> At 6:05 PM +1100 2/23/03, Catherine Driscoll wrote:
> >In fact, actually, I'm not sure I think Marx's version of either the
> >exploitation of labour or commodity is sufficient to explain what is
> >or might be going on with IP at present.
> >
> >Having spent an all too memorable year on an IP policy committee I'm
> >very aware that, for example, IP in the Australian tertiary sector
> >currently involves a number of factors which are not reducible to
> >maximising profit from the IP-as-commodity. The network of influence
> >between governments, policies (both cacmpaign and otherwise),
> >insitutions, and enterprise bargaining that shape what IP is
> >"maximised" or "exploited" and what is not involves a range of
> >institutional histories and histories of publically finded education
> >and public debate. You cannot understand what is happening with IP
> >through only Marx's model of the commodity, or of the exploitation
> >of labour. I'm not saying it's a better situation than that, only
> >that its complications involve elements of contemporary production
> >that Marx wasn't talking about. And no, what I just said isn't
> >necessarily applicable to the U.S., but then that's the point.
>
> Explain to us (A) what you think Marxist theory has to say about
> labor, commodity, exploitation, state, non-state institutions, etc.,
> and (B) what specific changes you think you need to make in Marxist
> theory to explain IP better.
god, yoshie, for someone who only ever quotes other people, you sure expect a lot in order to make a point (the one for some reason you've cut and pasted to the bottom of the post. However, yeah, I'll give it a go if you really don't know what Marxist theory has to say abnout these things... but not, if I'm to be answerable, at 1am in the morning. I'll get to it asap.
> At 6:05 PM +1100 2/23/03, Catherine Driscoll wrote:
> >But, in any case, are you actually suggesting that if Marxist theory
> >can explain this specific instance, then that proves it to be a
> >complete explanation in every social context, at all times and
> >places? That is... extraordinary.
>
> IP is one of the most prominent examples of dramatic changes in
> production in recent decades. You might do (A) and (B) with regard
> to any other significant changes in production or social reproduction
> in recent history. Those calling for changes in Marxist theory, like
> yourself, might explain just what specific changes they think they
> want.
OK, I'll give you some more specific IP egs if you want, but I had thought that's what I was sketching out in the last post. How come you don't have to write an essay on the topic of how Marxist theory -- is that instantiated in Marx alone Yoshie, I think you'll have to clarify that for me before I can answer the task -- is utterly sufficient to contemporary IP?
Catherine
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP at ArtsIT: http://admin.arts.usyd.edu.au/horde/imp/