Re: [jox] A response to Michel and Jakob
- From: Michel Bauwens <michel p2pfoundation.net>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:06:04 +0700
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Stefan Meretz <stefan meretz.de> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Am 15.03.2012 12:17, schrieb Jakob Rigi:
Hi Stefan, I totally agree with you and in a previous mail stated
that Marx theory of value is totally absent from the inner logic
of p2p. Of course in a fully fledged p2p society the form of
abstract value that Marx desrbibed will disappear. But, Marx theory
of va;ue can explain the current relation between peer production
and capitalism to extent that capitalists promote p2p. They simply
do it to extract rent.
I think, there are different types of using peer production, not
uniformly by extracting rent. But basically your are right.
Actually from the users point of view both google and facebook are
commons,
Google and Facebooks are used for purposes, that can be commons. But
Google and Facebooks are definitely not commons, even not from the pov
of the users. It is always important to distinguish between the
ressource and the social process. A commons relates to the social
process with respect to a ressource, but a ressource itself can never
by a commons. A commons is a social relationship as the commodity is too.
they are resources that enable them to share, communicate and coordinate,
but not commons
but from the point of view of their owners, they are instruments of
extractio ofn rent. IBM contributes to p2p to extract rent too.
In case of IBM I would say that they devaluate one market (software),
to keep another market (hardware).
hmm... I don't think IBM is in the hardware business in any serious way,
they are a service company
But, as I mentioned before this does not erase the non/capitalist
logic of p2p. P2p is a new mode of production and it is our task to
discovers its regimes of value.
Hm, I would say the core of peer prodcution has no regime of value,
even if it acts in a alien framework of value.
it's about use value, so there is value, but does that mean there is no
regime of value, could it not have 'another regime of value' ?
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal