Message 03968 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT03957 Message: 16/26 L2 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

The new and the old (was: Re: [ox-en] Where / who is the enemy?)



Hi all,

some comments on two familiar statements and a philosophical excursion:

On 2007-11-20 22:42, Michael Bauwens wrote:
So no enemy meant: not the direct antagonist struggle for surplus
value as opposed the workers and the capitalists.

On 2007-11-20 19:46, Stefan Merten wrote:
If we think that peer production is subversive to capitalism then who
is protecting capitalism? Classicaly this was a task for the state.

To me the term "antagonist" seems to be an holy term of traditional 
working class movement, at least a religious term (Marx: "fetish"). It 
says, that the struggle can only be "solved" by transcending 
capitalism. So if you fight inside capitalism, say for higher wages, 
then there is a tiny seed of transcendence in it. It describes a 
picture of hope, and I understand this very well, because I followed 
this hope for some time.

However, it is not real. Workers and capitalists are opposed to each 
other, but not antagonistic. They fulfill (of course: opposite) roles 
inside a common framework of self-valualisation of capital ("making 
more money from money"). A free society is a society, were 
this "framework" (based on the alienated cybernetic self-valualisation) 
has qualitatively changed. -- This btw. was one of the important 
insights the Krisis-Group gave me.

And if you look in history, it was never the case, that the suppressed 
and fighting classes gain the power, but those classes, who changed 
the "framework" by bringing a new mode of production into live 
practically. There were class struggles, but for example the new 
bourgois class in feudalism instrumentally used the fights of farmers 
and craftsmen and the need of the ruling feudal class for weapons for 
their wars. Both, farmers/craftsmen and feudalists, lost, capitalists 
prevailed.

The "new" never came into live by purely overtake the power, but the 
other way around: by bringing a new mode of production they overtook 
finally the power.

Thus, the "new" was never simply "subversive" to the "old", it always 
was functional for the "old" at the same time. This is the basic idea 
of a "germ form" or "seed" of a new.

This brings me to some more philosophical thinking.

It helps a lot, when we don't think in opposites excluding each other 
("Hey, decide: which side is true?"), but think the opposites as a 
source of the real movement. Peer production is at the same time 
subversive and functional for capitalism. The state at the same time 
supports and suppresses free software etc. This must be (and is) the 
case, otherwise it cannot be a germ form.

To me it seems clear, that peer production is not by itself a final form 
of a new production mode, it is only a contradictory form of the 
movement between the new and the old. This raises the question, what 
the "new" is, what the core determinants of the new are, but I put it 
in the background for a while, to bring the attention to a second 
import point.

When two antagonists fight, then the solution seldom is, that one 
prevails and the other vanishes. Moreover, this is never the case, when 
the two antagonists are moments of one common, thus being not 
arbitrarily opposed, but necessarily. The new qualitative step includes 
both "contents" of the antagonists in a new form, where they are at the 
same time present and vanished. Present means, that their "sense" was 
kept, vanished means, that they don't exist any more (in german we have 
the term "aufheben", I don't know the english one).

So, my questions are:
- what is the new (mode of production)?
- what are moments of this new?
- where do we find these moments inside the old?
- how does these moments of the new support the old?
- where are the limits in supporting the old?
- in which way show the moments of the new their potence inside the old?
- and much more.

Therefore, the not very fruitful controversy inside german ox about 
the "number" of germ forms ("a single" germ form or "some" germ forms) 
is solved for me: It's both. When you think of the new and its moments, 
then you have _a_ germ form, which must be present in all moments and 
you have special germ forms of the moments. However as stated above, 
don't think them as opposites! _The_ germ form and their "specials" are 
identical. The challenge is, to show this identity in each case.

However, the answers depend on the concept of the new -- which leads us 
to the first question. The first question can only be answered, when we 
have answers to the following questions. And so on. These (uncomplete 
list of) questions describe a kind of cycle, where you can't determine 
the start. You have to walk through this thinking cycle again and 
again, because reality changes rapidly.

You gave a lot of answers which can be put to these questions. Maybe 
this philosophical excurse helps a bit to sort them.

Finally, now it becomes clear, that the question about the enemy itself 
is not adequate.

Sorry for not always using the correct english terms.

Ciao,
Stefan

PS. Yes, you are right, I learnt this in a Hegel course:-)
Recommended site: http://hegel.net/en/

-- 
Start here: www.meretz.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT03957 Message: 16/26 L2 [In index]
Message 03968 [Homepage] [Navigation]