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.

_________
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