope that your
contributions to Oekonux did not bend you too much...
Last month (30 days ago) Michel Bauwens wrote:
> It seems neither you nor Jacob understands the difference between
> commodification and self-sustaining commons, oh well ..
Well, in fact all peer production projects *are* self-sustaining. That
is part of their positive feedback cycle. Probably you are talking of
something else. Never mind...
> right now the (free software) commons that you so enthusiastically support
> exclusively survive through commodified labour and wages;
Which is obviously wrong. But I understand that you *need* to ignore
facts to push your program through.
The only thing I'm *really* interested in: Why do you feel the need to
push through such esoteric stuff? I know these guys talking about
money trickery since 20 years. Little has changed since then -
especially not there presumptuous behavior and their ignorance of
reality. I unterstand that they invaded your project - as they do with
every project they can get hold of. Did you welcome them because their
presumptuous behavior kept your project alive?
> there are better
> ways in which income is not tied to work;
Indeed. For instance commons-based peer production - unless you mean
income as dollars. In fact exchange based systems are historically the
only ones which tie income to labor explicitly - this is there life
blood.
> I'm not an anarchist, much more of a marxist, therefore, like Marx,
What I understand is that you have no idea of either of these leftist
streams. So you may be interested in learning that Marx refused to be
called a Marxist.
> but it is perfectly okay to support capitalist forms of money exclusively as
> you do,
If I want to abolish all forms of money by making it superfluous then
I support money. Frankly that's too much ignorance of reality for me
to understand...
In a way I'm really sad. I really had hoped that someday you would
return to a common basis but in fact you dig deeper and deeper into
your idealist (which is BTW the opposite of Marx *and* Marxists) and
often enough esoteric stuff.
Well, let me say that I appreciate the part of my life I shared with
you. It was a pleasure to me. However, finally I quit hoping that
these days can come back. I can only hope that your confusion is not
triggered by personal problems which let you look for an escape from
reality.
Grüße
Stefan