[p2p-research] [Apropos Two Theories] New comment on New paper on “The Prospects for Cyberocracy (Revis....

[Michel Bauwens]

The following previous dialogue with dutch theorist wim nusselder is related
to our current exchange with david ronfeldt on network forms

what is of interest in this context is the analysis of nusselder of the
primary tribal form as based on reciprocity

Michel



*A concept defined by Wim Nusseldorf as the contemporary stage of economic
life, based on 'ideological leaders' which can frame common goals and common
belonging and is based on membership and contribution*:

*Value-based Quarternary Economics*

http://www.antenna.nl/wim.nusselder/schrijfsels/economics.htm (see also
http://blog.p2pfoundation.com/?p=39)

This is an economics based on Robert Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality (Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Lila). It's fourth section contains
an interesting account of economic development, towards a 'quarternary
economics'. I believe it fits in with P2P theory, which is also about
value-based production (in the sense of associating with people with similar
values, in order to create new types of use value). Next week, I will
discuss the differences in approach, but here I focus on the elements of
convergence.

Here's my 1) own short summary, 2) followed by the extensive quote, and.3)
some commentary about 'Value and P2P'; 4) a graph which attempts to fuse my
own understanding, the fourfold intersubjective typology of Alan Page Fiske
and the 'type of dependence' typology of Wim Nusselder

The primary economy is based on reciprocity, which derives from common
ancestry or lineage. It is based on families, clans, tribes and exchange
mostly operates through gifts which create further obligation. The division
of labour is minimal and most often related to gender and age. The key
question is 'to belong or not to belong'. Social groups are based and
bounded by real or symbolic lineage. Wants are defined by the community.
Leadership is in the hands of the lineage leadership. Power is associated
with a natural order (man are physically stronger, older people are wiser,
etc.., some people are blessed by the gods,...) which cannot be challenged.

The secondary economy arises together with power monopolies which engender
coercion as a means to force cooperation. We enter the domain of class
societies, and production is organized by the elite in power, which holds
together through the symbolic power which transforms power into allegiance.
Respect for power, in the form of tribute, taxes, etc.. is normative.
Distribution depends on your place in this chain of symbolic power. Wants
are defined by the symbolic power with symbolic markers monopolized. The key
question is: 'to deserve power or to deserve subjection'. Social groups are
bound by allegiance to power. Leadership is political and religious.

The tertiary economy arises with the entrepreneur and capitalism. It is
based on 'equivalent', i.e. 'fair' exchange, which is normative. Power
arises from relative productivity, relative monopoly over a needed good, and
from the wage relationship, all of which create dependence. Social groups
are loose, and wants are determined by advertising and mimetic desire.
Cooperation is no longer correlated to belonging.

*The quarternary economy is based on 'ideological leaders' which can frame
common goals and common belonging and is based on membership and
contribution. Contributing to the best of one's ability to common goals is
normative and the key question becomes: to follow an existing group or to
create one's own, i.e. to convince or be convinced. Contributions to many
groups can overlap making the decision over wants a more autonomous process.
Power is dependent on the power to convince, on influence, and varies
depending on one's relative place in the different groups.*

- Excerpts from Wim Nusselder:

"For most of human history political economy has been the exclusive domain
of political and religious leaders. A basic fact of economics is, that
almost anything people want can be got more easily if (more) people
co-operate. (More co-operation does not imply larger scale organizations!
The best way of getting a lot of things is organizing people in a lot of
small scale organizations that are usually self-sufficient, but that
collectively back up each other if need be.) Leaders organize co-operation.
A leader tells or shows people what they want and how to get it, if ... they
co-operate in a specified way. For most of human history being member of the
same society meant following the same leadership.

The oldest form of economy is organized around (real or symbolic) family
relationships. Genealogy provides meaning. To belong or not to belong, that
is the question. Reciprocity is normative. You help someone else who needs
help because you are related. Receiving help strengthens the relationship
and enhances the obligation to do something in return in the future.
Leadership often correlates with age and a male gender role, because it
requires building a web of reciprocal relations with oneself as the 'spider
in the web'. Older males are in most societies in the best position to do
(or have done) so. The defining characteristics of such primary societies
(e.g. nuclear families) is that there is supposed to be no choice whether
one 'belongs' or 'doesn't belong' to a society. 'Given' characteristics
decide who 'belongs' and who is to be excluded from the benefits of
'belonging'. These benefits include access to communal resources and sharing
in the results of pooled labour. Pooling labour and allotting roles,
primarily according to age and gender, allows for (limited) division of
labor, specialization, economies of scale and satisfying some wants that can
hardly be satisfied alone (like hunting mammoths). Primary economy can
consist (simultaneously) of families (all living relatives), clans (people
whose ancestry can be traced to the same remembered ancestor), tribes
(people who trace their ancestry back to the same symbolic or
mythological/legendary ancestor), nations (people who deduce from common
history, language etc. that they must have common ancestry) and
theoretically even of humanity as a whole.

A second form of economy originates (in addition to the primary form, not
necessarily instead) wherever leaders enlarge their influence beyond those
who automatically 'belong'. They do so by monopolizing some kind of power.
This power can be of different types. It can be magical, the ability of
shamans to manipulate fear for that which is not understood. It can be
military, based on weapon technology and on the ability to mobilize and
organize people against other people. It can also be democratic, based on
the convention to let a popularity contest determine who gets for a couple
of years the law enforced right to tell others what to do (within
restrictions). Coercive relations are added to family (like) relations.
Additional meaning is provided by supposed virtues like 'nobility',
'culture' (in a strict sense) and 'civilization'. To deserve power or to
deserve subjection, that is the question. Enlarging society by those in
power by coercing extra subjects into cooperating allows for the pooling of
more resources, more division of labour, specialization, economies of scale
etc. The norm is 'fair' distribution of the costs (e.g. by taxes) and
benefits of enlarging society, i.e. distribution in proportion to virtue.
Leaders recruit the resources needed to exercise power (and mostly so from
those who 'deserve' to be taxed heaviest). They use -wherever possible- the
benefits of their exercise of power to consolidate their position by
maintaining and enhancing their power. That requires giving their subjects
what they want, at least those they depend on for their power. The defining
characteristic of this second form of economy compared to the first form is
the enforcement of social boundaries (however they are defined:
geographical, ethnical etc.). 'Secondary societies' can also have different
sizes. Because of the need of leaders to monopolize power in order to
stabilize their position, the coexistence of several overlapping secondary
societies is never stable however. It is most stable if the size of
coexisting secondary societies is clearly different (e.g. local and
national) and if the type of power their leaders exercise is clearly
different (e.g. religious versus military).

The third form of economy is added by a new type of leader (not political or
religious any more): the entrepreneur. It is organized with exchange
relationships. Productivity provides additional meaning. To produce (value
for others that entitles you to remuneration) or to depend (on others for
your livelihood) that is the question. Fair dealing (equivalent exchange) is
normative. The defining characteristic of this third form of economy
compared to the second form is, that an economic leader, an entrepreneur,
does not (pretend to) lead (and organize the satisfaction of wants for) a
society as a whole. The boundaries of the social group that is led by an
entrepreneur are not clear-cut. That group normally consists of employees,
but it can also contain suppliers, customers or others that enter into
exchange relationships with the enterprise. Strong economic leaders make
others dependent on what they produce (or on the income they provide by
buying other people's labor or products). It is the inequality of the mutual
dependence of exchange partners that determines relative power over what the
other can get and thus the limits of what he/she will want. An enterprise
that is the only source of employment in a region or almost the only
producer or buyer of a particular type of goods or services has a lot of
power over the wants of its (potential) employees, customers or suppliers.
Additional ways in which an entrepreneur can make others want what he/she
wants them to want are advertising and standardization, among others.
'Tertiary societies' contain a lot of overlapping and complementary groups
organized by different economic leaders. The boundary of such a group lies
between those who are dependent but only for a few wants and those who are
not dependent at all on their leader. With the rise of tertiary societies
political economy is not the exclusive domain of political and religious
leaders any more. 'Tertiary economies' can pool even more resources, enable
more division of labour, specialization, economies of scale etc. than
secondary ones, because co-operation doesn't depend on the ability to feel a
sense of 'belonging together' with those one co-operates with anymore.

The fourth type of economy is organized by ideological leaders. It is
organized with relations of membership and contribution. Common goals and
common interests provide additional meaning. To convince (others that your
way of reaching goals or serving interests is the best way) or to follow
others, that is the question. Contributing to the best of one's ability to
common goals and interests is normative. The defining characteristic of this
fourth form of economy compared to the earlier forms is the voluntary choice
to 'belong' or 'not to belong'. Ideological leaders make their followers
identify with their group by convincing them. 'Belonging' or 'not belonging'
to groups depends on the strength of identification with their common goals
and shared interests. 'Quaternary societies' contain even more overlapping
and complementary groups. 'Belonging' to different groups at the same time
is enabled by complex, multi-layered identities. Boundaries are even less
clear-cut. They can be determined by asking whether someone contributes or
not to the common goals and shared interests, however little. 'Quaternary
economies' can pool even more resources, enable more division of labour,
specialization, economies of scale etc. than tertiary ones, because people
can participate in several different roles at the same time. One can be a
specialist in one field and in other fields a layman, who can only follow
what others propose to contribute to reaching common goals and serve shared
interests. Our present economy is of course a mix of all these forms."

Dutch-language essay on the evolution of various forms of power, and how the
left needs a new 'grand narrative', at
http://www.waterlandstichting.nl/bestanden/nusselder.pdf


- Commentary: what can we say about value, P2P and the new process of
socialization/recognition ?

The above has motivated me to think about 'value' in P2P', here are some
very preliminary ideas.

First of all, P2P is geared to the production of use value, without going
through the intermediary of producing exchange value for a marketplace. This
relates to the kind of value as discussed in economics.

But what about the value as we understand it in the ethical sphere? There
are different ways to frame this. As explained above by Nusselder, the very
choice of a P2P project to collaborate on, is determined by the fit between
common values and personal values. Once we adhere and contribute to a
project, we derive 'value', i.e. a more meaningfull life, from it. This
value is also expressed in a more or less objective way, i.e. the proven use
value interacts with the personal value that can be derived from it, and
which is basically the match between the common and the singular, the
collective and the individual. Two criteria are important:

- the relative success of the project in the overall 'marketplace' of P2P
projects. Is the resulting use value used or not, and to what extent? This
kind of value translates in the relative reputation and recognition of the
project as such, and the participating individuals partake in it

- one's relative contribution to the project itself, eventually measured
through social accounting tools, adjudicates 'reputation' and 'recognition'
within the project

- both aspects will be associated when the internal reputation translates in
an assocation between the persons involved, and the project

This is the Wisdom Game to which I refer to in my manuscript (the concept
was inspired by Shumpei Kumon); it is of great importance since in a P2P
environment, social recognition is no longer derived from physical power,
from financial power, but precisely from this kind of reputation.



*Dialogue with Wim Nusselder on Quarternary Economics and
P2P*<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/dialogue-with-wim-nusselder-on-quarternary-economics-and-p2p/2006/02/20>

Reprinted from P2P News 91, this refers to our previous entry on Quarternary
Economics <http://blog.p2pfoundation.com/?p=39>.
*Two comments on the relationship between P2P theory and the quarternary
economics of Wim Nusselder, which we featured before. My comments are in
between the comments of Wim.*

*Comment 1:*

Wim: "I have the impression that there are essential differences between my
'quaternary economics' and your '3rd mode of economics' (from reading only
bits and pieces on your website and only you e-mail, not the attachments).

MB: Third refers to alternative to the market and the state, alternative to
market allocation and corporate hierarchy, alternative to private and public
property. But it is also seen as a quarternary economic stage, following
reciprocity-based 'equality matching' gift economies; allegiance and
tributary based agricultural civilizations, i.e. 'authority ranking';
exchange based market economies, i.e. "Market Pricing"

Wim: Quaternary economics does rely on unequivalent relationships between
ideological leaders and consumers, folllowers, adherents of their ideas
alias lay people. Not on peer-to-peer (equivalent) relationships.

MB: P2P distinguishes equipotentiality from reciprocity. P2P projects are
'anti-credentialist', i.e. they are based on open participation, and it is
the process of cooperation itself which acts as a filter. The selection is a
posteriori, rather than a priori, as it would be in peer review. P2P
relations are NOT based on reciprocity or equivalence, as everyone
contributes according to his capacities and willingness, and uses on the
basis of his needs. P2P is distinguished from gift economy projects that are
based on reciprocity. P2P has leadership, usually a core leadership who
initiated the project and embody the aim and principles of the project, and
whose leadership is a consequence of their engagement and their capacity to
inspire voluntary cooperation. But the leadership structure is dependent on
that communal validation (otherwise people leave) and is intent on
increasing participation.

Wim: The core argumentation of my 'economics of want and greed' is conscious
(planned, evaluated, rationalizable etc.) action is only a small part of
people's behaviour, so they will always need (or be vulnerable to)
leadership to tell them what they want and how to organize it. An economy
based on peer relationships requires requires a much larger proportion of
conscious action than is humanly feasable for most of the people most of the
time. Peer-to-peer relationsships can organize only small parts of real life
economies where relatively small groups of people do focus their conscious
efforts on the same type of wants (e.g. building software for a specific
purpose). Your 3rd mode might be a direction to go after quaternary
economics, but not a realistic, achievable goal in the foreseeable future."

MB: Yes, self-managed P2P projects only cover a small part of every
individuals life, but overall, they could provide for a very large portion
of immaterial needs, and a sizeable portion of physical needs. We're not
claiming that P2P is "everything", but that it will be eventually be the
central mode, which then remodels the other intersubjective modes of
hierarchy, market, and reciprocity.

*Comment 2:*

Wim: "I define different types of economies (or elements of real life
economies) by the type of leadership that organize them. I do so, because
most of economics, most organizing how people get what they want, is done by
some people for other people. Most of what I want and get (bread,
habitation, clothing, news, communication facilities etc.) is organized by
others for me and I couldn't possibly organize most of it for myself. The
parts of my wants that I consciously choose and for which I organize myself
how to get it are a minuscule part of my wants. That's true for everyone and
will be true for everyone for ever. Our brains simply don't have the
capacity to be aware of all our real and potential behaviour and (in order
to plan it and organize desired effects) all its real and possible
consequences.

MB: I absolutely agree

Wim: Sure, P2P production (by definition characterized by a relative lack of
leadership, isn't it) is a radical and realizable alternative, but only for
a marginal part of what we need. I can't equally and openly particpate in
the production of everything I need. If I were you, I wouldn't present it as
an alternative for other ways of organizing production, but rather as
(usually) an addition that can only replace other types of production for a
very limited range of wants. Production for what other wants besides open
source software can be organized in this way? (I should look it up in your
writings, but haven't time to do so now.) I guess that for every example you
mention at least 10 others can be found that can't be organized in a P2P
mode. How can you organize a family with (small) children P2P? Or health
care that can mend a failing heart? Or the constructions of motorways
andelectricity grids?

MB: P2P does have leadership, it is not structure-less, but the leadership
is distributed, more ad hoc, and open to phase changes according to the
developmental stage of the project. As I have argued, P2P can be a major
part of the new political economy, but not all of it. It will be
supplemented by reciprocity base schemes, by reformed market behaviour, and
a new role for the state. P2P will probably be dominant in the immaterial
sphere, can be present wherever the immaterial design phase can be separated
from physical implementation, and can expand to the physical economy if and
when such physical capital is distributed, which is already the case in
computer networks, expanding to the whole area of viral communicators and
meshworks of devices. Distributed modes of financial capital are not an
impossibility. However, as soon as money is exchanged for a product, we
enter the reciprocity and exchange sphere. This is what I mean with the
principle that P2P 'will remodel the other modes of production'. They will
be using P2P infrastructures, P2P modes of cooperation, etc…

Wim: I don't think types of economics (or modes of production) really
disappear (or die). They mainly become relatively less important and are
replaced for a few wants with newer ones in the course of social progress.
It is not as radical as you present it if you take into account those who do
not actually participate in the production but nevertheless use the results.
They are being led by this smaller group of P2P producers. These are somehow
trying to make others pay them for producing something (convince others to
use it and somehow make a living of it) or they wouldn't be able to put so
much time and energy in it. Even if only by setting up a foundation to
promote it. (-: By stressing the equivalence of relations between producers
(as defining the mode of production) you disguise the unequivalent relations
between those producers and non-producing consumers. So indeed, P2P
production may actually not be different from quaternary economis, but only
a subclass of it (or sometimes of tertiary economics?!) with limited
applicability and a false claim of being a full alternative."

MB: So, this is a good conclusion to the difference between my approach and
the one of Wim Nusseldorf. For him, P2P is a small subset of quarternary
economics, for the P2P approach, it is the core of it: "for a commons-based
civilization within a reformed market and state"


On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:21 AM, David Ronfeldt <ronfeldt at mac.com> wrote:

>
> i'm delighted to see that you've treated my timn work well.  yes, i had
> spotted  your postings about it.  that's partly why i decided to include
> your name on my latest send-around: the cyboc paper.
>
> your email raises a lot of theoretical points, more than i can handle right
> now.  maybe later, because this is all very interesting, and we are seeking
> in rather similar directions.
>
> but i do have one  comment that i can offer quickly enough.  it's about
> fiske's framework.  there is some overlap  with  timn, but not exactly.  i
> briefly explain this in a 2006 study you may not have seen yet that focuses
> on the tribal (t) form, but also contains material on the other timn forms
> (see url below).
>
> my take on fiske is different from your own.  you equate the tribal form
> with equality-matching, but i equate it to his communal-sharing form.  you
> think his communal-sharing form matches p2p nicely.  in my view, none of his
> forms match the network form the way i'd like.  here's what i say there:
>
>        "One psychologist (Fiske, 1993) posits that all social relationships
> reduce to four forms of interaction:  communal sharing, authority ranking,
> equality matching, and market pricing.  People develop their capacities for
> social interaction in that order, from infancy through early childhood.  The
> sharing, ranking, and pricing forms correspond to the tribal, hierarchical,
> and market forms, respectively.  The equality-matching form, which is mainly
> about equal-status peer-group behavior, does not correspond to any single
> form; it has some attributes that fit under network form, but other
> attributes (e.g., reciprocity, feuding, revenge) fit better under the tribal
> form."
>
>        the url for this (including for .pdf download) is:
> http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR433/  (Social Forms, 2006)
>
> a deeper issue here is whether the tribal and the network forms are all
> that different.  i think they are.  and i'd like them to be so.  i write
> several pages about this.   but as i note, if it turns out that the new
> network form is an upgraded version of the old tribal form, then the timn
> framework should be converted into a three-form framework, and what will
> come next later in spiral fashion is an upgraded version of the hierarchical
> form.  hmm.
>
> onward.
>
> ===
>
>
>
>
> ===
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2009, at 4:39 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
> Dear David,
>>
>> Thank you so much for engaging with us on our little criticisms, I would
>> rather not call it a critique yet, as it was based on a first cursory
>> reading of the postscript section only.
>>
>> If you agree, some further reactions.
>>
>> First of all, I want to reiterate how useful I have found your work past
>> and present, including your TIMN framework
>>
>> I had excerpted from it here
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Tribes%2C_Institutions%2C_Markets%2C_Networks and
>> here
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/David_Ronfeldt_on_the_Evolution_of_Governance
>>
>> I'm using a very similar scheme from Alan Page Fiske, which I think is
>> totally congruent with yours, it's just that instead of taking a view of the
>> social formations, he takes a view of the relational dynamics as the
>> starting point, as do I.
>>
>> See http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske
>>
>> The main idea then, is that history starts with a equality matching (gift
>> economies of the tribal period) (TRIBES), the hierarchical allocation of
>> authority ranking (INSTITUTIONS), the market pricing dynamic (MARKETS) and
>> communal shareholding (NETWORKS)
>>
>> Each relational dynamic has always existed, but there seem be successive
>> historical epochs where they are dominant, and therefore dominate the form
>> of society, including the other relational logics.
>>
>> I guess an important question would be how much you would see your vision
>> of networks as indeed dominated by the communal shareholding logic, but this
>> issue could be solved by recognizing different network typologies as well,
>> and obviously, I would then be talking about a particular format of networks
>> that arises around the CS dynamic.
>>
>> If such changes do indeed occur in history, and these indeed occur over
>> the very long term (centuries), then we would expect:
>>
>> 1) a first phase in which the old dominant format (say Tribes adapting to
>> the early forms of tributary power), absorbs the new format, and can even
>> use it for strengthening itself. So today, the markets would absorb the p2p
>> dynamic, as would the state form.
>>
>> 2) in a second phase they would exist uneasily together, eventually
>> forming an unstable parity (I'm thinking of 18th century Europe, or the 5 to
>> 10th century transition from slavery to feudalism)
>>
>> 3) in a third phase though, the emerging form would start to become
>> dominant and in turn, the other forms would start to adapt to the new
>> meta-logic and meta-system.
>>
>> If that were true, and that is my thesis, then, we would eventually have a
>> p2p-network based logic society, but co-existing with peer-informed or
>> peer-transformed tribes, institutions, and markets, to use ure TIMN
>> language.
>>
>> This is of course speculation, and in any case, we are now in the emerging
>> phase of peer to peer logics coming to the fore, which means that the old
>> forms are indeed using them to strenghtem themselves.
>>
>> For example, the Obama campaign is the first to successfully
>> instrumentalize the p2p dynamics of social networks, for its own aims.
>>
>> So we have a top-down logic (a group wanting dominance in the
>> institutional field), using the new forms, but at the same time, the new
>> forms, however emergent, also exist on their own, and have their own logic
>> and strenght and a mutual adaptation arises, in which the instrumentalizing
>> party (Obama), needs to adapt just as much as do the social networks they
>> are mobilizing.
>>
>> But we need to be clear about what networks we are talking about
>> (centralized, decentralized, distributed), since p2p, as voluntary
>> aggegation around the production of common value, only pertains to
>> distributed networks, or to hybrid ones in which the distributed element
>> remains strong enough not to disallow the self-aggregation to occur.
>>
>> I would make a strong claim, and we may differ on our vision of
>> temporality here, as in our reliance on scholarship, that we are in the
>> midst of a rapid cristallisation of the new logics, that are taken an
>> institutional form already.
>>
>> I have no time to do this now, but amongst the 200+ items here at
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/category/p2p-governance, I summarized about
>> a dozen (or more), serious academic studies of how this format already
>> operates around free software/FLOSS production.
>>
>> I discuss this more thoroughly in: The social web and its social
>> contracts. Re-public, . Retrieved from http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=261
>>
>> Here a summary of the main ideas and hypotheses:
>>
>> It usually takes a triarchical form:
>>
>> 1) a self-aggregating community governed through peer governance
>>
>> 2) a new kind of NPO/NGO (misleading terms here because they imply
>> derivation from the other 2 forms), which I call 'for-benefit institutions',
>> which govern the infrastructure of cooperation
>>
>> 3) a business ecology of corporates, operating in the market but
>> practising benefit sharing with the 2 other players, see
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Benefit_Sharing
>>
>> Two important points:
>>
>> - the community-corporate dynamic gives rise to a ladder of participation
>> giving rise to practices that may be dominated by either pole, but are
>> rarely ever totally controlled by either party
>>
>> - the for-benefit institutions (http://p2pfoundation.net/For_Benefit),
>> such as the open source software foundations (
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Software_Foundations) differ
>> SIGNIFICANTLY from the older format.
>>
>> The reason is that they exist to support the community logic, and do not
>> command and control the community. Internally, they have skeleton staffs.
>>
>> I believe this can be understood by looking at the abundance/scarcity
>> polarity, with the new institutional formats only taking care of the
>> scarcity-driven infrastructure of cooperation, while the community functions
>> differently on the abundance logic of sharing immaterial goods according to
>> the p2p relational logic.
>>
>> The important thing though is that we have an observable logic at play,
>> even as it is early days. And what we see is that this same logic is now
>> being exported to the design of material things (http://p2pfoundation.net)
>> , in combination with more distributed manufacturing (
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Manufacturing).
>>
>> Because the design is immaterial, I content,  based on observation, that
>> the same triarchical structure seems to be operating as peer production
>> moves to that new sphere.
>>
>> Of the latter though, there is no scholarly material available as yet, as
>> far as I know, but we cannot possibly wait for the slow grinding academic
>> world, and we need hybrid outfits such as ours, which can at least present
>> the raw material for further study, and offer grounded, but non-academic,
>> speculations on it.
>>
>> One further step needs to be considered. Is peer production limited to 'an
>> aspect of the economy'. No no no!!!
>>
>> Self-aggregation works across all social fields, and so we can say that
>> social networks are peer producing politics as well, and that this may
>> exhibit the same triarchical logic.
>>
>> For example: self-aggregating communities of Obama sympathizers, more
>> formal institutions (such as Move.on etc..) which function as platforms BUT
>> WHICH DO NOT DIRECT the peer production, and institutions, such as the Obama
>> campaign, which attempt to extract institutional value from it (electoral
>> victory translating into power).
>>
>> So to make my point clear, what I would have liked to see in the
>> Postscript, is not just a phrase allowing for this dynamic, but a more
>> serious consideration of this very specific network logic, the p2p network
>> logic and its already observable transformative effects.
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM, David Ronfeldt <ronfeldt at mac.com> wrote:
>> Michel et al. -- Fair enough.  Interesting too.  Some comments in reply:
>>
>> At first sight, I thought your criticisms meant we had generally neglected
>> p2p networks.  But that can't be.  We make a big deal out of the rise of
>> network forms of organization, including "p2p" (though I have previously
>> preferred the term "all-channel").
>>
>> Then I saw you refer to "peer production" (a la Benkler?), as found among
>> open-source undertakings for software development and file-sharing.  Well,
>> that we do not attend to.  I view it mostly as an innovation in a part of
>> the economy -- one that engages a proposition for my TIMN effort, and I'd
>> rather take it up when I get around to doing the rise-of-markets chapter for
>> that study.
>>
>> [See below for a reminder of what TIMN is about.  The proposition is that
>> the rise of a new form (and its realm) has effects that modify the existing
>> forms/realms.  Thus, state hierarchies get modified by market principles to
>> generate liberal democracies.  Today, capitalist markets are being modified
>> by network principles to generate new modes of social production.  But I
>> digress.]
>>
>> However, I finally spotted that you were mainly referring to
>> "peer-governed civil-society networks" that include newer kinds of entities
>> than just NGOs and NPOs.  Hmmm.  Well, the paper does repeatedly emphasize
>> NGOs and NPOs, partly for shorthand reasons, and it wouldn't have taken much
>> extra space to add epistemic communities, virtual associations, and other
>> new network entities to the picture, not to mention individuals, as we have
>> done in other writings.  Moreover, on review, I see I left out a phrase I've
>> used in the past to help cover such possibilities, by referring to the
>> emergence from civil society "of a new network-based realm whose name and
>> nature are not yet known."  I'm certainly not supposing that all of civil
>> society will fold into this new realm.  Maybe Danielle and I can edit for
>> all this before long.
>>
>> I try to keep an eye out for innovative entities and networks that
>> transcend existing NGO/NPO-related categories.  But I've not spotted a lot
>> yet, even less when it comes to durable new entities that would be of
>> interest to policymakers and could participate in governance programs.  It
>> will be interesting to see what happens to the "Obama network" in this
>> regard.
>>
>> Amid all this, you found our second section in the Postscript
>> "disappointing, as a third nonprofit sector already existed."  Well, yes, it
>> has kind of existed for a little over a decade or so.  But that isn't long.
>>  Researchers didn't make much of it as a social or third sector until the
>> 1980s-90s (see our citations).  Policymakers still aren't sure about it,
>> from what I've seen.  Our point is that its significance will be for sure
>> when policy dialogue shifts -- when it moves beyond the standard
>> public-private, government-or-market categorizing, and engages a language
>> that means going in distinctly new directions.
>>
>> Later, you claim we have a "top-down bias."  But in fact, there is lots of
>> room -- and need -- for bottom-up as well as side-to-side structures and
>> processes in our vision.  This is most evident in the section on sensory
>> apparatuses, as in our references to sousveillance and collective
>> intelligence.  However, your comment is aimed at the section on networked
>> governance.  There we observe that hierarchy will persist; it is essential
>> to some degree for states. But, even in the quote you use as an example of
>> top-down bias, what we look forward to seeing are more networked
>> partnerships between state and other actors.  I figured it would be implicit
>> that such networks would not have to be top-down hierarchical.
>>
>> Perhaps you have a deeper critique in mind, akin to Kevin Carson's
>> interesting comments aspiring for p2p networks and p2p governance to
>> displace hierarchies (not to mention markets too) as a main form of social
>> organization.  That networks are gaining ground relative to hierarchies and
>> markets has been a key theme in my work for many years, esp. in writings
>> with John Arquilla.  We have even helped argue that networks can outfight
>> hierarchies in some circumstances.  But it is quite another matter to
>> suppose that, over the long run, hierarchies (or markets) are goners, and
>> networks their entirely preferable successors.
>>
>> My theoretical stance stems from trying to figure out the TIMN framework
>> and what it means for social evolution.  As you may recall, it concerns how
>> societies have developed four major forms of organization -- tribes,
>> hierarchical institutions, markets, and networks -- and combined them (and
>> their resulting realms) in a prefered progression that takes centuries to
>> evolve:  from monoform T, to biform T+I, to triform T+I+M, and next to
>> quadraform T+I+M+N societies.  As I see it, one of the underlying principles
>> for success is balance:  Each form, as it arises, is essential.  For
>> societies to achieve higher levels of systemic complexity, no form (or the
>> realm it creates) should be allowed to dominate any other; some kind of
>> balance and equilibrium should be built among these inherently contradictory
>> forms and their realms.  If correct, I regard that as science, not bias.
>>
>> I hope to get back to working on this framework soon.  Our cyberocracy
>> paper relates to it, but I never meant for it to be a major endeavor.
>>
>> One advantage of posting and sharing via SSRN is that the paper is not
>> firmly published.  After we see what other comments roll in, we could revise
>> and repost.
>>
>> I commend you on the material here on your blog.  I've spent more time
>> than before in browsing it, and I'm impressed.  I'm also pleased that you've
>> helped circulate our paper.
>>
>> These are my personal, independent views (and Danielle's may differ).
>>
>> Onward.
>>
>> ===
>>
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 4:10 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>
>> Dear David,
>>
>> emailing is fine, I'll post it on the blog when appropriate and also
>> forward it to our p2p research list of academics and researchers,
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:38 AM, David Ronfeldt <ronfeldt at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> i'll get back to you guys soon on your various emails and blog posts.  my
>> inclination will be just to email back, and then if you want, you can insert
>> into your blog(s).  ok?  i'm not entirely averse to commenting directly
>> within a blog; i just don't have the inclination for it yet.   also, i'm so
>> new to blogging practices, i'm wondering where would i put a reply, my blog
>> or yours, when i'd want it to show in both?  anyway, i'm not ignoring you,
>> just being slow. . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
>> alternatives.
>>
>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
>> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
>>
>> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
>> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
>> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU
>>
>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>
>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
>> alternatives.
>>
>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
>> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
>>
>> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
>> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
>> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU
>>
>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>
>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>
>
>


-- 
The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
alternatives.

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p

Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU

KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090122/79c39a7f/attachment-0001.html>