[p2p-research] Why Post-Capitalism is Rubbish:A

[Dmytri Kleiner]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Michel Bauwens wrote:


> Hi Dmytri, I cannot believe you are not aware of the deep difference between two forms
> of gifting, specifically reciprocal gifting, as described by Marcel Mauss, or
> 'generalized exchange', i.e. gifting to a commons (give a brick, get a house).

Hi Michel, you where referring to Anthropological accounts, which overwhelmingly
emphasize reciprocity, i.e. Mauss, Melinowski, Morgan, etc,

However generalized exchange (even your example) is both material, and
reciprocal, just not unit priced.

Whatever model of reciprocity you use, reciprocity remains reciprocricty
and is never "non-reciprical" as in the Benklerian peer-production
definition.

Just like production of immaterial wealth with material inputs is not
"immaterial production."

I have not argued for a particular model of reciprocity, rather against
the ridiculous "Non-reciprocal, Immaterial" definition of
peer-production, and for one more in line with the historical commons,
and with peer networks, that is: producers independently employing a common 
stock of productive assets.


> <You are conflating reciprocity with the Market. Value in non-market
> reciprocity, as I've mentioned before,
> is placed on relationships, not individual item and transaction prices.
> When a member of a family does not
> meet the expectations of the other family members in their contributions,
> disputes arise.>
> 
> I'm well aware of the difference.

Then why did you give the example of a family as non-reciprocal? My
response was to that false example.


> <Further you miss the point that we are not talking about circulation, but
> production, and no matter how altruistic
> and selfless the producers are, if they are not able to attain the
> reproduction costs of their inputs,
> they are not able to continue producing. A mode of production must explain
> how all inputs are reproduced, your
> Benklerian model of peer-production, "non-reciprocal, immaterial
> production," can not.>
> 
> It does that very well, pragmatically. Both Benkler and myself are very well aware of
> the embeddedness of peer production in the market mode, and of the different streams
> going from one to the other. We are not positing an idealized 'should', just looking at
> what is.

Even this is false, the point is not that peer production is embedded in
the _market_ mode, that is not essential as the material inputs for
immaterial production could be provided in by a monarch, a theocrat or a
fairy god mother, the point is that material inputs must be accounted for to 
talk about peer _production_.

And so-long as you insist on talking about some "immaterial,
non-reciprocal" production you are certainly not talking about "what is," since 
no such thing has existed or can exist.


> <You continue to misunderstand the nature of free software production and
> persist in your belief in the
> fairytale of random volunteer developers making free software for no reason
> at all. No such "Free Software" exists
> outside the long tail of abandon-ware and vapour-ware listed on the
> backpages of freshmeat searches.>
> 
> I'm well aware of the different motivational structures, including the proportion of
> paid developers (the ratio depends on the projects) in it, which depends on the maturity
> of the project. Projects often start (or used to start, before corporations understood
> open source as the default mode) with an almost exclusive volunteer force, then
> gradually professionalize and hybriditize. There's a whole polarity between community
> led, hybrid, to 'corporate commons' models.

Corporations also often start with an almost exclusive volunteer force.
This is not interesting or remarkable. The point is all significant free
software is such exactly because it is an input to an economically
viable productive process, and is therefore sustained by the producers who
employ it.

The polarity (spectrum?) is not in reality, only in your imagination. Free software
packages that do not become an input to economically viable productive process,
quickly become abandonware.



> <What is interesting about the production of free software is that free
> software is a common stock of productive assets employed in production
> independently by many producers, not that it is non-reciprocal (It's not)
> nor immaterial. What is interesting is that it is commons-based, that is
> it's definitive characteristic.>
> 
> If the commons would require reciprocity, it would not be a commons,

It is not the "commons" that requires reciprocity, rather any form of
production. The quoted statement clearly reads "what is interesting
about the production ..." NOT "what is interesting about the commons."


> <A commons-based market, one where productive assets where held in common by
> peer-producing networks of independant producers
> is exactly the equitable market you are looking for. I wont champion a
> particlar model in this thread, but there are many, from Mutualism,
> Syndicalism and Georgism, to their mash-ups such as Gesselian
> Freiwirtshaft, Geolibertarianism, and my own Venture Communism.>
> 
> Well, this is where perhaps we can find common ground.
> 
> But there is something I need to understand about this:
> 
> when you say:
> 
> <peer-producing networks of independant producers>
> 
> do you mean that the commons would be restricted to the independent producers of a
> specific network, i.e. the members of a particular project, or network of projects, it
> is to the particular members, and not universally available, as FO/SS is now?

In terms of immaterial productive assets, I don't advocate any
restrictions, however, the reproduction costs associated with matterial
assests requires something like membership in a sharing network to be
viable.

Therefore no artificial restrictions are needed. Restrictions on the use of physical
objects is impossed by the facts of objective reality.


> If that were the case, that would be the major difference in approach.
> 
> 1) Would you restrict it only from the corporations, as you indicated in copyfarleft, or
> from other workers and their organizations also?

Once again, the point of copyfarleft is to make a disctinction between
productive assets and produced stocks. So this questions is moot (see
above).


> 2)Would you make any difference between the immaterial assets (software, knowledge,
> designs) and the material assets (machines, productive assets, "money"), or not.

Not essentially, however costs must be accounted for, and these are
different.

The simple rule is that producers, as a whole, must account for the
production and circulation costs of all inputs, material and immaterial.
However, immaterial inputs have lower reproduction and circulation
costs.


> <Mutualism,
> Syndicalism and Georgism, to their mash-ups such as Gesselian
> Freiwirtshaft, Geolibertarianism, and my own Venture Communism.>
> 
> It would be really useful to have such an overview at our disposal.

I will certainly write more on this topic in the future, however it
is not my purpose in this thread to promote my own solutions, as
mentioned earlier.


> <In peer production the stock of productive assets is common, not owned by
> one co-operative, but by many independent individuals and groups.>
> 
> Is it owned abstractly by the common, which is universal, or by a particular
> organization, linked to a license? Does that apply to all productive assets, included
> the material ones?

Immaterial productive assets do not require "owners,"

The different examples I cited have different scopes for the allocator
of material (and therefore rivalrous) productive assets, i.e. the State 
is the de-facto allocator of land in Georgism, the "Venture Commune" is the
allocator in Venture Communism. Mutualism works by simply refusing to 
recognize alienated ownership in land, only recognizing possession.



> <Users of and contributers to the Linux kernel, for example, are not a
> co-operative, but rather a distributed network of individuals and groups
> for whom the Linux Kernel is a common productive assets, some of them make
> routers, some of the make distros, some of them do client-funded
> customizations, etc. The vast majority of benefit directly from the Linux
> Kernel, and thus contribute to it so that it better suites their needs. The
> value the derive from the Linux Kernel is far greater than that of their
> own contributions to it.>
> 
> yes, that is what I meant to say above by <give a brick, get a house>, but the other
> characteristic of a digital commons like the Linux Kernel, is that it can also be used
> by people who are not contributing.

It can be used "as is" by people who are not contributing it, because an
already developed version of it has almost no reproduction costs. The
ones that contribute to it are the one that require additional or
specialized functionality.

The kernel had to exist, and therefore already have been produced,
before any such noncontributing users could use it. Ass we are talking
about peer _production_. The topic is how did it come to have been
produced.


> <Free software, primitive commons society, the family and every single
> example you use is much better explained if you understand that the
> definitive feature in peer-production is the commons, not some imaginary
> "non-reciprocity.">
> 
> the commons is defined by generalized exchange, see above, but let's not quibble about
> words, if you agree that the exchange is not between persons, but between persons and a
> common stock, then we mean the same thing.

It's not a quibble over words, but an essential matter of how we
define what, in fact, we are talking about.

What is peer-production? Is it worker's independently employing a
common-stock of productive assets? Or is it nonreciprocal, immaterial
production? What specific socio-economic development are we discussing
here?


> The only thing you then need to explain to
> maintain your definition of absolute reciprocity is what happens to people who use
> without contributing anything.

That is a special case circulation, and nothing more, it occurs under
certain conditions, when such usage does not add costs to the producers.


> > I already know you would restrict universal availability, how else would
> > it change?
> 
> <Please stop repeating this false statement.>
> 
> Hi Dmytri, I'm surprised here, because you confirmed it yourself in an earlier exchange,
> you even added that corporate firms would find it normal to pay for the commons, you
> said, literally, "it's what they expect anyway". So, if my interpretation is false, you
> are saying that corporations, and anybody, can use your type of commons? In that case,
> the GPL would be sufficient isn't it, no need for a new copyfarleft.

For the ten millionth time, copyfarleft is not for software (or any
productive asset), but for produced stocks of consumptive goods. i.e.
books and movies, conversely, the GPL is not for these.

I have never claimed the GPL is not sufficient for software. The GPL
does not cover books and movies, as is not intended to.

Copyfarleft, as I have told you again and again, is an alternative to
Copyleft non-commercial licences, and not the GPL.


> <By excepting their framing of peer-production, you also fall victim to the
> limits inherent in a definition which tries to evade the objective costs of
> sustaining production by mesmerizing you with novelties in circulation.>
> 
> Not at all, these objective costs are my central concern.

Then drop the "immaterial, nonreciprocal"  definition so we can start talking 
about real peer-production, not keeping peer-production in pristine isolation from
the material world by making it immaterial and nonreciprocal by definition.


-- 
Dmytri Kleiner, aspiring crank

http://www.telekommunisten.net