Re: [ox-en] Copyfarleft: Response to Stefan Meretz
- From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:11:56 -0800 (PST)
----- Original Message ----
From: Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz hbv.org>
To: list-en oekonux.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 6:24:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ox-en] Copyfarleft: Response to Stefan Meretz
What do you mean with accomodation? Having a bed in a hostel? Or
adaption? Sorry for asking stupid questions...
maybe that word is not in the dictionary, accomodation is like adaptation, to 'accomodate oneself' ... could be from my original french ...
I actually disagree with your last statement: "there is no
emancipation" within capitalism. No absolute emancipation, of course,
When you mean capitalism-overcoming with absolute, then I agree. And I
agree that there is "relative" emancipation in capitalism, however, in
my view the best times for relative emancipation (I would call it
civilization) are over.
the very system is based on alienation, but within the system, which
is the only one we have, there can be various degrees of surplus
allocated, power balances, and rights for the producers vs. the
owners. One of the features of neoliberalism has been to drastically
reduce the surplus value going to the producers,
You mean the immediate producers (workers)?
but it has been
different in different epochs. The reason I'm saying this is that we
should proceed not on the basis of absolute claims, but that, keeping
them in mind, we should see how we can advance, both within and
'without' capitalism. Anything that strengthens the freedom, equality
and part of the surplus going to the real producers is an advance,
Agreed. The question is what a strenghen of freedoms means. In view
copyfarleft weakens freedom, although it is aimed at securing closed
but commonly used resources.
why would it reduce the freedom, it offers one more option to choose from ...
and until we get there, we will never know if a total alienation-free
society is really possible.
True. However, we should think of it today, not when sitting in
trap like real socialism etc. This is why I make my intervention here.
I'm personally wearly of all or nothing approaches, in which, from a
position of absolute purity, everything which actually concretely
makes the lives of the many better, is rejected.
Free software makes the lives of the many better _because_ it is an
expansion of freedom. I am a radical freedomist;-) Let's expand the
principles of free software to physical spheres. That's Christians
approach I like (peerconomy.org).
I am not interested in solutions for some partial groups on costs
of others. I am interested in solutions, where the selbstentfaltung
of an indivdual is the precondition of the selbstentfaltung of all
-- and vice versa.
Sure, but since the existing reality is all we have, you can only
operate from within it.
In this general sense it is true. But it is too general. I propose to
check every idea on whether it operates in the mode "on costs of
others" or in the (free software) mode "selbstentfaltung being the
preconditon of the selbstentfaltung of others -- and vice versa"
that is a good criterium ... but if you accept work for an employer, you are already sinning against it
I want to address that we -- seeking for (partial or absolute)
emancipation -- are part of the game. The self-organizing logic of
capitalism is the most effective stabilization and development
mechanism we have in history. Capitalism needs opposition, need
irritation, needs movements pointing on "unjust" circumstances etc.
However, basing on inclusion/exclusion logic this self-organzing logic
operates against the majority of people. A cybernetic machine is not
interested in climate change, except, when you can make money from.
And this logic includes a somewhat deadly end: It eliminates
systematically the basis where it is living from: eating labour and
transforming labour to value.
This is not a luxury I use, I only claim, what is. Capitalism bases
on exchange of equals. Its the law. Read any constitution.
but the constitution is not applied, the theory is just that, a
fiction ... so let's not proceed as if it were true
I think more or less, the constitution is applied. Arbitrariness and
infringements are not the rule, we live in a democracy with shared
power. This cannot be simply denunciated as fake or bourgeois ideology.
No no no, democracy is political, but the wage agreement is a result not just of neutral exchange, but of power relationships, why do coffeegrowers in different countries get different prices for their coffee, depending on whether they have a union or not, a fair trade agreement or not ... it's a function of their power as much as anything objective
You are reasoning like in neoclassical economics, starting from fictions that must be true, but are not, and building a reasoning around fake premises
Start here: www.meretz.de
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Contact: projekt oekonux.de