Very true about the endless 'philosophising' about such issues. But I
still don't understand the seeming concern over the commodification of
ideas; after all, it has been the introduction of mass printing techniques
that has allowed ideas to reach those groups who at one time would have
been totally excluded. And, at the same time, 'commodification' isn't
necessarily a dirty word... a lot of the things that (I would imagine, at
least) most of us enjoy in life (books at the very least) as I have said
are only there because they are 'commodities.'
And it certainly isn't only the anarchist-activists who are 'doing
something about it'! I work in support and co-operation with a number of
groups who do their best to mobilise (state and other) resources in order
to better people's standard of living, and I certainly am concerned about
the decline in 'public' spaces; abd I'm certainly not an anarchist. Bitter
experience has taught me that a great many people don't WAN'T the
individual responsibility that living in an anarchist society entails.
It should, perhaps, be considered that the only reason any of us have the
luxury of getting involved in any of this stuff is because of the
improvements in the standard of living brought about (I hate to say it)
by..... Capitalism.
Graham Gardner
IGES
UWA, Aberystwyth
At 17:12 25/11/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Surely to be *not* concerned with the commodification of ideas, and
>similarly to be *not* concerned with sub-standard housing, is a denial
>of the (minimal) responsibility that is left to us in modern,
>neo-liberal democracies. To talk endlessly about it on forums and in
>so-called 'philosophy cafes' is equally fruitless, although gives
>citizens the feeling of participation and connection with issues. it is
>only the anarchist-activists who are actually *doing* something about
>it.
>This doesn't mean that it has to be 'big-structure' anarchism; it can be
>about wresting commodified space from the state, about setting up
>housing co-operatives and DIY workshops (*not* putting up shelves and
>assembling wardrobes...) and that is something we can all do;
>small-scale but effective. and that is where i'm going to be tonight, at
>a community centre that was previously a squat.
>I repeat: to not be concerned with these things is the true crime; the
>acquiescence.
>Mark Paterson
>=========================================
>
>There's somewhere you can go?
>
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/michaelpat/
><< N O M A D > < S P A C E S >>
>
>On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, GRAHAM SIMON GARDNER wrote:
>
>> :-))
>> Yes, it was a little arrogant of me to assume that all academics are not
>> 'activists,' and for that I apologise. Having said that, I don't apologise
>> for souding weary of anarchism; or, in particular, the issue of
copyright: I
>> just don't see what it is intended to achieve. Does someone with a
>> miserable existence in sub-standard housing and suffering discrimination
>> really feel better because people are concerned about the 'commodification'
>> of ideas? Personally, I think most is achieved when we're working with
what
>> we have: okay, we have a crap, unjust and unequal economic system where
>> greed seems to be the key player, but there is no way that that is going to
>> change in the forseeable future, and even if it does, you can bet it
will be
>> replaced by one that is just as rotten in its own way. After all, by
>> becoming academics, aren't we becoming part of the system to?
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|