[p2p-research] labour, capital and p2p

[Ryan Lanham]

Stan:

To be quick in a response that merits much more...and thank you for the
civil and thoughtful response) to my own which too often borders on ranting:

I acknowledge that Marx inspired and continues to inspire many people to
consider social justice issues and means toward achieving economic justice.
Like Freud, who I think can offer an appropriate comparison, Marx introduced
many terms, ideas and approaches to complex topics that are highly
accessible and illustrative.  I find that the illustrations he offered are
now obsolete or simply inaccurate for a variety of reasons, but I
acknowledge his contribution in attempting to raise social justice and his
genuine hunger for fairness in whole new ways, which is obvious to me in the
many times I have read some portion of his vast works.  Again, like Freud, I
think the clarity and compelling Newtonian-like linkages Marx lays out,
attract others to see the world through his eyes.  As others have said, I
think the complexity of the present world renders his views less valuable
than his devotees think.  But that is a matter for reasonable judgment.
Finally, as with reading Freud, I find the work to be, at least in
translation, bulky, self-involved and very characteristic of important 19th
century rhetoric and scholarship--full of generalizations, sweeping
assertions and light on any sort of empirical evidence beyond very
subjective observations or readings of history.

For those inspired to attempt to theorize or scheme modes of reaching
greater social justice by Marx, I honor him and those who attempt such
efforts.  I think they should often acknowledge that other efforts to apply
Marx have ended in folly and disaster when they invoke his name and carry a
burden to criticize harshly misapplications of his ideas if the world is to
welcome their reappraisals.

I do not feel I have made an ad hominem attack against Marx.  If what I said
is perceived as such, I apologize sincerely to those who feel his legacy is
worthy.  His critique strikes me as simply inaccurate and, at best, no
longer relevant.  There are enduring ideas worthy of review from all
pre-modern times, and I take Marx to be pre-Modern--or classical, like Adam
Smith or David Ricardo who he read closely.  An aquaintance of mine,
Professor Gavin Kennedy of Edinburgh, spends a life correcting
misinterpretations of Adam Smith.  I have seen others do similar with the
words of Thomas Jefferson.  I suppose that is a sort of worthy pursuit, but
in the face of great challenges, it is not how I would wish to allocate good
minds in a just world.

For me, any scholar who proposes ideas that lead to policy bears
responsibility for those implementations to a degree.  Theory matters when
it becomes action.  One cannot just heap it out and then hope it doesn't
hurt when someone tries it.  That's like a scientist publishing a plan for a
bomb and then putting a caveat on the end that it ought to only be used for
good and just causes.

At a fundamental level, I personally think the leap to ideals that equality
of property = justice are, first, unworkable, and second bound to have
externalities that lead to greater immoralities than the ones attempted to
be cured.  Such ideas of property equality as a fundamental goal suffer the
same logical fallacies as do unconstrained market systems...that some aspect
of rights and liberties (in this case a right to equality [versus a right to
control properties and earn profits]) are greater implicitly than other
rights and liberties.  No one has the authority to impose such a judgment in
my view outside vigorously contested systems of governance.  Rights and
liberties are continually negotiated, decided, contested and in tension.  I
believe that is the way it will be and even should be.  Because something is
written in a tablet in the US or the UN or the EU does not make it so.  It
makes it so within the legitimate confines and authorities of those
organizations subject to their flaws, weaknesses and changes.

One injustice is not greater than another unless societies collaborate,
deliberate and rule as such.  No one can impose a moral hierarchy of
injustice.  Such a hierarchy can only be chosen through legitimate means of
governance.

I continue to advocate for P2P because it does not impose anything on
anyone.  It does not try to achieve some perfect order.  It solves problems
and it builds sharing, trust and commons amongst people. I see no downside
to such ventures.

Ryan Lanham



On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>wrote:

> I know you're not saying this, but I want to put this question out
> there: if we don't have equitable ownership norms or standards or laws
> or rights, why would we expect money or finance to be fair?  How could
> we even tell if it was?
>
>
> To get a modern Marxist take on intellectual property, read the
> venture communist himself, Dmytri Kleiner:
> http://www.telekommunisten.net/CopyjustrightCopyfarleft
>
> He proposes copyfarleft, and briefly describes its proposed purpose,
> but does not say how to actually do it.  Why?  He probably thinks it
> can be done, but isn't sure how.  On the other hand, I don't think
> it's the slightest bit feasible, which is part of the reason it's
> never gone anywhere: it can't be done.  No question it's consistently
> and undeniably Marxist--his recommendation logical extension of
> Marxist thought and strategy.
>
> In my view, Marx saw the symptoms and part of the root problem in the
> inequity of property, and the capturing of value using rent, but as so
> many others, his proposed solutions don't work with human beings.
> Neither do the proposed solutions of people who model human beings
> using rational choice theory.  Complex systems are hard, so theorists
> use simplified models.  Unfortunately, those simplified models are
> often used to inform or create policy.
>
> Christian has a book that covers his proposed "peerconomy."  If you
> haven't read it, you can check it out here:
> http://peerconomy.org/wiki/Main_Page
> He has Stefan's review here:
> http://peerconomy.org/wiki/Reviews_and_discussions
> It doesn't include my critiques, although I'm not sure why.  Stefan's
> criticisms were independently conceived of mine, but cover much the
> same ground I did with my original critical engagement (written a bit
> before Stefan's), most of which is linked here:
>
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/stan-rhodes-on-the-role-of-money-in-the-peer-economy/2008/03/04
> and further here:
>
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/using-vested-commons-as-the-core-structure-of-the-macro-and-micro-economy/2008/05/01
>
> Andreas and Christian were right to critique you dismissing Marx's
> body of theoretical work because of "Marxist" political
> implementations.  Further, even if his recommendations were awful--and
> I'd argue that the manifesto's Conditions For Transition To Communism
> qualify, although I will not presently engage in that debate--you're
> still committing an ad hominem fallacy: who he is and what he
> recommended does not invalidate his critique.  It might be good to at
> least acknowledge that.
>
> If I were to include the valid criticisms Marx had into a modern
> critique, I would re-label the inequity (not exactly inequality, but
> unfairness and forced dis-ownership) as "commons capture."  That is
> essentially what Kleiner describes in his critique of intellectual
> property, and it's also what Stallman describes.  Shared global and
> cultural resources are being captured through the socioeconomic system
> in place.  Stallman created a feasible defensive tactic against future
> software capture with the GPL, whereas Kleiner says that isn't good
> enough, and proposes an offensive one.
>
> I would classify Muhammad Yunus' Grameen Danone project as an
> under-the-radar attempt at using capitalistic finance to give more
> control to communities.  Capital was borrowed, paid back with
> interest, and yet ownership at the end was in the hands of the
> community, as were future earnings from Grameen Danone.
>
> -- Stan
>
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Christian,
> >
> > Tell me what you think some of Marx's great and relevant insights on the
> > present are?  Why don't we discuss his ideas rather than his iconic
> status.
> >
> > Your ideas on defining capital and labor are a bit broad.  I would
> encourage
> > you to point me and others to a portrait of what such a system would look
> > like...say on an island...or a sea stead.  How would it work?  Would
> > interest and investment be forbidden?  What if most people didn't like
> those
> > rules?
> >
> > R.
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090518/714e403c/attachment-0001.html>