Hi Michel! Well, I really feel sorry for you. You really must be desperate that you now feel the need to use offending means like posting private conversations to mailing lists without even asking for permission. I know you from times when you would not have done things like that :-( . Yesterday Michel Bauwens wrote:
needless to say Stefan, I'm really disappointed by the personal attitude that shines true in this reply of yours,
That is because I was interested in you as a person. Sorry for this.
and the refusal for a normal conversation with facts, arguments (feelings are also okay, but loading shit on another person is not okay).
We had a normal conversation like you described. You took that normal conversation personal and left it. But probably you consider your contributions to these threads http:///www.oekonux.org/journal/list/archive/msg00701.html http:///www.oekonux.org/journal/list/archive/msg00752.html as a normal conversation. Indeed the last conversation we had and I would have considered normal was not of this type. Seems like that were better days...
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,
That was my point.
but they do presently not sustain their members,
Of course they do in the areas of the peer production projects. And besides the members they sustain lots and lots of other persons.
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;
In other words: The new principle didn't replace the old one completely yet. Of course not. When capitalism started with textile industry the feudal structures for producing food have not been replaced immediately. Demanding what you demand ignores history.
this is why I propose that commoners/peer producers create their own structures for a more autonomous cycle of reproduction.
And they do - by extending peer production. We can see this transformation on a daily basis. Isn't this great? At this point no additional measure seems to be necessary. And if this changes at some point it should be measures which are compatible with peer production. Grüße Stefan
sorry Stefan, I thought you had posted on the list ... I can see now that the system is using my new mailing address, which ends in p2pfoundation and confused me into thinking you had posted this on the list, my apologies for this, it was unintented; and didn't particularly like posting those attacks, but I think we better end this argument, both on and off list, Michel On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Stefan Merten <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Michel!
Well, I really feel sorry for you. You really must be desperate that you now feel the need to use offending means like posting private conversations to mailing lists without even asking for permission. I know you from times when you would not have done things like that :-( .
Yesterday Michel Bauwens wrote:
needless to say Stefan, I'm really disappointed by the personal attitude that shines true in this reply of yours,
That is because I was interested in you as a person. Sorry for this.
and the refusal for a normal conversation with facts, arguments (feelings are also okay, but loading shit on another person is not okay).
We had a normal conversation like you described. You took that normal conversation personal and left it.
But probably you consider your contributions to these threads
http:///www.oekonux.org/journal/list/archive/msg00701.html http:///www.oekonux.org/journal/list/archive/msg00752.html
as a normal conversation. Indeed the last conversation we had and I would have considered normal was not of this type. Seems like that were better days...
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,
That was my point.
but they do presently not sustain their members,
Of course they do in the areas of the peer production projects. And besides the members they sustain lots and lots of other persons.
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;
In other words: The new principle didn't replace the old one completely yet. Of course not.
When capitalism started with textile industry the feudal structures for producing food have not been replaced immediately. Demanding what you demand ignores history.
this is why I propose that commoners/peer producers create their own structures for a more autonomous cycle of reproduction.
And they do - by extending peer production. We can see this transformation on a daily basis. Isn't this great? At this point no additional measure seems to be necessary. And if this changes at some point it should be measures which are compatible with peer production.
Grüße
Stefan
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
participants (2)
-
Michel Bauwens -
Stefan Merten