Dear Michael, In her latest essay, Silivia Federici writes the following about your trilogy, and Commonwealth in particular: (http://www.commoner.org.uk/?p=113) .. The appeal of this theory is that it does not separate the formation of “the common” from the organization of work and production but sees it immanent to it. Its limit is that its picture of the common absolutizes the work of a minority possessing skills not available to most of the world population. It also ignores that this work produces commodities for the market, and it overlooks the fact that online communication/production depends on economic activities – mining, microchip and rare earth production—that, as presently organized, are extremely destructive, socially and ecologically. Moreover, with its emphasis on knowledge and information, this theory skirts the question of the reproduction of everyday life. .. I have read Empire and at least half of the two next books, and I must say I have not read into your book that you absolutize the work of a minority, nor that you ignore that it produces commodities for the market, nor a denial that such commons have a material basis, so it can only be based on a very skimpy reading. (one could of course argue more realistically that your books do not pay sufficient attention to those without access, does not pay sufficient attention to the material basis, and to the incorporation of value by capitalism, which, even if perhaps incorrect, would be an even more nuanced and productive debate) However, perhaps you have addressed such critiques in more detail, If so, thanks for sharing the links and I'll forward to our commoning list in cc, Eventually, if you address them or have addressed them, and I think you should as these kinds of claims are recurrent, I would eventually like to republish in the P2P FOundation blog, In addition, have you addressed anywhere the issue of capitalist commons and how we should address them (note to our friends in commoning: I'm writing a mini-article on the material basis of autonomy this afternoon) The P2P Foundation's approach (i.e. my own) is not exactly identical to yours in Commonwealth, but sufficiently related to have to converse about the same critiques. In our case, we have always favoured an alliance between knowledge workers and digital commoners with other commoners, have paid strong attention to the value capture issue (the Crisis of Value theory formulated with Adam Arvidsson) which is central to our thinking, as well as regular attention to the issue of the materiality of autonomy, through our monitoring and support for genuine p2p infrastructures, Michel Bauwens,P2P Foundation -- 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