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

[0f0003 | maschinenkunst]

 >> 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

Good point about indiv interact but ...
globally is not a synonym for global scale.

There is only so much an indiv can interact with b4 it becomes  
meaningless noise.
Thus these scales may b deceiving.


 >on a global scale is a new kind of
 >relationship, "meaningful" or "sustainable" is not implied,


Without "meaningful and sustainable"
it is prostitution

which is what I initially implied about both
kapitalism and komunism and your theories.



 >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.


This is where, were I you, I would tell you - meaningful depends
on the context it operates in.

Technology alters economic theories as it does labor dynamics. What  
is significant
is what the impact on quality of life [another vague term] is.

I dont see e-anything altering in a positive way the quality of life.
Quite the contrary - it raises the level of obfuscation and 'freedom'.

BTW - if u want 2 eradicate wealth discrepancies very quickly
eradicate inheritance.



 >> 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

we -> I


 >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.

As I told you earlier - what you are looking for is as meaningless,  
devoid ov value
and as unsustainable as the system you are trying to replace.



 > You seem to be describing something like a Maussian Gift Economy

It's not maussian it's Ciocanestian


 >, and I agree there is much to be learned from the Kin-Communal  
relations
that where the bases of human society for millennia.

What is to be learned +?


 >The large scale systems did
 > not eradicate such societies, technology did, especially  
agriculture and
writing.

Agreed re: tech. And no, they are not eradicated.
In particular communism had less impact in 50 years
than capitalism in 15.

But there are still places - in Romania for instance.


 >> 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.

I disagree that what you are advocating is small scale.
It is empty scale.

Small scale refers to more than size.
The 'small scale' you speak of exists on top of the large scale
(garden on the heap of refuse). It cannot exist without the lrg scale.
You could say that it subverts large scale ... somewhat like
advanced methodologies of mass production permit the manufacturing
of one-off's and highly personalized products.
This is tangential to (some) luxury goods and offers
the illusion of meaning. Their 'meaningfulness' comes from their  
exclusiveness,
innovation/coolness factor.


But what makes something meaningful is the unpronounceable.
It causes seemingly inferior things, things like lets say
that sweater that ur grandmother knitted just for you,
to be more valuable than a D&G sweater.

Or an ordinary horse + cart to be more valuable than a neo-pop.tar BMW.

The wonderful part is that anyone has access to the former
in traditional societies. Far far far far less so in advanced  
democracies.

Desacralization -> true poverty.

Which is why the 3rd world is becoming poorer and poorer
as it prostitutes itself for the 'Simply.Superior' occidental riches
which lose their transcendental qualities as soon as the NEW +  
IMPROVED model comes out.




 >>  >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


If u visit a village + inform the peasants about ur theories and  
start quoting
life forms you've never met and they've never heard of what do u  
think will happen


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

This is the type of BS that got communism (that's right communism)
where it got it.

Any system that walks over or relegates human desires to 2nd place  
will eventually
be relegated to the dustbin.

It may not sit well with your theories but the people
will always choose a party over revolution, and frankly
u kant blame them.



 >> 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.

Number of people governed.



 >> 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,

There you go again classifying everything.

I appear to describe what I have seen/experienced
rather than what others neatly classified for me in a book.



 >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.


It isn't what I said.
Forget for a moment that the 1st world exists at the expense
of the 3rd.

What is imperative is that the property in the 1st world is tagged,  
and classified
(your favorite as well it appears). This allows its value to be  
decoupled from its
physicality/context, and leveraged globally.



 > 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.

They are 'poor' because they cannot leverage their wealth outside  
their group.
They are poor officially but not nec. in practice, as evidenced
by the super vast and super rich black market
economy in the 3rd world which magically makes things happen.

Likewise, I cannot leverage my personal experiences,
my grandparents wisdom, etc in an academic setting while u
kan quote ur books.

Books are large scale/brand names while personal experiences are
small scale grown and cooked.

The latter are richer, more precious and more brimming
with meaning than any abstracted form, eg. book.
But in this advanced democracy personal experience
does not have the weight and leverage of a book.


 > 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.

This is not a book.

It only makes sense to understand
that which one hasn't.



 >> 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

Dichotomies are for democratic sissies.
Reality is for generalists.

If traditional societies can do it so can we.


 >, the relations of production. Free Software does not capture rent  
or >interest,
that is why its production implies different property relations.

You don't seem to understand that so long as a relationship
is not meaningful it is worthless and replaceable, ie.
people could care less where it comes from.

Which is precisely the point I made initially - capitalism
and communism present us with the same outcome - devaluation of human  
experience and
desacralization of life.

[another speech about communism's definition in the books is pointless.
what matters is its colloquial def.]



 >> 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.


You continue, as communism and capitalism do, to expect people
to conform to rigid definitions and theories.

This is not a book kriket. Deal with it as it is
instead of trying to squeeze it in sanitary, dried up, meaningless  
definitions.



 > "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.

Reality plz



 > 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.


In books.

In practice they are not only comparable
they are exceptionally similar and POOR