[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Mar 29 04:53:51 UTC 2002


On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote:
> >Socalism is a system in which the workers control the means of production.
> >This is Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
> 
> I disagree with your definition. Please site a reference that supports
> your position. Mine comes partly from
> http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/pc/1957/3-2socialism.html

Well, I cite specifically Marx's Capital, but I'll also cite the
definition on the page you gave above:

socialism. A political and economic theory of social organization based on
collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the
essential means of the production and distribution of goods; . . .

Note that it says "AND democratic management".  That means control of the
government by the people.

A government owning the stuff doesn't make it socialistic... you need the
people controlling the government as well.

> >You're neglecting the situtuations that arise when everyone has the means
> >to undermine the power.
> 
> And that can happen where? When? Not in our lifetimes.

We're seeing it happen right now with regard to information.  Control of
dissemination of information is losing its force of power.  The
entertainment industry is doing its damnedest to hang on to that power,
but they've already lost.

> >Marx worked under the idea that it would become so effortless to provide
> >for the needs of the public, that it would become impossible for any
> >person or group of people to totally control those means of production.
> 
> And that's where he failed. You still have to have a plant manager,
> and he's going to have more power than the workers.

Haven't you ever worked in either a non-hierarchical or a worker-managed
organization?

I refer you to worker-owned collectives throughout the world... but if you
want a specific, local example, you can check out the Red & Black Cafe on
Division.

A "manager" isn't a manager of people, but a manager of projects and
expectations in this kind of organization.

At my last job, the "supervisor" of our group left the company and a
replacement was sought.  The manager of the group understood that the role
to be filled was essentially one of service to the workers.  He suggested
we define the role and interview the replacement since, after all, he was
working for us.  A manager is essentially a liaison between functional
groups, managing expectations and administrivia.  The power is in the
workers doing the work.

> As long as one person has to expect more effort than another, you'll
> have hierarchy, and that's why communism won't work.

But what is more effort and who expects it?

If you think effort is what dictates power, then I think you should have a
look around and think again.  Power exists primarily to defer effort.

> That is ALSO why capitalism DOES work. People who work with the
> system, move up.

Heh... "work with the system".  In other words, the system is exploitable
and is based on "working with it", rather than actually advancing
anything.

> People who don't either don't move, or move down. Welfare begets
> welfare.

I don't see how that last bit follows from what you were writing before.

> I'm an example. I started out as a minimum wage worker, pumping gas.
> Now I make much more than minimum wage, enough to live comfortably,
> with a little left over. Not bad for 20 years since graduation from
> High School. And no, I don't have a college degree.

Well, I don't have a college degree and I started out working fast food
for minimum wage and last year made a fuck of a lot more than minimum
wage.  Not bad for ten years since graduation from high school.

But I don't think I worked particularly hard to get where I am.  Life is
hard for everyone and effort is relative.

We can swap anecdotes all day long, but that's not going to make it true
that the wealthy deserve power over the poor.

And in this country, you are poor and powerless... but you have lots of
nice things because the entire third world is slaving away to provide it
for you.

> >Power is derived from the control of value and value is derived from
> >scarcity.  When scarcity is destroyed, there is either no value or no
> >control and therefore no power.
> 
> So, you would say that we'd have to have many plants, churning out
> processors, so that there's no shortage. How does this work if you
> have to buy raw materials from outside of your utopian area?

What outside?  You assume too much.

We're talking about fundamental changes in human society as a whole.  
Literacy didn't remove the power of the literate until it was
widespread... not within a particular nation, but throughout the connected
cultures.  Until then, the literate nations merely reigned over the
illiterate ones.  The high worker productivity that comes with
industrialization is a good example of this.  While some nations are
industrialized and others are not, the ones that are use their extraneous
wealth and leisure to enslave the nations that have nothing.

Beside that, the only physical goods that are truly required are food and
space.  Anything else you can think of is a product of service... that is
to say, we don't need the OBJECT, just the USE of the object.  So we won't
need to churn out processor after processor if we develop extremely
efficient and capable processors that are durable, reusable, and powerful.  
Hell, it might not even be that straightforward.  Could be that someone
just develops an extremely efficient task-switching engine that allows for
a single processor to manage everything in a given building or household.  
Truly ubiquitous computing is probably centuries away and nobody knows
what the technology holds.

I would argue, however, that capitalism does not work toward ending
scarcity in any field.  As we enter the late stages of capitalism and
those who have figured out the rules to the game amass their power in
previously unseen volume, we see our industry becoming purposefully
non-productive and contrary to human progress.  Medical research focusses
on treatments instead of cures.  The recording industry limits civil
rights and stymies science and technological progress in the form of
legislation.  The software industry develops crippleware and licensing
enforcement.  The oil industry lies and bribes to prevent sustainable
energy research from receiving funding.  Everywhere, monopolies and
oligopolies buy the startups and upstarts that might actually bring
progress to the world.

It is not in the best interest of the capitalist to bring progress to
mankind by solving problems.  It is not in the interest of the capitalist
to promote personal freedom.  It is not in the interest of the capitalist
to provide general education.  It is not in the interest of the capitalist
to support peace.

Suffering is opportunity.  Scarcity is value.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list