[ox-en] Re: [ox-en]Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production (Part 0: Traits of PeerProduction)
- From: Dmytri Kleiner <dk trick.ca>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:50:34 +0100
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:51:16 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], Dmytri Kleiner <dk telekommunisten.net>
wrote:
Where things are not commons, they generally matter as _possession_
(something that can be used), not as _property_ (something that can
be sold).
[...]
I strongly agree with these points.
Actually, just a point of clarification on my agreement with this point. I
agree that
possession matters in peer-production, and that property does not (as a
commons is mutual
property).
I disagree with the the definition of property "as something that can be
sold."
The definitive aspect of "property" is that can owned even when not
possessed, property is
"control at a distance." This is the control required by Capitalism in
order to own the
instruments of production being employed by direct-producers (who obviously
have possession).
And it is this feature of property, that it must be controllable at a
distance in order to
appropriate the productive output of the direct-producers, which requires
the monopoly
on violence that manifests as the State .
--
Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de