Re: [ox-en] Report from COM'ON workshop: Dam builders and ship builders

Hi

Just wanted to add my opinion on this. :)

It is my belief, that "classical" left (pre-60's) opinion proceeds from 
agricultural and basic production (from "earth" if you wish). Peer 
production originates from the realms of virtual production (or 
"heaven"). Perhaps the conflict arises because in the virtual world the 
ideal of Marx ("voluntary association of independent producers") is in 
some cases already a reality.

In modern times the virtual and basic production are no longer separate 
worlds, since ICT is integrated more and more into everything and brings 
its logic along with it into new sectors of production.

The aim, I belive, is still the same - both movements originally want 
to give the individuals control over the means of production so they 
could produce their own livelihood. In the virtual realm means of 
production can be reproduced for every single individual. In the realm 
of natural resources, energy, land this is not possible, so they have to 
be seized in some manner for different modes of usership. (However, the 
ICT world has also some experience with common physical resources, since 
the physical infrastructure or bandwidth of the internet could perhaps 
be viewed that way).

Nevertheless in the realm of physical resources the original left 
theories might still be relevant, even if this is no longer true for 
production.


On identity politics - I don't think they can be considered classically 
left. I understand, that Marx at least demanded originally precisely the 
ability for each to "self-acutalize": the right and possibility to work 
for personal goals and associate with others for common goals. In that 
sense the demand of modern left for group- or state-enforced recognition 
of various minority identities is not classically left (for example it 
makes the State as the enforcer indispensable).

It is my impression that for classical left this recognition should 
arise "naturally", without law, from people and groups themselves - 
because its smart to look past the differences and find the common 
ground for your projects.


Regards,
Lehor

On 15.12.2011 19:56, Christian Siefkes wrote:
> Hi Stefan and all,
>
> On 12/12/2011 12:01 PM, Stefan Merten wrote:
>> Last Saturday I attended the workshop
>>
>> 	     COM' ON! - Die alte Eigentumswelt dreht sich
>>
>> See http://commons.rosalux.de/ for the homepage.
> ...
>> Well, I'm not really into this commons debate but my impression is
>> this: It is composed of two discourses which IMHO have nothing to do
>> with each other. One of the discourses is the commons based peer
>> production discourse which is put forward by people like StefanMz 
>> and
>> ChristianS. I.e. the topic of this list. The other discourse is a 
>> very
>> classical left discourse with all the same old, same old questions 
>> and
>> approaches. Here are some aspects which IMHO mark the boundary:
>>
>> * Appropriation of means of production
>>
>>   Part of the left commons discourse seems to be the classical
>>   discussion about power relationships. As one example the power 
>> over
>>   means of production is discussed in the form that the means of
>>   production must be appropriated from the current owners. That
>>   reflects closely the classical discussion that the working class
>>   should be owner of the means of production.
>>
>>   In the peer production discourse this question - which is of 
>> course
>>   an important one - is answered differently: Let's build the means 
>> of
>>   production ourselves. This is a very different approach.
>
> This was specifically the topic of the world-cafe table I hosted: 
> "Was
> passiert mit den bestehenden Produktionsstrukturen im Falle einer
> gesellschaftlichen Transformation?" [What becomes of the existing 
> structures
> of production if society is transformed?] (I'll publish the full 
> protocol of
> the discussion at keimform.de in a few days.)
>
> The two positions you describe are caricatures of two extreme end 
> points of
> the spectrum of opinion. "Lets just appropriate the existing means of
> production (MoP) and use them as they are" is indeed the classical
> leftist/socialist position, but almost nobody at the table voiced it 
> quite
> like that (you attended parts of the discussion yourself). Most 
> people
> tended more in the direction argued for by you and me: that it's 
> essentially
> necessary to build new, and better MoP, that are aimed at producing 
> for
> benefit and self-entfaltung rather than for profit. Instead of 
> appropriating
> the source code of Windows and the content of the Encyclopedia 
> Britannica,
> peer producers created GNU/Linux and the Wikipedia.
>
> But obviously you cannot start from nothing. For writing free 
> software and
> free texts, people need computers, and for creating free physical 
> means of
> production and using them to produce useful things such as furniture 
> and
> food, you need at the very least natural resources such as wood and 
> metals,
> and land. So the question "How do we get the resources and other MoP
> necessary to create benefit-oriented productive infrastructures?" is 
> still
> an important one.
>
>> * Importance of environmental issues
>>
>>   In the left commons discourse environmental issues seem to play an
>>   important role. This is of course part of the more recent left
>>   standard program.
>>
>>   In peer production I can't see that environmental issues play any
>>   special role.
>
> They obviously play a role. Indeed the turn-money-into-more-money 
> logic of
> capitalism strives for infinite growth (which in the long run is 
> impossible
> on our limited planet), while the benefit-oriented logic of 
> commons-based
> peer production contain no such built-in grow imperative. Hence I 
> think the
> ecological argument is one of the most important arguments why peer
> production is not only better, but indeed essential.
>
> See my article "Das gute Leben produzieren"
> <http://www.keimform.de/2011/das-gute-leben-produzieren/> (German), 
> or, for
> English, my contribution to the upcoming volume of CSPP
> <http://cspp.oekonux.org/> which should be published sometime in 
> January.
>
>> * Classical oppression and equality
>>
>>   One person spelled out the classical oppression topics like gender
>>   or disablement. Race could be probably also added. This persons's
>>   critique in the commons debate was that it doesn't include this 
>> type
>>   of inequality - or rather that it doesn't make inequality a topic.
>>
>>   I tried to explain that inequality *escpecially* in needs and
>>   abilities is central to a peer production approach. What is a
>>   project worth where all participants want the same and have the 
>> same
>>   abilities?
>
> That again looks like a caricature. I have never heard any single 
> leftist
> argue that all people should be "equal" in the ridiculous sense you 
> imply
> (say, everybody should be male, 28 years old, 175 cm high, 
> brown-eyed, and
> well-versed in programming, cooking, and Western philosophy). Quite 
> clearly,
> equality means that everybody should be able to choose how to live 
> their
> life, where to get engaged and what to do, rather then being 
> prevented or
> hindered by prejudice, explicit discrimination, or lack of 
> accessibility
> from doing so. In other words, equality means that everybody should 
> be able
> to "self-entfalt" as they deem fit. As such, it is an important 
> precondition
> of peer production, and is also recognized as such in its theoretical
> underpinnings, e.g. in the hacker-ethical position that "Hackers 
> should be
> judged by their hacking, not criteria such as degrees, age, race, 
> sex, or
> position" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic].
>
> However, that peer production gets in right in theory doesn't mean 
> that
> there are no problems in practice. Quite on the contrary, as anybody 
> who
> investigates why there are so (relatively) few women in free software
> projects and the Wikipedia will quickly learn. I think its very good 
> that
> there are some venues for peer production that explicitly care for 
> and
> address such issues (e.g. FSCONS <http://fscons.org/>), while I have 
> always
> perceived your attempts to keep them out of the Oekonux as one of the
> biggest weaknesses of that project.
>
> Best regards
> 	Christian

_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]