Message 00931 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00881 Message: 69/89 L1 [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] A response to Michel and Jakob

Hi all.
I have an article which speculates about how a fully fledged p2p society
will work. Michel, Matheiu (ONeil), and Johan Soderberg have seen a
draft. A few other people now have read article, too, including Orsan.
Actually Michel passed it to Orsan. Now part of this article will be
published in the Journal Of Peer Production, which I hope will take off
soon. The other part which outlines the working of p2p society is not
published yet.
Now, I have questions.
First, if I post my article in this mailing list, will that prevent me
to publish it later in academic Journal?
Second, what are the rule of recognition among the members of this
mailing list? Asume x formulates an original idea for the first time in
this exchange or in an unpublished manuscript which is posted here or
passed to some people who are the members of this list. Then Y includes
this idea in a publication. Is Y obliged to recognize that x is the
origin of the idea?
In the academic world this is the practice, and I think recognition will
remain a core aspect of p2p. I

Depending on your answers, I may post may article here..

All the best

Michel Bauwens 03/20/12 12:17 AM >>> 
[Converted from multipart/alternative] 

[1 text/plain] 

I appreciate your concern and I agree on the Open Capitalism point and I

have been writing about this since at least 2005, using 'netarchical 
capitalism' as a concept .. But the Roman system used coloni, and that 
didn't preclude its eventual disappearance and replacement by the feudal

system. Similarly, forces within the feudal system started adopting 
capitalist practices, but that didn't prevent its demise and replacement
capitalism. So, the fact that peer production is used by capital, just
it is being used by peer producers, is not an argument against the 
emancipatory potential and 

Both can co-exist and actually one is the condition of the other ..
would have been no capitalism and feudalism without proto-capitalism and


So the question is not to argue relentlessly for the infinity of 
capitalism, but to ask ourselves, 'what can we do to change it', what
the leverage points within the current contradictory system, between a 
system based on contradictions, to effect change in our own interest as 
workers and peer producers. 

Wasn't that the whole point of marxism, i.e. "not to interpret reality,
to change it" 

Do you really think that it is mathematically and physically possible
an infinite growth system to exist indefinitely ... If yes, I'd like to 
hear the arguments for its infinite perennity, which in my understand
require an overturning of the physical laws that we know. If not, if 
capitalism is not infinite, how do we change it. 

I'm going to send, in the next email, a copy of my next article for al 
jazeera, embargoed please, where I try to show why economies of scope 
obtained by peer production, are vital to replace unsustainable
of scale of the capitalist system, and why periods of energy descent
such systems. Since by all accounts we have entered such a period, we
to contemplate an alternative to the system, either one that is another 
ferocious class system, but not based on infinite accumulation; or, 
potentially, a commons-based system which prepares the ground for a 
transition to classlessness. 

But forgive me if I feel that an approach that is centered on exposing
strengths of the enemy 'again and again', is much less interesting that
that analyses the strength of an enemy, in order to overcome it and find

the best ways to do this, 


On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Hans-Gert Gräbe wrote: 

Hi Christian, 

"we" is the Oekonux community or a part of it? I know that you don't
my theoretical approach for years - nevertheless it is a Marxian one: 
Capitalism proved the ability to change its social structures several
in the last 300 years, so isn't it time to speak not only about Open 
Source, Open Software, Open Design etc., but also about Open
Capitalism as 
a developing new social structuring _within_ capitalism? Thats my
analytical point. The more since there were seroius writings 50 years
about "Open Society"** 
The_Open_Society_and_Its_**Enemiesand one of the main strategical
thinking heads of capitalist establishment 
founded 20 years ago the "Open Society Foundation" with much impact o
the stuff you are discussing. 

For me, this has to be _analyzed_, "again and again". 


Am 19.03.2012 10:15, schrieb Christian Siefkes: 

On 03/18/2012 10:19 PM, Hans-Gert Gräbe wrote: 

Hence, surely only a part of Marxian value theory can be "a specific

for capitalism". The more, what is capitalism, if there is
"the end of capitalims as we know it" (E.Altvater)? 

we already know that for you it's "capitalism all the way down" (as 
Hawking would put it), i.e. for you *every* (or at least every
society is essentially capitalistic -- value-based, somehow
etc. Their's no need in forcing your point by repeating the same
arguments again and again. 

Best regards 


Dr. Hans-Gert Graebe, apl. Prof., Inst. Informatik, Univ. Leipzig 
postal address: Postfach 10 09 20, D-04009 Leipzig 
Hausanschrift: Johannisgasse 26, 04103 Leipzig, Raum 5-18 
tel. : +49 341 97 32248 
email: graebe informatik.uni-leipzig.**de 
Home Page: http://www.informatik.uni-** 


P2P Foundation: -

Connect:; Discuss: 


[2 text/html] 

Thread: joxT00881 Message: 69/89 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00931 [Homepage] [Navigation]