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