[p2p-research] Historical anti-materialism

[Ryan Lanham]

Christian and Michel:

I do not proscribe anything in intellectual discourse.  Never have.  Never
will.  I believe in liberty of thought, free intellectual searching and the
hope for a better world all around.

I would be quick to sideline myself should anyone suggest otherwise (and
hope others would as well), though I would also know in my heart it was not
a just or logical criticism, at least from my perspective.  If it is the
consensus, consider me to have resigned from any further writing or
comment.  I believe groups have the right to censure.  Laws are just and
laws should be enacted by some logical process that leads back to general
participation and legitimization.

I fear the line of discourse here has become so outside the intellectual
province of reality, and so arbitrarily and ridiculously Marxian, that it
has become destructive to the very ideas of P2P.

I also note that everyone seems "influenced" by Marx but few wish to own
him.  Marx was explicit.  He was anti-capitalist, just as the exclusive
group founded earlier in the discussions was anti-capitalist.  I am not anti
anything, except I am against the ideas that people have the right to pursue
happiness, liberty and prosperity so long as it is not destructive to
democratically accepted standards of good conduct.  Marxism is one such
idea.  It seems forever to judge, to control, to focus on the wealth and
power of others rather than the righteousness and justice of individuals.
"Anti" is by definition, defined as what it is not--not what it is.  I
challenge those who define their views in negative space to be FOR
something, not against something.  What, dear Marxists, are you for, in
explicit terms?  Is it always to be endless semantics and word games as in
Christian's note below?  Where is the positive assertion of truth in clear
terms?  Where is the foundation that is accessible and arguable in frank and
explicit dialogue?

It is my own view that the anti-market rhetoric becoming so dominant here is
destructive to P2P.  The giants of the field are certainly not against
markets, productivity, merit, opportunity nor are they against profit.   The
discussions of endless surplus and no money are silly and have no basis in
reality that anyone can see, touch or experience.  It isn't futurism, it is
nihilism--serving to destroy good while advancing the nonsensical.  I feel
that if it is not called out, the field of P2P research risks becoming
absurdly nihilistic just as the general discourse of neo-Marxism is absurdly
nihilistic.   The writings back and forth are as arcane as they are absurd.
This is the dialogue of a religious sect--the anti-market faith.

The stunning poverty of ideas that has been associated with anti-capitalism
I feel speaks for itself.  From North Korea to Robert Mugabe to the factory
fishing fleet of the USSR, the whole of the Marxist world has been a
socially bankrupt set of ideals that have done colossal ill.  I find it
frankly shocking in this day and age that people defend any of it.  And no,
this is not about the contra set of ideas...this is about Marxism.  Own it
if it is yours and lead us to understand its positive value.  Make explicit
that it is not yours if it is not.

So my challenge to those who feel they have been influenced or schooled by
Marx or Neo-Marxist ideas is that they distill in some logical and real
form, those ideas that can be implemented, will be implemented and can be
tested in the historical horizon for the genuine democratically acknowledged
good of humans and the planet.
Tell us explicitly how they will be implemented, how they can be tested and
how they advance the ideals of P2P.  Do not free-ride on P2P to advance your
own frustrated political philosophy that is Utopian, without prospect of
real implementation, and argumentative for argument and anger's sake.  Give
us some set of social measures that are clear, understandable and agreeable
to large numbers of people.  Stop the arrogance of suggesting you have
unique insights or your tribe has unique insights the rest are unready
for or unworthy of.  Show us an idea that works, not another few hundred
pages of rambling semantics aimed to please only other obscure theorists in
some sort of angry Marx-fetished masterbation.

Ryan Lanham



On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Christian Siefkes <christian at siefkes.net>wrote:

> Ryan,
>
> Ryan Lanham wrote:
> > I agree with much of what you say, but I increasingly think the linkage
> to
> > conventional Neo-Marxism may prove the undoing of P2P theory.
>
> Now I'm surprised. How come you classify "conventional Neo-Marxism"
> (whatever that may be) as "anti-materialist"? Marx' theory is one of the
> most explicitly and outspokenly *materialist* theories ever developed...
>
> > What I see developing amongst the Neo-Marxists is not an inclusive
> theory.
> > It is a controlling theory. It must, like a religion, be the only way.
>  It
>
> Well, I can't help but noting that the only one who prescribes what
> *should,* dogmatically, be allowed and not allowed when discussing about
> peer production, is *you.*
>
> Best regards
>        Christian
>
> --
> |-------- Dr. Christian Siefkes --------- christian at siefkes.net ---------
> |   Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/   |   Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
> |   Better Bayesian Analysis:           |   Peer Production Everywhere:
> |   http://bart-project.com/            |   http://peerconomy.org/wiki/
> |------------------------------------------ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
> - "If you kiss me, I'll turn into a beautiful princess."
> - "Look, I'm a computer programmer. I don't have time for girls, but a
>  talking frog is very cool."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090622/e934536c/attachment.html>