Message 01000 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00985 Message: 7/24 L6 [In date index] [In thread index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [jox] p2p and market

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Hans-Gert Gräbe <hgg> wrote:

Hi Michel,

Am 01.04.2012 06:55, schrieb Michel Bauwens:

 I've lost you on the punishment thing?

who exactly was I proposing to punish ... seems to me you misunderstood
something vital in the previous communication, I don't even recall that
theme coming up

Indeed, "punish" was the wrong english word, "criticize" would be more
appropriate. Sorry for not meeting the point trying to express my thoughts
in a foreign language.

Is it really hard for you to follow up a certain thread within a - I would
agree, babylonian - discussion? So here is your reply to Christian once
more for your convenience:

Am 30.03.2012 07:58, schrieb Michel Bauwens:

...can we perhaps avoid the obvious straw men arguments which
construct an imaginary enemy that is easy to strike down, and limit
ourselves to what is actually said?

About your second point:

 distributed empire, as in Negri?Hardt's Empire, is a global system where
power is distributed and not easily located in any simple way. Typically
Empire, it's a global system of financial,military,civl power, no longer
localizable in any westphalian state

Hmm, so you are focusing on the distribution of power and not on the
forces? I would completely agree that those are "systemic forces" that
cannot be localized but are omnipresent, in the same way as a magnetic
field is omnipresent.  But I think this is not new but was present even
within the "westphalian state system". Since, what is the "westphalian
state system"? It is a inter state system that grew up as the result of a
30 years war within Europe, in that the old kingdoms tried to solve their
problems with old-fashioned methods and had to learn that in a new world
with (technically!) enhanced fire craft the old methods do not work anymore
but lead to a complete destruction. So they agreed upon a cooperative
system and tried to resolve their political problems in a true p2p manner
(within their scope, of course).

I think the question is whether the nation-state is still the dominant
force, or has it become a globally distributed system of power, as argued
in Empire, which thwarts any  attempt by nation-states to control it

 there is nothing particular militant about using allies/enemies ... it's a
reality for everyone in politics, and I'm sure, in personal life, unless
you are so lucky to have no one at all that is hostile to you; in that
case, you are a very lucky man

So your clear rule to cope with hostility is
**Eye_for_an_eye <>? What's

what makes you conclude from the existence of enemies, that an eye for an
eye is the adequate way to deal with them. I disagree with you, and as I
said, it's a matter of finding broad enough commonalities with broad social
forces. I don't thin, your philosophy of an eye for an eye, will get very

 so enemies/allies is just a factual recognition that if you are involved
social change, some people/forces will support it, others will oppose it;
and most often this is indeed contextual; you may appreciate the concern
disttributism to distribute power and property amongst everyone in
while not agree with their stand on homosexual marriage, to use just one

So you think that to cope with such all day differences the notion of
"enemies/allies" is appropriate?

of course not, as I said in my previous emails and just repeated above, why
would you think this is appropriate?

 the real question is, how do you seek and achieve common ground ... my own
take on this is the construction of a grand alliance of the commons, as
something that can potentially unite a very large number of people, and
to use the old gramscian language, to achieve a new 'hegemony' that can
replaced the defeat and destruction of the old hegemony of labour

Since you favour conceptualization: Do you have a concept on "common
ground with your enemies" (that the "old hegemony of labour movements"
clearly doesn't have)? Do you have, within your "Gramscian concept of a new
hegemony" that has by construction a built in "majority principle", a
subconcept of the "legitimate needs of minorities"?

I favour pluralist organizing forms which allow for such diversity to
exist; the occupy movement is a good example of how this can be done, and
has been well documented. Why would you not favour such diversity?

Sorry, I have the strong smell that you are coming with a very traditional
marxistic concept that you aren't even aware about.

Hans-Gert, I'm not a marxist. Why are you?

I hope my replies will convince you that your rhetorical strategies are not
working, and I'm stopping this dialogue  with you forthwith.


Best regards,


 Dr. Hans-Gert Graebe, apl. Prof., Inst. Informatik, Univ. Leipzig
 postal address: Postfach 10 09 20, D-04009 Leipzig
 Hausanschrift: Johannisgasse 26, 04103 Leipzig, Raum 5-18
 tel. : +49 341 97 32248
 email: graebe informatik.uni-leipzig.**de<graebe>
 Home Page: http://www.informatik.uni-**<>


P2P Foundation:  -

Connect:; Discuss:


[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00985 Message: 7/24 L6 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 01000 [Homepage] [Navigation]