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

[Dmytri Kleiner]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Michel Bauwens wrote:

> 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

Yes, and I also recall our discussion on his topic in 2006, following my
WoS4 comments.


>
>       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

100% false. Why on earth could recipients of a basic income not knit
socks? And also, my children have had socks knit by unpaid volunteers,
don't yours?

Please think this through more thoroughly.


>             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,

Yes, of however still muddied by the neoclassical fog preventing you
from distinguishing stocks from flows.


> that aha moment came looong time
> ago

Until you realize that basic income recipients and volunteers can also
knit socks, the penny still has some dropping to do.



> You are neglecting Food and Shelter.
> 
> So what you really mean is they own some of their means of production.

The means of production includes all factors. This is the case in all
economic texts. The cost of feeding workers as a component of the
factor price of wages is just about the most classic example of input costs.


> 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 ...

No, the central innovation of Capitalism is they lack the means of acquiring food
and shelter, the knitting needless are optional. It is and was quite common,
for instance, for industrial producers to provide their own tools,
shoes, uniforms, etc.


> 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 makes no sense whatever.


> this is quite a big change, making capital more parasitic than before ..., i.e. 
> more unnecessary

The change is that immaterial production is less capital intensive, and
that much of the capital is subsidized by private and public funds, i.e.
the international telephone system, making it available for far less
than it's value.


> See: In peer production, the interests of capitalists and entrepreneurs are no longer
> aligned

They never have been.


> but also the following material:
> 
> Summary by Kevin Carson: Expanding Peer Production to the Physical World

Note that this statement contradicts the Benklerite definition since
//immaterial// production can not, by definition, be expanded into 
the //pysical// world.

This same is true of the other sources you cite, it is illogical to
talk about extending immaterial production into the physical (material)
world. To suggest that peer production can be extended into the
material world is to disqualify that the definition of peer production
as immaterial.

Therefore simply using that title means you must reject that peer
production = immaterial production.

> well, this is what has changed, now knowledge workers do own their own means of
> production, but not their means of social reproduction

As labour is one of the factors of production, your sentence is confused
beyond repair. Also, the term "social reproduction," afaik, refers to the
reproduction of a class, not a person.


> 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,

??

A non profit corporation is a corporation!


> you seemed to imply that free software only exists because of that, and
> I think this simplifies things too much

Free software production, like all other forms of production, must
account for the costs of all it's inputs. I did not say there was only
one way of doing so, some "corporate" way. Far from it.


>       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

In other words workers currently employing a common-stock of mainly
immaterial productive assets can //expand their stock// to include
material assets! In other words //expanding// peer production into the
material world. Peer production //is// the new economics system you are
referring to. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this.


>
>       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 ...

Their framing of peer-production as "Immaterial, Non-reciprocal"
production reflects there intent to limit peer-production to the limits
allowed by Capitalism. As we both reject those limits, let us also
reject that limited framing.

It is one thing to say that peer production today is most common
in the production of immaterial wealth, it is quite another to
//define// peer production //as// the production immaterial wealth.

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

It would be nice for the rest of the list to get them as well.


-- 
Dmytri Kleiner, aspiring crank

http://www.telekommunisten.net