Re: AUT: they remember nothing and understand nothing

[martin hardie <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday 01 November 2004 18:11, Nate Holdren wrote:
> I definitely share Harald's view that 'the commons' is a
> preferable term (maybe this kind of terminological quibbling is silly,
> but it something that sticks in my throat a bit). It points out a
> contiguity of struggles and emphasizes the need for more detailed
> investigation into the composition of the commons.


I have been restraining myself from entring this debate .. too many things to
do and the uni server was down for a while. Anyway, and briefly the commons
to me harks of the commons of modernist capitalism - a domain that is
available for "innovators" to create private works; the common as H&N seem to
describe it in multitde and what I am struggling with in my thesis seems to
be something beyond this where production in common is not necessarily or is
not and is prior to the notion that the purpose of "inovation" is the
creation of private property/works.

Not sure if I am clear but it seems to me they are trying to distinguish the
bourgey commons from a dare i say a common wealth produced in common.

That seems a reasonable and useful distinction to  make especially when the
field of the commons is awash with liberal american notions of what a commons
is and what its rason detre is.

Thats all for now

Martin



--
::::::::::::::::::
http://auskadi.tk
+ 34 665757391
+ 34 944668670
::::::::::::::::::



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---