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

[Michel Bauwens]

but there is a revival Ryan, just open the newspapers ... in the andean
region, large swaths of India, Nepal, college campuses, fast growth of book
sales, and, notable liberals, such as Attali in France, are re-reading him
and writing influential books on him  .. that doesn't mean he is right, or
that people are repeating the same 'marxisms' as existed pre-1989, but it
means that like Christ and Freud, he's an enduring influence ... we're are
all post-marxists, post-Christians, and post-Freudians ...

it's hard to explain your particular blindness in this regard, unless
perhaps you stayed too long in a libertarian cult, and their enduring
dismissal has stayed with you ... long after  you dismissed these extremist
ideals ... I think it's an emotional rather than an intellectual issue,
since academics and researchers on all sides of the political spectrum, have
to deal with his legacy, to endorse it or critique it, but never to simply
dismiss as you do

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>


-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100218/83f6e82d/attachment.html>