3 ms·

it's one industry while others stand to reduce costs if she succeeds. the relatively warm welcome she receives here should indicate how willing other bourgeois

by acomar 5y ago

it's one industry while others stand to reduce costs if she succeeds. the relatively warm welcome she receives here should indicate how willing other bourgeois segments are to support her platform. free access to information is not by itself anticapitalist, though it sure does make it easier. but recuperation is ever a threat (free software vs open source for a topical example).

revscat 5y ago
When she fails — and she will — ask yourself why she failed. The answer will be couched in legal tenets, but the underlying fact remains that the intent of the law is to protect existing capital, at all costs. This is true from Washington to Beijing, from London to Johannesburg.
- acomar 5y ago
  this is a poor analysis. different factions of capital frequently go to war with each other - always over the question of who gets to profit. (in fact, in the final analysis, these irreconcileable schisms within the bourgeoisie are a necessary, though insufficient, precursor to revolution.) I agree with you that she will probably fail but I think that's more about this project moreso than whether this project hurts capital. remember, the true point of vulnerability of the system is the point at which wages are paid and profits are earned. labor must strike to starve capital because anything else can be recuperated and commidified. lastly, yes, the intent of the law is to preserve existing capital, but as this board can attest, "existing capital" is a term constantly in flux, and laws change quickly to support the changing makeup of capital. otherwise, what has happened with uber would be impossible as governments fought to protect taxi companies - this happened but now uber no longer resides in a gray area. you'll note that what actually happened here was that finance capital extended it's reach and no new capital was actually created - it merely changed forms. that should also tell you how scihub might go from blacksheep of the bourgeois family to darling, especially once it's purchased and brought under the aegis of existing capital entities. however, for this to happen, Alexandra must play ball with investors, the legal system, etc., and as she has thus far resisted doing so, she will likely fail. projects like hers must either have secret and undiscoverable provenance, or be so distributed that legal force can only be brought to bear on a multitude of actors of no significance to the operation of the project - the hydra with many heads. so it's not legal tenets I look to but rather an analysis of capital itself.

by acomar 5y ago

revscat 5y ago

When she fails — and she will — ask yourself why she failed. The answer will be couched in legal tenets, but the underlying fact remains that the intent of the law is to protect existing capital, at all costs. This is true from Washington to Beijing, from London to Johannesburg.

acomar 5y ago
this is a poor analysis. different factions of capital frequently go to war with each other - always over the question of who gets to profit. (in fact, in the final analysis, these irreconcileable schisms within the bourgeoisie are a necessary, though insufficient, precursor to revolution.) I agree with you that she will probably fail but I think that's more about this project moreso than whether this project hurts capital. remember, the true point of vulnerability of the system is the point at which wages are paid and profits are earned. labor must strike to starve capital because anything else can be recuperated and commidified. lastly, yes, the intent of the law is to preserve existing capital, but as this board can attest, "existing capital" is a term constantly in flux, and laws change quickly to support the changing makeup of capital. otherwise, what has happened with uber would be impossible as governments fought to protect taxi companies - this happened but now uber no longer resides in a gray area. you'll note that what actually happened here was that finance capital extended it's reach and no new capital was actually created - it merely changed forms. that should also tell you how scihub might go from blacksheep of the bourgeois family to darling, especially once it's purchased and brought under the aegis of existing capital entities. however, for this to happen, Alexandra must play ball with investors, the legal system, etc., and as she has thus far resisted doing so, she will likely fail. projects like hers must either have secret and undiscoverable provenance, or be so distributed that legal force can only be brought to bear on a multitude of actors of no significance to the operation of the project - the hydra with many heads. so it's not legal tenets I look to but rather an analysis of capital itself.