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

[Dmytri Kleiner]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:07:33 -0500, 0f0003 | maschinenkunst
<n2o at ggttctttat.com> wrote:

> This is what I mentioned already exists in
> small scale communities - eg. villages in Ro

Villages in Ro are not global, they exist within a single nation state, and
they also have at least the possibility for rent and interest capture, as
the the exist within a nation than grants alienable property privilege and
backs such privilege with force.


> but not in dried up meaningless [spare me ur semantics] fashion like
> ur  theories. It is vibrant and exudes life - AND IT EXISTS

I am glad that the existence of Romanian villages makes you feel like you
do not need to understand political theory. However, I continue to be
interested in political economy.


> And if you're looking for a more modern example of this approach
> see nato.0+55 as one example.

I remember nato being around, I was on the board at InterAccess when you
threatened to blacklist us and revoke our license because we hired a guy
you didn't like to teach a nato workshop.

I didn't know much about the details then, nor am I interested in this
dispute now.

Personally, I agree that your work on nato is probably interesting, as is
the type and nature of the relationships you developed, I spent some
enjoyable time with Rebeka at CCC, and am certainly not dismissing the
whole nn/nato story as meaningless.

However, from the little that I noticed about your correspondences then, to
these recent interactions I have had with you now, one thing is pretty
clear, you don't know anything about political economy, though you can not
resist making confused references to political ideas, and your ignorance
makes you unaware of exactly how banal your comments and opinions are,
because you don't know the breadth of existing ideas, nor are you able to
engage with the more detailed arguments, i.e. the relationship between
factor prices and class stratification, thus you can contribute nothing to
such a discussion except juvenile disdain, which proves nothing but your
lack of emotional maturity.

 
> What happened next was revealing - with the exception
> of a handful of people - no one said any thing at all about the
> reverse engineering and/or that company's barbaric activities.

>From what little I know I assume you are talking about Jitter.


> As all good capitalists Thievery 74 described the rape as the
> democratization of my software, as it was less expensive
> and easily digestible by the white and trashy, occident walmart
> generation.

Yes, this sounds to me exactly like a battle between capitalists, it should
teach you that to be a successful Capitalist you need to make Capital into
Land, or rather the short term rent on innovation (i.e. Marshal's
"Quasi-Rent"), into the permanent rent on guaranteed property, i.e.
Patents, Copyrights, actual Land. Any Capitalists that fails to this will
be bankrupt, as the long term return to Capital can never capture any more
that it's reproduction costs, if that. You seem to have found that out for
yourself.



> Particularly, as renting people as employees spoils the scenery and
> the recipe.

"Renting people as employees" is the basis of exploitation within a context
of Lockean property rights.

"Renting people as employees" is not the only option, you could have opened
up and embraced other contributors as equals in the creation and ownership
of your products, and also reached to a wider community of support by
respecting the rights of the users of your software as well. You tried to
play the game of proprietor, but this is a cut-through game and you lost,
so now you re bitter. 

This experience seems to have driven you to search for non-proprietary
relations, attracted as you seem to be by kin-communal and commons-based
modes, but hasn't yet driven you to go far enough to actually try to
understand the fundamental difference between capitalist and socialist
production, thus you have nothing but posturing and idealizing Romanian
village life to offer. Worse, I suspect your evident self-absorption will
prevent you from embracing a truly open mode of producing, as that requires
a level of respect for the contributions of others that it seems you would
be unable to muster.


>  >As I have exmplained multilple times, the effect of this is less
>  > rent in the price. Once you agree to know that class
> stratification is built on rent-capture, then you will see why this
> is meaningfull.

> That's not what makes people do what they do.

I am not attempting to explain why people do what they do. I am attempting
to explain where some classes get the power to impose control on others and
dictate what they do. There is a direct relationship between factor pricing
and class stratification.


>  > The reason you are having trouble understanding political theory

> Not agreeing with it isn't a synonym for understanding it.
> Not agreeing with it entails understanding it.

You clearly don't understand what is being discussed, this is evident by
your inability to respond to any direct argument, and the confusion in your
own words. 


>  >, is you
>  > read words like and "relations" in coloquilized personal/
> psychological terms,

> Which is the correct thing to do.

Stupidity.

When you are discussing software engineering do you use the word "port" to
refer to a place for ships to land? Do you use the word "class" to refer to
the taxation level in the ancient Roman kingdom or the social order of
feudal Britain? No, you don't, because specialized subjects have
specialized terminology, which if you refuse to know you can not
understand, and this lack of understand is evident in every comment you
make.


> Your approach reduces the richness of the colloquial
> to completely dried up meaningless BS.

This is a typical apologetic for ignorance. Diversity of language,
including specialized language, is a part of such richness, you simply want
to excuse your inability to understand terms in context.

If you are not interested in political economy, then why discuss it with
me? Why pretend you have any insights into it? I am by no means under the
belief that everyone must know about and understand political economy,
please feel free to ignore my work and retreat to the bliss of Romanian
village life. However if you do want to discuss Telekommunisten, venture
communism, etc, then you should be willing to agree to know the minimal
basics of the topic, or else you can contribute nothing beyond banalities.

Cheers.


-- 
Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981

http://www.telekommunisten.net