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

[Dmytri Kleiner]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Michel Bauwens wrote:

>
>       I have not authored a language to call my own, I am proposing you use clear
>       language, so that we can talk about the reality of peer-production and
>       spread the understanding that immatrial assets can have no exchange value,
>       so owners of material assets will always capture the entire
>       productive surplus this quite import fact is lost in talk of "immaterial"
>       production.
> 
> 
> No it is not lost, and actually central to the 'crisis of value' thesis that I have
> co-authored with Adam Arvidsson, already 3 years ago now.

No doubt you have mentioned it in specific works, it is lost in general
discussions where peer-production employs the Benklerite definition.


> This is something I don't understand. Is free software not produced, 
> only circulated ??? Is open design not produced, not circulated.

The distinction you are making only applies to circulation, see next
comment:


> It is both, it is produced, either by conditional corporate wage labour, or by
> unconditional subsidized work as basic income, or by unpaid volunteers.

This is true for both Free Software and Wool Socks.


> It is then also
> circulated. In fact, circulation is nearly automatic in a digital environment, so that
> is not really the issue.

This is true for Free Software, but not Wool Socks.

You can't download Socks.

See the distinction? Are we closer to an aha-moment yet?


>       Then what leads you to such absurd claims as that immaterial producers
>       "own their means of production" if this is obvious?
> 
> 
> They do: their brains, the computers, and the access to the socialized network, there
> are their means of production.

You are neglecting Food and Shelter.

So what you really mean is they own some of their means of production.
Makers of Wool Socks may well own their own knitting needles as well.

This is the kind of half-way thinking that the Benklerite definition
encourages.


> Only in design of physical products do you also need
> extra production machinery requiring larger capital outlays.

Certain forms of production are more or less capital-intensive than
others, however all must feed and house the labour they employ, at a
minimum.


> But perhaps there is
> another semantic question here. I clearly mean: the means to produce free software.
> Because you mean: funding and the means of social reproduction of the workers? 
> Or do you  not count the brains, the computers, and the internetwork as means of 
> production?

I count these things as among the means of production, but workers
workers producing material goods may own some of their own means of
production as well, none of this is fundamental. Under capitalism, neither 
workers who produce material nor immaterial wealth own their own means of
production, and both must sell their labour as a commodity to provide
for their own subsistence.


> Are
> the means of production restricted to physical machinery, to money or debt capital, to
> what exactly?

The means of production are all the factors, all inputs needed to
produce, and not some random categorical subset. Obviously.


> ok you are acknowledging that wikipedia is sustainable, despite being uneconomical in
> the sense  you indicated for free software?

What do you mean by "uneconomical," Wikipedia is sustainable because it
is economical, as their financial report clearly shows.


> peer production is based on voluntary input, participatory process and 
> commons oriented output;

This is already an improvement, since you have not included "immaterial"
and "non-reciprocal" in this.

Now consider what the objective conditions to achieve the above are:
independent access to the means of production.


> it can be complemented and funded by a new economic 
> system that is based on worker's employing a common stock of productive assets

Peer production is the new economic system, if we can defend and promote
it, which is by no means certain.

Free Software and peer networks do provide a new way or producing and
sharing, the Benklerite definition simply evades the relevant points
which are that both these phenomena are distinguished by producers
independently employing a common-stock in production.

However taking their cue from neoclassical economists who confuse the subjective
price of stocks with the objects costs of sustaining flows, Benklerites can't 
distinguish between the common _stock_ and peer _production_.

Stocks of free software are certainly immaterial and non-contributing
users are able to use them, thus it can be said that circulation of
free software is (nearly) "immaterial" and "non-reciprocal." 
However, this tells you nothing of _production_, peer or otherwise.


> yes, but this is precisely why I'm puzzled,because under your definition, it does not
> actually exist yet; since you exclude the means of immaterial production (brains,
> computers, networks), what you are left with is the means of material production, and
> financial capital, and indeed, free software programmers do not have access to that!!

I do not exclude these inputs, I simply include the others.


> In that sense, peer production does not exist, so what does exist under your 
> definition, is what puzzles me??

In that //some// of the inputs to peer production are a
common-stock, so what I want is to have //more// of the inputs of
production be a common-stock, especially material inputs.

Benklerites note that //some// of the inputs to peer production are
immaterial. What do Benkerlites want? That //more// of the inputs to
peer production become immaterial? No, rather what they want is that the
material inputs remain in private hands, thus the framing.


> ok, I definitely understand your concern, though I disagree that talking about
> immaterial production and indirect reciprocity has the implications which you 
> say it has

You are entitled to your beliefs, however since you have had to do
logical back-flips in making "non-reciprocal" into "reciprocal but not _direct_" and
"immaterial" into "immaterial outputs with material and immaterial
inputs" will you at least admit that "immaterial, non-reciprocal
production" is a  problematic and potentially misleading definition?

BTW, this thread does not appear on the P2Presearch list, does the
moderation queue need attention?

Cheers.



-- 
Dmytri Kleiner, aspiring crank

http://www.telekommunisten.net