[syndicate] \\ komunizm vs kapitalizm vs juzt 4 u

[0f0003 | maschinenkunst]

telekomunisten wrote @ http://www.telekommunisten.net/news?path[news] 
=/mail.cgi/archive/friends/20080607195004/

 >Beyond the artistic and economic possibilities and challenges  
presented by telecommunications,

 >Telekommunisten is founded on the broad revolutionary possibilities  
 >introduced by the ability of individuals to instantly interact on a  
global scale.


The ability to interact [vague keyword] on a global scale does not  
imply the ability to create meaningful and sustainable relationships.

In fact in the majority of cases it reinforces a trivial, short term  
approach. Much as walking into a store with money.

Now, imagine walking into a 'store' where the currency is not money  
but mutual trust, which in modern democracies

is often characterized as corruption - ie. that some people will be  
treated better than others. But this is completely natural,

intrinsic of all small scale systems and desirable. It is this small  
scale 'corruption' which lends life meaningfulness.

And it is precisely this which democracy and large scale systems  
eradicate.

The small scale must invade the large scale not vice versa.



By all means - how one establishes trust in large scale networks is  
of personal interest.

but mutual trust is slow and undemocratic - for very good f.reasons





 >On it's own, neither venture communism nor the primitive  
accumulation theory of Telekommunisten is remarkably novel or  
revolutionary, these just address basic economic >facts that any  
collective enterprise must address, and indeed history is full of  
related ideas, practices and attempts. Any revolutionary theory must  
be founded on revolutionary >conditions, not simply interesting ideas.



People do not live in a state of revolution nor do they desire to.




 >The emergence of peer networks such as the Internet creates such  
conditions.



A garden on top of the heap of refuse is not a garden.



 >The society we live in, and societies everywhere and always, are  
composed of social relationships, the relationships of production, in  
particular, form the economic capacities >required to impose social  
and cultural structures. The relations of production constitutes the  
economic structure of society,on which arises the legal and political  
structures that >define it.


The official system is (in the more fortunate cases) is an assemblage  
of what the people

in ad hoc fashion were already doing.  The official system codifies  
it into law.




 >New kinds of relationships, if they can can create new productive  
relations, can thus constitute a new economic structure which is able  
to give rise to a new kind of society.

 >Capitalism, the current dominant form of society,



Capitalism may be the dominant in terms of capital but counting  
people, I am not so sure.

Secondly, since you felt obligated to bring up 'communism'  vs.  
'communist state',

capitalism as implemented even in '1st world' countries but  
particularly in the 'developing' nations

is a far cry from _capitalism_.  The reason capitalism works in the  
'1st world' is because

is has officially logged and classified most if not all all available  
property thus liberating its value from its physical constraints.

[This is particularly true in the US where 'credit is the last  
occidental fairytale']



This official catalogging and classification of property is why the  
'1st world' is 'richer' than the '3rd world'.

A property in the '1st world' (and a citizen for that matter) has a  
title which is accepted globally,

whilst a property in the '3rd world' is informally owned - it's  
owners are recognized by its neighbors

and people within that community exclusively. Its value likewise can  
only be converted and leveraged within that community.

It is grounded and rooted.





 >depends on the extraction of interest and rent for it's subsistence  
and growth. Capturing interest and rent by way of the theft of  
surplus value depends on State granted title and State enforced  
 >privilege. Communications based on global peer networks have a  
chance to resist and evade such title and privilege.

 >Examples of this include the fact that Free Software, whose  
production depends on peer networks, does not capture rent or  
interest, and popular attacks on the rents captured by the >Recording  
and Movie Industries by users of file sharing technologies, show us  
the difficulties faced by those whose incomes depends on controlling  
reproduction.


Free Software much as Open Source etc are 1) not free and 2) quite  
meaningless in terms of creating meaningful relationships.

'Free software' is often times financed by multi-national corps., and  
government grants. All this does is to put further pressure

on those persons who create software by themselves or in small  
groups. Much as communism beat peasants into cooperatives.

'Free software' is similar to corporate software, much as communism  
is similar to capitalism.

'Free software' and the corporate software exploit the 'small' software.



And if you think people care what software they use you are deluding  
yourself. They will use whatever they can get their hands on,

illegal or not, exploitative or nor, reverse engineered or not. The  
source and how it was created, whether it is detrimental to

social relations or not is largely irrelevant. That goes for the  
average citizen and the pop.tart super cool artists.



If you think the person downloading 'free software' establishes a  
more meaningful relationship with

the author than the person who buys it, you are simply.cucu.



While visiting some neo.poser artist organization I heard that  
hacking commercial software is also a noble and admirable thing.

If you like shortcuts to meaningfulness I guess so.



The noble and admirable thing is to create your own and/or have a  
friend who does so.

Much as that sweater your grandmother made just for you is more  
'expensive' than the super lux Prada sweater you bought or stole,

or the Free or Subsidized Krap the UN. the Kommunists. or the  
pulafashion kapitalist government passed out.

Because what your grandmother, or your friend made just for you is  
priceless.

Everything else is a f.uniform.



[like this medium]




 >It is clear we now have new forms of relationships that have never  
existed before, and therefor communicating in these new ways,  
especially when this communication becomes a >component of  
production, is the making of the new society. The Revolution is  
sending email. The Revolution is chatting, The Revolution is posting  
articles. The Revolution is file sharing. The >Revolution is calling.



It is clear that:

Without emotion nothing matters.

Without meaningfulness it's juzt FREE. SUPERCOOL. REVOLUTIONARY BS.