Message 04087 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04001 Message: 31/46 L2 [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




Hi Michel,

On 10.12.07 - Michael Bauwens wrote :
thanks for these valuable insights
but what do you think about the change structural conditions of knowledge work, i.e. that both computers and networks have become largely socialized, no longer monopolized by capital ...
Socialization of networks (and some computers) as a tendency is a key element to a post-capitalist society. But it remains a tendency. Capital still has an almost total monopoly in hardware and material means of production... and hiring of most knowledge workers...

knowledge workers may work for a boss, be a free lance, create a small company and back again ... it is quite different from a traditional proletarian relationship,\
I don't know whether the share of "knowledge workers", especially programmers and "peer producers", able to create a small company and then back, etc., is so big in relation to those who mainly work for a boss. My impression is that (middle-low) wage earners are a big majority and as such are "proletarians"... as most people working in a developed country. It would be interesting to have some *recent* statistics about FLOSS workers. In any case, IMHO, contrary to most bosses or high executives, "peer producers" do not have "naturally" a tendency to stick to the existing order values. And that is important when dealing with the question of what could be their relation with a radical workers movement.

Raoul

Michel

----- Original Message ----
From: Raoul <raoulv club-internet.fr>
To: list-en oekonux.org
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:45:32 AM
Subject: Re: [ox-en] Labor contradictions

Hi Michel,

On 3.12.07, Michael Bauwens wrote:
Hi Raoul,
thanks for the clear point you are making.
Given that you are right, how would you find the right language to create alliances.
I think it is to early to answer in a precise way. For the moment the "peer production" reality is only at its very beginning. It is only when that reality will become more developed and thus more "visible" that a "right" and common language can develop between the "Free Software" or "peer production" movement and the workers movements, as far a these will escape, at least during the most important social fights from the unionist spirit/logic. The basis of that "language" will certainly be the increasing conviction that a new type of society is possible, based of non-exploitation, non merchant-values. Contrary to many sociological points of view, I do not think that exploited workers can only dream of being LESS exploited and never of not being exploited at all. Even if till now it is only in exceptional moments that this "revolutionary" nature of the workers movement has appeared in the past, I do not not see any serious reason to pretend that it will reappear again. I do not know what this "language" will exactly be in concrete terms, but I "know" it will exist and develop. (It is like for the discovery of the Neptune planet, first discovered by theory before being actually observed.) I think you gave a good formulation of the basis on which that "right language" will develop when you answered to Stefan Merten, in the Thread "Free Software and social movements in L.A." (19mar07)
"What kind of connection is there between social
movements and Free Software exactly?"
"It seems to me that it is about embedded values, and
about prefiguring the new society by present actions."
(...)
"If this is so, then the use of free software, which
creates new social relations, creates a new 'reality'
through its usage, and embeds new values such as
sharing and nonproprietary relationships, seem to be a
natural fit."
In the same thread, Stefan Merten had also agreed on that general idea.
I had wrote:
"Helping to develop the visibility of what could be a non
capitalist society is certainly one the most important connections
between
FS, et al. and social movements.
And Stefan had commented (30apr07:
"I totally agree."
True, this is still a very general and abstract assessment but, again, things should become more precise as the "peer production" reality develops.


I see some structural differences between:
1) the significantly non-proletarian nature of contemporary knowledge
workers who are peer producers

You seem to consider "proletarian" only workers who do "physical" or manual work, or at least no "knowledge" work. Well, that depend on the definition you give to the term "proletariat". For me it keeps its original meaning, as coined in the XIX th century, especially (IMHO) by Marx, as the class of people exploited according to the capitalist rules (wage labour, production for direct or indirect profit). In that time, and also during the first half of the XXth century, most exploited workers were physical/manual workers. So there has been a tendency to assimilate proletariat only to that kind of workers. But the definition of exploitation is something independent from the kind of work done, from the kind of product created, as far as there is wage-labor and profit creation. In modern capitalism and in the most developed countries the share of manual/physical work has declined but not the share of exploited work. I don't think that most of what you call the "contemporary knowledge workers" are capitalists or even high-middle-class members. (Note that according to which person you talk to, the definition of that "middle class" may rage from 20 to 80% of labor force, but I don't think that is very important here). Many programmers working as wage earners may earn less than a specialized manual industrial worker, for example, and are as exploited as him, even if the kind of work differs. In that sense, I don't think that the differences in the immediate productive activity will be more important than the differences between primary school teachers, for example, or hospital nurses and industrial workers, which we have seen in the most important social movements fighting together.
but this is tempered by
2) peer production as new life practice being an aspect of all kinds of differently situated people However, I think it is fairly easy to see how the 'peer production' of political activity can be a potent weapon in the hand of social movements, thereby opening their consciousness to the advantages of peer production generally.
I agree.

Raoul
Michel




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



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de




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



Thread: oxenT04001 Message: 31/46 L2 [In index]
Message 04087 [Homepage] [Navigation]