Message 00694 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00686 Message: 3/32 L2 [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] Scientific committee

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Nate,

it can be useful for a journal to have both, i.e. to have an active team
that actually really participates, but also to have some kind of 'wisdom
council', with prestigious names that give it added credibility ... I do
believe it's better to split them however,


On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil>wrote:

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]

On 08/20/11, nathaniel tkacz  <nathanieltkacz> wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Apart from the question of how one enters the committee, there's also the
question of what is expected once someone becomes a member. There's been
bit of a discussion about this in relation to being active on the list.
a different journal that I participate in, editorial board members have
agree to review two essays per year and are strongly encouraged to
special issues. In short, the committee isn't just a list of celebrity
academics, or a way to position the journal as cool. I'm not necessarily
against having some high profile people who don't actually do anything,
it's worth thinking about how a p2p journal sits in relation to these
questions and what that means about the selection of new members.


On Saturday, August 20, 2011, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil>
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]

I can see you will fit right in with some people on this list. ;-)

really like your slogan "productive negation" but as for whether this
will play a significant role in bolstering p2p production against
capitalism, or whether peer production stands a chance against
capitalism for that matter, I'm not as sanguine, though it does of
course constitute an interesting alternative.

I can see how
you can practically grow commons : just make more commons and encourage
others to do it. So the islands are getting bigger, they may become
huge, look at FLOSS and WP, new islands might be created. But if there
is to be "spreading [of a] new communist consciousness which aims at
generalization of p2p production to all branches of production" then it
will have to cease being an essentially elite form which, unless
connected to a mass of people, will have limited impact.

I agree 100% with you when you say that what would be necessary is to
"make a broad alliance with other movements and convince them that p2p
production offers solutions to many problems that are created by
capitalism." A possibly related question may be, what difference would
it make if state bodies started to actively support peer production?
There are things happening in India, I think, but I don't know much
about it. It is certainly something that seems worth exploring.
StefanMn may know more as there was talk of organising an Oekonux
conference in India.



On 08/20/11, Jakob Rigi  <rigij> wrote:
Hi Mathieu and all,

First I do not know about the procedures, I am just new. But I can
you about my emprical and theoretical interests. I became interested in
production via studying intangible commodities. I tried to theorize
knowledge-sign capitalism. Then, I came across p2p production which is a
decommoditization of knowledge.  I came to the conclusion (which some
people had reached before me)that p2p is a new communist mode of
This mode of production consists of small Islands within the capitalist
of production. Its relation to capitalism includes a dialectic of
articulation and negation.Capitalism also  had this  relation of
articulation/negation with  pre-capitalist modes of production. The major
difference is that in the communist-capitalist articulation the communist
mode of production is the negating force, while capitalism was the main
negating force in the precapitalist-capitalist articulation. Theory of
articulation is well known among Maxists. The neg
 ation of the capitalist mode of production by the emerging communist
mode of production includes p2p productive activity, but cannot be
to it. It requires, spreading a new communist consciuosness which aims at
generalization of p2p production to all branches of production. Moreover,
the political activists of p2p production need to make a broad alliance
other movements and convince them that p2p production offers sollutions
many problems that are created by capitalism. In brief we need a new
revolution that replaces capitalism with p2p production. Although the p2p
productive activity is the core driving force of this revolution,
activity, and theoretical work is also essential.

I have submitted a long article on these issues to NEw Left Review,
waiting for their reply.
 I think you are  doing  a pioneering work which is not only
intellectually exciting but will play a significant role in bolstering
production against capitalism. You are a force of productive negation. So
am  excited to join you.
all the best

Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil> 08/19/11 14:14 PM >>>
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Jakob, all

Pleasure to meet you!

Your arrival raises an interesting question : how does one become a
member of our SC? The criteria for inclusion are along the lines of "must
a member of a scientific institute, and have expertise in issues around

So, you seem to fit the criteria, but what makes you a member of our

Until now, people were invited informally. But now that this SC has
in place for a while and that a smaller number of people have taken on
responsibilities, such as editing special issues, I think it would be
to clarify this point which - I think, could be wrong - someone once
grumbled about anyway.

So, do we want to have the editor inviting people pretty much as
based on personal assessment that the person would be a worthwhile
as a reviewer and participant?

Or do we say that anyone who is editing an issue can make that
still based on the criteria mentioned above?

Or do we want to use a more collective method, through this list for

I have not completely worked out my own position yet, so I'm curious
to what people think about this?



On 08/19/11, Jakob Rigi  <rigij> wrote:
Thank you very much Johan and Mathieu,

It is really exciting to be part of the group and learn from you, I
will also do my best to contribute to the debates.

Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil> 08/19/11 03:49 AM >>>
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Journal report - 19 AUGUST 2011

Hi everyone, a number of issues for the journal project.
If you want to address a specific issue it might be best to start a
thread to avoid confusion - thanks.


Nate Tkacz

ARC Research Assistant
Genealogies of Digital Light
The University of Melbourne

PhD Candidate
School of Culture and Communication
The University of Melbourne


Research Page:

[2 text/html]

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]

P2P Foundation:  -

Connect:; Discuss:


[2 text/html]


Thread: joxT00686 Message: 3/32 L2 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00694 [Homepage] [Navigation]