[p2p-research] Fwd: [ox-en] No more money trickery propaganda please

[Stefan Merten]

Hi Michel!

Today Michel Bauwens wrote:
> I have to my knowledge not said anyting which isn't true.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think I have to believe you. So ok, you did not lie. But please
believe me that your knowledge is very limited here. I'll use this
mail to outline this in this community because probably not all
followed [ox-en].

> You have consistently used the term of money trickery to demain the monetary
> reform movement, true or not?

I used the term "money trickery" because IMHO it describes the nature
of what you are relating to very well. I have no better term for this
since IMHO the term "monetary reform" is already part of the problem.

If that is all you have a problem with then I'm sorry and grateful for
a matching but neutral term you can accept.

> You have tried to impose your diktat against this theme in the discussion on
> the book, true or not?

No. In fact I said

  > If you would be able
  > to omit this topic [named above] altogether I really would be grateful because this
  > to me is really a showstopper.

I think all the victims of dictators would be glad if their dictator
would have talked to them so friendly.

> You have used terms like propaganda and esotericism to characterize
> arguments for monetary reform, true or not?

If someone states that you can keep money and get interest for it at
the same time then it is absolutely obvious that this is wrong. The
money in my pocket does not raise any interest neither does the money
under my cushion. Only if I do *not* keep my money but give it away
then I can get interest for it.

If then someone continues to state obvious nonsense like this then I
reserve the right to call *this statement* propaganda / esotericism,
yes. As a maintainer of the Oekonux project in Oekonux it is even my
duty.

And no the keeping-money-and-getting-interest is not a unimportant
detail in this debate. It is rather all or nothing. But since you
probably did not understand all the other stuff it is really pointless
to go on.

Anyway I have far more important things to do than to discuss this
topic any longer. I said what I think is necessary and you either take
it or leave it. I can take your position though it is probably harder
for me than for you to do the same vice versa. I can live with this
difference and you may want to try to see it similarly.

> You have hinted that talk about monetary reform is related to anti-semitism?

I once said that especially the criticism on interest is in danger in
inviting interpretations you probably don't want - especially
anti-semitic ones. I did this in a case where the criticism on
interest was accompanied by Nazi rhetoric - and I never did before. In
fact there is lots of historical evidence to this and I think during
the financial crisis it is easy to see how easy this connection can be
refreshed.

You scandalized this and still label this as tactics. I don't think
such scandalization is useful in such a debate and to label this as
tactics is really mean. But I believe you really did not understand
the whole point.

BTW: I never was an Anti-Deutscher and did not like them at all.
Nonetheless there are important insights on the structure of
anti-semitism in this debate. Among them is - AFAICS - that racism is
different from anti-semitism - which you equated recently. As Andreas
said: in the country of those who did the atrocities the Left is
probably a bit more sensible about these topics.

> I have said nothing else that what you yourself have stated and is easily
> documented.

Well, see above. I now gave my perspective on things also in this
community and (I hope) this is my final word on the topic of [named
above].

> It is you who have stopped the dialogue at the list,

That is wrong. You unsubscribed from [ox-en] while I stayed here.

> so where else can I
> react then on the p2p list?

Feel free.

> Please be responsible for your own choices and decisions.

I am.

> This being said, it is true I am upset and may be in a period where it is
> hard to me to see the silver ligning and the future cooperation. Sometimes,
> often, conflicts are more acute with people who are very similar. and this
> seems what has happened to us.

I don't think we are very similar. I like you as a friend but I think
we are quite different in many respects. At least this is my way to
explain to myself why it is so hard to agree on this topic of [named
above]. But that I see as a challenge and grounds for a fruitful
cooperation - which IMHO we already had and I enjoyed.

> I am conflicted between the desire for cooperation, and what I think should
> be demanded in civil cooperation, i.e. stopping to use demeaning terms in
> the conversation.

See above.

> I also find it very difficult to keep an artificial boundary between
> obviously related subjects, just because you are declaring them off-limits,

Well, I think in the recent debate on [ox-en] it became really clear
that exchange in general is opposed to openness and thus the [named
above] stuff at the very least does not support peer production.

So to me there is no relation. Since I'm interested in peer production
(i.e. open and based on Selbstentfaltung), its embedding in existing
societies and expansion of peer production to create a society based
on it to me discussing exchange based systems as something you can
hope for is a waste of time.

> so I rather say nothing anymore than continuously impose self-censorship.

Michel, this is really childish. You have so many interesting things
to say beyond the [named above].

> So I think it is better to aim for a pause, and let time heal the wounds,

Fine with me. You know where you find me. I'll wait.


						Grüße

						Stefan