Re: [jox] A response to Michel and Jakob
- From: Michel Bauwens <michel p2pfoundation.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:16:58 +0700
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hans-Gert,
I appreciate your concern and I agree on the Open Capitalism point and I
have been writing about this since at least 2005, using 'netarchical
capitalism' as a concept .. But the Roman system used coloni, and that
didn't preclude its eventual disappearance and replacement by the feudal
system. Similarly, forces within the feudal system started adopting
capitalist practices, but that didn't prevent its demise and replacement by
capitalism. So, the fact that peer production is used by capital, just as
it is being used by peer producers, is not an argument against the
emancipatory potential and
'reality-of-class-struggle-between-peer.producers-and-netarchical.capital'.
Both can co-exist and actually one is the condition of the other .. there
would have been no capitalism and feudalism without proto-capitalism and
proto-feudalism.
So the question is not to argue relentlessly for the infinity of
capitalism, but to ask ourselves, 'what can we do to change it', what are
the leverage points within the current contradictory system, between a
system based on contradictions, to effect change in our own interest as
workers and peer producers.
Wasn't that the whole point of marxism, i.e. "not to interpret reality, but
to change it"
Do you really think that it is mathematically and physically possible for
an infinite growth system to exist indefinitely ... If yes, I'd like to
hear the arguments for its infinite perennity, which in my understand would
require an overturning of the physical laws that we know. If not, if
capitalism is not infinite, how do we change it.
I'm going to send, in the next email, a copy of my next article for al
jazeera, embargoed please, where I try to show why economies of scope
obtained by peer production, are vital to replace unsustainable economies
of scale of the capitalist system, and why periods of energy descent need
such systems. Since by all accounts we have entered such a period, we have
to contemplate an alternative to the system, either one that is another
ferocious class system, but not based on infinite accumulation; or,
potentially, a commons-based system which prepares the ground for a
transition to classlessness.
But forgive me if I feel that an approach that is centered on exposing the
strengths of the enemy 'again and again', is much less interesting that one
that analyses the strength of an enemy, in order to overcome it and find
the best ways to do this,
Michel
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Hans-Gert Gräbe <hgg hg-graebe.de> wrote:
Hi Christian,
"we" is the Oekonux community or a part of it? I know that you don't like
my theoretical approach for years - nevertheless it is a Marxian one:
Capitalism proved the ability to change its social structures several times
in the last 300 years, so isn't it time to speak not only about Open
Source, Open Software, Open Design etc., but also about Open Capitalism as
a developing new social structuring _within_ capitalism? Thats my major
analytical point. The more since there were seroius writings 50 years ago
about "Open Society" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**
The_Open_Society_and_Its_**Enemies<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies>and one of the main strategical thinking heads of capitalist establishment
founded 20 years ago the "Open Society Foundation" with much impact o all
the stuff you are discussing.
For me, this has to be _analyzed_, "again and again".
hgg
Am 19.03.2012 10:15, schrieb Christian Siefkes:
On 03/18/2012 10:19 PM, Hans-Gert Gräbe wrote:
Hence, surely only a part of Marxian value theory can be "a specific
theory
for capitalism". The more, what is capitalism, if there is capitalism
after
"the end of capitalims as we know it" (E.Altvater)?
we already know that for you it's "capitalism all the way down" (as
Stephen
Hawking would put it), i.e. for you *every* (or at least every future)
society is essentially capitalistic -- value-based, somehow profit-driven
etc. Their's no need in forcing your point by repeating the same shallow
arguments again and again.
Best regards
Christian
--
Dr. Hans-Gert Graebe, apl. Prof., Inst. Informatik, Univ. Leipzig
postal address: Postfach 10 09 20, D-04009 Leipzig
Hausanschrift: Johannisgasse 26, 04103 Leipzig, Raum 5-18
tel. : +49 341 97 32248
email: graebe informatik.uni-leipzig.**de<graebe informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Home Page: http://www.informatik.uni-**leipzig.de/~graebe<http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/%7Egraebe>
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal