Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production
- From: Dmytri Kleiner <dk telekommunisten.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:36:12 +0100
Hi Michel, I agree to call it a day, so just a few sentences.
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:22:18 -0800 (PST), Michael Bauwens
<michelsub2003 yahoo.com> wrote:
and you seem even more unable to imagine that it could exist on the basis
of a society based on cooperative forms of production
My goal is to achieve a self-sustaining form of co-operative production.
you see only exchange or gifting and direct reciprocity, for some reason
you are not able to see the processes of generalized non-specific
exchange
Rather I am trying to explain the actual economic facts of what generalized
non-specific exchange really means.
I agree with that assessment, as long as we understand that peer
production requires some form of unconditional subsistence to be
operative.
Where does the scarce material wealth to provide for "unconditional
subsistence"
come from? The condition is that the wealth actually exists, which means it
was produced.
It can exist if there exists other forms for income to sustain it.
Then it can't exist alone, what you describe must therefore not be a mode
of production, but rather a component of another mode. Look upstream.
Note
that peer production obeys to the definition of communism of Marx. The
diffrence is that he could not foresee the emergence of a form of
cybernetic communism within the existing capitalist sphere. And what you
want, is what he describes as socialism, i.e. conditional engagement and
income.
I disagree with this. In my understanding, "Communism" is a state-less,
property less _society_, "Socialism" is _a mode of production_ where the
direct-producers own their instruments of production.
One being a type of society, the other being a productive mode, they are
not comparable to each other, though the former implies the later.
And in fact it does not exist, as I have also extensively argued, but
rather this so-called
"non-reciprocal" production is funded directly or indirectly by
owners
of
property, and can
not exist otherwise.
by the owners of property, which derive their income from the real
producers; from the state, from a variety of means
Right, which means it is not "a mode of production," which must be
explained
in turns of inputs and outputs and account for the reproduction costs of
all
inputs and the circulation of the outputs.
I am interested in peer production as a self-sustaining mode, not a special
case
circulation pattern.
I agree that such free software projects are significantly stronger, but
please note that Linux pre-existed the engagement of IBM etc...
So did HURD.
The definition is simply true, whether that serves the apologists or not.
But in fact, the apologists refuse to call it non-reciprocal, like you,
and
insist on calling a market , or a gift economy, because they cannot
imagine
non-reciprocity, which flouts their image of man and the economy.
Interesting point Michel, I will take this into consideration.
I would like to point out that my contention that specialized labour
requires exchange is, in my opinion, a fact of economic reality, this
does not, however, imply a specific system of circulation.
I too prefer more collective forms that maximize universality and sharing,
I think most people do.
However, just like the laws of thermodynamics must be observed if you are
building a machine, the laws of economics must be observed when proposing
a mode of production, and this means that you must account for the
reproduction
costs of all inputs within the model, not point to external sources as the
explanation.
Just like you can't build a machine and say it creates energy and then
when somebody points out it is actually plugged into an electrical outlet
simply ignore that fact by saying the neighbors pay the electricity bill.
But it is important that the income is unconditional,
This would violate the basic facts of objective reality.
No, the basic income would not violate that reality
The basic income is not unconditional, it has as a condition
the creation of wealth somewhere, the production of which will
have to account for the reproduction of it's inputs.
Regardless of how you circulate wealth, your mode of production still must
produce it.
Basic income is another concept that is not understood, but that
is for a different thread.
. And the fact that
peer production already exists proves the point that it is entirely
'real'.
No.
Free software exists, yes, but you have not demonstrated that any
"immaterial, non-reciprocal"
mode of production exists. Only that some goods are circulated freely
within a mode that is
both material and reciprocal, and that the former circulation is dependent
upon and can
not exist without the later mode.
capital,
only the last of which can ever be immaterial in free exchange.
so you would call free software, and anti-rival knowledge, "capital" ...
???
Yes, software is capital.
Anything that is the output of a previous production cycle that is an
input into a later one is capital.
As software is produced and used in production, software is capital.
different modes can co-exist;
Certainly, but each mode must be internally complete otherwise it is not a
mode, but rather
a component of a larger one.
SO DMYTRI, I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT YOU DON'T HERE WHAT I'M
SAYING!!
I think I do Michel, and I share your vision as well.
Cheers.
--
Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de