Line@嗨投資小幫手  『 募集中 』 


 美股團隊討論: 資本主義 +共產主義 = ? (1)

作者:  分類:討論
0人回應 | 189人瀏覽 | 0人收藏 | 0人追蹤
0人回應, 10.0分, 最高10 分(1 位評分)
A: 像是強調「開源軟體」的Linux系統,反而成為IBM等科技廠商的獲利工具,故成為所謂的「資本共產主義」
Today we have a paradox, the more communistic the sharing license we use in the peer production of free software or open hardware, the more capitalistic the practice, with for example the Linux commons becoming a corporate commons enriching IBM and the like …

B: 開源文化,一度變成共同創造但被資本私有機構獲利的工具,相當於是剩餘價值被資本給全部取走。而 Creative Commons non commercial license 想要對抗這樣的文化,卻也可能造成負面,即創造出來的知識無法幫助經濟。而文字裡提到的Peer Production License,則是讓企業也可以做商用,但必須支付對應的授權費,而將剩餘價值留在公民及知識創造的社群內部。

A: 我們過去曾經將「資本」當成訴求重點,因為在傳統經濟學上,資本是生產要素之一,更因此而成為在財富分配(或好聽一點的「成果分享」)上的依據。但隨著科技發展,目前的資本家也「進化」了,將共產主義的思想,融合進資本主義之中,透過慈善捐贈,將之前像是「剝削」而來的財富,回饋給社會。但如同前述的P2P,以及下面文章中提到的「Commons (共有)」觀念,則是比資本的性質更為「根源」,也就是更接近人心智能。
Drawing on this insight, Hardt and Negri (2009) as well as others (e.g. De Angelis, 2007) have come to emphasise the role of ‘the common’ or ‘the commons’ in contemporary capitalist production (see also discussions in previous issues of ephemera, in particular Hoedemaekers et al., 2012; Burston et al., 2010; Dowling et al., 2007). Hardt and Negri define ‘the common’ as ‘the common wealth of the material world’, such as that which constitutes nature, as well as ‘those results of social production that are necessary for social interaction and further production’, such as language, knowledge and affect (2009: viii). These are resources and capacities that precede capital and that capital can only harness through processes of expropriation. Dealing in particular with the social aspects of the common, Hardt and Negri emphasise the fact that not only does contemporary ‘immaterial’ or ‘biopolitical’ production draw on pre-existing subjectivities and ‘forms of life’, but it also produces such subjectivities and forms of life. Put differently, ‘production today is production from the common, in common, of the common’

A: 上文中最後的「'production today is production from the common, in common, of the common’」,將common用people來取代,似乎與「民有、民治、民享(of the people, by the people, for the people)」有點呼應。

B: 706 共學小組裡看到有人在翻譯的書,第一本這個的P2P 看起來和這裡的是同一個東西。

B: 「The communism of capital」裡的第二節提到,由於美國老人年金用來買股票,而也讓美國看起來像社會主義。

『Peter Drucker noted that the considerable investments of pension funds on the stock market practically mean that employees own the means of production, which in turn makes the United States ‘the most “socialist” country around’』不過在2008年的金融海嘯,也認為變成socialists,但在這卻不是把剩餘財富給社會民眾,而是所有的社會民眾去「全社會」的幫助大到不能倒的資本。『was once more made evident by the events associated with the financial crisis of 2008. The socialisation of losses in the aftermath of the financial crisis led Newsweek to announce that ‘we are all socialists now’ (Meacham, 2009). To be clear, socialism here does not refer to the extraction of surplus wealth from the corporation to put to social uses. Rather, it came to define the opposite: the state withdrawing social wealth in order to bail out failed banks. Austerity merely extends this socialism of capital.』 
 Line@嗨投資小幫手  『 募集中 
贊助作家  點 贊助他
文章評分  送出評分 (1 位評分)
63795 6853
相關回應( 0 位讀者回應)

    0 頁 (共0頁)
















      共有 0 位朋友關注


        共有 0 位朋友追蹤