I am intentionally repeating the note. See my reply before the signature,
infra.
- Don DeBar

----------
> From: Tresy Kilbourne <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] intrusion from the UK
> Date: Friday, June 06, 1997 7:08 PM
>
> You, Shahram Mostarshed, wrote:
>
> >> My problem is I cannot make sense of the argument / discussion you are
> >> having in order to take it back to the supporters group. If someone
would
> >> be kind enough to tell me why it matters if 'intellectual property'
> >>differs
> >> from any other kind of property in a capitalist society, or if there
is a
> >> crisis of over production/ underconsumption and how either of these
> >>relate to any of Chomsky's ideas I would be very grateful.
>
> Ironic you should say this since I, the main contributor to the IP
> thread, have wondered the same thing about many of the other subjects
> recently to appear here. But be grateful. You at least missed the insane
> discussion about policing "maternal care" to weed out psychopaths who
> might one day become politicians.
>
> Anyway to answer your direct question, this thread began when someone
> asked a about the (assumed) relation between Microsoft's success and the
> "coercive power of the state." That loaded question led to a discussion
> of intellectual property, in that many seem to think that intellectual
> property is some species of class ripoff. I disagreed, and asked how
> creative endeavor would be encouraged and its fruits protected in a
> society that abolished intellectual property laws. So far, not a single
> response has tried to answer that question.
>
> Then, an admitted digression on my part: I noted that CHOMSKY
> (note--Chomsky) has frequently cited govt-subsidized computer R&D in the
> 40s and 50s as an example of public subsidy of private enterprise. (A
> digression because it's strictly a separate question from intellectual
> property). I mentioned it because I couldn't frankly get too upset about
> it. Unlike many other government subsidies, this one has had direct, and
> I think obvious benefits to the great mass of people, whether or not it
> was originally intended that way, and moreover, I felt most people would
> have ratified the decision to kickstart the industry through public
> funding, especially if they could foresee how it would shake out, with
> computers costing less than refrigerators, etc.
>
> This precipitated what I thought were some thoughtful responses as well
> as the predictable abuse from folks for whom slogans are more important
> than objective, reasoned discussion. As for the "crisis of
> overproduction" etc., I assume you are talking about some other thread
> dealing with that tired Marxist cliche (one frankly, that I can't recall
> Chomsky ever employing, speaking of sticking to Chomsky-related topics).
> I thought Chomsky's challenge to the rest of us was to fashion a more
> just society, and that this required the free and open exchange of ideas.
> No one is stopping you from starting your own thread, and I have no
> interest in flogging one that others are tired of. However, I can't help
> but notice that replies keep coming.
>
> However, if you really don't think intellectual property is different
> from any other commodity, you might consider that it's the only form of
> property singled out for protection in the U.S. Constitution.
> Intellectual property is, for one thing, intangible, and as Marx himself
> pointed out in Capital, a commodity may on first glance seem an ordinary
> thing, but on deeper inspection is a marvelous thing, full of mystery.
> (Excuse the paraphrase.) To me, true understanding lies in investigating
> the details and differences among things, not in chanting tired slogans
> that obscure rather than clarify unavoidable issues of social production.

Woof!!! Absolutely!!!

- Don DeBar
> Tresy Kilbourne, Seattle WA
> "Welfare moms should take a leaf from struggling single mother Sherry
> Rowlands. They should become dominatrixes. Here is a lucrative profession
> with flexible hours that combine well with child-rearing, which, indeed,
> it resembles in many ways." -- Katha Pollitt