Privatization of big infrastructure (was: Re: [ox-en] Re: Open Source and Open Money)
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:12:12 +0100
Hi Kermit and all!
Yesterday Kermit Snelson wrote:
Instead, I'll just ask a question. When you think of opening up a commons
to democratic control, is "privatization" the first word that springs to
mind?
The opposite is true of course. If something is privatized it means
that is removed from the common. And that's exactly the meaning the
Latin root of the word (`privare' IIRC) means: To rob something from
the common.
Consider the recent history of commons such as railroads, airlines,
power grids, postal services, telephone exchanges.
That's an interesting point but we have to tell the whole story then.
Most of this big infrastructure has been started by private
corporations. At some point in time the early capitalist states took
over these big infrastructures and ran them on a state-controlled
basis. This happened in all starting capitalist countries with very
few exceptions.
IMHO the reason for this move is (at least) three-fold.
* On the one hand these big infrastructures were believed to be
necessary to foster capitalist / economic growth - which is surely
true. Because of that it should not be that private persons control
these fundamental infrastructures and thus no private person be able
to hold the economy as hostage. Only the state thought as being
neutral to all was able to provide such big infrastructure in a
neutral way.
* On the other hand organization of this big infrastructure was a
difficult challenge and only the state being able to organize
similar big organizations was believed to be able to cope with that
challenge.
* On the third hand these big infrastructures had simply to exist - no
matter whether they are profitable or not. In fact a lot of examples
exist where these infrastructures are not only state-controlled but
state-aided as well.
Who do you think has
been behind the move to privatize them?
Today there are powers which want to revert what happened 150-200
years ago. Given that we still live in a capitalist society the points
above are still valid. So what happened?
This list is about Free Software and it's potential for society, so in
addition let's look at software. After all today software can be seen
as a big infrastructure vital for the existence of capitalist
economies (just as for a GPL society I might add).
* The first point is still true - and perhaps much more than in the
19th century. Well-functioning big infrastructures are vital for the
survival of modern societies. However, today there are less worries,
that private persons may take society / economy as a hostage. I
guess that's a result of the fact, that these private persons
already control the states to a degree where such concerns are
simply not in *their* interest. Well, the worries from the past are
indeed exactly the natural interest of private persons.
In software we have even a private (nearly) monopoly which still
rules the scene. We all see the result of this private monopoly held
over a important big infrastructure. M$ *has* taken society as a
hostage and even the US state is not able to do anything against it
- as the failing lawsuits from the last years show. Sure most
politicians won't admit that they are hostages but what would you
expect...
On the other hand there is Free Software which is clearly not
controlled by private persons. Instead everyone is able to do their
own thing besides the main-stream and even influence the main-stream
on a rather direct basis. There are a number of clear differences to
proprietary software. In fact Free Software is a common good - and a
value-less one resulting in being cheap. It is neither
state-controlled nor controlled by private persons in the way
proprietary software is controlled by private persons.
As a result there is no need to worry that private persons may take
anyone as hostages. This is reflected by a lot of decisions of
states (e.g. China, France and a good amount of other European
states) to prefer Free Software over M$. These states do not want to
build an infrastructure which depends on the will of a single
person which is all but clearly on their side.
* The second point above indeed changed dramatically over time. If it
would be as impossible for private initiative to run that big
infrastructure as it was, we simply won't discuss that topic. I
think the technical development has made this possible simplifying a
number of processes relevant for organization of big infrastructure.
This means, that states as we know them are not as important for
such needs and instead the provision of big infrastructure could be
taken back into society.
Again Free Software is a nice example for that development. Free
Software uses the most advanced technical means available to
organize the production of a big infrastructure with pretty much
virtuosity. Indeed it does *much* better in this regard than every
corporate initiative possibly can. And it does much better than
states. Both is a result of the fact, that Free Software relies on
self-unfolding rather than the structural coercion exercised by
money from private corporations as well as money from states.
* The third point above is still the case - big infrastructure has to
exist no matter whether it is profitable or not. However, the
importance of this point does not seem to be recognized by
politicians selling out common goods. Again this may be seen as a
result of modern states are already being held as hostages of
private corporations.
Indeed a private corporation is there to maximize profit. I once
read a saying from a private British water provider who said: "We
are there to make profit - not to provide water." That is exactly
the point: Big infrastructure in the hands of private corporations
is no longer there to serve the common good but to maximize profit
of the corporation. As a result those who can't pay the price simply
can't use the big infrastructure any more. This is of course no
problem for the corporations themselves. They can always pay. But
it's a big problem for the citizens who are cut off from important
infrastructure. I guess we all know countless examples of that.
Of course we can see that in software. The citizens of Iceland for
instance already experienced what it means when M$ decided that
profit drawn from the support of Icelandic is too low: Their
language is simply no longer supported.
On the other hand because there is no profit in Free Software there
is no reason to worry that profit may be insufficient for someone to
decide to stop support. Plain and simple. And even if you coerced
someone structurally by paying hir to write a certain piece of Free
Software you alone decide what you want to do with this piece
afterwards. You may use it without any concern about profit.
This point is stressed by nearly every advocate of Free Software for
business and indeed this is one of the reasons, why there are
initiatives in some Third World countries and particularly China to
use Free Software rather than "free" M$ copies. Free Software can
easily be adopted to suit the needs - regardless of profit
considerations.
Well, given all that I'd say, that Free Software qualifies very well
as a new model regarding the question of how to organize big
infrastructure beyond both, private corporations and states.
Hmm... That actually became far more interesting than I expected at
the beginning :-) .
And who would benefit most from
privatizing what is perhaps the most vital (human-made) commons of all:
cash?
Well, money is different from the big infrastructure mentioned above.
At least historically it's closely coupled to the existence of a state
and there are reasons for this. I pointed that out a bit in another
post. Indeed IIRC there are three aspects a state must maintain to be
called sovereign:
* A government
* An own currency
* An army
In fact these criterions are somehow softened in the last two decades.
There are a number of countries which don't have a functioning
government any more. Often this is linked with the absence of a
regular army. These are among the primary targets of US / NATO bombs
(Somalia, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia to some degree).
Meanwhile there is Argentina which gave up sovereignty by giving up
their currency. And in the EU a number of states gave up their
sovereignty for a common currency some years ago. This doesn't matter
any more?
Hmm...
Well, looking at the three points above all of them are valid for
money as well as for other big infrastructure. I'll give it a try and
look at LETS / cc in the framework of the three aspects outlined above
- from my current understanding.
* LETS / cc are born exactly by the opposite concern: Everybody should
be able to control the big infrastructure instead of a single
neutral institution.
These "everybody"s are however the same private persons as we have
with conventional money. As Keith stresses particularly in open
money there is no social band gluing together these atomized
individuals.
So the worry above in some way is valid and in some way it is not.
Instead of trusting in a neutral institution LETS / cc provide some
kind of equality of weapons ("Waffengleichheit"): I accept your
currency if you accept mine. In fact - as I pointed out a bit - this
equality of weapons / power is the basis for contracts making sense
at all.
However, equality of weapons is not a good thing in itself. It's
only the best thing if you have weapons already. IMHO it would be
far better to have a society where it's counterproductive to even
point at someone else. This is what we see in Free Software.
* As with Free Software the second point above vanished with the
technological means available today. In fact most of the posts from
the open money people praise modern technology to make
non-state-controlled currencies possible at all.
* It seems, that the third point above in LETS / cc is invalid because
by definition nobody can make profit with these currencies - because
by definition there is no interest. Well, as said in another mail
I'm very sceptical whether you can define this or whether interest
is a inalienable result of exchange based economy.
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/