http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4871 <pre>Hi all, I have published a little series of blog articles on reciprocity and a critique of markets: http://keimform.de/2012/required-or-facilitated-reciprocity/ http://keimform.de/2012/why-not-just-pay/ http://keimform.de/2012/in-what-sense-are-markets-totalitarian/ The articles are based on parts of my contributions to a much longer discussion that would have been very much on-topic for this list, but for whatever strange reason took place on the jox list (http://www.oekonux.org/journal/list/archive/) belonging to the defunct CSPP (http://cspp.oekonux.org/) journal. Best regards Christian </pre> Christian Siefkes 2012-05-01T14:31:25 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4870 <pre>[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] thanks Stefan! On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Stefan Meretz &lt;stefan-/oN3P47TS5SzQB+pC5nmwQ&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org&gt; wrote: </pre> Michel Bauwens 2012-03-05T10:04:19 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4869 <pre>German translation is now finished, thanks to cooperation with Christian Siefkes :) Publication will be done stepwise since the interview is longish. The start post which may be referenced is this one: http://keimform.de/2012/die-soziale-steuerung-von-open-source-teil-1/ Thanks to Michel, Neal, and George performing this interview. All the best, Stefan Am 11.02.2012 16:02, schrieb Stefan Meretz: </pre> Stefan Meretz 2012-03-05T09:48:54 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4868 <pre>[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] sorry for cross posting !! Posted on February 17, 2012&lt;http://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/the-global-square-a-call-for-coders-to-build-the-platform-roar/&gt; by OrsanSenalp &lt;http://snuproject.wordpress.com/author/orsans/&gt; By Pedro Noel On February 14, 2012 [image: Post image for The Global Square: a call for coders to build the platform]*The Global Square — a proposal launched on ROAR last year — is starting to take shape. Now we need coders to help us build the actual platform!*Call from our partners at WikiLeaks Central&lt;http://wlcentral.org/node/2456&gt;: *The Global Square &lt;http://46.183.217.125/gs/wiki/wiki/index.php/Main_Page&gt; (original proposal/project description here&lt;http://roarmag.org/2011/11/the-global-square-an-online-platform-for-our-movement/&gt;) aims to be the first massive decentralized social network in the history of the Internet. We are aware of the difficulties we must overcome, but we believe the Internet Community has reached</pre> Orsan Senalp 2012-02-18T23:02:48 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4867 <pre>[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi Stefan, here's all of our interviews: http://shareable.net/tag/interviews You're free to republish / translate any and all of these. We just ask for attribution and a link back to the original. Thanks, -Neal ps. good idea Michel -- Neal Gorenflo | Publisher, Shareable &lt;http://shareable.net/&gt; | &lt; at &gt;ShareableDesign &lt;http://twitter.com/#!/ShareableDesign&gt; | 415.867.0429 On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Michel Bauwens &lt;michel-JQUKMTwiyfjVe7td6HMt/l6hYfS7NtTn&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org&gt;wrote: [2 text/html] _________________________________ Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/ Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/ Contact: projekt-ayLJJRhU35CELgA04lAiVw&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org </pre> Neal Gorenflo 2012-02-12T15:21:39 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4864 <pre>[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] LinkedIn ------------ I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Caroline Caroline Zeller Creative director at Kstsoft China Confirm that you know Caroline Zeller: https://www.linkedin.com/e/-pngn3v-gxbm2hem-21/isd/5493662186/ukqGnkrv/?hs=false&amp;tok=04k_iF5J6XjR41 -- You are receiving Invitation to Connect emails. Click to unsubscribe: http://www.linkedin.com/e/-pngn3v-gxbm2hem-21/IjrLodwxsgroY6SnfLznfPC4sem6qsH/goo/list-en%40oekonux%2Eorg/20061/I1911615054_1/?hs=false&amp;tok=0QWcAjMEWXjR41 (c) 2011 LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA. [2 text/html] _________________________________ Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/ Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/ Contact: projekt-ayLJJRhU35CELgA04lAiVw&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org </pre> Caroline Zeller 2012-01-12T10:03:57 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4863 <pre> ------- Forwarded message follows ------- From:tOM Trottier &lt;tOM-GEC4+N7F+sgS+FvcfC7Uqw&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org&gt; To:consultations-vppm1TVqICArkoqX8K+gVCwD8/FfD2ys&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org Subject:Copyright extension CC:mgeist-870xbScz6v+w5LPnMra/2Q&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org Reply to:tOM-GEC4+N7F+sgS+FvcfC7Uqw&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org Date:Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:18:45 -0500 Sirs/Mesdames, The UK Gowers Review of Intellectual Property concluded: Economic evidence indicates that the length of protection for copyright works already far exceeds the incentives required to invest in new works. Boldrin and Levine estimate that the optimal length of copyright is at most seven years. Posner and Landes, eminent legal economists in the field, argue that the extra incentives to create as a result of term extension are likely to be very small beyond a term of 25 years. Furthermore, it is not clear that extending term from 50 years to 70 or 95 years would remedy the unequal treatment of performers and produc</pre> tOM Trottier 2012-01-10T21:26:24 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4862 <pre>[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi Stefan, It is an excellent contribution. I agree with most of your points except the following. 1- Money has nothing to do with the scarcity of godds, the point you barrow from Raymond. Money is an expression, measure and preserver of congealed abstract labor in the form of abstract value. Once, labour and its products are commoditized every thing else can potentially from sex, to even air and water can become commodties, suply and demand determining their prices, which are distorted expressions of their values. In this context the price of an object increases in porprtion of the demand for it and in inversion to proportion of its supply. This as Marx brilliantly showed creates the ilustion, the one that Raymond reproduces, that scarcity is the origin of prices and money. Of course, I agree with you, as Marx did too, that money and labour will vanish in a fully fledged p2p which in M arx's formulation is nothing but advanced communism. 2- You are ri</pre> Jakob Rigi 2012-01-08T13:06:56 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4861 <pre>[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] stefan, Welcome, Jakob Hi Jacob, thanks for your immediate and interesting response! Am 08.01.2012 14:06, schrieb Jakob Rigi: What I borrow from Raymond is the observation, that if you combine a free abundant good with a scarce good, then you can demand money for it. I do not _explain_ money with the argument of scarcity. This may be the case with Raymond, I don't know. He is a positivist, affirmative thinker, that's true. Agree on your explanation. You may name it like that. My point is: If you stick with commodity production, it is not possible. Thus I would say Marx was wrong on this point, which he btw. strongly fought against in case of Proudon. In the Gotha Programme Critique he fell back to the same arguments he rejected before. But as you say: It is is debatable, whether Marx could see this so clearly in his time. He was under pressure of the emerging workers movement to quickly deliver "concrete proposals". In my view</pre> Jakob Rigi 2012-01-08T16:45:56 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4860 <pre>Hi Jacob, thanks for your immediate and interesting response! Am 08.01.2012 14:06, schrieb Jakob Rigi: What I borrow from Raymond is the observation, that if you combine a free abundant good with a scarce good, then you can demand money for it. I do not _explain_ money with the argument of scarcity. This may be the case with Raymond, I don't know. He is a positivist, affirmative thinker, that's true. Agree on your explanation. You may name it like that. My point is: If you stick with commodity production, it is not possible. Thus I would say Marx was wrong on this point, which he btw. strongly fought against in case of Proudon. In the Gotha Programme Critique he fell back to the same arguments he rejected before. But as you say: It is is debatable, whether Marx could see this so clearly in his time. He was under pressure of the emerging workers movement to quickly deliver "concrete proposals". In my view it is a process, in which all of the aspects are done in the same process. There is not such o</pre> Stefan Meretz 2012-01-08T16:41:30 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4859 <pre>Hi all, some of you may have recognized that my paper "Peer Production and Societal Transformation" planned to appear in CSPP journal in December 2011 has already been published on keimform.de in series of articles: http://keimform.de/2011/peer-production-and-societal-transformation/ Originally it was estimated, that the CSPP issue should have been released prior to finishing the series of articles, but the release of the new CSPP issue have been postponed to January 2012. Since the article is the starting point of a debate, you can treat the series as a preview. Parallel to publishing the series on keimform.de, a collective of translators from http://socialforge.wordpress.com/ translated the paper into Italian. Except the final conclusion the translated paper can be found here: http://socialforge.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/oekonux-2/ That's great! Best, Stefan </pre> Stefan Meretz 2012-01-08T11:05:37 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4862 <pre>[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi Stefan, It is an excellent contribution. I agree with most of your points except the following. 1- Money has nothing to do with the scarcity of godds, the point you barrow from Raymond. Money is an expression, measure and preserver of congealed abstract labor in the form of abstract value. Once, labour and its products are commoditized every thing else can potentially from sex, to even air and water can become commodties, suply and demand determining their prices, which are distorted expressions of their values. In this context the price of an object increases in porprtion of the demand for it and in inversion to proportion of its supply. This as Marx brilliantly showed creates the ilustion, the one that Raymond reproduces, that scarcity is the origin of prices and money. Of course, I agree with you, as Marx did too, that money and labour will vanish in a fully fledged p2p which in M arx's formulation is nothing but advanced communism. 2- You are ri</pre> Jakob Rigi 2012-01-08T13:06:56 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4861 <pre>[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] stefan, Welcome, Jakob Hi Jacob, thanks for your immediate and interesting response! Am 08.01.2012 14:06, schrieb Jakob Rigi: What I borrow from Raymond is the observation, that if you combine a free abundant good with a scarce good, then you can demand money for it. I do not _explain_ money with the argument of scarcity. This may be the case with Raymond, I don't know. He is a positivist, affirmative thinker, that's true. Agree on your explanation. You may name it like that. My point is: If you stick with commodity production, it is not possible. Thus I would say Marx was wrong on this point, which he btw. strongly fought against in case of Proudon. In the Gotha Programme Critique he fell back to the same arguments he rejected before. But as you say: It is is debatable, whether Marx could see this so clearly in his time. He was under pressure of the emerging workers movement to quickly deliver "concrete proposals". In my view</pre> Jakob Rigi 2012-01-08T16:45:56 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4860 <pre>Hi Jacob, thanks for your immediate and interesting response! Am 08.01.2012 14:06, schrieb Jakob Rigi: What I borrow from Raymond is the observation, that if you combine a free abundant good with a scarce good, then you can demand money for it. I do not _explain_ money with the argument of scarcity. This may be the case with Raymond, I don't know. He is a positivist, affirmative thinker, that's true. Agree on your explanation. You may name it like that. My point is: If you stick with commodity production, it is not possible. Thus I would say Marx was wrong on this point, which he btw. strongly fought against in case of Proudon. In the Gotha Programme Critique he fell back to the same arguments he rejected before. But as you say: It is is debatable, whether Marx could see this so clearly in his time. He was under pressure of the emerging workers movement to quickly deliver "concrete proposals". In my view it is a process, in which all of the aspects are done in the same process. There is not such o</pre> Stefan Meretz 2012-01-08T16:41:30 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4859 <pre>Hi all, some of you may have recognized that my paper "Peer Production and Societal Transformation" planned to appear in CSPP journal in December 2011 has already been published on keimform.de in series of articles: http://keimform.de/2011/peer-production-and-societal-transformation/ Originally it was estimated, that the CSPP issue should have been released prior to finishing the series of articles, but the release of the new CSPP issue have been postponed to January 2012. Since the article is the starting point of a debate, you can treat the series as a preview. Parallel to publishing the series on keimform.de, a collective of translators from http://socialforge.wordpress.com/ translated the paper into Italian. Except the final conclusion the translated paper can be found here: http://socialforge.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/oekonux-2/ That's great! Best, Stefan </pre> Stefan Meretz 2012-01-08T11:05:37 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4862 <pre>[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi Stefan, It is an excellent contribution. I agree with most of your points except the following. 1- Money has nothing to do with the scarcity of godds, the point you barrow from Raymond. Money is an expression, measure and preserver of congealed abstract labor in the form of abstract value. Once, labour and its products are commoditized every thing else can potentially from sex, to even air and water can become commodties, suply and demand determining their prices, which are distorted expressions of their values. In this context the price of an object increases in porprtion of the demand for it and in inversion to proportion of its supply. This as Marx brilliantly showed creates the ilustion, the one that Raymond reproduces, that scarcity is the origin of prices and money. Of course, I agree with you, as Marx did too, that money and labour will vanish in a fully fledged p2p which in M arx's formulation is nothing but advanced communism. 2- You are ri</pre> Jakob Rigi 2012-01-08T13:06:56 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4861 <pre>[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] stefan, Welcome, Jakob Hi Jacob, thanks for your immediate and interesting response! Am 08.01.2012 14:06, schrieb Jakob Rigi: What I borrow from Raymond is the observation, that if you combine a free abundant good with a scarce good, then you can demand money for it. I do not _explain_ money with the argument of scarcity. This may be the case with Raymond, I don't know. He is a positivist, affirmative thinker, that's true. Agree on your explanation. You may name it like that. My point is: If you stick with commodity production, it is not possible. Thus I would say Marx was wrong on this point, which he btw. strongly fought against in case of Proudon. In the Gotha Programme Critique he fell back to the same arguments he rejected before. But as you say: It is is debatable, whether Marx could see this so clearly in his time. He was under pressure of the emerging workers movement to quickly deliver "concrete proposals". In my view</pre> Jakob Rigi 2012-01-08T16:45:56 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4860 <pre>Hi Jacob, thanks for your immediate and interesting response! Am 08.01.2012 14:06, schrieb Jakob Rigi: What I borrow from Raymond is the observation, that if you combine a free abundant good with a scarce good, then you can demand money for it. I do not _explain_ money with the argument of scarcity. This may be the case with Raymond, I don't know. He is a positivist, affirmative thinker, that's true. Agree on your explanation. You may name it like that. My point is: If you stick with commodity production, it is not possible. Thus I would say Marx was wrong on this point, which he btw. strongly fought against in case of Proudon. In the Gotha Programme Critique he fell back to the same arguments he rejected before. But as you say: It is is debatable, whether Marx could see this so clearly in his time. He was under pressure of the emerging workers movement to quickly deliver "concrete proposals". In my view it is a process, in which all of the aspects are done in the same process. There is not such o</pre> Stefan Meretz 2012-01-08T16:41:30 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4859 <pre>Hi all, some of you may have recognized that my paper "Peer Production and Societal Transformation" planned to appear in CSPP journal in December 2011 has already been published on keimform.de in series of articles: http://keimform.de/2011/peer-production-and-societal-transformation/ Originally it was estimated, that the CSPP issue should have been released prior to finishing the series of articles, but the release of the new CSPP issue have been postponed to January 2012. Since the article is the starting point of a debate, you can treat the series as a preview. Parallel to publishing the series on keimform.de, a collective of translators from http://socialforge.wordpress.com/ translated the paper into Italian. Except the final conclusion the translated paper can be found here: http://socialforge.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/oekonux-2/ That's great! Best, Stefan </pre> Stefan Meretz 2012-01-08T11:05:37 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4858 <pre>Am 19.12.2011 19:53, schrieb Diego Saravia: I agree. The third bullet point already includes Free Hardware, but this should not only meant to be the design part of the hardware. I think we have bunch of good material for that study. Have a great new year! Ciao, Stefan </pre> Stefan Meretz 2012-01-03T10:52:05 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.politics.oekonux.english/4857 <pre>http://www.kernelmag.com/comment/opinion/2011/12/its-the-intellectual-capital-stupid/ This article made me think that if intellectual capital has become so important for enterpreneurs, perhaps this fact can help to bring together left and right wing of alternative economics: prehaps some well thought-out system for social management of traditional capital (direct democratic? technocratic?) can provide a better platform for intellectual enterpreneurship than current political-economic system? Anyway, a bright and prosperous new year to everyone! Lehor _________________________________ Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/ Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/ Contact: projekt-ayLJJRhU35CELgA04lAiVw&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org </pre> Lehor Meius 2012-01-01T13:19:35 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.politics.oekonux.english