[p2p-research] A basic income guarantee versus peer production

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Thanks for the clarification.

It still seems to me thatt libertarians and Republican fiscal conservatives 
make a similar argument for unchained capitalism being "hyper-productive" 
potentially and thus bringing abundance to all. :-) And many of them are on 
local chambers of commerces, promoting local industry, for local abundance. 
So, there is the basis for a dialog there, at least. :-)

Or some soul searching about the true difference? :-) There is no doubt some 
difference in sentiment and hopes and vision. I'm learning more and more 
about the differences and overlap with other ideas, so that's good; more 
written here by those who know might be helpful:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons-based_peer_production

And thanks to others for the other replies.

I also agree with Andy's comment that: "So the system is segmentary - in 
old-fashioned terms, there's a "contradiction" between the logics of the two 
spheres (gift-economy/tribute hybrid, and capitalism).  The question being, 
whether the segmentarity is sustainable - whether capitalism maintains its
profitability without strong economic coercion. One could moot a strategy 
where gift economy starts out in a little corner and colonises the whole, 
but Offe and Przeworski would suggest that this would impact profit margins 
- beyond a certain point, the transition has to be "all of nothing"."

What is interesting about the basic income and peer production is that the 
first objection people often raise to a basic income is that everyone will 
be lazy and not produce. But then the next objection they raise is that 
everyone will suddenly produce goods, services, and information for "free", 
which will ruin the classical money economy. Interesting irony there. :-)

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/

Michel Bauwens wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> regarding your question,
> 
> peer production is a mode of production and it can exist co-exist with
> different types of political economy ...
> 
> peer production is for the moment 'hyper-productive' in terms of generating
> 'use value', but does not work for 'social reproduction', at least not
> directly. Capitalism itself is becoming ever more flexible and fraught with
> risk for personal and social survival.
> 
> So the basic income makes sense both as a broader social solution for risk
> in general, and as a specific way to allow more people to engage in peer
> production ... until that time as society has discovered a more proper way
> to integrate peer production is a more adapted political economy that can
> profit from this hyperproductivity.
> 
> However, I have doubts about its political realization. Yes, there are
> reports and discussions, but at the same time very strong opposition and I
> see little progress ...