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. On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Stefan Merten <[email protected]> wrote:

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

-- 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