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

[marc fawzi]

I'm an outsider an far as the existing relationship between the two parties,

and Stefan's message is directed to Michel obviously,

However, I decided to read it out of curiosity/interest,

What a mistake!

I have no issue with Stefan, it's his argument that I feel is full of
unfulfilled ego, not just boundary setting but pure unadulterated ego
fulfilling, at the expense of what seemed to be a great working
relationship between ox and p2pf.

I think Michel's argument re: money reform/re-invention/re-definition
is not only validated by the large number of serious and sincere
efforts in that area, is getting in between Stefan and Stefan's pain
about capitalism, a personal pain which he has not dealt with
properly, for if he has he woudn't be so badly triggered by Michel's
argument, which is driving a wedge in his psyche, and hence the
painful screams of the ego.

What a joy to read this stuff and be detached from it.

We're all guilty of not having properly dealt with one painful issue
or another, but it's sadistic at best to expose everyone to our anger
just because they come in between us and that pain that we have yet to
deal with.

I think you guys are better off being allies than enemies.

Marc

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Stefan Merten <smerten at oekonux.de> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi