Message 04039 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04001 Message: 29/46 L1 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Labor contradictions

Just for info:

we have a page discussing 'peer property' at

contributions would be most welcome,


----- Original Message ----
From: Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz>
To: list-en
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 6:26:37 AM
Subject: Re: [ox-en] Labor contradictions

Don't you think that this link is a key element to achieve the
"triple-free peer production", defined by Tere Vaden (23.11.2007) as
including "the ownership [not the best term] of the means of
production down to the level of electricity, the physical infra,

A triple free peer production needs the commons, even for means of 
production for physical goods and natural ressources. This is clearly 
explained in Christians "contribution-model" of peer production. The 
important debate, which is still open and we need to develop here, is 
the transition to such a contribution model when dominant capitalism 
exists in parallel. The co-existence is the big challenge. And the germ 
form concept comes to its importance, because a new way of peer 
production is only a way which is both, in advantage of capitalism 
while at the same time against its principles (cf. my mail about 
dialectics from 21. nov., 13:08). When a germ form could be integrated 
into the old, than is was not a "new", it was only a re-newed old.

A lesson what we can learn from several historical trials is, that we 
cannot start from the question of ownership: first conquer the 
ownership, then build a new society -- no, this does not work. We can 
learn, that ownership is a result of the development of the way to 
produces our lives and of the productive forces, it was always in 
history in this sequence. Thus, we have to develop a new way of 
production using most developed productive forces, and then ownership 
will follow. "Will follow" does not mean automatically, there will be 
fights. But it would be the right sequence: First the production, then 
the societal form. We saw this "logical" sequence in free software and 
free culture movement: The concept of commons was developed when it was 
needed objetively, and not before. Now, we made a big step forward, 
because we roughly have a concept of the new way of production: peer 
production. We need to go more into details (yes, reading Christians 
book for example), but we know roughly what we want! Again, this notion 
of peer production could only be found after developing the practices 
in reality, and then generalizing it as a concept.


Start here:

Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you 
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04001 Message: 29/46 L1 [In index]
Message 04039 [Homepage] [Navigation]