Re: [ox-en] sell your free software "lifestyle" business for nine figures [u]
- From: Michael Bouwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:57:26 -0800 (PST)
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Stefan,
Thanks for your different responses, if I'm not always responding, it's because I'm just taken them in, find them clarifying, but do not have anything specific to say.
If any of you know French, I've been reading a strange but interesting book lately, from Dominique Pelbois, it's called Liberal Communism and the result of a lifelong inquiry into alternatives to the current system. It pertains to this discussion in that he sees the possibility of a society that does not operate around profit, has no capital, etc.. It would be based on entrerprises that would only have current accounts, from their customers, and the salaries, and would be co-owned by both parties. The differential between income and salaries is used for future investments. As usual with utopian proposals it all depends on convincing people and therefore seems irrealistic. That's why I agree with Stefan that the new politics have to be born from the movements themselves. That however, does not stop Stefan from developping Oekonux theory and me from developing P2P Theory, not as ideologies but as contributions to a debate.
I just deplore that Stefan excludes important social movements from such future synthesis,
Michel
Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hi Rich!
Last month (51 days ago) Rich Walker wrote:
Stefan Merten wrote:
2 weeks (14 days) ago Michael Bouwens wrote:
Do you not have a problem with 'some people' profiting from the work
of a whole community?
Well, isn't this the very, very characterization of a human society? I
mean a human society is defined by individuals profiting from the
society. So what can be wrong with this?
Erm - I don't know quite which dictionary you're using (perhaps a
Microsoft one)
;-)
but unless your definition of "profit" is non-standard,
this makes no sense.
I actually used the German meaning where at least the verb does not
have this heavy money connotation. But this probably applies to the
English term as well when you write of net benefit.
Societies are collections of individuals interacting.
Making money - or indeed any net benefit - has little or nothing to do
with this.
So you in effect you say that a net benefit is not the goal of the
interacting individuals? Why do they interact at all then?
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
- --
Please note this message is written on an offline laptop
and send out in the evening of the day it is written. It
does not take any information into account which may have
reached my mailbox since yesterday evening.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7
iQCVAwUBQ7FdaAnTZgC3zSk5AQEGiwQAkWH82Yx89TqzTqBBLJuF5eevemgJgF/b
8gD17K2hLDccpZEE/2K/IkHn/TcVnjbEZknQXT9rTSx+nGX7XCrYTPGCLFH61VcS
3zYenGpF1oXs//59223cw1hDV8F/lQ2DxIkA4+bfHBatarRLC7ZW5mFun+Wa6DwH
tuyab5+Jsa4=
=HN1E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de