Message 05883 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05853 Message: 16/27 L12 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: free vs. common (was: Re: [ox-en] A name for a peer-production-based society?)

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
2009/9/9 Patrick Anderson <agnucius>

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Diego Saravia <diego.saravia>

every day computers cost less and fish cost more

When you say 'cost' you are probably talking about the 'price' you
pay, not the real 'costs' of production.

The difference between 'price' and 'cost' is exactly 'profit'.

ok, and? cost is less than price (usually)

we have enough computers for all people included in "our society"

What is "our society"?  Are the 99/100 people without computers
outside of "our society"?

as are people without fish

If you think the 99/100 people just don't deserve a computer, then
maybe you should call it "my society".  I don't want to be involved in

I dont say anything about "deserve"

you are involved, I am involved, we live in an unequall world

and sure, I dont want it, exactly as you.

but since Capitalism requires Profit, and since
Profit requires Scarcity,

scarcity  is not something that depends on profit.

It is the other-way around.

Profit depends on Scarcity.

we agree

Profiteers cannot charge a price above cost unless the consumer has
insufficient ownership in the Material Means of Production.

every human society and every animal society and every ecosytem in our
universe "suffer" scarcity

Yes, but only humans purposefully increase scarcity for the purpose of
increasing profit.

 yes,  monopolies.

Are you saying growth has limits?  If so, then I agree.

in fish

 But not in computation?

not now.

we have a lot more computer power than we use, perhaps with exceptions in
quantum physics.

so we are developing new ways to using it

But that is not why we lack abundant fish.

The reason is caused by governments run by corporations steered by
profit which requires scarcity.

not at all, we are eating more fish than earth could generate

If we are already eating more fish than the earth could generate, then
where did we get them from, Mars?

Are you drunk?


"Capture fisheries resources have historically been considered, used and
managed on a stock-by-stock basis. They are impacted by fisheries as well as
other polluting and degrading economic activities. The state of wild marine
resources raises concern as, since 1990, about a quarter are more or less
seriously overfished. The state of wild inland resources  is poorly known
but is likely to deserve equal concern in most regions and reflect a much
greater environmental impact"

perhaps fao is drunk

that is the commons problem

problem that is not shared by free goods.

The farms should be tiny and distributed.

We should make fish farms inside of every city by raising them in

creeks running throughout the town.

could be, but why is not happening?

what are the costs?

But we cannot do that now because our local governments are dedicated
to being purposefully unproductive for the benefit of the Capitalists
(to increase profit).

you think so? all local governments in the world?

I said they should *own*.  I did not say they must have the skills to
*operate* them.

ok, not workers, but consumers

in fact, we all are consumers

one men one vote

so you think that all productions means must be in state hands.

I agree, but we re not talking about that.

Ownership and Working are two separable roles.

We have been hypnotized into believing ownership must be in the hands
of those that happen to have the skills needed to operate those
Physical Sources, but that is not the real problem.

The real problem is that ownership must be based on the role of

the only property that matters about property is "rent"

Yes.  Then price == cost and profit == 0

so you are thinking about a stationary society

can we have growth without profit?

the problem is not with profit, but with profit distribution in rent form.

The traditional definition of a "Consumers' Cooperative" shows the
individual consumers are not in control, but have instead forfeited
their rights to a representative committee that causes the
organization to be run largely the same as a for-profit corporation.

in my life i was involved in several consumer cooperatives, and work
cooperatives as well.

cooperatives are good, but they are not a complete solution.

but we are really far away the starting point of this conversarion

Diego Saravia

[2 text/html]
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT05853 Message: 16/27 L12 [In index]
Message 05883 [Homepage] [Navigation]