you are not very precise here, what is exactly is destructive in Andy’s analysis of property. It’s an analysis of why property arose and why it is psychologically and socially maintained. Is the analysis right or wrong, do you have a different one? That would seem more useful than pigeonholing it in an ideological framework?

My own view is that property is like the ego and state, it cannot be abolished, only overcome by social forms which perform better. The GPL as common property is more inducive to innovation than traditional copyright, the Creative Commons is better at sharing culture, and they can be adopted without antagonism towards older form, this is why they are succcessfull.

So that would be my challenge to Andy, taking as an example Brazil and Venezuela, the latter one creating sharp antagonisms and resistance, the former not. Which approach in the end is more beneficial to the livelyhood of most people, more sustainable?

It’s an open question to me, but an important one,

Michel

Look a the third point that “maintaining a minimum distance between them” makes the difference. That’s the real existence property, the one that let un move.
Here is the video witch Strogatz puts as un example

Alignment of the P2P movement with those who advance utopian socialist mores will alienate and empower those who seek to undermine the role of legitimate commons because they will suggest such moves are intrinsically linked to all the discredited forms of socialism that have already been tried and rejected by humans.

I do not see the value of the theory. I don’t see the logic of the ideas, and I reject the basic premises on which the ideas are founded. To my mind, P2P and anti-capitalism are not synonymous, and the linkage will prove destructive to those who wish to advance a realistic and practical application of P2P in the world(s) in which we live.