Re: free vs. common (was: Re: [ox-en] A name for a peer-production-based society?)

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Diego Saravia <[email protected]> wrote:

> every day computers cost less and fish cost more

When you say 'cost' you are probably talking about the 'price' you
pay, not the real 'costs' of production.

The difference between 'price' and 'cost' is exactly 'profit'.

> we have enough computers for all people included in "our society"

What is "our society"?  Are the 99/100 people without computers
outside of "our society"?

If you think the 99/100 people just don't deserve a computer, then
maybe you should call it "my society".  I don't want to be involved in
that.



>> but since Capitalism requires Profit, and since
>> Profit requires Scarcity,
>
>
>
> scarcity  is not something that depends on profit.

It is the other-way around.

Profit depends on Scarcity.

Profiteers cannot charge a price above cost unless the consumer has
insufficient ownership in the Material Means of Production.

>
> every human society and every animal society and every ecosytem in our
> universe "suffer" scarcity

Yes, but only humans purposefully increase scarcity for the purpose of
increasing profit.


>> Are you saying growth has limits?  If so, then I agree.
>>
>>
> in fish

But not in computation?


>
>
>
>> But that is not why we lack abundant fish.
>>
>> The reason is caused by governments run by corporations steered by
>> profit which requires scarcity.
>>
>>
> not at all, we are eating more fish than earth could generate

If we are already eating more fish than the earth could generate, then
where did we get them from, Mars?

Are you drunk?


>
>
>> We could easily farm enough fish to feed everyone in the world many
>> times over if we knew how to co-own (share or multiplex) property.
>>
>>
> but if we make farms in every ocean, we will destroy a lot of others thing
> in our ecosystem.

The farms should be tiny and distributed.

We should make fish farms inside of every city by raising them in
creeks running throughout the town.

But we cannot do that now because our local governments are dedicated
to being purposefully unproductive for the benefit of the Capitalists
(to increase profit).


>> We cannot solve or even address this issue until we realize and admit
>> that the Material Means of Production (Physical Sources) must be in
>> the hands of those that intend to use the outputs of those Means.
>>
>>
> ?? you dont like work division?

I said they should *own*.  I did not say they must have the skills to
*operate* them.

Ownership and Working are two separable roles.

We have been hypnotized into believing ownership must be in the hands
of those that happen to have the skills needed to operate those
Physical Sources, but that is not the real problem.

The real problem is that ownership must be based on the role of
'consumer' instead of the role of 'worker' even though, ideally, we
each would play both of those roles throughout most of our lives.

I do want to protect workers, but it must be from the consuming side.

>
>> I'm talking about the consumers that pay for product now will in the
>> future organize to pay for production - and at that time, when the
>> payers are the owners,
>
>
> you dont like workers to own factories, but consumers?

Yes.  Then price == cost and profit == 0 and final control is finally
where it belongs: in the hands of those that will actually use the
product instead of being held ransom by a group that intends to keep
price above cost.

>
> you dont blame capitalists?

Yes, I think of Capitalism as the withholding of Capital from the
Consumer.  This is done in the long term by mistreating profit as a
reward for the current owners instead of treating it as an investment
from the Consumer who paid it.

The Consumer would also be a Worker in his own skills, but he only
needs as much ownership in those Physical Sources to cover any
consumption he will do within that industry.

>
>
>
>> and when profit is being treated as an
>> investment from he who paid it, those organizations will not have the
>> filthy goal of withholding abundance to prop-up price, for their goal
>> will be *product* instead.
>>
>>
> do you like consumer cooperatives?
>

The traditional definition of a "Consumers' Cooperative" shows the
individual consumers are not in control, but have instead forfeited
their rights to a representative committee that causes the
organization to be run largely the same as a for-profit corporation.

Furthermore, since profit is being taken - even from current
owner/consumers - and mistreated as a reward for current owners, the
control of that organization quickly becomes hopelessly concentrated
even while new consumers are paying profit while never gaining any of
their own property in Physical Sources.

http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers%27_cooperative tells us: "'Every
year members receive a share of the profits that they helped to
create, based on the amount made in profits that year and the how much
they had spent with any of its businesses.'"

And http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co-operative_Group tells us there
was "'Revenue over 13 billion'" in 2009.

But profit only occurs when a consumer must buy the good from an owner
at a price above cost.

Trading goods only occurs when the consumer has insufficient ownership
in the Physical Sources of that production - for when his ownership is
sufficient, he does not 'buy' apples, but instead owns them already as
a result of his owning the Physical Sources and pre-paying the costs
of production (with wages being one of those costs).
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]