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

[Dmytri Kleiner]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:46:45 -0500, 0f0003 | maschinenkunst
<n2o at ggttctttat.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

The ability to individually interact on a global scale is a new kind of
relationship, "meaningful" or "sustainable" is not implied, nor is the
inverse implied. In terms of the relations of production, new economic
interactions such as e-commerce & online auctions, for example, have a huge
impact in regards to the land-rent component of price. As land-rent has for
centuries been a major component of wealth transfer from direct producers
to the labour exploiting class, this is quite meaningful.


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

I am not sure we are looking for same sort of meaning in these new
relationships, I am looking for changes in regards to the extraction of
surplus value, you appear to looking be for a party or maybe a girl or
boyfriend.


> 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.

You seem to be describing something like a Maussian Gift Economy, and I
agree there is much to be learned from the Kin-Communal relations that
where the bases of human society for millennia. The large scale systems did
not eradicate such societies, technology did, especially agriculture and
writing.

The large scale systems developed as a consequence of the new relations
that emerged from agriculture and writing.


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

I could not agree more, that it the basis of most syndicalist strategies,
including venture communism.


>  >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.

Yes, they do, the form of the future society lies entirely in current
relations, whether people desire it or even know it is not important.


>  >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.

No idea what you mean by "counting people," but in terms of accumulating
wealth and applying that wealth to consolidating power.


> 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.

Here you appear to be trying to describe what is referred to as alienable
(or sometimes "Lockean") vs usafruct property rights, however Capitalism
requires legalized "Lockean" rights, so describing usafruct property
relations as capitalist is not correct.

It is also not clear if the two "worlds" you describe above are related in
your belief, the point being the people in the "1st" world are rich because
much of the property in the "3rd" world is "officially logged and
classified" as the property of the "1st" world.

The poor are not made poor by any lack of lockean property rights, but
rather as a result of these sorts of rights imposed on them and 
replacing their usafruct relations.

As with much of your comments, I am unclear on how this relates to anything
I have written in the text you are responding to.


>  >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.

Once again you read the world "relationship" and you read that as "love
affair," when I am talking about economic relations, the relations of
production. Free Software does not capture rent or interest, that is why
its production implies different property relations.

 
> 'Free software' is often times financed by multi-national corps., and
> government grants. 

Indeed. I have commented on this many times, i.e. in "Copyfarleft,
Copyjustright and the Iron Law of Copyright Earnings."


> 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.

You continue to refuse to know the meaning of the words "communism" and
"capitalism," which makes you misunderstand the subject, and renders your
own comments confused.

"Communism" is a theoretical society that is a component of most socialist
belief that is stateless and property-less, "communism" can not "beat
peasants into cooperatives," only certain _communists_ can do that,
claiming this will help bring about communism. This has little to do with
"communism" and much more to do with the actual historical context those
communists where operating in.


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

Communism and Capitalism are not only not similar, they are not even
directly comparable, anymore than say Sexism and Cubism. 

Capitalism is a mode of production, Communism is a theoretical type of
society.


> '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.

You've totally lost me here, I have made no comments of what software
people or "pop.tart super cool artists" care about, I'll leave this sort of
posturing to you.


> 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.

Without a rent-capturing mediator such as a record company, the economic
"relationship" is very different, this, in terms of political economy, is a
very meaningful difference, not sure what kind of "relationship" you are
looking for.

Thanks for the comments.

Cheers.



-- 
Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981

http://www.telekommunisten.net