Re: [ox-en] Copyfarleft: Response to Stefan Meretz
- From: Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz hbv.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:06:03 +0100
Hi Michel and all,
On 2008-01-10 05:11, Michael Bauwens wrote:
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 ...
Thanks:-)
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 ...
Copyfarleft excludes people from the closed commons.
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
That's the point.
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,
I spoke about just exchange, not neutral. And I wrote about power
relationships, yes, they are there and they are part of the game. The
value of labour force is historically depended on power relations and
on cultural level of the society.
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
Of course, you are right. When taking about "just exchange", then this
is only meant "in average". When some coffeegrowers remain below the
mean prices, then the coffee selling company is making an extra
(accounting) profit. And they strive for it, and they do some overhead
investments if necessary (like financing death squads).
However, in average, they only can reach exchange relations based on
different levels of productivity. The measure for productivity are the
highly developed countries, not the low ones. For one hour of value the
low productivity ones have to work, say, 10 hours, but in a globalized
world these 10 hours are simply 1 hour worth. So when labour amounts
off different productivities are exchanged, then this exchange ist just
(in average). Thus, normal just exchange leads to wealth transfer to
the highly developed countries, every day. -- Sorry, I am not the
inventor of this crazy mechanism, but only the reporter. This can only
be changed by getting rid of exchanging at all, not be seeking for new
exchange forms or relations.
You are reasoning like in neoclassical economics, starting from
fictions that must be true, but are not, and building a reasoning
around fake premises
No no no! Declaring reality to fiction and wishful thinking will not
help. Capitalist economies work, because they work on their declared
principles (in average), not because of arbitrarily hurting them.
Normal functioning of capitalism leads to the world we have, not
deviating ones. Thus, the catastrophe is yet bigger as you imagined
before, isn't it?
Ciao,
Stefan
--
Start here: www.meretz.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de