[p2p-research] labour, capital and p2p

Sat May 16 15:18:12 CEST 2009

Hi Marco,

thanks for making me aware of POCLAD. I have not heard of this inititiative before, it sounds very interesting, similar to the core critique of 'The Coproration'. I would agree that corporations (or some of them) are too powerful, however this would not be my main concern. The core concern is that the power in large corporations resides in the hands of few people, the power to make decisions about future strategies, and the power to distribute the profits among those who work for the corporation. One way of creating a 'fairer society' as you call it would be along the lines of collective ownership of organisations.

Andreas

________________________________

From: p2presearch-bounces at listcultures.org on behalf of M. Fioretti
Sent: Fri 15/05/2009 07:37
To: p2presearch at listcultures.org
Subject: Re: [p2p-research] labour, capital and p2p

On Thu, May 14, 2009 22:15:16 PM +0100, Wittel, Andreas wrote:

> So why tinkering at the edges of a monetary system, why creating new
> ones?... I would like to focus my inquiries on the question how the
> p2p community can contribute to a fairer system of monetary exchange
> for labour (= value)

I confess that I too, sometimes (out of highly unscientific gut
feeling and almost nothing else) fail to see the point in working on
some theories. That's why I usually just sit quietly in a corner when
these discussions happen, trying to learn something interesting. I'll
take advantage of this comment from you, and from these doubts, which
I also share:

> I have some doubts that this goal (a fairer system of exchange) can
> actually be tackled in the p2p world alone.

to ask all members of this list something I have wanted to investigate
better for years, since the first time I encountered it online. What
do you think of the POCLAD proposals (www.poclad.org) as a way to
arrive to a "fairer system of exchange", as Andreas calls it?
Simplifying a lot, what they say, or so I understand, is that if
everybody focused on asking on abolition of corporate personhood
privileges, many of the problems you're trying to solve via new
monetary systems and so on or would either disappear or become of a
much smaller size.

The advantage I see in such an approach is that is something that (as
unreal as may seems) may very well be simpler and faster to achieve
than basic income, p2p money and so on, and in any case could make
transitioning to those other schemes much simpler. Above all, those
proposals have a huge practical advantage alternative monetary systems
etc... they're very, very easy to explain to everybody, including
people with very poor education. They're much easier to gather popular
support for. As Einstein put it "everything should be made as simple
as possible, but not simpler".

Does it make any sense? Please explain gently :-) , I'm just a newbie
on these issue.

Changing argument now:

> all that is needed to produce and distribute digital things is the
> value of labour (Marco I know you disagree,

:-) no problem, really, I understand why you're saying it. Still, I
have something to say about this:

> Open source and p2p communities are full of enthusiasts who are
> willing to contribute with their labour to the changes we have
> experienced, social changes, economic changes, political changes.
> This labour mostly is free labour.

"over 70% of all kernel development is demonstrably done by developers
who are being paid for their work... The Linux kernel, then, is
largely the product of professionals, not volunteers".

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/linux-now-slave-corporate-masters

the same is true for Mozilla/Firefox, OpenOffice...

Just a few days ago, I found this comment on slashdot:

"there's also an awful lot of good free software too" - "No, there
isn't. There is a minuscule amount of good free software. Especially
when compared to the total amount of free software. The good/bad
software ratio is heavily in favor of commercial software."

I do not really agree with that comment, but it is a fact that a not
negligible amount of flagship FOSS (the "good free software") is and
above all **remains** "flagship" quality exactly because someone,
somehow, stepped in and regularly brings in enough money to sustain
full time, well paid work.

> A fairer exchange system for labour power, I believe, cannot be
> achieved with a new piece of software and a p2p community of several
> hundred (or even thousand) enthusiasts that uses this new software
> tool. For this to happen we need to develop strategies which are
> aimed at societies at large.

Replace "exchange system for labour power" with "society", and I fully
agree. That's why I was really fascinated by the POCLAD proposals and
really want to study them in detail some time: maybe they're wrong or
ineffectual, but they're sure damn easy to explain or sum up on
protest signs and T-shirts :-)

Marco
--
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
software is used *around* you:            http://digifreedom.net/node/84

_______________________________________________
p2presearch mailing list
p2presearch at listcultures.org
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

This email is intended solely for the addressee.  It may contain private and confidential information.  If you are not the intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone.  In this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error.  Opinions and information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University.
Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free.  This is in keeping with good computing practice.