[p2p-research] Concerning wikiworld and its use of socialist terminology
Tere Vadén
tere.vaden at uta.fi
Tue May 11 11:32:12 CEST 2010
Hi all,
well, there are several things here.
First of all, I want to say that the discussions and reservations on the
words "socialist" and "communist" presented on this list and by
participants elsewhere have not gone unnoticed by Juha and myself.
Indeed, the historical connotations do give me pause, in two ways: i)
the atrocities perpetrated by people calling themselves communists and
ii) the tendencies toward fixation on persons (Marx etc.) and the
theories presented by them. (I like David Graeber's point that the
difference between socialists and anarchists is evident already in the
fact that the factions of the former are identified by proper names
(Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyists, etc.) while the latter are identified
by ideas (syndicalists, libertarians, communalists, etc.)). These
discussions have made me more reflective and careful in using those
terms; I'm thankful to you all for that.
However, I still do use those terms, and we decided to keep them in
Wikiworld. Why?
There is the general point that I think that we should not give language
and words up too easily. "Anarchism" is maybe even more a case in point
than communism. To the man in the street "anarchism" means all that is
wrong, and this is the result of a conscious and purposeful campaign of
meaning-change by the enemies of anarchism (including factions of
communists, to be sure). I'm not sure we should just abandon a word that
is willfully poisoned; that would keep us running forever. Having said
that I have nothing in principle against new words and names, just as
long as they are good ones. :)
So are the words "socialism" and "communism" worth trying to save? Well,
the wager here is that they are. First, communism is a very "obvious"
idea to which no Marx or no China has a copyright. Think about certain
primitive societies: there is no party or coercion there, but certainly
communism. Second, there is an inspiring new wave of thinking about
communism in the post-communist era; I'm thinking of people like Zizek
and Graeber ("communism is what you do naturally when you co-operate in
a family, a village, etc."), for instance, and especially the
indianismo-movements in Latin America that combine socialism with
anti-colonialism. Third, and most importantly, I'm personally familiar
with a form of communist/socialist politics that was not blind towards
Stalinism, that was not violent, not subservient to "Marxism", and that
did produce real, tangible results. My grandfather was a part of a
communist generation after the civil war in Finland that started their
political activity underground. With the industrialization of the
country, especially after WWII, the communists and socialist were very
popular in elections; my grandfather was a representative in the
municipal council for decades. The main goals for him there were free
education and universal health care; both of which were achieved. There
was a very direct link between his socialism and the school next door;
the "reds" wanted it, the reds built it and made sure everyone gets in.
The reds had their own co-op shops, banks, sport stadions, etc., indeed
a relatively autonomous and self-reliant economic sphere that is even
hard to imagine now. This is the "concrete utopia" I have in mind: the
little money the reds had never entered the stock exchange, they
collectively owned food production and processing chains that also made
possible improving on working conditions, they had their own independent
non-Hollywood culture. This was, to be sure, to some extent parasitic on
the growth of the capitalist system (fossil fuels), but I see no
in-principle reason why it could not have been made more independent,
had they been aware of the energy-environment facts. (There was, indeed,
a local municipally owned water-powered electricity station, too, that
was torn down as "ineffective" later). (I would have to admit, however,
that violence – the threat of violence – did probably have its role. The
fact of the civil war and the proximity of the Soviet Union forced the
hand of the right in granting major concessions to the left.) At the
same time, he was very critical and non-naive about the Soviet Union,
having visited it several times and knowing already from the 30's about
what happened to Finnish communists that moved there (they were killed).
To sum up: this was not Don Quixote, this was not ideological blindness,
but a very nitty-gritty and down-to-earth day-to-day grind that did
eventually over the decades produce concrete results, most of which
have, alas, been lost. I just don't have the stomach to say that he was
wrong in calling it "socialism" or "communism". ("Welfare-statism" would
be one possible alternative, but that has its problems too, since while
welfare was an important goal and the state an important tool, equality,
locality and internationalism would override both welfare and statism in
his thinking and action.)
Maybe the conclusion, then, is that when we want to envision, on one
hand, a world of education that for its freedom needs also the
collective/common ownership of the physical infrastructure, and, on the
other hand, want to see this model take root in physical production as
well, it would actually be dishonest to call it something else than
socialist or communist. We know more, we have better tools, so it will
not be the same; if we can come up with a better name, I'm in. But at
the same time, there already exists a significant body of thought and
praxis on these things that also helps to situate current developments
in context, so why invent everything from the ground? (This point is not
only academic: in my day job in the university I talk about p2p and open
hardware and so on, which might be tactically right, but gives me some
trouble with my conscience, because I know that it is "communism with a
twist" I'm talking about and I suspect the students can see that, too.
So why not say it?)
One last point: I suspect that with peak oil and the financial/debt
crisis, certainly the right and possibly the left will in the
foreseeable future turn more and more authoritarian. So the decisive
political divide will more be on the authoritarian - anti-authoritarian
axis than on the right-left axis.
Best,
T:T
Ryan Lanham wrote:
> Once again, I agree with all below. Of the three, Nietzsche offends me
> most...but the only Rousseau and Marx would be near finishers.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Daniel Araya <levelsixmedia at hotmail.com
> <mailto:levelsixmedia at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> It may be true Michel that Ryan and I have a similar 'cultural
> disposition' that we're both unconscious of. I concede that. There
> is a great deal of Marx's thinking that I admire. But my own
> subjective reasoning for my distaste for Marxism overall is simply
> that I'm not attracted to romanticism, whether economic (Marx),
> cultural (Nietzsche) or political (Rousseau). There is a kind of
> narcissism at the base of it that honestly repels me. I share your
> intuition that we will likely see a post-capitalist system shift at
> some point. And I might even concede that Marx had some unique
> vision of this shift that still gives us insight today. But I
> disagree that any economic shift in history comes about through
> class war, coercion or any other "cheap" alternative to cultural
> evolution. In my opinion, new economic systems emerge organically as
> cultures mature. If Marx had been authentic to his desire for an
> evolutionary model of economic change, I think he would have
> concluded this himself.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:39:28 +0700
> From: michelsub2004 at gmail.com <mailto:michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>
> To: p2presearch at listcultures.org <mailto:p2presearch at listcultures.org>
> Subject: Re: [p2p-research] Concerning wikiworld and its use of
> socialist terminology
>
> I understand ... I know Daniel quite well for having had him over a
> few times and staying at his place,
>
> you and him share a very broadly similar worldview, which I would
> call social liberal ... and you're both northamerican
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com
> <mailto:rlanham1963 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Michel,
>
> I must say I sympathize deeply with the tone Daniel is using.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Michel Bauwens
> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com <mailto:michelsub2004 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Tere,
>
> this is from a little dialogue on facebook,
>
> perhaps you want to say something about your future vision
> and your choice of terminology?
>
> couldn't find the beginning of the discussion, but you'll
> get the drift
>
> Michel
>
>
> *Daniel Araya* <http://www.facebook.com/dezuanni>* *April 28
> at 11:45pm
> Michel. New models are always appreciated even if they
> borrow from 'communism'. But a direct application-- its silly.
>
> Why do you continue to deny the wealth generated by
> capitalism and wax poetic about an abstract communism that
> exists no where. Have you read Don Quixote?
> <http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>
> *Michel Bauwens* <http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>* *April
> 29 at 12:07am
> Daniel: I gather neither you nor me actually read the book,
> so what are we talking about. As for me, I'm only talking
> about the real observable, already existing thing: the peer
> to peer dynamics online, and the commons of the physical
> world, not of which are abstract. So I'm wondering what you
> are referring to?
> <http://www.facebook.com/dezuanni>
> *Daniel Araya* <http://www.facebook.com/dezuanni>* *April 29
> at 12:12am
> I'm talking about confusing p2p with communism. One is an
> emergent form (growing out of the real capacities of
> networks--- collective intelligence). The other is a
> romantic vision for a secular paradise of worker coops. They
> may be parallel but in my mind they're not the same.
>
> Don't be offended. Just reacting to the liberal use of the
> word 'communism' in that wikiworld book.
> <http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>
> *Michel Bauwens* <http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>* *April
> 29 at 9:48am
> technically, p2p as a social mode is what alan page fiske
> calls communcal chareholding, i.e. exchange with a totality,
> it is not related to workers coop, which is currently just a
> different market modality, unless there would not be work
> for money exchange in the coop. as far as I can see Tere's
> is asking is how do we get from p2p in the immaterial world,
> to a system of worker coops. If that is your usage of
> communism (in old marxist terms, this is what technically
> would rather be socialism, i.e. the intermediary stage where
> there is still exchange, i.e. everyone gets rewarded
> according to effort.
> <http://www.facebook.com/dezuanni>
> *Daniel Araya* <http://www.facebook.com/dezuanni>* *April 29
> at 10:07am
> Michel, you are humorless on this subject. The point is not
> "my interpretation" but the common understanding of a term
> loaded with generations of assumptions. It is not merely an
> empty signifier but comes with over a century of political
> contestation. Tere clearly uses the term communism to
> highlight Marxism not despite it. So its not some 'new road'
> he's pointing to but a mere restating of a well-worn gospel.
> Build a working an example of this utopia and I'm sure
> people will begin to take it seriously again. Until then...
> <http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=528245547>
> *Michel Bauwens*
> <http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=528245547>* *April
> 29 at 10:32am
> that is why I personally not use this terminology, because
> indeed it is so loaded, and certainly in the U.S., can only
> lead to misinterpretation
>
>
> --
> Work:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> Think thank:
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net
> <http://p2pfoundation.net/> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/>
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
> <http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/>; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens;
> http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens;
> http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> <mailto:p2presearch at listcultures.org>
>
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com <mailto:rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
> P.O. Box 633
> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
> Cayman Islands
> (345) 916-1712
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org <mailto:p2presearch at listcultures.org>
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> Think thank:
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net <http://p2pfoundation.net/>
> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/>
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
> <http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/>; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens;
> http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens;
> http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more
> from your inbox. See how.
> <http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org <mailto:p2presearch at listcultures.org>
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com <mailto:rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
> P.O. Box 633
> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
> Cayman Islands
> (345) 916-1712
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list