[p2p-research] Why Post-Capitalism is Rubbish

[Michel Bauwens]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Dmytri Kleiner <dk at telekommunisten.net>wrote:

>
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
>  My position is that both need to be integrated, but that it is regressive
>> to make
>> non-reciprocity dependent on the needed reciprocity for material
>> production.
>>
>
> It is my position that non-reciprocity is a red herring.


It has always existed and will always exist, see the many different
anthropological accounts such as the structure of social life and its
detailed description of communal shareholding over the ages

take the following example: family sharing. A family sharing environment
exists within a market economy, is used by the market to support itself, but
does that make the family environment a market? No, unless  you start
selling to your wife and kids.

Similary, really existing non-reciprocal communal shareholding by free
software developers exists within the market economy and is used by the
market, but that does not make non-reciprocal production a market function.

Since it exists, the real question is: can it evolve from a subsumed mode to
a dominant mode, and under what conditions?

The family sharing mode was once the dominant mode, then became subsumed to
different other dominant modes;

Peer production is now emerging as a very strong mode to produce immaterial
assets, can it, and how, become the core mode of producing value in society?
It could do this by subsuming the equitable market mode, but how?

What would be useful for me is that you explain more clearly the distinction
between cooperative production and what you call peer production? Under your
definition, which seems different from mine, does it already exist? will it
exist, and how will it come into being, and what will it do to the peer
production that already exists under my definition (i.e. voluntary
contribution, participatory process, universal availability).

I already know you would restrict universal availability, how else would it
change?

>
>
> Rivalrous and non-rivalrous production doesn't need to be integrated, they
> are, must be, and always will be integrated, it's your analysis that is
> disintregated by not considering the whole mode of production. Don't be
> fooled by law
> professors bearing gifts (Benkler, Lessig, etc), they exist to confuse
> the issue.


It is now integrated in the market economy, but can it be integrated with
something else, under a different political economy?

My position is quite different from theirs. They see its subsumption to the
market as a given and seemingly permanent, I see it as something that must
be overcome (and will be overcome).

>
>
>
>  This is why
>> you are restricting the commons against capitalist market players, making
>> it into a
>> non-commons or a privatized commons (though by cooperative producers)
>>
>
> If you are referring to to copyfarleft it is
> important to note that this proposal does not apply to immaterial
> productive assets, but rather to stocks of immaterial goods, the essay goes
> to great lengths to make
> the distinction.


could you quote that part? I don't recall the distinction precisely



>
>
>  I
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090612/2ab3e1f2/attachment.html>