Message 02404 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT02392 Message: 3/3 L2 [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] What do we mean by Politics

Graham Seaman wrote:

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, z3118338 wrote:

Politics and Passions: the Stakes of Democracy
But I don't see how the paper helps.
First it's complaining about about the attempted flattening out of political differences in the world as a whole. Which means in the interests of the powerful. No-one inside FLOSS has that sort of power; no-one can order up an army or decide to starve a country. So the analogy doesn't hold very well.


My first response is that in the flateening out of the world - the end of politics; the rational consensus, *is* in many ways where Floss sees itself. Mako's "apolitical" is right in here. But politics within the consensus is not politics its just a bit of room to move within the binary, complementary, dialectic, rational neo lib consensus of modernity.

She says and I dont have it too hand, something about the need for splitting of the ... for a break so that other forms of thought may exist. She then seems to argue that this can be done wthin democratic politics. here I think she is a bit wet.

But for me maybe the essential thing is that she is dientifyig that politics as modernty knows it is just a flim flam wet soppy form of control within the dialectic of modernity. What it says to me is that to think about politics (and therefore in our case re floss) you need to make a complete break with the current consensus. Maybe what Athusser called an epistemological break rather than a mere paradigm shift (that is from my late teens in the CPA so I am grasping at the far reaches of my memory bank...).

Another thing that comes to mind is the question that if networks, flexibilty, openness, the merging of consumer with producer etc etc ... the so called characteristics of floss are also characteristics of post modern capitalist production (post fordism post toyota-ism) does this not raise fr considertaion the questio that this "new mode of production" "the gpl society" s firmly a part and parcel of capital. I know it is the view of advisors to the FSF that the GPL s firmly within capital.

What does making a break with the consensus mean for organisation .. even of lists like this and the decisons we have had to try and make recently, for licencing models, for the use of IP????

Moving right along and making a little break, I read this little Negri thing yesterday....It is in the way that he and his amte deal with things at first glance contradictory and or confusing. But it I think raises in another way a related question - is the commns as Flossers percieve it itself a product of capital?
I will link it here:

‘Public Sphere, labour, multitude. Strategies of resistance in Empire.’ Seminar organised by Officine Precarie in Pisa, with Toni Negri and Paolo Virno. Coordinator: Marco Bascetta. [5th February 2003].

You can find it and more things I am trying to organise here:

Any help is greatly appreciated ......

And on a personal note does anyone want to say anything about my sarai article Foreigner in a Free Land ???? I suppose in a way it is in this same area...

"the riddle which man must solve, he can only solve in being, in being what he is and not something else...."

Organization: projekt

Thread: oxenT02392 Message: 3/3 L2 [In index]
Message 02404 [Homepage] [Navigation]