Re: [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion

Free ssoftware is not freely reproduced exactly as we said before  
because of huge assumptions in techno economic base complexity and  
sophistication.

Neither is it freely consumed because of major underpinning in  
complexity of social-nehavioral structure required to 'receive' and  
'make use' of software ot information.

Negating these assumptions is useful to exppse a privelaged perspective.

If knowledge were free to distribute and receive and make use of then  
everypne who wanted to know everything about nuclear physics would  
already have received the information and integrated it.

It is useful to consider these assumptions and costs because they give  
us a perspective that allows us to see the potential for participation  
in exchange systems even when potential benefit is indirect at best,  
and never seen at all at worst.

In integral theory these are 'left hand' levels, having to do with  
interiors of individuals and 'us.'. How we think, feel, and believe.



On May 5, 2009, at 15:30, Diego Saravia <dsa-AySywPH+/[email protected]> wrote:

> [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>
> [1 text/plain]
>>
>>
>> Producing for others does not imply exchange. Look at free software.
>> Free software is produced for general (unknown) others, but it is not
>> exchanged. Producing and taking is independent from each other. Free
>> software ist not exchanged, but spread simply by downloading  
>> (taking).
>>
>
> ok, but software is an informational good, so its free (natural), so  
> its not
> a good example for other kinds of goods.
>
>
>>>> could you spoecify better what are you thinking about?
>>>
>>> Could you specify your question?
>>
>> what is a societal producer?, how it works, for whom do they produce?
>
> A societal producer produces the things s/he like only from her/his  
> need
>> of selbstentfaltung. These things are useful for others, who can take
>> these things and satisfy their needs. The others are general  
>> others, not
>> personal ones (like in a family), thus they produce for the society.
>> Producers are well informed about the needs of others via feedback  
>> loops
>> and other ongoing communication. Like in free software.
>>
>
> do you have another example?
>
> or better, do you have an example of a societal society?
>
> in wich the principal  mode of distribution is societal?
>
>
>
>>
>>>>>> Thus talking about value in the sense of objective value is
>>>>>> more correct then talking about money.
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, but diferenet concepts.
>>>>> value is about work inside a product
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Value is only a social relation. There is nothing "inside" a
>>>> product which creates value.
>>>
>>> yes, accumulated work.
>>
>> Nope, too simple.
>
>
>
> its marx abstraction, could be  simple, but is what we have
>
> what is your idea?
>
>
>>
>> LTV is a vulgar version of Marx' value theory, it is more Smithian.
>> The key point, that the value is "related to the labor needed to
>> produce" the commodity is fine. But this value is not "material", is
>> not a "thing" or "stuff" which can be measured or viewed at some  
>> piece
>> of commodity. It is only defined in relation to other commodities and
>> the labor being necessary to produce them. Thus, there is no
>> accumulation of work which is observable by any means.
>
>
> its calculable, if you watch the production process, you can add up  
> work
> time, and if the work time used is the social time needed, you have  
> it.
>
>
>
>
>> No way. It is
>> only defined in relation to other commodites as a societal exchange
>> relation. Thus value and the labor it represents is a societal  
>> relation.
>> If the relation vanishes, because there is no longer a private
>> isolated production and no a-posteriori exchange,
>
>
>
> it not depend on exchange, it depend on how do you produced it.
>
>
>>> local? there are global markets.
>>
>> I mean "local" in the sense of the moment of transaction at one  
>> place.
>> This can be an internet click. On global markets prices are  
>> nevertheless
>> fluctuating.
>>
>
> ok
>
>
>
>>
>>>> value is
>>>> a societally average measure of exchange relations. Prices are
>>>> fluctuating around their value.
>>>
>>> mmm, that's not always true.
>>
>> In which cases is it not true?
>>
>
> if you have diferent organic composition of capital, for example
>
>
>
>>
>>>>> I could have a product that today have a ?-value and tomorrow
>>>>> have other, without changing it
>>>>
>>>> True in a very general sense, but in average this does not happen,
>>>> because social relations did not change so rapidly.
>>>
>>> did you review petroleum prices in las two years?
>>
>> Yes, but oil prices increase due to boom or drop due to the crisis.  
>> But,
>> you are right, social relations is a reason, e.g. when workers
>> achieve wage increases. This supports my interpretation: Value is a
>> social relationship and nothing absolute.
>
>
> prices are one thing, values another, diferent concepts
>
>
>
>>>> But you are right:
>>>> value is only a social relation. The bad thing is: We can't escape
>>>> from this social relation, it determines our actions, which is
>>>> named fetishism or alienation.
>>>
>>> alienation - work for others - exchange
>>
>> This is an invalid equalization, see above. You give some  
>> arguments, not
>> simply throw key words.
>>
>
> its not an equalization, only a text :)
>
>
>
>>
>> Yes, I did not write "all". Values reflect the social relations  
>> around
>> producing and exchanging the commodities, namely the labor  
>> necessary to
>> do so.
>>
>
> exactly.
>
> prices are diferent animal
>
>
>
>>
>> So, do you agree or not? If not, why? I explained my position  
>> carefully.
>>
>
> also I do.
>
> values and prices are diferent
>
> values can be calculated if you know production process, its  
> meassured in
> time
>
> prices depend on market force relations, are marginal, etc
>
>
>>
>>> free software  usage is free, no exchange value, nothing to do with
>>> our discussion.
>>
>> Why not? It is a perfect example for our discussion. Being free of  
>> value
>> does not come from the fact, that there is no price. The other way
>> around is true: no value - no price (in most circumstances). Free
>> software is "general work" (Marx) which is per definition free of  
>> value,
>> because general work _is_already_ societal work.
>
>
> you need work to create it, but not to reproduce
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> You are already familiar with Marx?
>
>
> yes
>
>
>>
>> Value does not depend on _distribution_ work.
>
>
> value allway depends on work
>
>
>
>
>
>> If you favor the term
>> "work" (or labor) and equal it with "value" (following the LTV), then
>> you have to explain,
>
>
> ok
>
>
>> why free software has no value, because you can not
>> denial, that there is a lot of "work" (in your sense) involved  
>> producing
>> free software.
>
>
> you have two stages, you produce it, it cost a lot.
>
>
> then reproduction of published free soft has no cost,  or value
>
>
> so the only work needed to get free soft, for example in debian, is  
> to type
>
> apt-get install the-software
>
> and you get millions of working bytes
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> you only need work to create it. once its produced (and disponible  
>>> to
>>> the public via internet), its value goes to 0, also its price.
>>
>> So free software _has_ value? Going to zero, but it has value to some
>> extend? Then the same holds true for proprietary software, right?
>
>
>
> the creation yes
> the distribution no
>
> propietary soft has distribution price, artificial one, caused by  
> state
> repression
>
> could have value if you need work to distribute, for example if you  
> use a
> physical box.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> No, I didn't say that. It is realted, but not as a "content" or  
>> "thing",
>> but only as a social (societal) relation.
>>
>
> ok,  colour is not a thing, is a way of looking stuff, its a society
> relationship between
> the object and the person looking and the society who specifies the  
> name of
> the color.
>
>
>
>>
>>>> understand. But it was too simple and it proved wrong when trying
>>>> to build new societies
>>>
>>> ???
>>
>> I mean socialist countries
>
>
> ok, first try
>
>> and social democrat reform policies.
>
> diferent situation.
>
>
>
>>
>> No, value and money, which should be redistributed by the state. But
>> both wings (communists and social dems) didn't touch the value form  
>> (and
>> thus money).
>>
>
> value, price and money are very diferent concepts
>
>
>
>>> everything what we usually call work
>>
>> Well, "usually called" is not a good defintion, at least not a  
>> scientific
>> one.
>>
>
> ok, but what we use must mach that idea
>
> work is the human effort to change his/her enviroment
>
> work-effort
>
>
>
>> the dishes, watch for your kid when playing on the streets, caring  
>> for
>> your grandparents etc. All work?
>>
>
>
> yes
>
> watch a movie, is not work
>
>
>>
>>
>> I know, but I am sorry, most people are not right. Theoretical  
>> questions
>> can not be solved by voting.
>>
>
>
> mmm, yes, but word definition is not science, but consensus
>
> you could do your theoretical work, using "alienated work" word, and  
> be
> absolutly clear and precise.
>
>
>
>>> "should"  is the creepy word
>>>
>>> but nature have a more "natural" fact. "who do not  work, do not  
>>> eat"
>>> and that has nothing to do with alienation. Its direct
>>
>> Repeating does not make this assumption true. Don't you see, that  
>> this
>> statement is part of the repressive bourgois ideology?
>>
>
> Its true, not for being repeated.
>
> do you know (or imagine) a society that do not need of work at all  
> (not
> alienated work) to survive
>
>
>
>>
>> I am only talking about capitalism.
>
>
> I am not.
>
>
>
>> But don't turn capitalist evicences
>> (you are coerced to work) into ontological statements (humans are  
>> always
>> coerced to work). This part of liberal ideology.
>>
>
> human need to work to survive in all societes known at today.
>
> (coerced implies another guy ordering you, what I say is more general)
>
> thats not part of liberal ideology, its a fact of life, "biblical"  
> as I say
>
> we were expulsed from paradise, remember?
>
>
>
>> Yes. I prefer to use "produce" as the neutral term. Work is not  
>> neutral.
>>
>
> mmm, so we must agree in a dictionary
>
>
>
>>>> How do you distinguish child caring in a kindergarten done by
>>>> professionals for money and giving your child a kiss? Is both work?
>>>> What is your kiss worth?
>>>
>>> you are mixing a lot of stuff
>>
>> No, you do, and this is what I want to show.
>>
>>> people can (and ussualy do) put love in their work
>>
>> Yes, because people love to produce, to do useful things. And in
>> capitalism this is often only possible in aliened work.
>
>
> I can work now and give a kiss as part of not alienated, nor  
> exhanged work
>
>
>
>> No, the Wikipedia description given above is misleading (if not  
>> wrong in
>> respect to Marx). Alienation occurs in commodity producing societies.
>
>
> not all goods are commodities
>
>
>>
>> Thus if you are saying, that you are loving your "work", then you are
>> loving your alienation. But actually you mean: I love to do what I am
>> doing, although it is aliened work.
>>
>
> its only a definition problem
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> Our society also have people working with his capital, that are not
>>> alienated.
>>
>> Nope, they are aliened too. Marx called this "character masks". They
>> only have more power (and may be richer), because they control the  
>> means
>> of production.
>>
>
> and how these people are alienated?
>
>
>
> -- 
> Diego Saravia
> [email protected]
> NO FUNCIONA->dsa-AySywPH+/[email protected]
>
>
> [2 text/html]
>
> _________________________________
> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
> Contact: [email protected]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]