> < Today, you can in real time > collaborate with agency that would in the past seemed opponent to you > politically; like Phorudon and Marx (anarchism vs communism), Lasal > and Spartakists as well as Lenin and Kautsky (Socialism vs. Social > Democracy), as well as all the following generations of left and > progressive fracitonalism. This made possible for capitalism to assert > itself as an irreversible and immortal historical structure.> > > Dear Orsan, > > I'm not sure how to understand that argument. I would say yes, networks > function by affinity and seek commonality for joint action, and much of the > earlier antagonisms seem antiquated. I think it is also a epistemological > and multi-perspectival or trans-paradigmic issue: do we have to agree with > marx 100% and reject Proudhon or rather can we expect that there is truth in > various positions ? Are all the debates and antagonisms of the 19th and 20th > cy fully operational today ? But I'm not sure how this is related to 'made > it possible for capitalism to assert itself" How is the fact that say > anarchists and communists can now talk to each other and transcend former > antagonisms, related to capital's self-assertion ?
>From the communist manifesto to first international, from Erfurt and Gotha to Comintern the discussion between theses and factions, being formed among groups of friends, based on one important but small faction or an entirely new frame of theoretical-analytical abstraction, took the conflicts between individuals and caused strong and irreversible demarcations between sppousedly emancipatory visions and energies.. May be most of the time very stupid reasons, like money, girl, ego casued these we can't now... Then we (emancipatory peopel) had reproduced the power games of rulers -can be traced easily in the tone of writings of Marx, Engels, Luxembourg, Kautsky, Lenin, Proudhon, Bakunin,... the spirit of the time is gaining respect and authority for argument was full fledged attacks on personality.. plus whatever possible, as may be a result of structural possibilities limiting communication. It killed the true spirit of revolution/emancipation as well as prevented prefigurative ethical politics as such. In my opinion this made it possible for the rulers to survive and evolve into capitalist class agency for itself and gave them advantage. Since they saw that their grave digger were also like them.. since we did reproduce the capitalist form of power accumulation. It is not possible in the same way today, p2p mode of communication allows more open confrontations and conflict resolution processes, egalitarian and ethical - prefigurative relationships, as well as checks and balances. Still there are ways and tricks to gain network power and use it against the 'lower order' nodes? so on these weaknesses there is a work to do. Yet the structurally speaking it is not impossible to solve these problems today. orsan _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
