[p2p-research] quote on early history as gift economies

marc fawzi marc.fawzi at gmail.com
Fri Feb 20 07:24:34 CET 2009 

Michel,

Both trust networks and filtering systems are part of the example.

- I search Google (which uses a kind of trust metric called PageRank)

- I pick some site for freelancers from a list of several sites highly
ranked in the Google search results (i.e. with high PageRank)

- I go to that site and I enter my filtering criteria

- I issue an informal RFP and I get bids, which I pass under another
filtering criteria

- I end up with 6-12 otential suppliers

- I choose one at random

Rinse and repeat.

So you see that both filtering (my criteria) and trust mrerics
(PageRank) are part of the example.

The random selection (the last step in the process) and the fact that
I do that for every project is a model that arose from my observation
that, overall, changing horses at the start of every project, using
the process outlined above, gives me a higher rate of success and
autonomy in the context of running multiple successive projects.

It has been my experience that depending on the same supplier every
time is a sure way to create a dependency on a single resource.

It's my observation (related to the human factors view not the systems
view) that creating a dependency on a single resource not only gives
them increasing power over time (relative to my power in the equation,
where ideally we should be equally empowered) to the point where they
raise the price considerably and reduce their effort at the same time.
This is a general observation. Not everyone fits this critical
observation, but enough do.

So that's why I had resorted to picking a new contractor for every new
project, after years of working on the basis of accrued trust, i.e.
sticking with one contractor.

The Internet has given me this option.

The kind of hierarchy that emerges from such model is one where both I
and the contractor are equally empowered and where neither of us have
a dependency on the other.

What would this kind of hierarchy be called to distinguish it from
hierarchies that develop built-in dependencies and power imbalances
(in either direction) over time?

I'm asking Michel as well as asking openly.

If anyone has a suggestion as to how to categorize this kind of
hierarchy, please feel free to state it.

I do feel it's different enough than the type pf hierarchies that
exist in today's economy, but that may be changing as more people take
advantage of the Internet and abundance of qualified suppliers to
isolate themselves from dependence, while at the same time being
empowered by a high degree of transient interdependence in their
production network.

Marc



On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Michel Bauwens
<michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Marc,
>
> I wonder if your example is a good one,
>
> what you describe has high transaction and uncertainty costs, and I think
> this is why people rely on trust networks, or on hierarchical
> recommendations or filtering systems, etc ...
>
> But I think that ancient and medieval systems of democracy relied on random
> elections, as schemes to make sure that power would not accrue,
>
> however, I'm not an expert in these alternative schemes
>
> Michel
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:56 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As always, very thoughtful analysis Michel. Thanks.
>>
>> I just want to add a note on hierarchies....
>>
>> You can have a functional hierarchy (not a political one that keeps
>> power at the top) between equally empowered peers where the structure
>> of the hierarchy is known but where the nodes are occupied by randomly
>> picked peers from a set of all peers that meet a given functional
>> criteria.
>>
>> In such a hierarchy, all the peers are equally empowered AND no
>> built-in dependency is created on any peer in particular.
>>
>> What would such hierarchy be known as?  It exists today due to Search
>> technology. When someone running some business goes out to find
>> suppliers they go to Google and search for e.g. Python developer. They
>> find tons of links. They pick one or pick one that leads them to
>> another search engine which ultimately leads them to some supplier.
>> Now we have a hierarchy of two levels: the business owner and the
>> supplier. If the business owner repeats this every time she needs a
>> Python developer, which some people do, and uses the same criteria but
>> picks another supplier from the range of all potential suppliers
>> (those matching the criteria) then that is power to the business owner
>> and power to the developer. Neither is stuck with each other, and
>> neither develops a dependency on each other. I ran a number of
>> projects like that in the past with higher reliability than depending
>> on the same developer for all projects. Every developer had to prove
>> themselves and I had to prove my ability to manage the project.
>>
>> Marc
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > thanks David,
>> >
>> > David Graeber has written a whole book examining 'value' throughout
>> > different (anthropological) societies.
>> >
>> > I think the other David must have had the same experience as me during
>> > my
>> > university years, I was explicitely taught the barter-leads-to-market
>> > story,
>> > with no mention at all of the gift economy, a notion I only encountered
>> > years ago. Perhaps neoclassical economists have evolved over time,
>> > integrated other types of knowledge ..
>> >
>> > Still, there is a difference between saying, early economies had barter,
>> > which was complicated, so they invented tokens which became money and
>> > ultimately resulted in capitalism and the other story which is: we had
>> > gift
>> > economies, but when force intervened, we created debt, which eventually
>> > resulted in the necessity of inventing money ...
>> >
>> > Whether force is constituent to the human experience, even before the
>> > advent
>> > of unequal class societies, is  perhaps difficult to resolve, but I tend
>> > to
>> > believe that it is inherent to the human condition; this is why I think
>> > the
>> > state cannot be simply abolished, and I'm not an anarchist.
>> >
>> > You are right about 'economies' being a misleading term, and I have read
>> > remarks of Graeber in the same sense, it's an industrial concept we are
>> > projecting backwards, but perhaps also a distinction we have learned to
>> > see;
>> > so I think it is okay to use by analogy, as long as we know its
>> > limitations.
>> >
>> > This brings me to the crux of the debate: the role of networks.
>> >
>> > Like hierarchies, and markets, I do not see them in a univocal way.
>> > Rather,
>> > hierarchies can be feudal, or meritocratic; markets can be capitalist,
>> > or
>> > not; and similarly for networks: they cannot be divorced from the class
>> > structure of society, even as they have their own 'independent' effect
>> > of
>> > society which adapt these forms. But these forms will be thoroughly
>> > adapted
>> > and changed through the process of differential adoption.
>> >
>> > So, my view is the following: networks first arose for the privileged
>> > elite
>> > through private networks (multinationals and such), then became
>> > democratized
>> > and peer to peer. This leads to widespread adoption of new economic,
>> > political and social practices, which are more productive in many ways
>> > than
>> > the earlier modes. Hence, peer production, governance and property, as 3
>> > new
>> > modes. As more productive ways of doing things, they are not only
>> > practiced
>> > by the bottom of society, but by all sectors, which initially use them
>> > within the existing dominant mode, just as early capitalist practices
>> > were
>> > used to strengthen an ailing feudal order. But as it is adapted it also
>> > changes the order, and new social forces are organizing around it.
>> > Chiefly,
>> > the knowledge workers and other associated producers on one hand, but
>> > also
>> > what I call 'netarchical capitalists', who created new forms of activity
>> > and
>> > business based on 'enabling and empowering social production'.
>> >
>> > As our infinite growth mechanism is hitting its limits, it is groping
>> > for a
>> > change towards markets which include former externalities (green
>> > capitalism), but also realizing it can't be done, or much less
>> > effectively,
>> > without adopting much wider participatory practices (co-creation,
>> > co-design,
>> > crowdsourcing, peer production and sharing modes of all kinds), hence,
>> > the
>> > force of the new modes of peer production, governance and property are
>> > growing, from emergence to eventual equivalence.
>> >
>> > If the current infinite growth system succeeds in being a natural
>> > capitalism, that may be the end of the story, otherwise, a phase
>> > transition
>> > will eventual occur, with the former core mode becoming a subsystem in a
>> > new
>> > meta-system based on peer to peer dynamics.
>> >
>> > Will this totally eliminate force? I do not think so, but it may
>> > significantly reduce their centrality to social life. But we can already
>> > see
>> > that successful networks or peer production efforts also deal with
>> > threats
>> > to their existence, i.e. to violence directed at them (even if through
>> > spamming, trolling, etc...). So there are three elements to network
>> > production: 1) enabling participation; 2) finding mechanisms for
>> > selection
>> > of excellence that are no threat to that universal participation and
>> > availability; and 3) defense against threats.
>> >
>> > Michel
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:15 AM, David Ronfeldt <ronfeldt at mac.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> many thanks, michel, for including me on this.  but i find it
>> >> confusing.
>> >>  i also find it confused, for i think the author is conflating.  i'm
>> >> not
>> >> aware that any major social theorist has grandly claimed that societies
>> >> once
>> >> had economies based solely on barter.  that barter may have been an
>> >> important element, yes.  and that barter preceded money, yes.  but
>> >> that's a
>> >> narrower and different kind of claim.
>> >>
>> >> perhaps there are economists who claim that barter came first, but the
>> >> conceptual hinge for them may be that, from their perspective,
>> >> economies do
>> >> not exist unless material trade is taking place.  however, the
>> >> economists i
>> >> happened to see at lunch today, though not historians, saw no
>> >> particular
>> >> reason to start economic history with barter, and a couple thought it
>> >> could
>> >> start with gifts, esp if the gifts had an exchange aspect.
>> >>
>> >> but that raises another matter.  early tribes depend significantly on
>> >> gifting.  we've agreed on that before, citing mauss in particular, and
>> >> graeber seems to be in agreement too.  but are we really talking about
>> >> a
>> >> "gift economy" with ancient tribes.  not exactly.  especially not if
>> >> there
>> >> is no economy per se that is separable from what else goes on in a
>> >> tribe.
>> >>  and particularly not if the purpose of the gifting is to create
>> >> honorable
>> >> relationships and social solidarity, rather than just to engage in
>> >> potentially equal material exchanges.
>> >>
>> >> but perhaps i'm not seeing the point you wanted me to see.
>> >>
>> >> in any case, i took a look at his long article and something else
>> >> caught
>> >> my eye:  he claims that "neither states nor markets can exist without
>> >> the
>> >> constant threat of force."  he repeats this at various points, once or
>> >> twice
>> >> referring to "societies" instead of "states" since "Societies' are
>> >> really
>> >> states."  i'd question this, but i'd rather raise another point:
>> >>  tribes
>> >> also have not existed without the threat of force.  tribes often get
>> >> idealized, perhaps especially by people fed up with states/hierarchies
>> >> and
>> >> markets.  but tribes can turn out to be as based on force and violence
>> >> as
>> >> other forms of organization.  if the author were to add this to his
>> >> analysis, i wonder where it would lead.
>> >>
>> >> which leads to a question:  what about the kinds of information-age
>> >> networks that you and i are hopefully counting on?  as an emerging form
>> >> of
>> >> organization, they look marvelous and necessary (in my timn view, as
>> >> much so
>> >> as tribes, hierarchies, and markets).  but their present-day emergence
>> >> is,
>> >> in many areas, tied to the nature of force.  and some networks may turn
>> >> out
>> >> in practice, once embedded in future multiform societies, to reflect
>> >> the
>> >> roles of force, even though many networks will be directed at the
>> >> public
>> >> good.  does this end up meaning that all forms of societal organization
>> >> depend, to some extent, on the possibility of force?
>> >>
>> >> just a thought.  and i'm not entirely sure about it.  but it relates to
>> >> some propositions for the timn framework i'm trying to develop.  i'll
>> >> eventually get around to elaborating.
>> >>
>> >> meanwhile, i'll leave you with two quotes i happen to have handy that
>> >> relate a bit to all this and get at contrasting dynamics that underlie
>> >> civilization (though i'm not sure the author above approves much of
>> >> what
>> >> others know as civilization):
>> >>
>> >>        "All great civilizations, in their early stages, are based on
>> >> success in war."  (Kenneth Clark, Civilisation: A Personal View (New
>> >> York:
>> >> Harper & Row, 1969, p. 18)
>> >>
>> >>        "Every living culture must possess some spiritual dynamic, which
>> >> provides the energy necessary for that sustained social effort which is
>> >> civilization."  (Christopher Dawson, Progress and Religion: An
>> >> Historical
>> >> Inquiry (London: Sheed and Ward, 1929; reissued: Washington, D.C.: The
>> >> Catholic University of America Press, 2001, pp. 3-4)
>> >>
>> >> enough.  onward.
>> >>
>> >> ===
>> >>
>> >> On Feb 18, 2009, at 11:46 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Dear friends,
>> >>>
>> >>> this is a quote from anthropologist david graeber, that has a bearing
>> >>> on
>> >>> our earlier discussions on how to characterize tribal societies:
>> >>>
>> >>> "One of the traditional roles of the economic anthropologist is to
>> >>> point
>> >>> out that the standard narrative set out in economic textbooks – the
>> >>> one we
>> >>> all take for granted, really, that once upon a time there was barter;
>> >>> that
>> >>> when this became too inconvenient, people invented money; that
>> >>> eventually,
>> >>> this lead to abstract systems of credit and debt, banking, and the New
>> >>> York
>> >>> Stock Exchange – is simply wrong. There is in fact no known example of
>> >>> a
>> >>> human society whose economy is based on barter of the 'I'll give you
>> >>> ten
>> >>> chickens for that cow' variety. Most economies that don't employ money
>> >>> – or
>> >>> anything that we'd identify as money, anyway – operate quite
>> >>> differently.
>> >>> They are, as French anthropologist Marcel Mauss famously put it, 'gift
>> >>> economies' where transactions are either based on principles of
>> >>> open-handed
>> >>> generosity, or, when calculation does take place, most often descend
>> >>> into
>> >>> competitions over who can give the most away. What I want to emphasise
>> >>> here,
>> >>> though, is what happens when money does first appear in something like
>> >>> it's
>> >>> current form (basically, with the appearance of the state). Because
>> >>> here, it
>> >>> becomes apparent that not only do the economists get it wrong, they
>> >>> get it
>> >>> precisely backwards. In fact, virtual money comes first. Banking,
>> >>> tabs, and
>> >>> expense accounts existed for at least 2 thousand years before there
>> >>> was
>> >>> anything like coinage, or any other physical object that was regularly
>> >>> used
>> >>> to buy and sell things, anything that could be labeled 'currency'.
>> >>>
>> >>> (http://www.metamute.org/en/content/debt_the_first_five_thousand_years)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>> >>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> >>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >>>
>> >>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> >>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> >>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> >>>
>> >>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>> >>>
>> >>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> >>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>> > http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >
>> > Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> > http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> > http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> >
>> > Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>> >
>> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> > http://www.shiftn.com/
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > p2presearch mailing list
>> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>

More information about the p2presearch mailing list