Message 00667 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00634 Message: 35/39 L5 [In date index] [In thread index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [jox] Free Software Special Issue

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all 
I agree that there is probably an imbalance in this project in terms of the number of people who agree with the Meretz/Merten line. Given that, and given the apparent difficulty in producing English-language texts which reflect this perspective, I think the best solution in terms of publication is:
Peer Production theory issue (coming out maybe in December 2011) : an article by Mn/Mz explaining their point of view 
Free software issue (coming out maybe in December 2012?) : further debate between their perspective and that of Maurizio
On 07/12/11, Stefan Meretz <stefan> wrote:

Hi StefanMn and all,

this seems to be a central debate, indeed.

On 2011-07-11 10:58, Stefan Merten wrote:
Nonetheless. My central conviction is this: Peer production is a new
mode of production. *As such* it can not be understood with the tools
which were valid and fine for the previous mode of production -
namely capitalism.

I fully agree with what StefanMn wrote with respect to the content.

I also see the necessity of a fundamental change in our perspectives and 
categories which thoroughly and ruthlessly done shake up contemporary 
thinking. However, saying this it sounds like preaching. One can believe 
it or, with higher possibility sticking to the old, doesn't believe it. 
The analogy of the transition from feudalism to capitalism is in the end 
only -- an analogy. Thus, the process of overcoming our old paradigms 
have to be organized, it doesn't emerge from "itself". And the old 
thinking will not vanish by "itself". Also speaking for myself, I am not 
sure whether I already have overcome the old paradigms, because we only 
have the means of thinking that we have, and they are coming from the 
old even if you _want_ to overcome it! Dialectically speaking there is 
always a unity of breakage and continuum.

Thus, I would draw somewhat different consequences, namely: Let us 
organize the debate around these questions, and let us use the journal 
for that purpose. My only fear is, that there are only a few persons 
openly pushing the "breaking" side forward, so that finally the approach 
is completely underrepresented and the debate will not take place.


Start here:

Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University
email: mathieu.oneil[at]

[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00634 Message: 35/39 L5 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00667 [Homepage] [Navigation]