[p2p-research] Venture Communism or social capitalism

[paola.dimaio at gmail.com]

I agree with your concerns, Patrick
 I need bits of personal property like my mug, my books, my sanctuary and
sacred space where I feel safe and where I am absolutely free, etc etc

I agree that the notion of property may need  to be revisted a bit, (my
children, my boyfriend, to what extend we own things? isnt everything just
passing, and we do really is take care of things, or use things)

just controlling things for a purpose may not necessarily imply ownership as
we know it

but I feel it would be more productive to articulate a discussion around how
to increase the benefits of certain kinds of private properies by sharing
its usage and maximising the circulation of resources, or something




On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>wrote:

> Ryan Lanham wrote:
> > My own view of this is that ownership is moot in p2p.
>
> I agree property ownership has caused and continues to cause big
> problems for those that would otherwise organize for 'righteous'
> purposes.
>
> But if we cannot or will-not use some form of property ownership, then
> how will we even secure the Land and Tools we need to begin?  Are we
> going to beg the Capitalist controlled governments to hand these to
> us?
>
> But even if we can somehow gain access to the Means of Production
> without simply purchasing them, how will we solve the difficulties of
> allocation and scheduling that many would rather not even think about?
>
> It's nice to think we would all just share and do the right thing, but
> that is both naive and even downright dangerous because we then fail
> to prepare for those that WILL do the wrong thing.
>
> Protecting any organization requires we plan for the worst elements.
> Security is made best by taking the stance of the would-be attacker or
> disrupter and then designing measures that will thwart those advances.
>
> Again, 'raw' property ownership is a problem, and we cannot use it in
> 'bare' form while expecting to see a difference from what we already
> experience (Excessive Capital accumulation for example).
>
> But since owners are traditionally the semi-ultimate controllers of
> that property, maybe we could utilize the 'good' portions of ownership
> to have a place to stand while applying some restrictions against the
> 'bad' portions of ownership (since owners can always add "Terms of
> Use" to their own property) in a manner analogous to the way the GNU
> GPL uses Copyright against itself.
>
> I won't say what I think should be in the "Terms of Use", since I've
> already said this part in the past, and will only get in trouble if I
> repeat that now.
>
> I don't want to debate (right now) *what* the constraints should be,
> I'm only wondering if such an approach is worthy of consideration as
> an avenue of implementation.
>
> Patrick
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
Paola Di Maio,
****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090502/6103c74a/attachment.html>