Message 04309 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04265 Message: 60/69 L3 [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] The Ideology of Free Culture and the Grammar of Sabotage

Hi Matteo and all!

5 days ago Matteo Pasquinelli wrote:
I subscribed this list years ago as I was attracted
by a mix between a sort of good german marxism and new technologies
(sorry for distorting reality).

Though I have little to distinguish German Marxism (while I'd call it
Marxian) from others I don't know but there is certainly a point.

That was many years ago. Simply I
found the expression "GPL society" a bit unfortunate and I'd suggest
to drop it, but that's my modest personal opinion...

Which - as you read my reply - could now have come the time for.
Notions and terms are a tool for understanding. If they are bad they
need to be replaced - if there is a replacement...

I endorse Dmytri's ideas about Copyfarleft and
"productive commons" as one of the few around that questions the
relation between the 'digital commons' and the outside, the surplus-
value, even the complicity with big business (rewind: IBM and Linux).

I think there are a few more and all with different approaches.
According to Oekonux theory there is probably simply not much of a
problem here. And if I look back at the last ten years I see myself

I'd like to discuss many other things, like a quote by Stalmann that
I find curious: "I see no social imperative for free hardware designs
like the imperative for free software" [Richard Stalmann, ?On Free
Hardware?, Linux Today, 22  Jun. 1999. Web:
stories/6993.html - but that was 1999].

I'd rather not debate a eight year old quote... I guess you can come
up with a couple from me which I would refuse today ;-) . But that is
the good thing if you are able to learn something :-) .

Sorry for being so
"materialistic", but I'm opininon Free Software may become an even
stronger weapon if it develops  a proper strategic relation with the
materiality of the hardware out there and the material economy.

Well, let me do a comparison. Think back 250 or 300 years. Then the
production of food was organized by *completely* different paradigms
than today. Probably even paradigms we have difficulties to understand
today... Would you think that an early capitalist who stepped up and
said "Wait 200 years and production of food will work according to
capitalist control" would have any listeners? I don't think so because
it's too far from what people knew at this time. And yet it happened.

The reason for this IMHO is that is really hard if at all possible to
think across the boundaries of ages. And if Oekonux is right this is
exactly what we are talking about.

I for one therefore I'm rather calm about this question. I think in an
abstract sense things are clear: The mode of production most adequate
to a society which is mostly based on the production of information
will find ways to organize production of material things. However, by
now I can not tell how this will look like and IMHO this is down the
historical road still a few decades at least.

To avoid personal polemics, I'd like to work around a collaborative
definition of the digital commons, that I describe as Autonomous
Commons (not found a better word sorry). Autonomous Commons are not
'digital'. I tried to sketch out a basic definition, still quite
immature. Don't take it as 'mine'.

That's find and I guess most people here are ready to help. However, I
think it makes no sense to rape peer production just to press it into
some more or less arbitrary concepts.



Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04265 Message: 60/69 L3 [In index]
Message 04309 [Homepage] [Navigation]