Prof. Bilgrami thinks 'a background of non-discursive practices that are properly describable as a “cultural commons” underlie the very possibility of law and norm in the governance of a social group.'
Yet Bilgrami comes from India where his father was a senior Judge. The fact is difficult Indian court cases, those involving difficult points of law, were referred to superior courts till they finally reached the British Privy Council. They were not decided by people from the same culture. A Hindu Supreme Court judge from South India shared no 'cultural commons' with a Muslim Judge from North India or an Scotsman or an Irishman appointed to the Bench. Countries like Japan had shown that 'laws and norms' could be imported wholesale from elsewhere without any pre-existing 'cultural commons' militating for their adoption.
A 'cultural commons' may be a requirement for certain types of vernacular poetry or song or melodrama. But it isn't necessary to enjoy a 'thriller' translated from a foreign language or a film made in a far away country which depicts exciting events. More importantly, a country may adopt a religion with a very different 'cultural commons'. India is a land of peacocks and elephants. There are no such things in the Bible or the Quran yet there are millions of Indian Christians or Muslims. Equally, there are European Vaishnavites who wear dhotis or saris and chant Sanskrit hymns. 'Cultural Commons' don't matter in the slightest- which is why Bilgrami can be an effective pedagogue in Yankee Doodle land though he does not share a 'cultural commons' with his students or colleagues. But, like his father, Bilgrami could have been a successful lawyer or judge in any country more particularly if he was narrowly focussed on some technical field- e.g. patent law or maritime arbitration.
This efficacy of these practices
as opposed to the efficacy of stuff we find in comic books
provides conceptual sources for a recovery of other forms of the common, such as the land or the environmental commons.
I suppose, if Bilgrami lived in England, not America, there might be some point to linking British common law to ancient tribal practices. But American law was never a 'cultural commons'. It was a regime imposed in a brutal manner with extreme violence and genocide on indigenous people.
Sadly, even in North Western Tanzania where we can identify a traditional property rights regime which preserves the environment, we have to admit it is useless. Guys with guns can quickly overrun such places and displace the peaceful indigenous people who have lived in harmony with the environment for a hundred thousand years.
It stands apart from ideals of trust and cooperation.
It may do. It may not. A bunch of guys can decide to pool intellectual property for a cultural purpose.
The article specifies how it is related to these, and to other fundamental institutions of modernity, such as capital and the state.
Sadly, Bilgrami's article is shit because intellectual property held in common is not in fact related to any institution of modernity. It is better to pay for cultural products of various types rather than to just rely on a common stock. In a good film, the producer has spent money to get the right to use the best songs on the soundtrack. In a shitty film, some generic shite is used to save money.
As such, it cannot be inserted into constitutions, or directly be the goal of politics. It is a non-optional and non-cancellable ideal,
No. It is the sort of shite nobody bothers to claim intellectual property rights for
that might be identified with what Marx called “unalienated” life.
No. What Marx said was- the object which labor produces – labor’s product – confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer.
What sort of object is Marx talking about? The answer is it is the machine or robot or AI which will steal the labourer's job. Marx was too stupid to understand that people who build machines are not the same people as those who do the kind of jobs which the machines will take away. But this has nothing to do with culture or property rights.
Suppose I build a robot which can take my place at work so I can go on holiday. But the robot decides to take over my life and so I become homeless. In that case I would be 'alienated' from my own life by my own creation! But this is a Sci Fi story- not a very good one. No wonder it appeals to bird-brained Bilgrami who would like to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.
To be fair, Marx did not get that labour is a service, not a commodity. That simple mistake (Marx never claimed to have an economic theory of services) caused Marx to babble nonsense for the rest of his drunken life.
The product of labor is
a service provided at a particular time and place. It isn't a commodity. The product of production may be a commodity. But it may also be an invisible service.
labor which has been embodied in an object,
No labour is embodied in an object unless the guy making the pork pie lost a thumb in the meat grinder and so a bit of him got embodied in the pork pie you are eating.
which has become material: it is the objectification of labor.
No. A good or service 'objectifies' an aspect of a production plan. But it may be a shitty objectification which brings those who laboured on it no remuneration whatsoever.
Labor’s realization is its objectification. Under these economic conditions this realization of labor appears as loss of realization for the workers; objectification as loss of the object and bondage to it; appropriation as estrangement, as alienation.
Capital is like Count Dracula who used to drink the blood of the peasants. Then he got some cash and moved to London and started sucking off all and sundry on Wandsworth Common thus alienating them from their straight personalities. Marx stayed drunk for forty years so as to avoid getting sucked off. Bilgrami may have been less lucky. Sad.
I suppose, if Bilgrami lived in England, not America, there might be some point to linking British common law to ancient tribal practices. But American law was never a 'cultural commons'. It was a regime imposed in a brutal manner with extreme violence and genocide on indigenous people.
Sadly, even in North Western Tanzania where we can identify a traditional property rights regime which preserves the environment, we have to admit it is useless. Guys with guns can quickly overrun such places and displace the peaceful indigenous people who have lived in harmony with the environment for a hundred thousand years.
Bilgrami writes-
The idea of a cultural commons
i.e. cultural stuff in the public domain where no intellectual property rights exist
is a distinctive ideal that stands apart from other political and moral ideals, such as liberty, equality, and fraternity.
It is an idea which opposes liberty, equality and fraternity. People of our culture should tell people from other cultures to fuck the fuck off otherwise our cultural commons will get polluted and our people instead of following our own customs will start imitating the barbarians.
The idea of a cultural commons
i.e. cultural stuff in the public domain where no intellectual property rights exist
is a distinctive ideal that stands apart from other political and moral ideals, such as liberty, equality, and fraternity.
It is an idea which opposes liberty, equality and fraternity. People of our culture should tell people from other cultures to fuck the fuck off otherwise our cultural commons will get polluted and our people instead of following our own customs will start imitating the barbarians.
It stands apart from ideals of trust and cooperation.
It may do. It may not. A bunch of guys can decide to pool intellectual property for a cultural purpose.
The article specifies how it is related to these, and to other fundamental institutions of modernity, such as capital and the state.
Sadly, Bilgrami's article is shit because intellectual property held in common is not in fact related to any institution of modernity. It is better to pay for cultural products of various types rather than to just rely on a common stock. In a good film, the producer has spent money to get the right to use the best songs on the soundtrack. In a shitty film, some generic shite is used to save money.
As such, it cannot be inserted into constitutions, or directly be the goal of politics. It is a non-optional and non-cancellable ideal,
No. It is the sort of shite nobody bothers to claim intellectual property rights for
that might be identified with what Marx called “unalienated” life.
No. What Marx said was- the object which labor produces – labor’s product – confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer.
What sort of object is Marx talking about? The answer is it is the machine or robot or AI which will steal the labourer's job. Marx was too stupid to understand that people who build machines are not the same people as those who do the kind of jobs which the machines will take away. But this has nothing to do with culture or property rights.
Suppose I build a robot which can take my place at work so I can go on holiday. But the robot decides to take over my life and so I become homeless. In that case I would be 'alienated' from my own life by my own creation! But this is a Sci Fi story- not a very good one. No wonder it appeals to bird-brained Bilgrami who would like to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.
To be fair, Marx did not get that labour is a service, not a commodity. That simple mistake (Marx never claimed to have an economic theory of services) caused Marx to babble nonsense for the rest of his drunken life.
The product of labor is
a service provided at a particular time and place. It isn't a commodity. The product of production may be a commodity. But it may also be an invisible service.
labor which has been embodied in an object,
No labour is embodied in an object unless the guy making the pork pie lost a thumb in the meat grinder and so a bit of him got embodied in the pork pie you are eating.
which has become material: it is the objectification of labor.
No. A good or service 'objectifies' an aspect of a production plan. But it may be a shitty objectification which brings those who laboured on it no remuneration whatsoever.
Labor’s realization is its objectification. Under these economic conditions this realization of labor appears as loss of realization for the workers; objectification as loss of the object and bondage to it; appropriation as estrangement, as alienation.
Capital is like Count Dracula who used to drink the blood of the peasants. Then he got some cash and moved to London and started sucking off all and sundry on Wandsworth Common thus alienating them from their straight personalities. Marx stayed drunk for forty years so as to avoid getting sucked off. Bilgrami may have been less lucky. Sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment