So with all due respect if you want to understand this, I am happy to explain my understanding, if you want to dispute it, I refer you to the above scholars and the others who I quote in my earlier response, and wish you luck.

As far as I am concerned, it is a simple fact that the State is a superstructure which has the relations of production as it’s base, and as such represents the elite classes in their need to mediate between classes to protect their ability to appropriate surplus wealth from it’s direct producers.

Your statement that “that the state is a tool of the ruling class is one thing, but that is not what Lessig is trying to address. What he is addressing is that the state has become an instrument of private interests” seems to make a distinction between “private interests” and “the ruling class,” yet these terms are synonymous in this context, as what we are taking about is exactly the private interests of the ruling classes.

The idea that you can lobby the ruling class to stop pursuing it’s interest is silly.

The “desire for the state to function in a more transparent manner” is simply that, a desire, which will never be realized by simply pleading for it to be so, no matter how much evidence you gather or indignation you muster, it will only change when the production relations change.

You ask “do we expect for the state to disappear any time soon; or even, should it?”

If we change the base, we change the superstructure, only by actively organizing new ways of producing and sharing can we change society and find out what role, if any, the monolithic, hierarchal State will play in a society whose base is commons-based peer production and not exploitation of direct producers by those who withhold their instruments of production.

Indeed, the defining attribute of telecommunications based peer producers is that their mode if production transcends the State, they operate across state boundaries, and their production relations are based on trust maps, reputation and voluntary cooperation, that, unlike Capitalism, do not require State violence to enforce them, this is what makes them “peer” producers, their relationships do not require the mediation of any exclusive third party.

And the only way we can create new ways of producing and sharing is by experimenting with new forms with the understanding basic economic facts.

The inherent corruption of the State is such a fact. Again, all privileged appropriation is corruption.

Lessig’s “contributions” to free culture are rendered counter productive by his support of copyright, and his attempt to confront “corruption” will likewise be inert (at best) as a result of his support of capitalism.

A text that you added to your bookmarks recently makes the earlier point also.

Here is an excerpt:

On the “Creative Commons”: a critique of the commons without commonalty
David Berry, Giles Moss

We find an organisation with an ideology and worldview that agrees too readily with that of the global “creative” and media industries. We find an organisation quick to accept the specious claims of neo-classical economics, with its myopic “incentive” models of creativity and an instrumental view of culture as a resource. Lawrence Lessig is always very keen to disassociate himself and the Creative Commons from the (diabolical) insinuation that he is (God forbid!) anti-market, anti-capitalist, or communist. Where we might benefit from critique and distance, the Creative Commons is too wary to advocate anything that might be negatively construed by the “creative” industry. Where we would benefit from making space available for the political, the Creative Common’s ideological stance has the effect of narrowing and obscuring political contestation, imagination and possibility.

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/commons_without_commonality/

An accusation, either true or false, is not an ad homimen, which is a type of fallacious argument asserting that a claim is wrong because of a feature of the person making it. I have not employed this fallacy, your responses, however, are riddled with ad hominems and other fallacies, since they are concerned so often with arguments concerning my character and other fallacious rhetoric such as that I “hate” capitalism, alleging I refer to “some ambiguous group” or a “great State and capitalist conspiracy” and ominous references to my arguments being “troubling.”

I have made every effort to be clear and precise in my arguments.

You are not making an effort to understand my arguments, have plainly not researched the political economic theory on which my claims are based, and are more interested in expressing your opinions about my character, opinions you have given me no reason to want to know or discuss.

Sunshine Foundation and MAPLight.org are the lobby of campaign funding watchers to which I refer.

“The mechanics of p2p” do not allow you to escape economic reality, an unwillingness to know the facts of political economics makes your comments baseless, when, that is, they can be said to have any clear meaning at all, the majority of what you have said here is unsubstantiated hype and buzz, which I suppose is the new smoke and mirrors.

Your shallow technological determinism ignores economic facts concerning distribution of productive assets and State agency.

Our best-and smartest-role is to put into practise actually functioning new ways of producing and sharing, not naively cheerlead misguided efforts funded by externalities (in other words not funded by direct capture of their own marginal production) and which are uninterested or unengaged with issues of real peer production, which must involve the capture of exchange value if it is to have any progressive socioeconomic impact whatever.

I repeat once again, all privileged appropriation is corruption, you can not address it with “transparency” and certainly not with “shame” (as you also criticize).

You can only address it by changing property relations, something Lessig is categorically against, being a proud and open supporter of both Copyright, Capitalism, and the US Democratic Party.

Intelligence tools, once they enter into a p2p system, will not be bound by the desires of their creators anyway. I think a strong intent and purpose for a tool is a great initial way to build momentum in its development and use, but the peers will have their way once the momentum passes a certain threshold. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle. I remember when online maps were just a way to see driving directions, yet that seems like so long ago.

If the most resonating purpose for such as p2p tool is to reform the state into something more accountable, I think our best–and smartest–role is not to focus on the intent at all, but on making sure it facilitates maximum “peer2peeriness.”

If it exists, and so long as it exists, then the majority of the population has an interest in influencing it. This does not preclude continuing to build networks of autonomy-in-cooperation.

Apart from that, the argument that the state is a tool of the ruling class is one thing, but that is not what Lessig is trying to address. What he is addressing is that the state has become an instrument of private interests, of narrow sections only geared towards short term personal gain. This is problematic even from the point of view of the general interests of the system.

The desire for the state to function in a more transparent manner, is something where the interests of the reformers and the broad public, including peer producers, coincides, and this is why the efforts of Lessig are worthy of support.

The interviewer asked how he saw the internet affecting the corruption of politics. I would wager that’s the main reason James Burke posted the video in the first place. Lessig spoke of using public data as an intelligence tool to affect the system. He then says he thinks with this information the public can “shame the system.” I do not like that phrase, and I don’t agree with it or the premise it seems to imply. Nonetheless, the important point is not what Lessig thinks will be done with the tool. I’m sure he would readily admit he cannot predict precisely what would be done with it, and he cannot really change what the public will do with it. The swarm will do what it will do. The important point is that he is advocating such a tool, and it’s one that we can currently begin with information that is already available. And, in reality, the baby steps are being taken with the Sunshine Foundation and MAPLight.org.

Even if there was somehow some great State and capitalist conspiracy to advocate (and even help build) such a tool as just another shift in their coercion of the working masses, the mechanics of p2p allow us to predict very plainly that the public will use, evolve, or branch such a tool as they see fit.

There’s only one claim you make that’s relevant to the video posted:

“The idea that “Corruption,” in a system based on an elite class of owners who’s class reproduction is based up the appropriation of surplus wealth from it’s direct producers, can be dealt with by some nagging lobby of campaign funding watchers, is so naive, that only the ignorant or disingenuous could promote it.”

You missed the entire point. The point is not the creation of a lobby of campaign funding watchers. Lessig doesn’t say anything along those lines in the interview, and I didn’t see anyone else suggest it. I can only speculate you offered such a strawman so that you could label some ambiguous group as ignorant or disingenuous. In my initial response, I suggested something quite different; the beginning of a local + regional + national + global capital tracking intelligence network. The social implications of that knowledge being available, maintained, and used, by peers are tremendous.

Your refusal to admit obvious and repeated ad hominem arguments is troubling. As I said before, it speaks of pride being more important than desire for change, and your response just adds further weight to that claim. If you cannot have a reasonable conversation with someone who holds a critical view of capitalism, and who desires social equality and justice, what chance do you stand of bringing social change with anyone else? By the time you’re through labeling all the ignorant, the disingenuous, the corrupt, the ridiculous, the servile, and (worst of all?) the capitalist, there will be only you. That is a very lonely, and horrible, place to be.

Perhaps I should write a short article on classical State theory, there seems to be a real lack of understanding of historical materialism and class struggle on the left these days, which makes the opinions expressed by the vast majority of commentators completely baseless.

The idea that the “Money behind politics” is a result of *campaign contributions* and not property relations and distribution of productive assets, is so ridiculous any “corruption” crusader should be laughed out of the room for framing the problem as such, however since cold war era political ignorance is so dominant today, most progressives are just grasping at straws.

The State grows out of the dominant mode of production as the elite actors consolidate their power to enforce the property relations needed to ensure the reproduction of their class. The State is always the apparatus of the dominant economic classes, and it’s laws and structure develop according to it’s needs to mediate between classes in the interest of the dominant classes.

The idea that “Corruption,” in a system based on an elite class of owners who’s class reproduction is based up the appropriation of surplus wealth from it’s direct producers, can be dealt with by some nagging lobby of campaign funding watchers, is so naive, that only the ignorant or disingenuous could promote it.

All privileged appropriation is corruption.

And don’t just take my word for it….

Murray Bookchin:

Minimally, the State is a professional system of social coercion — not merely a system of social administration as it is still naively regarded by the public and by many political theorists. The word ‘professional’ should be emphasised as much as the word ‘coercion.’ . . . It is only when coercion is institutionalised into a professional, systematic and organised form of social control — that is, when people are plucked out of their everyday lives in a community and expected not only to ‘administer’ it but to do so with the backing of a monopoly of violence — that we can properly speak of a State.

Adam Smith:

whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters
and their workers, its counsellors are always the masters

Errico Malatesta:

For us, government [or the state] is made up of all the governors; and the governors . . . are those who have the power to make laws regulating inter-human relations and to see that they are carried out . . . [and] who have the power, to a greater or lesser degree, to make use of the social power, that is of the physical, intellectual and economic power of the whole community, in order to oblige everybody to carry out their wishes. And this power, in our opinion, constitutes the principle of government, of authority.”

Karl Marx:

In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society – the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general.

Hello, I just composed a posted a substantial response, after I clicked Submit Comment, my response vanished. very frustrating, and a great example of why I dislike web-forums, and much prefer mailing lists and usenet, in any case I unfortunately do not have the time to recompose my
response right now, suffice it to say that there are no “slanderous ad hominems” in my article, only an unwillingness by some to know the basic facts of objective reality. As Michel knows, I do support my arguments clearly and back them up with facts and Stanley would profit more from trying to understand them then dismissing them out of hand and lecturing me on form. Nothing I said has been address or refuted by the comments above. More later if I have some time.

Here are two of the links that I included in my lost response, maybe they will help.

Here I explain how Lessig dishonestly appropriate the stories of Javier Petro and DJ Dangermouse:

http://www.metamute.org/en/node/8568

Here Lessig Explains how Ralf Nader, and not the members of Lessig’s Democratic Party who voted for it, are to be blamed for the war in Iraq:

http://lessig.org/blog/2004/02/nader_it_is_censorship_to_say.html

I must agree with Stanley on this. It is okay to think and judge Lessig, but I believe that it is always better to use arguments rather than ad hominem epithets. These are counterproductive to the points you would want to make.

I think you’re being unreasonable. Yes, you hate capitalism. However, all your hate cannot change the history we’ve inherited, and it cannot convince people to change.

I’m assuming that you’re posting here because you think that some of us, yourself included, can make the world a better place. You may think I’m a lackey/shill/etc, but if you aren’t able to talk reasonably with me, and Michel, and people like Lessig, then the pride in your perspective is obviously stronger than your desire for meaningful change.

There are plenty of examples of the public holding people accountable. They’re never perfect, they’re often messy, but that’s the world we live in. The internet alone has become a powerful tool for the public for the public to uncover corruption, and it’s still relatively new. If someone does not do what they have sworn to do, what they have been elected to do, because of other interests, then they are considered corrupt. That is corruption. The accusation of corruption is not simply a “scare campaign to create a system for the powerful to arbitrarily attack” the less powerful. Further, you label some nebulous group of people capitalists, then dismiss them with circular logic. Guilty by association, apparently, if nothing else. I ask you kindly to stop begging the question.

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, perhaps your slander requires some ordinary evidence. I think carbon trading is an unreasonable answer to the posed problem, but that has nothing to do with Lessig’s desire to address corruption. The Sunlight Foundation, and projects like MAPLight.org, are the seeds of the open access, global capital intelligence network that I think (among other tools) is required to improve liberty and justice in the world. These are guilty by association too?

Please abandon your slanderous ad hominems.