[-empyre-] laws, outlaws & golden pirates

[marc garrett]

Hi Martin & all,

Thanks for this,

I am realising that we perhaps need to bring into the mix some older 
concepts around 'Historical Materialism', which starts "with the 
assumption that human consciousness is conditioned by its physical 
environment, and therefore that primacy in society flows from its 
material base to its organisation of social life. At the core lie the 
'forces of production' (predominately machinery, raw materials, labour 
power, and knowledge), that influence the 'relations of production', 
I.e. the composition of ownership in society. The class that dominates 
the relations of production favour a certain legal, political and 
ideological constitution of society (superstructure) that will support 
their social order. But because the forces of production develop 
continuously, while the established order tends to conserve its 
position, the organisation of society will increasingly become at odds 
with its material production. A point is reached when the old 
establishment fetters the emerging productive forces. The struggle 
between the ruling class and those classes it submerged (which has been 
ongoing) now burst into revolutionary change. A new social order emerges 
that better corresponds to the material basis of production." Karl 
Marx's Theory of History: A Defence. Princeton University Press; 2Rev e. 
edition (10 April 2001). G A Cohen.

Yet, if we are discussing here, capitalist economies; it generally 
refers to a private ownership system, the system itself is open if 
others adhere to (and can afford to play by) its meta-rules. These rules 
are primarily focused on a mutually beneficiary process, a kind of peer 
consensus of agreement based on the understanding of profit on the one 
hand and wages on the other, with an added extra dash of virtual 
economics on-top. Of course, with the free market and a form of 
neo-liberalism (using the same frameworks and protocols) where supply 
and demand is unchecked, and where even though we are (and have been) 
experiencing an international, economic crisis; eating away at core 
social values of most of our local communities. It is still allowed to 
proceed under terms of deregulation, and governments and the law cannot 
challenge this on-going process, unless the establishment itself is 
pulled apart by it - in some respects, it has been. yet, it is still 
accepted, because it feeds our elite based economies, whom traditionally 
rely on concepts of economical growth as the main answer to all 
problems, rather than alternative economies based around sustainability 
and less mechanistic functions.

The absoluteness of neo-liberalism, and the illusion of rationalism 
behind these power economics, bring forth the security of certainty only 
to those who gain investment out of the legacy or process of it all. It 
is also our westernised worship of productivity that allows such 
machismo as default within our lives, which needs to be re-assessment, 
psychologically as well as economically and politically.

The irony of it all, is profound if one reads up on a word such as 
'totalitarianism'. The wikipedia example of the word says 
"Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the 
state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate 
every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible." 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism). Perhaps we also need to 
reconfigure or at least comprehend new meanings of older terms such as 
these with a contemporary dialect, in order to understand neo-networked 
orientated, economies and how they in character, link to more accepted 
notions oppression.

Re-imagining terms such as 'power', can also bring about new ways to 
investigate and understand, and even reclaim concepts such as; 
leadership, influence, economics, prestige, control, ambition, knowledge 
etc...

May be, these new pirates we are discussing, will encourage alternative 
ways in seeing and using language, in terms of a less machismo based 
mannerism. Allowing us all to re-explore our territories to bypass the 
structures in place which block, just by being....

Wishing you well.

marc

www.furtherfield.org


>
> On 11/07/11 15:11, marc garrett wrote:
>> Property is no longer defined as object alone, but also as process, a
>> moving set of relations
> Was _property_ ever defined as object (anywhere else than colloquial,
> late 20th century Enligsh)?
>
> martin
>
>