Message 01887 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01887 Message: 1/1 L0 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: Open is Good Closed is Bad ....

Hi Martin!

Hope you came down a bit during the last two months ;-) .

Last month (55 days ago) Martin Hardie wrote:
The list seems bound by its own ideology and world view,
its partisan rhetoric that when I question the supposedly neutral technology
and institutions nobody wnats to play. Right it seems is on the side of "our
vision" and all others just cannot even be conceived of.

Well, of course I don't know who shares my opinion on this list but to
me Oekonux is most of all an analytical project. We analyze Free
Software and see in it what we think is a new mode of production.

I perfectly agree with you when you are saying a new mode of
production is neither "good" nor "bad". IMHO it just is.

This project indeed focuses more on the emancipatory potential of this
new mode and neglects the repression Free Software puts on people. But
I think it is hard to deny that there is an enormous amount of
emancipatory potential - though not always in the way the classic left
expected it to be. But of course there may be a lot of bad things in
this new mode of production - I for one would never deny that
possibility. However, I'd be interested in what these are exactly so I
can choose whether I should put forward of fight this new mode of

But if it actually *is* a new mode of production being better / more
productive than the old one - which in the end only time will tell -
then IMHO there is actually little point in fighting it.

"anti-copyright movement" - But the US Patents Office says this is the essence
of copyright - why then are you right and they wrong? Who wields the power in
this argument. Corporate sovereignty or the listers on Oekonux?

Is it that what you are saying: "They" have the power? Sure they do.
But in eras where the mode of production changes in such a fundamental
way the whole process changes with it. This also means that the old
source of power dries up sooner or later. IMHO this is the reason
allowing for some optimism.

So contrary to what cc says FLOSS is a more effeicent way for capital to

If I'd take back your point say 200 years I'd see you arguing: Look at
these kings! *They* have the power to crush our bourgeoise movement.
Well, history showed that the kings fought the bourgeoise movement to
a considerable degree, some used the bourgeoise movement for there on
purpose - a thing which seems to puzzle you very much -, some even
welcomed it. And the bourgeoise movement in the end removed the kings
- regardless whether they fought it, used or supported it.

IMHO historical processes of this dimension always work this way. I
mean if history abolishes ("aufheben" in German - I think abolish is
wrong here) an old regime in a dialectical process how do you think it
could happen without the old regime profiting to some degree from the
new regime? To me this is unthinkable.

Today I'd even say *if and only if* the old regime can profit from the
new regime there is an ability that we see a dialectical process which
is able to result in a new synthesis where the old thesis *and*
anti-thesis is abolished.

Of course this thesis is a hit in the face of all this (not so)
classic left resistance rhetoric which sometimes I think you are a
very big supporter of. IMHO things are not black or white. They are
convoluted to a sometimes mind-boggling degree.

Now we are getting somewhere. This is the Benkler stance. P2P is good because
it is a more efficent form of capitalism.

If the list can come to terms with this - ie that FLOSS can be for capital or
against capital then we have to move the analysis on a little bit more to
talk about what sort of FLOSS we/you/she likes ... just to say its a new mode
of production doesn't tell us why its good or support your evolutionary
thesis that it is better. It might be freer but not free. To not move the
argument on is just indulging in partisan pro FLOSS rhetoric. There has to be
more to the argument.

There is. But this is actually not on the level of the new mode of
production as such but on looking how this new mode of production
looks like. Actually I have little idea why this new mode of
production seems to be very compatible with a lot of emancipatory
thoughts. Sometimes this seems like a miracle to me - which of course
I happily adopt ;-) .

						Mit Freien Grüßen



Thread: oxenT01887 Message: 1/1 L0 [In index]
Message 01887 [Homepage] [Navigation]