[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
+1
On 08/20/11, nathaniel tkacz <nathanieltkacz gmail.com> 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 a
> bit of a discussion about this in relation to being active on the
list. For
> a different journal that I participate in, editorial board members
have to
> agree to review two essays per year and are strongly encouraged to
propose
> 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, but
> 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.
>
> Nate
>
> On Saturday, August 20, 2011, Mathieu ONeil
<mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>
> wrote:
> > [Converted from multipart/alternative]
> >
> > [1 text/plain]
> > Jakob,
> >
> > I can see you will fit right in with some people on this list.
;-)
> >
> > I
> > 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.
> >
> > So
> > 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.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Mathieu
> >
> > On 08/20/11, Jakob Rigi <rigij ceu.hu> wrote:
> >> Hi Mathieu and all,
> >>
> >> First I do not know about the procedures, I am just new. But I
can tell
> you about my emprical and theoretical interests. I became
interested in p2p
> 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 other
> people had reached before me)that p2p is a new communist mode of
production.
> This mode of production consists of small Islands within the
capitalist mode
> 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
limited
> 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 with
> other movements and convince them that p2p production offers
sollutions to
> many problems that are created by capitalism. In brief we need a
new social
> revolution that replaces capitalism with p2p production. Although
the p2p
> productive activity is the core driving force of this revolution,
political
> 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 p2p
> production against capitalism. You are a force of productive
negation. So I
> am excited to join you.
> >> all the best
> >> Jakob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>> Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au> 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 be
> a member of a scientific institute, and have expertise in issues
around peer
> production".
> >>
> >> So, you seem to fit the criteria, but what makes you a member
of our SC?
> >>
> >> Until now, people were invited informally. But now that this SC
has been
> in place for a while and that a smaller number of people have
taken on extra
> responsibilities, such as editing special issues, I think it would
be good
> 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 before,
> based on personal assessment that the person would be a worthwhile
addition
> as a reviewer and participant?
> >>
> >> Or do we say that anyone who is editing an issue can make that
decision,
> still based on the criteria mentioned above?
> >>
> >> Or do we want to use a more collective method, through this
list for
> example?
> >>
> >> I have not completely worked out my own position yet, so I'm
curious as
> to what people think about this?
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >>
> >> Mathieu
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/19/11, Jakob Rigi <rigij ceu.hu> 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.
> >> > cheers
> >> > Jakob
> >> >
> >> > >>> Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au> 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 new
> thread to avoid confusion - thanks.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > *************************
>
> --
> Nate Tkacz
>
> ARC Research Assistant
> Genealogies of Digital Light
> The University of Melbourne
> Site: http://www.digital-light.net.au/
>
> PhD Candidate
> School of Culture and Communication
> The University of Melbourne
>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__
>
> Research Page: http://nathanieltkacz.net
<http://nathanieltkacz.net/>
>
>
> [2 text/html]
> ______________________________
> http://www.oekonux.org/journal
>
>
--
****
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]anu.edu.au
web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal