What I really think is that Marxist principles are basic to understanding to what is going on with intellectual property today, but that if you want to understand the particular things that are going on with the allocation of ownership and revenue in a particular context you need to look at the forces are involved, try to specify who owns the means of production in a given case, and so on, and also distinguish between the situation at the not-yet-reached equilibrium, and the current situation which is very far from there. Furthermore, I think that Yoshie and Catherine would BOTH agree with this.
When Catherine challenges Yoshie to demonstrate that Marxist theory is "utterly sufficient to contemporary IP", I think she is rhetorically challenging Yoshie to do something that Yoshie is not called upon to do. I don't think that anybody thinks Marxist theory is "utterly sufficient" to ANYTHING if it means that you don't need to own any books except Capital, for example.
What I think Yoshie would argue is that the economical set of principles which she would call "Marxist theory" aren't threatened by developments in the IP sector, because they can be used as the basis of a "Marxist understanding" of IP which would involve a whole lot of additional subsidiary propositions about the ownership and class character of entities which are not wholly-capitalist-owned enterprises, but are governmental or "non-profit" entities and so on.
Furthermore I think Catherine would agree, except that she would call these additional propositions "additions to Marxist theory", because she uses the word "theory" in an expansive way, whereas Yoshie would not.
Therefore I think Catherine is saying "Your Marxist theory is inadequate to the task, because it has to be substantially improved with additions to theory" whereas Yoshie is saying "My Marxist theory is entirely adequate to the task, because it serves as the foundation on which a substantial structure of additional propositions can be placed." This is what I mean by talking past each other.
If I'm wrong, both of you shoot me :-)
Wait, Yoshie just wrote something so I'll check to see if I get falsified.
Nope, I didn't, this is entirely consistent with the above, she wrote: "Marxist theory (Marx + the Marxist tradition) is spare, elegant, and flexible, and I don't see any necessity to make fundamental changes in what it has to say about the essence of capitalism in order to explain the causes and effects of its recent development."
lp
----- Original Message ----- From: "Catherine Driscoll" <catherine.driscoll at arts.usyd.edu.au>
Quoting Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>:
> 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.
> 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.
> 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