[p2p-research] Profit Measures the Payer's lack of Physical Source Ownership

[Ryan Lanham]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> something we agree on, also an answer to Peter's earlier query in a way:
>
> - The reason to have regulation, law and governance is to manage
> externalities.   What P2P allows is to minimize governance to a set of rules
> mutually enacted.  But the commons still requires protection, order,
> structure and "artificial" mechanisms to exist.  There is no dissolving the
> state or classes (which of course don't really exist anyway outside of a
> social model) and then having some residual order and sustainable outcome.
> Justice is a social construct.  We attain (or approach) social construct
> ideals through artificial means of implementing governance.  There are no
> final solutions, ultimates, fiat utopias or steady-state economies.
> Fundamentalism is not compatible with P2P...not market fundamentalism, not
> equity fundamentalism, not religious fundamentalism.  Indeed, the boundaries
> and barriers of the fundamental are antithetical to the commons which must
> be inherently dialogic and practical.
>

Hi Michel:

What is important to the debate is the prior paragraph.  Marx is long since
dead and buried.  I don't expect to see any revivals of note, so if we
disagree there, I am OK with that.  I expect he'll be popular on college
campuses for the few more decades we have those.

R.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100217/eb090710/attachment.html>