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

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
2009/9/9 Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>

> 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'.
>


ok, and? cost is less than price (usually)



>
> > 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"?
>
>
as are people without fish




> 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.
>
>

I dont say anything about "deserve"

you are involved, I am involved, we live in an unequall world

and sure, I dont want it, exactly as you.




>
>
> >> 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.
>

we agree


> 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.
>

 yes,  monopolies.



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

 But not in computation?
>
>
not now.

we have a lot more computer power than we use, perhaps with exceptions in
quantum physics.


so we are developing new ways to using it



>
> >
> >
> >
> >> 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?
>
>
>
stock

"Capture fisheries resources have historically been considered, used and
managed on a stock-by-stock basis. They are impacted by fisheries as well as
other polluting and degrading economic activities. The state of wild marine
resources raises concern as, since 1990, about a quarter are more or less
seriously overfished. The state of wild inland resources  is poorly known
but is likely to deserve equal concern in most regions and reflect a much
greater environmental impact"

http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/2681/en

perhaps fao is drunk


that is the commons problem

problem that is not shared by free goods.





> 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.
>
>
could be, but why is not happening?

what are the costs?


> 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).
>

you think so? all local governments in the world?




>
> I said they should *own*.  I did not say they must have the skills to
> *operate* them.
>
>
ok, not workers, but consumers

in fact, we all are consumers

one men one vote

so you think that all productions means must be in state hands.

I agree, but we re not talking about that.





> 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
>


the only property that matters about property is "rent"

>
> Yes.  Then price == cost and profit == 0


so you are thinking about a stationary society

can we have growth without profit?

the problem is not with profit, but with profit distribution in rent form.




>
> 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.
>
>
in my life i was involved in several consumer cooperatives, and work
cooperatives as well.

cooperatives are good, but they are not a complete solution.


but we are really far away the starting point of this conversarion





-- 
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]