Re: [ox-en] The Ideology of Free Culture and the Grammar of Sabotage
- From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:37:26 -0800 (PST)
Interesting texts.
Matteo seems to include both Oekonux and the P2P Foundation under digitalism (not sure, but it seems implied by the place of the notes). I can't speak for Oekonux, but from the very first writings on p2p theory, it is pretty clear that the notion of parasitism is recognized, even central, and I have been paying continuous attention to the monetization strategies, the conflicts it entails etc... Nothing he describes to digitalism can be honestly applied to the approach of oekonux and the p2pfoundation. So why the need the create a straw man? (for the record: I do not believe in the symmetry of the material and the immaterial, I do not believe in the primacy of the technological in the social, etc... I can only assume Matteo has not done his homework on this). I think there is a terrible confusion between the liberal approaches of benkler/lessig/stallman and those of oekonux/p2p. He also seems to ignore all the work that has been done on physical
production. My own work by the way, is strongly rooted in the work of the analysts of cognitive capitalism, which I have often cited and I consider to be key in an understand of the complexity of peer production.
This being said, all that erudition leads then to the conclusion of 'sabotage', the weapon of the weak and destitute who have nothing to fight for, and can only be against. This is a terrible reduction of the possibilities of resistance, which also include the construction of productive counter-logics and the transformation of the institutional world. It seems like a recognition of powerlessness. So it really exemplifies a cult of negativity. Instead of seeing negative as just a moment, part of a broader spectrum of constructive and transformative attitudes and strategies, the only thing left to do is 'sabotage'.
Differentiating from such approaches, I think what is more interesting is to see the mutual parasitism, not just to be disempowered to sabotage by a Capitalism which is seen as all-powerful and beyond change and defeat, but rather to see that producers also can use the 'existing' as a weapon. Capital has agency, and so do we.
Matteo endorses the entirely unproven proposal by Dmytri, which, if it would exist, offers an added alternative to licensing. Worse, Matteo then endorses a strategy that favors only individual workers??
Another reductionism I detect is the following, as it seems to claim peer producers have not gained anything, there is only a focus on exchange value and how it is extracted by rent, but surely, that is not the whole story.
So, let's assume you are talking to young people co-creating value in some way or another, we have to choices: 1) convince them, against their better judgment, that they are just pawns of the system, and should revert to a purely dependent wage relationship, and certainly not create any use value for themselves and their peers, as this is just exploitation, so let's just sabotage; or: 2) recognize the positive social advance that such collective peer production of use value entails, show them how part of that value is escaping them, how the protocl of the privately owned social systems put them at a disadvantage, and give them a literary of cooperation so they can build alternatives?
Michel
I
send
my
last
essay
to
this
list
as
it
covers
many
issues
debated
in
the
last
days.
It
is
actually
an
extract
of
a
forthcoming
book
(autumn
2008)
for
the
Studies
in
Network
Cultures
(a
book
series
of
the
Institute
of
Network
Cultures
published
by
NAi
Publishers,
Rotterdam).
Please
download
the
printer-friendly
PDF.
Best
/M
------
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de