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

[Michel Bauwens]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Dmytri Kleiner <dk at telekommunisten.net>wrote:

> 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.



so, if Benkler would call it, indirect reciprocity, would you be happy? If
yes, then please consider that when he, and I say, non-reciprocal that is
what we mean; it is what anthropoligists have called 'generalized exchange';
an exchange, however remote, with a 'common', where you only, mostly, get
'indirect' benefits



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


again, this is a semantic discussion, you insist that all use your language,
even though you must be aware that when someone uses immaterial production,
it is always implied that it is happening in a material world, through a
material infrastructure, but it is a form of matter one cannot touch ...
it's information, a 'difference that makes a difference' ...

>
>
> 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.



but the whole point is that there is a difference between traditional
physical and localized commons, which are generally depletable, and digital
commons, which are global, can be reproduced at marginal cost (though of
course, relying on a physical infrastructure to do so)



>
>
>
>  <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.


No, according to my definition of indirect reciprocity, it is a perfect
example, most parents do not in normal circumstances trade with their
children , nor do they expect a direct return from their children ... they
treat the family as a whole, with common resources



>
>
>  <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 can and it does, see the paragraph just below


>
>> 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_.



they are accounted for, and can be accounted for, by empircially observing
reality, any singele free software programmer can explain to you the
material circumstances that allow him to contribute .. there is absolutely
no mystery to it



>
> 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.
>


ok, for the sake of argument then, let's admit that Linux doesn't exist, or
that it is exclusively produced by wage labourers ... let's see how far that
will bring you ...



>
> 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.


euh, explain the economics of Wikipedia to me please ...



>
>
>
>
>  <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.



the commons demands mostly, or largely, as they are exceptions in physical
commons, indirect reciprocity, and the digital commons requires universal
availability; any form of production indeed demands some form of
reciprocity, direct or indirect; peer production does not require direct
reciprocity, or it wouldn't be peer production




>
>
>
>  <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.


glad we agree on that ...


>
>
>
>  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).


so the corporations would only be required to pay for material productive
assets ... of coursee, as you say, the 'scarcity' of material assets
requires it 'naturally' ..


>
>
>
>  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.


agreed, and it is because this is already happening that the phenomena
exists ..., but we would like to improve these reproduction mechanisms in
the sense of equity and non-exploitation




>
>
>
>  <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,"


ok!



>
>
> 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.



great



>
>
>
>
>  <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?



ok, I'm saying something already exists, but can only be reproduced
presently by the system of capital, and the plan is to find ways to
reproduce it 'differently', more equitably, as far as we can ..

you are saying that, until that happens, it does not exist ... fine for me,
but you won't make me change my language which I indeed think is the best
way to explain it



>
>
>
>  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.



but copyleft/cc is also applied to digital content ... not necessarily to
physical books and cd's ...


>
>
>
>  <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.



neither me nor benkler, despite our differences see it in any way isolated
from the material world, but rather fully embedded in it, replace immaterial
by digital if you like, and non-reciprocal, with the well documented
communal shareholding or indirect reciprocity which has been observed
throughout the ages

so from now on, let's stop with such useless discussions, so immaterial =
digital that is super-hyper-embedded in the material world (repeat a ziga
times) and non-reciprocal = communal shareholding, indirect reciprocity ...

Michel

>
>
>
> --
> Dmytri Kleiner, aspiring crank
>
> http://www.telekommunisten.net
>



-- 
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090616/8977d728/attachment-0001.html>