User talk:Perceval/Das Wikapital

You write:

The fundamental framework under which Wikipedia works is essentially a capitalist system. The means of production are private: every individual wikipedian holds the resources which contribute to the finished product

It is true, in some sense, that the means of production are private, because the labor or labor-potential of individual wikipedians is their own. But in the context of economics, "private means of production" indicates a situation where one person (the capitalist) owns the means by which another person (the laborer) produces. The labor (or laborer) is, of course, literally a means of production, but one of a very different sort than that implied by the phrase.

The wikipedia infrastructure is privately owned, but capitalism also implies that the owner of private capital be self-interested in deciding how to manage it. The owner--the Wikimedia Foundation--exists as a non-profit, holding resources in trust for the public good. It is barred by law from rewarding its investors (which, for this reason, are instead called donors). The donation of money to the project is analogous to the donation of labor. Contribution is not an investment in the project.

Moreover, while the Foundation in some sense maintains absolute editorial power, they specifically surrender nearly all editorial control--the content production is left free from any real day-to-day management. In other words, with few exceptions, Wikipedia is anarchy. –Αναρχία

As far as I can tell, Marx distinguished between means of production and capital. Here Jimbo/Wikimedia represents the capital whereas the users are/control the means of production (their labor and the resources they use to produce the product--content knowledge, books, google search, anti-vandal bots, etc). Means of production and capital are only united when the means of production are used to extract surplus from the labor, which I don't think is the case here. If Jimbo introduced advertisements, then I think means of production and capital would be unified.

Since capitalism can be functional to a certain degree under a number of different political systems (from anarchy, to libertarianism, to republicanism, to authoritarianism, to dictatorship), it may well be that Wikipedia is also anarchy. My essay points to the absolute control of Jimbo/Wikimedia as more like a dictatorship (without the death squads) that nevertheless maintains a form of capitalism as a system of production. Thanks for your comments!—Perceval 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the compatibility of anarchy with capitalism is somewhat contentious, but mainly deals with the claim over the word "anarchy" (or "anarchism")—the anarcho-capitalists advocate something completely different from the movement first called anarchism. For my part, when I use the word, I mean the absence of obedience from social relations; obviously this is incompatible with capitalism. –Αναρχία 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

References