[p2p-research] [Commoning] - Re: ?ce

[j.martin.pedersen]

On 31/12/10 08:39, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> just an extra word, I'm using here in my last postings a somewhat more
> agressive style,

I don't mind aggression, but I find it tedious that you keep
misrepresenting me and distort my position and paint it as lacking
solidarity and a "hard blow" to activists and digital empowerment -
while not actually responding to what I have been saying.


> if you say that the logic of abundance of cyberspace is just like the
> colonial logic, or, 'all' free advocates ignore the reality of resource use
> or exploitation, you are creating absolutes that necessarily put all other
> people who do not fully agree with you as straw men adversaries, and many
> people will resent that, as I do,

If, If, If - yes, if, then. But did I?

> in my view, better to see the world as polarities, between what you see as
> the truthful understanding and what others do, there are many shades,

Indeed.. many shades..


> given this fact, one can communicate to highlight the differences in such a
> way as they create division and reaction, or you can focus on commonalities
> that allow a common struggle and creation to occur, which does not mean at
> all giving up on your own perspectives, but may mean expressing in such a
> way, that others actually feel they can integrate it in their own
> understandings

Many people have indeed expressed that they have been able to integrate
it into their own understanding - you being one exception, but then
again, you haven't actually engaged constructively in this exchange and
just keep painting me as an enemy for presenting a philosophical
crtitique - a constructive critique with regards to the architecture of
commons and their social organisation. Not an imposition, not an
absolute, just a set of ideas.


> do you really believe that all commoners 'see no evil, hear no evil'; can't

What I am saying is that Free Software and Free Culture politics have
been defined by a set of leading voices who do separate material and
immaterial in a very problematic way and that it is a commoners task to
clear up that distraction, because many are following it and their views
are consolidated every time they hear abundance logic, immaterial and so on.

I don't see this as an isolated task and I don't put my faith in a
division of labour (i.e. sitting around waiting for the perpetual motion
machine working group to deliver), but seek to argue for the idea that
organisation should strive for integration of ideas: a digital commons
has a responsibility to make its commoners aware of the material
foundations of their common ground and, for instance, when possible move
towards local, micropower production, rather than, say, Google Groups.
This doesn't mean that digital commoners who cannot do so are not part
of the commonalty, but it does mean that a philosophy of organisation
needs to recognise and make this explicit in an integrative manner.


> you not accept that most people in the world, not just digital commoners,
> actually know that they live in a world with much evil, but that they see
> this as 1) a natural state of affairs and that they have to think of
> themselves first; 2) deplore it, but don't see what they can do about it; 3)
> realize it, choose to do something about it, but choose their struggles
> based on their own inclinations, affinities, etc ... 4) realize it, but
> choose to lie about it because it is in their interest; 5) lie so much to
> themselve that they start believe in it 6) are so dumb that they believe all
> that group 5 is telling them
> 
> I'm suggesting that only group 4 and 5 are really problematic and thast
> groups 1-3 and 6 could be friends, if we approach them in a right way

I don't understand this type casting and your "demand" that I accept
your world view. I see so many shades out there. In any case, I find
that you make an enemy out of me - and present me to others as an enemy
- which tells me that you don't like shades not of your own (or just
mine, perhaps).

Developing a critique of the foundations (or philosophy) of organisation
doesn't just make anyone an enemy. If there is no room for fundamental
critique, who has created the absolute?


> I'd suggest many digital commons activists belong to group 3, and that they
> are not your enemies

I'd suggest that I have been working on digital empowerment with
indigenous people - showed them how computers work, how to use email and
so on - who taught me many things in return.

I am also a volunteer with Aktivix (alt-tech collective) and have been
on and off for years, and organised a hacklab and similar events in the
past.

What I say come from practical engagements, working with communities,
mobilisations and so on, which I very much like - expressed with
reference to theory. I actually *do* the things you accuse me of being
an enemy of - I don't just talk about it.