[p2p-research] labour, capital and p2p
Ryan Lanham
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Sun May 17 22:17:49 CEST 2009
Andreas:
If I suggested technology does away with inequality, I erred. It cannot and
will not. I've never thought it. If I wrote it, I was incorrect.
In fact, I think equality is an illusory goal. Equality cannot be defined
very well, and cannot be enforced in any moral system I know of. I for one
am not willing to lose all liberty to gain a low level equality. Even if I
were, I doubt it could be achieved. On the other hand, peer systems can be
voluntarily built and subscribed to. Those create local equalities if well
governed.
That said, equal pay for women, fair value for labor provided, fair wages
paid at a living scale...all good ends that I support.
As you suggest, I am happy to leave Marxism as a topic. It is useless to
me. If others find it not so, I wish them well with it.
I specifically do NOT see P2P as an alternative to Capitalism or Socialism.
I see it as a way of constructing certain solutions that doesn't get fit
into either of those two boxes (neither of which I find particularly
useful). It isn't a life system. It is a way of organizing to solve
certain problems. It is non-rivalous with other economic systems.
Personally, I'm uninterested in grand life systems, I'm interested in very
specific pragmatic solutions to problems--climate change, poor education
systems, digital divides, gross income inequalities, poverty traps,
pollution, loss of political freedom, etc.
Still, pragmatic systems need some framework of understanding--a theory. I
work here to further my own theoretical understanding on what P2P might be
in practice and in theory. I do not believe it can be fully theorized prior
to implementation. Like Marc, I see it as an organic element following
certain normative principles. I would never compel someone to use or
participate in P2P--indeed if I did so, it wouldn't be, to my mind, P2P. I
am interested in new ideas of people from all economic, social and political
perspectives. I do not pretend I have profound insights on any grand way to
live or structure society. I do not.
P2P as a solution can and does reach millions and millions of people, but it
is not a worldview (a point which Michel may profoundly disagree with).
Wikipedia is one of the most successful knowledge ventures of all time. I
consider it to be P2P. Ebay is a major economic engine as is Craig's list.
To me, those are, at worst, quasi-P2P.
But I strongly prefer P2P where a commons is built--as with free software
domains and open software sharing projects. I'd like to see those extended
to all forms of research, medical data sharing, chemical designs and
production methods, modes of building certain basic machines and components,
free green home architecture plans, etc.
I believe we can have P2P money systems (aside of) state money systems.
Whether or not any of this withers away the state is an extremely
uninteresting question to me as a futurist or a practical problem solver.
There are plenty of hollow states and dysfunctional ones too.
The problems I am interested in are ones that help people, serve them, and
make human happiness sustainable where feasible in concert with a
sustainable existence for other living things. I'd like to see all humans
enjoy a productive, educated opportunity to enjoy life and to serve
something meaningful with it. In the end, I cannot force equality, my own
view of the good, or my own view of what is a suitable way to live. I can
only advocate.
I am firstly concerned with what can be done with high levels of
collaboration and shared commitment...not with solving all problems with a
global theory. My gods are pragmatists both theoretical and in praxis. For
those who love solutions to difficult challenges, there is no shortage of
topics to take on.
Ryan
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Wittel, Andreas
<andreas.wittel at ntu.ac.uk>wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> now things are going a bit funny. Of course technology does not cause
> inequality. If you reread my first email you will notice that I did not talk
> about technology at all. I was using this parallel in my last email to argue
> that technology in itself is unlikely to undo inquality.
>
> As you were not very specific in your last emails what it is you object to
> I was trying to figure it out and came up with 2 messages: First message:
> Inequality will be overcome information technologies. On this I disagree.
> Second message: There is nothing wrong with inquality. Reading this email
> from you ('If you hate inquality') I assume now that you dont hate it.
>
> Fine by me, we have different values here. But there is no need to start a
> rant against Marxism just because someone sees inequality as a severe
> problem and uses Marxist terms to explain the problem. I really dont to want
> to talk to you about Marxism as this just can't turn into a productive
> conversation. Let's just leave this please.
>
> Let's talk about p2p instead. You see p2p as an alternative to capitalism
> and socialism. You like practice and dislike theory. P2P stands for
> practice, for doing things. A specific form of practice (collaborative,
> inclusive, distributed, constructive). I have a lot of admiration for this,
> but wonder (as I did in my first email) how far this mode of production (oh
> dear, another Marxist term, sorry) can reach. And if we consider a famous
> football star who earns in a day what a cleaner/small shopkeeper/nurse etc.
> earns in a year, I would assume that p2p systems and p2p modes would neither
> reach the football star nor the nurse. Should this be correct, then there
> are limits in the reach of p2p production, and due to these limits p2p
> cannot replace economic systems at large.
>
> Andreas
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Ryan Lanham [mailto:rlanham1963 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sun 17/05/2009 15:40
> To: Wittel, Andreas
> Cc: Michel Bauwens; p2presearch at listcultures.org
> Subject: Re: [p2p-research] labour, capital and p2p
>
>
> So the argument goes that technology caused inequality?
>
> How about the rise of graduate management education? Or the rise of
> statistics tracked by compensation consulting firms?
>
> My own view is that the real reason that income inequality has increased is
> that the "understanding" of value in processes changed. We have lawyers,
> accountants and management professionals pointing out value contribution and
> negotiating who is actually contributing value in processes--and it
> generally isn't the exploited worker who is easily replaced by someone in a
> poorer country. That wasn't capitalism...it was professionalism in
> management, marketing, law and accounting.
>
> Social norms against high pay for managers fell for numerous complex
> reasons--mostly based on new management value theories. And there was an
> argument that capitalists ought NOT to be the winners--shareholders who paid
> for their shares didn't do that great compared to managers who made options
> to purchase cheap stock and took away big salaries. Take professional
> sports where in the 1950s players barely made a living. Now they are
> lavished in tens of millions of dollars...at the behest of their own
> collective bargaining actions. Owners lose money and own teams for prestige
> and fun. Where is the capitalism there?
>
> The story is complex and to frame it is rather simplistic Marxian terms
> isn't helpful in my view; it is just absurd and loses credibility amongst
> anyone who actually deals with global business and production systems.
>
> Marx was incredibly wrong. His ideas have been a source for endless
> misery. Invoking him is a source of lost credibility for the left that
> wants some vague utopian state that neither makes any sense nor is it even
> remotely feasible.
>
> The discussion here is about voluntary participation in lives of
> contribution, service, balance and tension--not some utopian rubbish that
> has been tried, failed, rejected and justifiably now ignored by the masses.
>
> If you hate inequality, spread education, advance normative values of
> sharing, responsibility and trust. Work for microcredit systems (which
> charge interest) and which work incredibly well. To say otherwise is sheer
> ignorance--like arguing with people who think God is touching their daily
> lives--there really isn't anything to say to that level of nihilism and
> anti-truth.
>
> If you want to understand development economics, read Bill Easterly and
> others who know that you can't do big things through big governments or big
> NGOs which will go corrupt and that development works when people are free,
> empowered, taught to build their own systems and to not rely on help from
> above. The answers come from the grass roots--not in organizing vast labor
> or governmental systems that go corrupt, but in their organizing themselves
> into small sustainable processes and systems that advance P2P opportunities.
> That's what P2P is about. It isn't anti-capitalist. It isn't
> pro-socialist. It is pro living sensibly. That doesn't have any systematic
> economic philosophy. It is inherently anti-system...anti hierarchy.
> That's why we keep coming back to anarchist mutualist histories--like
> Proudhon, like Streeter, like the LETSI people in a much more modern and
> viable sense than Proudhon ever was. With technology, those systems can
> lead to happy, reasonably fair and reasonably sustainable lives--and should.
>
> If you want a mantra to align your life to, then I propose that we don't
> organize hierarchies, we should rather organize modes of sharing...P2P.
>
> And, to my mind, spare us the silly Marxian critiques (interest is
> inherently evil?--just absurd) which are unworthy of further discussion
> because they will never happen and shouldn't happen.
>
> Ryan Lanham
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Wittel, Andreas <andreas.wittel at ntu.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> Ryan,
> the intensification of income differences is not something that
> happened in the 19th century, but in the last four decades.
> Are you suggesting, that knowledge and information-driven production
> will somehow undo this development? If so, how would you explain the
> following parallel: Exactly at that moment when information and knowledge
> became the motor for economic development (from the 1970s onwards), the gap
> in income differences opened up significantly.
> Andreas
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Ryan Lanham [mailto:rlanham1963 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sun 17/05/2009 01:23
> To: Wittel, Andreas
> Cc: Michel Bauwens; p2presearch at listcultures.org
>
> Subject: Re: [p2p-research] labour, capital and p2p
>
>
> As I understand it, capitalism is the accumulation of capital to
> control means of production. Who or what does that now? Name five
> "capitalists" who matter. Most either parlayed intellectual property rights
> into fortunes, or they invested in large financial engineering schemes where
> debt was the leverage to create huge cash flows.
>
> Very few successful firms actually produce things with capital--that
> is all in China and Eastern Europe and such places. Like I said, it is like
> discussing the 19th century. Not sure what world this is that people are
> discussing, but it isn't the one I live or work in.
>
>
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Wittel, Andreas <
> andreas.wittel at ntu.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> There are many terms in Greek and Latin vocabulary which are
> still relevant today. So what is the problem with this? Yes, trems like
> capital and labour are probably not part of most people's worlds, and
> actually they never have been. They remained in the realm of
> concept/model/theory. That is not great. But that is not really the point.
> I have used these terms to describe a widening gap between
> the rich and the poor. Most people who dont use these these terms still
> worry about this development. The terms might be old, the problem is
> contemporary. Would you agree that this increasing gap of inequality is a
> serious problem, Ryan?
> Also, I really don't think that the left is unaware of how
> knowledge changes the game, all the debates on immaterial labour show that
> knowledge is today's battleground. But this does not mean that knowledge
> operates outside of capital and labour. Let's not talk about terms, let's
> talk about the organisation of production (and knowledge production) in
> capitalism
> Andreas
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: p2presearch-bounces at listcultures.org on behalf of Ryan
> Lanham
> Sent: Sat 16/05/2009 15:06
> To: Michel Bauwens
> Cc: p2presearch at listcultures.org
>
> Subject: Re: [p2p-research] labour, capital and p2p
>
>
>
> I believe the seemingly absurd idealism of the European left
> is useful to the world. Whether it leads anywhere or just gives fodder to
> the right that the left is silly remains to be seen in the voting booths.
> But my own interpretation is that it is useful for pushing collaborative,
> open inquiry types (I hope like myself) to further question and reflect on
> their own equivocations.
>
> Most of the discussions seem better set in 1880 than 2009.
> Terms like "capital" "labor" "management" seem to me to belong with terms
> like "steam engine" "railroad" and "factory." They aren't even seriously
> part of most people's worlds.
>
> The battlefield today is the mind. Can its produce be free?
> Can there be justice in allocating knowledge and the expansion of
> knowledge? Who wins when knowledge is expanded? Knowledge isn't a
> conventional capital like a gear or machine tool. It is very different.
> The left seems unaware of that. Is there a left that open to post-capital
> social arrangements? Or maybe I'm it.
>
> Ryan Lanham
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 6:53 AM, Michel Bauwens <
> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Marco,
>
> you may be right that there are many people who want
> to abolish the personhood of corporations, but I have yet to meet the first
> one ... on the other hand, I meet scores of people who want to be
> enterpreneurs and create a company, regardless of its bylaws ...
>
> I think that the answer here, if I'm correct about the
> lack of traction, is not necessarily to fight the old, we can do that later
> when we're stronger, but rather to build constructive and better
> alternatives .. I think that social entrepreneurships, fair trade,
> for-benefit associations and blended/value good-capital approaches,
> including chris cook's open capital, aim to do precisely that, to create
> better formats that can outgrow the limitations of the corporate
> patholotical form ...
>
> So I agree with the ultimate aims of POCLAD, but I
> think it's more fruitful to build alternatives at this stage,
>
> As you know, Douglas Rushkoff's Life Inc., is doing a
> good job of educating people in POCLAD type critiques, as did The
> Corporation a few years earlier ...
>
>
> Michel
>
>
> On 5/15/09, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net>
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 16:14:02 PM +0700, Michel
> Bauwens wrote:
> > Hi Marco,
> >
> > Thanks for your contribution.
> >
> > I understand your comment, but my 'feeling'
> is just the opposite.
>
> No problem! As I said, I'm all but an expert
> on monetary reform issues
> or corporate law, so I don't really have any
> strong opinion or
> position to defend, no problem. When these
> specific issues are
> concerned, I'm still a student collecting
> material for homework.
>
> With respect to this:
>
> > Hundreds of cities and regions and tens of
> thousands of people are
> > working on monetary issues .. it's a vibrant
> and growing movement ..
> > In contrast, POCLAD is just minuscule
>
> There is no doubt that the "monetary
> alternatives" movement, for lack
> of a better term, is much more vibrant,
> growing and known among
> activists than things like POCLAD. I myself
> discovered POCLAD by pure,
> pure chance online some years ago. I also have
> no problem, at least
> now, to accept your evaluation that POCLAD has
> much, much smaller
> possibilities of success than monetary reform.
> What I didn't expect,
> and find really interesting, is this
> assertion:
>
> > and it requires really what the immense
> majority of people will find
> > an unacceptable reform.
>
> Regardless, again, of the probability of
> success and of any inherent
> flaws in the idea, I am pretty sure that,
> around here, I would find:
>
> 1) much, much less difficulties to explain
> POCLAD proposals than any
> money reform scheme passed on this list
> since when I subscribed
>
> 2) (partly due to 1) ) many more supporters of
> such a corporate reform
> than of any of those scheme.
>
> That is, my **feeling** is that if both sets
> of proposals were given
> equal coverage in mainstream media (we can
> dream, can we not?), the
> majority of non-activists, the "Joe Sixpack"
> class, in American slang,
> would go for POCLAD (especially in these
> times...) rather than money
> reform which would be, in that context, a much
> more alien concept than
> "corporations are bad".
>
> So I wonder how much of this feeling depends
> on where one lives. What
> do list subscribers from other parts of the
> world think? Which of
> those two classes of concepts is easier to
> sell (regardless of its
> intrinsic value) to Joe Sixpack? Just curious,
> really, answer off list
> if you think it's off topic.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Working at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>
>
> http://p2pfoundation.net <http://p2pfoundation.net/>
> <http://p2pfoundation.net/> <http://p2pfoundation.net/> -
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/> <
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/> <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/> -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com <http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/> <
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/> <http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/>
>
>
>
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090517/f2b6dbcb/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list