<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Dear Michael <div><br></div><div>thanks Michel Bauwens very much for bringing you in. His email was referring to a text by Silvia that I proposed as a point of departure for collective debate on strategy. I republished this text on The Commoner here (<a href="http://www.commoner.org.uk/?p=113">http://www.commoner.org.uk/?p=113</a>). Obviously, the critical quote that Michel send you must be read in the context of the overall argument made by Silvia. It is this argument that either carries or does not carry weight for giving us insight as a point of departure for a strategic debate.</div><div><br></div><div>Would you like to join our commoning list? This is a very broad list of people attracted to commons and they come from a variety of perspectives. I am sure I am not the only one who would love to have you on board as we are living in a time in which we do need to clarify our positions but especially finding a common ground upon which to move forward. The events in Italy, with the recent meeting of "uniti contro la crisi" bringing together the metalworker trade union FIOM with the social centres, precarious workers, many associations and so on, was a crucially important event, especially because the terrain of recomposition was explicitly on the basis of commons. The times are therefore demanding commonning.</div><div><br></div><div>Hope you will join the list and help us to shape a strategic debate over commons.</div><div><br></div><div>All the best</div><div><br></div><div>Massimo De Angelis</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 26 Jan 2011, at 06:14, Michel Bauwens wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Dear Michael,<br><br>In her latest essay, Silivia Federici writes the following about your trilogy, and Commonwealth in particular: (<a href="http://www.commoner.org.uk/?p=113">http://www.commoner.org.uk/?p=113</a>)<br><br> .. The appeal of this theory is that it does not separate the formation of �the<br>common� from the organization of work and production but sees it immanent to it. Its<br>limit is that its picture of the common absolutizes the work of a minority possessing skills<br> not available to most of the world population. It also ignores that this work produces<br>commodities for the market, and it overlooks the fact that online<br>communication/production depends on economic activities � mining, microchip and rare<br> earth production�that, as presently organized, are extremely destructive, socially and<br>ecologically. Moreover, with its emphasis on knowledge and information, this theory<br>skirts the question of the reproduction of everyday life. ..<br> <br>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)<br> <br>However, perhaps you have addressed such critiques in more detail,<br><br>If so, thanks for sharing the links and I'll forward to our commoning list in cc,<br><br>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,<br> <br>In addition, have you addressed anywhere the issue of capitalist commons and how we should address them<br><br>(note to our friends in commoning: I'm writing a mini-article on the material basis of autonomy this afternoon)<br> <br>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,<br> <br>Michel Bauwens,P2P Foundation<br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br> <br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org">http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org</a><br> <br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br> <br>Think tank: <a href="http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI">http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI</a><br><br><br><br><br> _______________________________________________<br>Commoning mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Commoning@lists.wissensallmende.de">Commoning@lists.wissensallmende.de</a><br>http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>