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

Wed Jun 17 11:53:53 CEST 2009

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Dmytri Kleiner <dk at telekommunisten.net>wrote:

> 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.

an early version:
http://p2pfoundation.net/Crisis_of_Value_and_the_Ethical_Economy

official version:

Journal of Futures Studies, May 2008, 12(4): 9 – 20. By Adam
Arvidsson, University of Milan, Italy ; Michel Bauwens, Foundation for peer
to peer alternatives, Thailand, Nicolai Peitersen Actics Ltd., UK

Archives of JFS at http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/sarticles.html

>
>
>
>  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.

not exactly, only the first applies to 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?

that is of course the central insight of p2p theory, that aha moment came
looong time ago

>
>
>
>       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.

ok, now we get to it: you indeed mean the social reproduction of the
workers, it's what I thought, not the core means of production for software
and other immaterial goods; second, that is the essential innovation of
capitalism: that the makers no longer own their knitting needles and thus
need to sell their labour ...

the problem for free software developers is that they no longer need capital
for the means of production, but only need money for their social
reproduction ... this is quite a big change, making capital more parasitic
than before ..., i.e. more unnecessary

See: In peer production, the interests of capitalists and entrepreneurs are
no longer aligned<http://p2pfoundation.net/In_peer_production,_the_interests_of_capitalists_and_entrepreneurs_are_no_longer_aligned>

but also the following material:

Summary by Kevin Carson: Expanding Peer Production to the Physical
World<http://p2pfoundation.net/Expanding_Peer_Production_to_the_Physical_World>

Also:

   1. The economics of open
hardware<http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/2009/02/zen-and-art-of-open-source-hardware.html>(Liquid
Antipasto blog)
   2. Can we shift from open software to open hardware? a) Can peer
   production make washing
machines?<http://p2pfoundation.net/Can_peer_production_make_washing_machines%3F>.
   Graham Seaman; b) Open Source outside the Domain of
Software<http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262562278chapm2.pdf>.
   Clay Shirky; c) Why Open
Hardware?<http://p2pfoundation.net/Why_Open_Hardware%3F>by Patrick
McNamara.
   3. In peer production, the interests of capitalists and entrepreneurs are
   no longer aligned<http://p2pfoundation.net/In_peer_production,_the_interests_of_capitalists_and_entrepreneurs_are_no_longer_aligned>
   4. Dave Pollard on the fallacy of the Economies of
Scale<http://p2pfoundation.net/Economies_of_Scale>argument, i.e. that
bigger is better.
   5. What are the specific difficulties for Open
Hardware<http://p2pfoundation.net/What_are_the_specific_difficulties_for_Open_Hardware>?

   6. Design for sustainability is inherently
participatory<http://p2pfoundation.net/Design_for_sustainability_is_inherently_participatory>
   7. Can we design our economic policies and politics for developing
   abundance? See Roberto Verzola on Undermining vs. Developing
Abundance<http://p2pfoundation.net/Roberto_Verzola_on_Undermining_vs._Developing_Abundance>

[edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Design?title=Category:Design&action=edit&section=7>
] Conditions for Success

   1. What would it take to move Towards a Free Matter
Economy<http://p2pfoundation.net/Towards_a_Free_Matter_Economy>?
   By Terry Hancock. Free Software Magazine, Issue 7, October 2005.
   2. Eric Hunting: Moving from free software to free production: what we
   need<http://p2pfoundation.net/Moving_from_free_software_to_free_production:_what_we_need>

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.

well, this is what has changed, now knowledge workers do own their own means
of production, but not their means of social reproduction ... this is the
key to this historical moment and its potential for change

>
>
>
>
>  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.

yes, but it is not linked to a business logic of a corporation, you seemed
to imply that free software only exists because of that, and I think this
simplifies things too much

>
>
>
>  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.

we have used this definition for years ... so now the question that may lead
to your own material, where and how can this 3-form definition be achieved
...?? for the moment, for the production and distribution of immaterial
products which can be digitally circulated

>
>
> 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.

agreed

>
>
> 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.

I share this concern and wish

>
>
> 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.

I agree, they see this as the reality which cannot be changed, and this is
how the p2pfoundation's p2p theory differs, in that it desires to go beyond
this reality, and find a combination between already existing peer
production and the forms of ownership and cooperation which extend it
maximally to the physical domain ...

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

this is for ryan and  kevin, I will forward, I'm getting it in my mailbox at
least.

Michel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090617/c610ee88/attachment.html>