http://blog.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 a point where such an initiative is possible. It is possible because we are more united; censorship and repression have created stronger bonds between those who care about freedom and the free flow of information. How can we achieve this goal?* *Structure: organizing humanity in a single collective* The Global Square is to be an easy to use social and work platform for individuals and groups. One of the main goals is that it should have very low barriers of entry for inexperienced users, making it as easy as possible for them to contribute work, interact and use the various tools at their disposal. Another goal is that the Global Square be expandable to allow global coordinated and efficient work in every system. The Global Square recognizes the principles &lt;http://wlcentral.org/node/2445&gt; of personal privacy as a basic right of individuals and transparency to all users as an obligation for public systems. Continue reading →&lt;http://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/the-global-square-a-call-for-coders-to-build-the-platform-roar/#more-1969&gt; [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> 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 producers from composers, who benefit from life plus 70 years protection. This is because it is not clear that extension of term would benefit musicians and performers very much in practice. The CIPIL report that the Review commissioned states that: "most people seem to assume that any extended term would go to record companies rather than performers: either because the record company already owns the copyright or because the performer will, as a standard term of a recording agreement, have purported to assign any extended term that might be created to the copyright holder". (my reformatting) Why rob the public to benefit private companies? The real creators aren't benefiting - especially after they're dead! Intellectual property should not be a corporate asset but a public asset with some incentive for creators, not for squatters. Please work to reduce the length of copyright to seven years past the death of the creator. For minor children of the creator, perhaps this could be extended to age 21, if they are receiving all the royalties. tOM Trottier ------- End of forwarded message ------- </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 righ about socialism, this is a point that was made long ago by Negri in his Marx beyond Marx which is basically a commentary on Marx"s Grundrisse. I think Guy Debord another arch Marxian made the same point. But if we read carefully the Critique of Gotha programme, Economic and Philosophical Manuscrpts of 1844, particularly parts on alianated labour and communism, and sections fo Grundrisse where Marx talks about advanced communism, we can easily see that in Marx view socialism bears within itself many aspects of capitalism wiyhout being the same. It is debatable whether Marx view of first socialism and then advanced communism was a good project for his era, but in our era we can reach advanced communism without going through socialism. 3- This brings us to your points on state and politics which are very similar to those of Alain Badiou who is aMaoist (advanced in his AntiPolitics). Today major infrastructures including telecommunication and major natural resources are owned by capitalists i.e corporations or states. This ownership is guaranteed by property rights which are protected by violence of state. Is it possible to generalise p2p to all production without collectivization of these strategic resources? Is such a collectivization possible without prior abolishing of the state? If the answer to these questions is negative, if the generalization of p2p requires a social revolution then we need to engage the state in a negative way. We bolish the state but do not creat our own. This means politics. This requires mobil ization, strategies and tactics and buiding of alliances. 4- Your point 10, is interesting, your classifications are helpful but there is some kind of evolutionism there. You dont see the role of social struggle. If we have a global social revolution tomorrow, which makes the major strategic resources the commons of humanity the p2p will become the dominant mode of production vey quickly. On the other hand, it is also possible for stat and capital to kill p2p or keep it in a marginal position for the next 100 years. everything hinge on social struggle, hence politics. All the best Jakob I\Stefan Meretz 01/08/12 6:06 AM &gt;&gt;&gt; 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> 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 it is a process, in which all of the aspects are done in the same process. There is not such order as "kick the state first, and the appropriate the means and resources of production" or vice versa. Doing peer production means making the state partly superfluous, but not completely (e.g. state-secured copyright as a means to defend copyleft, but in the long run making it all public domain). It means acquiring the means of production by using them for the commons, making knowledge openly available etc. (but they may remain private or collective property for now, while the long run overcoming property in the legal sense at all is the task [not to be mixed with possession]). However, I do not see why abolishing the state means politics. To me it means selforganization, creating our own governance structures, our own institutions as we already do it now. But this does not mean "state", and it does not mean "politics". Politics are necessary where we are confronted which attacking "politics", but politics as a mode of societal mediation is as historically bound to capitalism as modern state is (see pattern 9). It may appear like that, but it is not meant that way. The important thing here is to understand the dialectics of being beyond capitalism while supporting it at the same time. It is not helpful to turn into a dichotomy. Maybe I have a different notion what social struggle can be. Usually social struggle is meant to oppose against attacks on our conditions of life. Defense is important, but it is not the source where the creation of something new comes from. Commons-based peer production is social struggle too, but it is a creating one: new social structures, new ways of producing our livelihoods, new logics of inclusion etc. Again: It is not helpful to turn these two aspects into a dichotomy. Best would to integrate in one process. This will not happen, my guess. This is a more likely option, however, the commons (p2p) cannot be killed. The dialectics is, that capital is living from it. If there is no more commons to be enclosed, then capital will die. Thus the more likely strategy is to embrace the commons movements which is already happening. The question is if we understand it and remain on our own principles (e.g. openness). Everything hinges on generalizing the commons-based mode of production globally. Isn't this is true at the same time? Ciao, Stefan </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 order as "kick the state first, and the appropriate the means and resources of production" or vice versa. Doing peer production means making the state partly superfluous, but not completely (e.g. state-secured copyright as a means to defend copyleft, but in the long run making it all public domain). It means acquiring the means of production by using them for the commons, making knowledge openly available etc. (but they may remain private or collective property for now, while the long run overcoming property in the legal sense at all is the task [not to be mixed with possession]). However, I do not see why abolishing the state means politics. To me it means selforganization, creating our own governance structures, our own institutions as we already do it now. But this does not mean "state", and it does not mean "politics". Politics are necessary where we are confronted which attacking "politics", but politics as a mode of societal mediation is as historically bound to capitalism as modern state is (see pattern 9). It may appear like that, but it is not meant that way. The important thing here is to understand the dialectics of being beyond capitalism while supporting it at the same time. It is not helpful to turn into a dichotomy. Maybe I have a different notion what social struggle can be. Usually social struggle is meant to oppose against attacks on our conditions of life. Defense is important, but it is not the source where the creation of something new comes from. Commons-based peer production is social struggle too, but it is a creating one: new social structures, new ways of producing our livelihoods, new logics of inclusion etc. Again: It is not helpful to turn these two aspects into a dichotomy. Best would to integrate in one process. This will not happen, my guess. This is a more likely option, however, the commons (p2p) cannot be killed. The dialectics is, that capital is living from it. If there is no more commons to be enclosed, then capital will die. Thus the more likely strategy is to embrace the commons movements which is already happening. The question is if we understand it and remain on our own principles (e.g. openness). Everything hinges on generalizing the commons-based mode of production globally. Isn't this is true at the same time? Ciao, Stefan </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 righ about socialism, this is a point that was made long ago by Negri in his Marx beyond Marx which is basically a commentary on Marx"s Grundrisse. I think Guy Debord another arch Marxian made the same point. But if we read carefully the Critique of Gotha programme, Economic and Philosophical Manuscrpts of 1844, particularly parts on alianated labour and communism, and sections fo Grundrisse where Marx talks about advanced communism, we can easily see that in Marx view socialism bears within itself many aspects of capitalism wiyhout being the same. It is debatable whether Marx view of first socialism and then advanced communism was a good project for his era, but in our era we can reach advanced communism without going through socialism. 3- This brings us to your points on state and politics which are very similar to those of Alain Badiou who is aMaoist (advanced in his AntiPolitics). Today major infrastructures including telecommunication and major natural resources are owned by capitalists i.e corporations or states. This ownership is guaranteed by property rights which are protected by violence of state. Is it possible to generalise p2p to all production without collectivization of these strategic resources? Is such a collectivization possible without prior abolishing of the state? If the answer to these questions is negative, if the generalization of p2p requires a social revolution then we need to engage the state in a negative way. We bolish the state but do not creat our own. This means politics. This requires mobil ization, strategies and tactics and buiding of alliances. 4- Your point 10, is interesting, your classifications are helpful but there is some kind of evolutionism there. You dont see the role of social struggle. If we have a global social revolution tomorrow, which makes the major strategic resources the commons of humanity the p2p will become the dominant mode of production vey quickly. On the other hand, it is also possible for stat and capital to kill p2p or keep it in a marginal position for the next 100 years. everything hinge on social struggle, hence politics. All the best Jakob I\Stefan Meretz 01/08/12 6:06 AM &gt;&gt;&gt; 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> 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 it is a process, in which all of the aspects are done in the same process. There is not such order as "kick the state first, and the appropriate the means and resources of production" or vice versa. Doing peer production means making the state partly superfluous, but not completely (e.g. state-secured copyright as a means to defend copyleft, but in the long run making it all public domain). It means acquiring the means of production by using them for the commons, making knowledge openly available etc. (but they may remain private or collective property for now, while the long run overcoming property in the legal sense at all is the task [not to be mixed with possession]). However, I do not see why abolishing the state means politics. To me it means selforganization, creating our own governance structures, our own institutions as we already do it now. But this does not mean "state", and it does not mean "politics". Politics are necessary where we are confronted which attacking "politics", but politics as a mode of societal mediation is as historically bound to capitalism as modern state is (see pattern 9). It may appear like that, but it is not meant that way. The important thing here is to understand the dialectics of being beyond capitalism while supporting it at the same time. It is not helpful to turn into a dichotomy. Maybe I have a different notion what social struggle can be. Usually social struggle is meant to oppose against attacks on our conditions of life. Defense is important, but it is not the source where the creation of something new comes from. Commons-based peer production is social struggle too, but it is a creating one: new social structures, new ways of producing our livelihoods, new logics of inclusion etc. Again: It is not helpful to turn these two aspects into a dichotomy. Best would to integrate in one process. This will not happen, my guess. This is a more likely option, however, the commons (p2p) cannot be killed. The dialectics is, that capital is living from it. If there is no more commons to be enclosed, then capital will die. Thus the more likely strategy is to embrace the commons movements which is already happening. The question is if we understand it and remain on our own principles (e.g. openness). Everything hinges on generalizing the commons-based mode of production globally. Isn't this is true at the same time? Ciao, Stefan </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 order as "kick the state first, and the appropriate the means and resources of production" or vice versa. Doing peer production means making the state partly superfluous, but not completely (e.g. state-secured copyright as a means to defend copyleft, but in the long run making it all public domain). It means acquiring the means of production by using them for the commons, making knowledge openly available etc. (but they may remain private or collective property for now, while the long run overcoming property in the legal sense at all is the task [not to be mixed with possession]). However, I do not see why abolishing the state means politics. To me it means selforganization, creating our own governance structures, our own institutions as we already do it now. But this does not mean "state", and it does not mean "politics". Politics are necessary where we are confronted which attacking "politics", but politics as a mode of societal mediation is as historically bound to capitalism as modern state is (see pattern 9). It may appear like that, but it is not meant that way. The important thing here is to understand the dialectics of being beyond capitalism while supporting it at the same time. It is not helpful to turn into a dichotomy. Maybe I have a different notion what social struggle can be. Usually social struggle is meant to oppose against attacks on our conditions of life. Defense is important, but it is not the source where the creation of something new comes from. Commons-based peer production is social struggle too, but it is a creating one: new social structures, new ways of producing our livelihoods, new logics of inclusion etc. Again: It is not helpful to turn these two aspects into a dichotomy. Best would to integrate in one process. This will not happen, my guess. This is a more likely option, however, the commons (p2p) cannot be killed. The dialectics is, that capital is living from it. If there is no more commons to be enclosed, then capital will die. Thus the more likely strategy is to embrace the commons movements which is already happening. The question is if we understand it and remain on our own principles (e.g. openness). Everything hinges on generalizing the commons-based mode of production globally. Isn't this is true at the same time? Ciao, Stefan </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 righ about socialism, this is a point that was made long ago by Negri in his Marx beyond Marx which is basically a commentary on Marx"s Grundrisse. I think Guy Debord another arch Marxian made the same point. But if we read carefully the Critique of Gotha programme, Economic and Philosophical Manuscrpts of 1844, particularly parts on alianated labour and communism, and sections fo Grundrisse where Marx talks about advanced communism, we can easily see that in Marx view socialism bears within itself many aspects of capitalism wiyhout being the same. It is debatable whether Marx view of first socialism and then advanced communism was a good project for his era, but in our era we can reach advanced communism without going through socialism. 3- This brings us to your points on state and politics which are very similar to those of Alain Badiou who is aMaoist (advanced in his AntiPolitics). Today major infrastructures including telecommunication and major natural resources are owned by capitalists i.e corporations or states. This ownership is guaranteed by property rights which are protected by violence of state. Is it possible to generalise p2p to all production without collectivization of these strategic resources? Is such a collectivization possible without prior abolishing of the state? If the answer to these questions is negative, if the generalization of p2p requires a social revolution then we need to engage the state in a negative way. We bolish the state but do not creat our own. This means politics. This requires mobil ization, strategies and tactics and buiding of alliances. 4- Your point 10, is interesting, your classifications are helpful but there is some kind of evolutionism there. You dont see the role of social struggle. If we have a global social revolution tomorrow, which makes the major strategic resources the commons of humanity the p2p will become the dominant mode of production vey quickly. On the other hand, it is also possible for stat and capital to kill p2p or keep it in a marginal position for the next 100 years. everything hinge on social struggle, hence politics. All the best Jakob I\Stefan Meretz 01/08/12 6:06 AM &gt;&gt;&gt; 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> 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 it is a process, in which all of the aspects are done in the same process. There is not such order as "kick the state first, and the appropriate the means and resources of production" or vice versa. Doing peer production means making the state partly superfluous, but not completely (e.g. state-secured copyright as a means to defend copyleft, but in the long run making it all public domain). It means acquiring the means of production by using them for the commons, making knowledge openly available etc. (but they may remain private or collective property for now, while the long run overcoming property in the legal sense at all is the task [not to be mixed with possession]). However, I do not see why abolishing the state means politics. To me it means selforganization, creating our own governance structures, our own institutions as we already do it now. But this does not mean "state", and it does not mean "politics". Politics are necessary where we are confronted which attacking "politics", but politics as a mode of societal mediation is as historically bound to capitalism as modern state is (see pattern 9). It may appear like that, but it is not meant that way. The important thing here is to understand the dialectics of being beyond capitalism while supporting it at the same time. It is not helpful to turn into a dichotomy. Maybe I have a different notion what social struggle can be. Usually social struggle is meant to oppose against attacks on our conditions of life. Defense is important, but it is not the source where the creation of something new comes from. Commons-based peer production is social struggle too, but it is a creating one: new social structures, new ways of producing our livelihoods, new logics of inclusion etc. Again: It is not helpful to turn these two aspects into a dichotomy. Best would to integrate in one process. This will not happen, my guess. This is a more likely option, however, the commons (p2p) cannot be killed. The dialectics is, that capital is living from it. If there is no more commons to be enclosed, then capital will die. Thus the more likely strategy is to embrace the commons movements which is already happening. The question is if we understand it and remain on our own principles (e.g. openness). Everything hinges on generalizing the commons-based mode of production globally. Isn't this is true at the same time? Ciao, Stefan </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 order as "kick the state first, and the appropriate the means and resources of production" or vice versa. Doing peer production means making the state partly superfluous, but not completely (e.g. state-secured copyright as a means to defend copyleft, but in the long run making it all public domain). It means acquiring the means of production by using them for the commons, making knowledge openly available etc. (but they may remain private or collective property for now, while the long run overcoming property in the legal sense at all is the task [not to be mixed with possession]). However, I do not see why abolishing the state means politics. To me it means selforganization, creating our own governance structures, our own institutions as we already do it now. But this does not mean "state", and it does not mean "politics". Politics are necessary where we are confronted which attacking "politics", but politics as a mode of societal mediation is as historically bound to capitalism as modern state is (see pattern 9). It may appear like that, but it is not meant that way. The important thing here is to understand the dialectics of being beyond capitalism while supporting it at the same time. It is not helpful to turn into a dichotomy. Maybe I have a different notion what social struggle can be. Usually social struggle is meant to oppose against attacks on our conditions of life. Defense is important, but it is not the source where the creation of something new comes from. Commons-based peer production is social struggle too, but it is a creating one: new social structures, new ways of producing our livelihoods, new logics of inclusion etc. Again: It is not helpful to turn these two aspects into a dichotomy. Best would to integrate in one process. This will not happen, my guess. This is a more likely option, however, the commons (p2p) cannot be killed. The dialectics is, that capital is living from it. If there is no more commons to be enclosed, then capital will die. Thus the more likely strategy is to embrace the commons movements which is already happening. The question is if we understand it and remain on our own principles (e.g. openness). Everything hinges on generalizing the commons-based mode of production globally. Isn't this is true at the same time? Ciao, Stefan </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