Slashdot Mirror
Reclaiming the Commons
NeuroManson writes "What do fresh air, medicine, culture, copyright, and government have in common? Perhaps not exactly what you think. Up until recently, I considered the term "commons" as an archaic term from Victorian or Elizabethan times. However, apparently it still exists both as a concept and a philosophy. Despite its almost ancient connotations, it's an eye opener regarding how concepts centuries old hold true even today, but much like freedom, require eternal vigilance to protect, and covers everything from the air you breath through the GNU, HDTV, and copyright issues. Read on." Bollier's article and the responses are superb intellectual reading. If you don't have time today, bookmark it, come back later.
The Red Army, although calling itself communist, was more dictatorial in fashion. The kind of 'communism' practiced in Russia in that era is also known as Stalinism, and it differs greatly from communism in theory. In theory, there should be no government at all in a communist state; the people should control everything. In practice, the state controlled everything and it doled it out the people in little bits and pieces.
I suggest you quit knee-jerking and try to look at the issue from different sides, as well as knowing the concepts behind it.
In a world where these entities not only act in practice but even use the LANGUAGE of class (hell, the language of feudal aristocracy!) to describe their 'peasants' and the cash value of same, I feel it is wrong not to acknowledge the situation.
We are not talking about suspicions that 'maybe these corporations don't fully embrace the humanity of their lesser employees', or speculations on how they talk behind closed doors (which they must- Enron? WorldCom? There's someone making a lot of judgement calls to hose the 'peasants', in corporation after corporation). We are not even talking about suspicions that corporations will play lotto on the lives of its peasants and ex-peasants, because that is PROVEN and hard fact, again in corporation after corporation. We're talking about the fact that in at least one case the corporation was on record in literally using the words 'dead peasants' to describe this group of people. Not 'dead guys', not 'dead ex-employees' but 'dead peasants'. This, in spite of well reported reluctance to reveal the practice at all, much less the mindset behind it, and it's so widespread that one corporation just came out and said it (in internal reports- I believe specifically it was a memo that came to light requesting a printed-up chart with the dead peasants in a certain column).
Please tell me why 'corporate classes' is not exactly the right way to refer to this situation in which corporations are referring to American citizens as peasants, speculating on their lives for corporate gain, and behaving as if American citizens have no more intrinsic value than livestock, grain, or office supplies (to use a Dilbert reference).
I will settle for that, though there isn't a point you make that I wouldn't dispute. Don't see how spending money on advertising deserves government-granted monopolies, and you have the whole environmental thing backwards- the article is talking about private interests taking property previously held by government, not the other way around! I would say 'fine' to merely nailing down all public lands as protected areas and not bothering to expand this, but all public lands are basically under heavy attack to be privatized and strip-mined^H^H^H^Hdeveloped ;)
That's as may be. You do everyone a disservice by complaining about the term 'corporate classes'. What the hell else would you call it?