Re: [ox-en] Brave GNU World
- From: David Riley <dave dmriley.demon.co.uk>
- Date: 16 Dec 2001 17:04:05 +0000
"I. Claude Harper" <tekell swbell.net> writes:
What are all these "principles" exactly?
Are they not simply a particular manifestation of something which came
before? Such as anarchist morality - Free Association, Mutial Aid, etc.
These are basically the same questions I've had regarding what is still a
very laudable attempt IMO to extend marxist theory into the 'Information
Age'.
Tell me how you think this is extension of a Marxist theory. Of course,
Marxism means different things to different people, so you'd best start by
clarifiy that a bit.
Taking "Marxism" to mean Marx's theory (communism) rather than Bolshevik
practice (state capitalism) there is a lot of common ground.
Re "self-unfolding", Marx writes (in _The German Ideology_):
| The semblance of community into which individuals previously united
| themselves always acquired its own independence over against these
| individuals; [...] In a real community individuals simultaneously
| achieve their freedom in and through their association.
Marx's sense of communism as not merely a sharing of the results of
present production, but more crucialy of the accumulated production
of previous generations (ie not just of products but of /means of
production/) is partially realised in Free Software by the free
availability of source code.
I think in Europe, Libertarian is usually followed by something
like Libertarian Socialist or Libertarian Communists. Which is sometimes
synonomous with anarchism, usually anarcho-syndicalism.
It has always been associated with the left in Europe, although
recently there is a tendency in the media to use it in the American
sense :(
What I haven't seen addressed are the fundamental differences between
info-things like software, musical recordings, and physical-things like
food. A software program can be copied indefinitely to an unlimited number
of people, with neglible cost. It's benefits are unlimited. This is
radically different than say an Apple.
An apple can be copied by planting its seeds, which leads straight to
an area where there is a strong parallel between the software world
and the physical world, where genetic patenting is used to lock farmers
into a GM / monoculture approach which increases their dependence on
(patented) fertilisers / pesticides.
In opposition to the Microsofts of agriculture stands the organic
movement. Particularly relevant are the "seed banks" which preserve
the accumulated genetic diversity of the past, and reintroduce it
by loaning seeds to farmers.
Any harvest is finite.
To support a "GPL society" it does not need to be infinite, but
/sufficient to overcome scarcity/.
Thereby giving one the ability to gain power over others by owning
all the land or hoarding up all the harvest.
Surely one must already have power over others in order to own all
the land or hoard up all the harvest?
Wouldn't the self-enfolding of food be permaculture instead of
robot-farming?
Yes.
--
David Riley dave dmriley.demon.co.uk
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/