Dear Clarry, I cannot find your previous comment in the archive, feel free to resubmit,

Michel

http://www.stwr.org/

they advocate moving away from ‘isms’ entirely, and talking simply in terms of ‘Sharing’.

In my view, what Marx views as communism (non-reciprocal contribution and usage) and the logic of the commons are one and the
same, and they are what Alan Page Fiske calls communal shareholding.

Nevertheless, I see such commons, — and therefore common-ism if you like, I used the term myself on occasion, but sparingly — is in any case part of a pluralistic economy, containing many forms.

I think it is okay to speak of common-ism, and okay for you to explicitate it to such a degree, but it does carry the danger that Torsten alludes to, an identification of it, not with the true meaning of the concept of communism, but with the centralizing and totalitarian practices of the regimes that we were familiar with in the last century,

How far one should take into account such possible misconceptions is a difficult matter, I err on the side of caution, and the use of peer to peer language is also motivated by wanting to avoid all these negative connotations of a historical term.

Michel

„Communism“ is a burned word. This should not keep us from speaking about commonism.

Are naive or is this supposed to be funny?