Adelaide and Fringe, Feasible Socialism and French Films

[tcpip]

The visit to Adelaide and the Fringe Festival was very enjoyable. Most days spent with Paula and seeing her play 'Bugger Me Dead' (a faux Australian war veteran has troubles with hippie daughter and contracts cancer on retirement), seeing Gail's JPG inspired tie-and-scarf fashion parade, and meeting in real life up with Morrigan77 (hooray!).

The Fringe Festival, considered second in the world only to the Edinburgh festival, certainly had its attractions for cabaret, theatre, comedy, visual arts and music. I didn't get to see much, preferring more comprehensive visits to the State Art Gallery and State Museum. One pleasant encounter was The Kilted Generation, a meeting between trad-scots and punk. I just had to buy their CD, entitled "Liverdance".

Two disappointing items included The Baudrillard Brothers, an alleged comedy show with excellent copy ("What happens when Sigmund Freud, Michel Foucault and Roland Barthes walk into a bar?" etc), but poor (indeed, pathetic) execution and a sloppy Cajun band with French spoken with an Australian nasal twang. The Computerland exhibition - old computers from yesteryear - wasn't as good as longi could do. The exhibition was small (less than a dozen) and most of them I'd owned or worked with in the past. Also there wasn't much of an interactive element - I mean, what's the point of computers if they aren't interactive? Grumble..

Anyway, I did take the opportunity to work further on my thesis. For the first time in over I year I composed it into a single document. Over 140,000 words and over 520 pages. The spell and grammar checker crashed at page 123. At this stage I'm looking at the broader issue of changes to social formations with the introduction of communications technology. With reference to books on the history of telegraph (including a pithy document given by caseopaya, "The Victorian Internet") and radio I am leaning against postmodern interpretations of the Internet and more in favour of a modernist "industrialisation of information" orientation.

In the meantime, not to separate the means of communication from the relations of production, I took the opportunity to read Alec Nove's, The Economics of Feasible Socialism (2nd Edition 1991) which is believed to had significant influence in the transformation of the Eastern European economies. Nove's mainly critical of Marx's assumptions of abundance, central planning (ex ante assumptions prior to ex post justifications), the transformation between labour theory of value to exchange value and the disappearance of the division of labour. In general, I agree with Nove's criticisms of Marxian socialism (which in no way invalidates Marx's criticisms of capitalism!) and in fact, his "feasible socialism" is actually more "socialist" than something I would advocate. I would not, for example, claim that capitalisation is "unearned income", as he does. I do however hold that copyright and patents are. In many ways, I think my ideas about economics are a lot closer to Henry George than Karl Marx.

Have been thinking about seeing parts of the French Film Festival. (Ugh, what a terrible website). Except the copy presented for each film is very disappointing. The following may get my viewing...

Since Otar Left

Princes and Princesses and

Bon Voyage.

But in general, it's slim pickings this year. So what has happened to French culture and especially French film culture? Why has it become so self-referential and inward looking? Insidious postmodern theorists?

The Intelligence Report. Well worth a read.
www.aph.gov.au follow the links to committees, joint committee on ASIO, ASIS and the DSD.

I must admit I was warned about this debacle with
Australia purchasing US tanks. Via Lederhosen. Who also reminds us of that campaigns that attempt to divert the course of nature simply don't work. The failure of teenage sexual abstinence.

Sometimes you can't win. I thought about doing a book on basic systems administration. So I went to google and typed in "basic systems administration". What did I get?

Comments

[lefae.livejournal.com]

Aaaaaaaah was wondering where those kilted weirdos had gone to, the mall has been very quiet without them ;)

We're their biggest fans *grin*

I've got their first cd 'Music for the Kilted Generation'. Can't wait to grab their second one when they get back here :D

They rock!

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was very impressed. Wandering down Rundle Mall hearing some punkish guitar strains and then a bagpipe comes over. They were quite a hit, especially the lead piper with his leather kilt. Although it really wasn't necessary to remove two pairs of underpants. I was standing next to this little old lady - and I mean "lady" - who was really giving them a real shin dig, despite being in her high collared Sunday best. I suspect she was Scottish ;-)

[lefae.livejournal.com]

for $20 Cam (the piperpunk) will show you what he wears under his kilt ;)

[catbiscuit.livejournal.com]

I don't know whether you're into Jacques Tati, but some of his films have been digitally remastered and are about to tour Australia. It was announced on The Movie Show last week, but I've not seen any announcements as to when and where.

Also - have you seen Irma Vep? If not, seek it out - it's a rather cute film and the actors are fantastic.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

WRT to Tati, I've only seen Mon Oncle, although I have heard good things about Traffic. Thanks for the Irma Vep link as well. That would be worth checking out.

[morrigan77.livejournal.com]

Abstinence is just an American word for 'maybe later' - weren't they going to abstain from war?!! Just a thought :)
It was fun to meet in the real life, internet hasn't taken over ALL forms of social interaction just yet and will never be able to replace some! Glad you did get to some of the Fringe stuff, perhaps I could dredge up some of my French and attend a film ...

Marx's socialism asumes one great leap - that all people want to live, think and share; in other words 'play nice' and we all know that ain't humanity!!!

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Marx's assumption is that productive capacity is so high that we want need to fight over resources (the economic system determines the social relations and human consciousness). Basically, when there is the productive capacity to make everything as abundant as (say) water in Scotland, there will be no need to fight over anything.

Um

[erudito.livejournal.com]

About that abundance means social harmony notion. Marx didn't really think very intelligently about power and status, did he?

But I guess we knew that ...

Upside down, Miss Jane...

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Marx's argument was that power and status is irrelevant if (same example) you have super abundance. I mean, who's going to declare themselves "Lord of Rainwater" in Scotland, and not be called a nutter?

Marx would argue that power and status as a result of scarcity. Of course, there is just the possibility he is right - but the possibility thesis of abundance still doesn't hold.

Except in software ;-)

Re: Upside down, Miss Jane...

[erudito.livejournal.com]

No, he's absolutely wrong. Power and status are about relations between people qua people. It doesn't matter how abundant material things are, power and status will still be scarce goods, and struggled over.

Re: Upside down, Miss Jane...

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Oh, OK, I see what you're getting at. I can think of two obvious solutions...

1) Power - decentralize it to the point where everyone has the same power over each other (i.e., none at all). A geniune isocracy.

2) Status - a cultural definition of reputation, respect and fashion. Ergo, irrelevant to even consider in a systematic manner.

WRT, (1) I don't think Marx fully considered the centralizing nature of a planned economy where ex ante decisions are ex post justifications. I think Nove is right on noting that such an economy does tend towards dictatorship.

Mind you, the state-collectivist Marx of the late 1840's is very different to the anarchist-decentralized Marx of the early 1870s (cf., The Civil War in France, 1872). Maybe he did realise...

Re: Upside down, Miss Jane...

[erudito.livejournal.com]

Status: I suspect primate zoologists and anthropologists would disagree with any claim that status can't be thought about systematically. Indeed, so would many economists (cf Veblein, conspicuous consumption). I would claim that conspicuous virtue is a significant social factor -- and precisely as a result of increasing prosperity elevating other pscyhic wants.

Power: Any society complex enough to provide super-abundance would be too complex for isocracy. Even if you imagine the Dancers at the End of Time technology, motivation would vary sufficiently strongly to lead to power issues.

Re: Upside down, Miss Jane...

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I suspect primate zoologists and anthropologists would disagree with any claim that status can't be thought about systematically.

You misunderstand me. When I use the term "system" as in "social systems" I mean systematic procedural rules that are institutionally bound. "Status" depends on norms of expectations, charisma etc.

Any society complex enough to provide super-abundance would be too complex for isocracy.

Not necessarily so. A complex society does require a multi-level hierachy of levels of decision (Bogdonov's "tektologiya"), however each of these levels themselves can be isocratic and decentralized. Keep in mind that an isocracy was originally recommended as the mode for an oligarchy to operate to protect themselves from democratic popularism!

Re: Upside down, Miss Jane...

[erudito.livejournal.com]

When I use the term "system" as in "social systems" I mean systematic procedural rules that are institutionally bound. "Status" depends on norms of expectations, charisma etc.

Speaking as a medievalist, so not so :)

Not all status is charismatic, not all societies are as loose as ours.

however each of these levels themselves can be isocratic and decentralized. Keep in mind that an isocracy was originally recommended as the mode for an oligarchy to operate to protect themselves from democratic popularism!

I think I need a f'r'nstance. All I can think of is the old Polish Commonwealth and its liberum veto. And that ended badly.

Re: Upside down, Miss Jane...

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a medievalist, so not so :)

Of course; I know what you mean here - traditional society with the system differentiation according to political rank.

I think I need a f'r'nstance.

Part of the point is that it is new, but you can certainly see ideas like it (e.g., Jefferson's "natural republics").

[caseopaya.livejournal.com]

At least there are three possible films then!!! Better than last year when I only went to see Asterix :)

[zey.livejournal.com]

I would not, for example, claim that capitalisation is "unearned income", as he does. I do however hold that copyright and patents are.

We might have to disagree on this one. There are many useful and important publications and products which would not get written or produced without a profit motive.

I'll agree, however, that the current copyright and patent leglislation in force around the place takes it much too far. Creation/invention date plus 35 years in the case of patents and copyright for the life of the author (or 35 years, whichever is greater) seems fair enough to me.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Er, you realise that would *increase* the lifetime of a patent? Currently, IIRC, the typical life of a patent is 14-20 years depending on whether it's a design or utility patent.

(I could talk all day about the things that are wrong with patent law, but the lifetime isn't high on my list. Copyright lifetimes, now, those are screwed up.)

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Copyright lifetimes, now, those are screwed up.

Yes, and increasingly so. The original US copyright law was for 14 years. Now, with expectations of authors (in any field) to produce more information the period of copyright has been extended to the life of the author plus an additional fifty years!

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Worse than that, even. It's now author's lifetime plus seventy years, or 95 years in the case of corporate authorship or work published before 1978. This extension had a lot to do with the fact that a certain cartoon mouse's early films were about to pass into the public domain...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

As a consequence of the act, no copyrighted works will enter into public domain due to term expiration in the United States until January 1, 2019, when all works created in 1923 will enter into public domain.

[zey.livejournal.com]

Er, you realise that would *increase* the lifetime of a patent? Currently, IIRC, the typical life of a patent is 14-20 years depending on whether it's a design or utility patent.

In my "New World Patent Order", there'd be a complete ban on granting patents for which prior art existed in patent, practice or nature. So, essentially you wouldn't be able to patent advertising in space, urinating through a straw, ecommerce using cookies, etc.

The guys who design things like the Cochlear Implant, etc, need to have their work protected. I'm less concerned with people whose only claim to fame is refining molecules found in the Snozberry plant in South America. (By that same process, the company that designed the first microwave oven could only patent their particular device, not the use of microwaves for heating/cooking carbon-based dead life forms.)

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

The guys who design things like the Cochlear Implant, etc, need to have their work protected. I'm less concerned with people whose only claim to fame is refining molecules found in the Snozberry plant in South America.

That one's problematic. Even under current IP laws, you can't patent pharmaceuticals found in nature. Consequently, there's no incentive* for researchers to study such things, and right now we're losing medicinal species in places like the Amazon - because you can make money by bulldozing that territory, but not by studying it. IMHO we need a system that provides *more* incentive for such research, not less.

(By that same process, the company that designed the first microwave oven could only patent their particular device, not the use of microwaves for heating/cooking carbon-based dead life forms.)

Possibly a bad example - a microwave oven isn't much more than a magnetron in a box, and magnetrons were already in use for radar before it was discovered that they could be used for cooking. So under the system you propose, the discoverer of that use would have very little incentive to publicise it.

Keep in mind here that the original purpose of the patent system is actually to *encourage* people to share information, with a fifteen or twenty-year exclusivity period as the carrot. In the absence of that carrot, the best way to profit from a discovery is often to keep it as a proprietary secret - which might be great for the company that has the secret, but stops anybody else from benefitting from that knowledge and building upon it.

FWIW, I'm *not* very fond of the current patent system. I work in scientific research, and I know firsthand that it's cumbersome and often abused. (One of my 'favourites', which has been upheld in court: Company A identifies a certain material property as important, and patents a process for measuring said property. Then, in a separate patent, they lay claim to all materials having certain values of said property... as measured by their patented process. So you can't even tell whether your material infringes their materials patent, without using their patented measurement process.) I spent several months of my time last year arseing around with patent requirements when I'd much rather have been doing new research, and I'd love to see a better way to encourage research and sharing of ideas. But until that alternative exists, patenting is the only system we have - broken as it is.

*Except altruism, which is a wonderful thing but not the sturdiest of foundations to build upon.

Henry George's comments on copyright and patents

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

http://www.schalkenbach.org/library/george.henry/pp083.html

Footnote: 1 Following the habit of confounding the exclusive right granted by a patent and that granted by a copyright as recognitions of the right of labor to its intangible productions, I in this fell into error which I subsequently acknowledged and corrected in the Standard of June 23, 1888. The two things are not alike, but essentially different. The copyright is not a right to the exclusive use of a fact, an idea, or a combination, which by the natural law of property all are free to use; but only to the labor expended in the thing itself. It does not prevent any one from using for himself the facts, the knowledge, the laws or combinations for a similar production, but only from using the identical form of the particular book or other production -- the actual labor which has in short been expended in producing it. It rests therefore upon the natural, moral right of each one to enjoy the products of his own exertion, and involves no interference with the similar right of any one else to do likewise. The patent, on the other hand, prohibits any one from doing a similar thing, and involves, usually for a specified time, an interference with the equal liberty on which the right of ownership rests. The copyright is therefore in accordance with the moral law -- it gives to the man who has expended the intangible labor required to write a particular book or paint a picture security against the copying of that identical thing. The patent is in defiance of this natural right. It prohibits others from doing what has been already attempted. Every one has a moral right to think what I think, or to perceive what I perceive, or to do what I do -- no matter whether be gets the hint from me or independently of me. Discovery can give no right of ownership, for whatever is discovered must have been already here to be discovered. If a man make a wheelbarrow, or a book, or a picture, he has a moral right to that particular wheelbarrow, or book, or picture, but no right to ask that others be prevented from making similar things. Such a prohibition, though given for the purpose of stimulating discovery and invention, really in the long run operates as a check upon them.


In the final chapter, like everything else, he advocates funding inventors through land-rents.

Re: Henry George's comments on copyright and patents

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Discovery can give no right of ownership, for whatever is discovered must have been already here to be discovered.

Dubious. An undiscovered, never-used industrial process (say, a better way to produce cloth), or a medicine which has never been refined - is "already there" only in possibility, which is to say no more than an unwritten novel. We can equally well say that a block of granite contains every possible sculpture, but when a sculptor realises one such sculpture it's still protected by copyright.

To bring any of those into actual existence takes a good deal of effort. Edison's remark about inspiration vs. perspiration is right on the money here.

The copyright is not a right to the exclusive use of a fact, an idea, or a combination, which by the natural law of property all are free to use; but only to the labor expended in the thing itself.

In practice, regardless of what Mr. George may have thought about it, copyright *does* protect a combination. If Stephen King combines words in a particular way to make a book, then nobody else is permitted to use that same combination of words - even if they go to the effort of writing them out themselves, putting just as much tangible 'labour' into the process as the original. George Harrison discovered this the hard way when he unconsciously infringed on the Chiffons' "He's So Fine" - although he went through all the labour of writing "My Sweet Lord", believing it was an original work, he still ended up using somebody else's music and lost the ensuing case.
Non sequitur.

If a man make a wheelbarrow, or a book, or a picture, he has a moral right to that particular wheelbarrow, or book, or picture, but no right to ask that others be prevented from making similar things.

Actually, if he makes an *original* book or picture, copyright gives him very much that right.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

There are many useful and important publications and products which would not get written or produced without a profit motive.

Because intellectual capital is prettty worthless in the Internet age - legislation notwithstanding marginal costs will equal eventually equal marginal price there is a dire need to change the institutional locus for production - I suggest the education sector is the best place, funded via the commodity sector i.e.,

Commodity Corporations -> Financial Support -> Educational Corporations

Educational Corporations -> Open Source Knowledge -> Commodity Corporations

Neverthless, as we have and will see, copyright and patent law will become more and more ridiculous as commodity corporations follow their telos... The following is a brilliant historical study:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property99/history.html

[zey.livejournal.com]

Because intellectual capital is prettty worthless in the Internet age - legislation notwithstanding marginal costs will equal eventually equal marginal price there is a dire need to change the institutional locus for production - I suggest the education sector is the best place, funded via the commodity sector

Unlikely the commodity sector would bother unless the information was relevant to them. Highly unlikely we'll ever have a government which would force them to by taxation.

Fundamentally, without a profit motive, there are works out there which take too much out of their authors (time away from family, emotionally, health, fatigue from dealing with tedious material, etc) for simple food on the table and a bit of backslapping from their peers to recompensate them for their efforts.

If, as you feel, "intellectual capital is prettty worthless in the Internet age" then I suspect a lot of these people will simply sigh and not bother or hang up their wordprocessing software a lot sooner than they should. I don't regard that as a win, personally.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

You'll hardly find that I am arguing that the original production of knowledge doesn't command a price - indeed, it is quite time consuming and expensive to produce it. However, the replication and distribution costs are virtually nil - protectionist copyright legislation notwithstanding!

If the education sector is funded via the commercial sector (generically, rather than tied funding), then it is inevitable that the education sector will be producing knowledge that is commercially viable. They'll want to grow, like any other subsystem.

There is the other side of the profit motive to look at - the reduction of costs. Whilst the technology provides the resources of low cost replication, open source provides the opportunity for maximan efficiency in resource allocation - think of how many researchers have replicated the achievements of others simply because they didn't know about it. Indeed, we owe so much of our wealth in modern society because the academic world operated in a collegial manner - even at the height of the cold war.

One other matter, which I think is very important to this debate: Is there an alternative?