[p2p-research] labour, capital and p2p

[Stan Rhodes]

I know you're not saying this, but I want to put this question out
there: if we don't have equitable ownership norms or standards or laws
or rights, why would we expect money or finance to be fair?  How could
we even tell if it was?


To get a modern Marxist take on intellectual property, read the
venture communist himself, Dmytri Kleiner:
http://www.telekommunisten.net/CopyjustrightCopyfarleft

He proposes copyfarleft, and briefly describes its proposed purpose,
but does not say how to actually do it.  Why?  He probably thinks it
can be done, but isn't sure how.  On the other hand, I don't think
it's the slightest bit feasible, which is part of the reason it's
never gone anywhere: it can't be done.  No question it's consistently
and undeniably Marxist--his recommendation logical extension of
Marxist thought and strategy.

In my view, Marx saw the symptoms and part of the root problem in the
inequity of property, and the capturing of value using rent, but as so
many others, his proposed solutions don't work with human beings.
Neither do the proposed solutions of people who model human beings
using rational choice theory.  Complex systems are hard, so theorists
use simplified models.  Unfortunately, those simplified models are
often used to inform or create policy.

Christian has a book that covers his proposed "peerconomy."  If you
haven't read it, you can check it out here:
http://peerconomy.org/wiki/Main_Page
He has Stefan's review here:
http://peerconomy.org/wiki/Reviews_and_discussions
It doesn't include my critiques, although I'm not sure why.  Stefan's
criticisms were independently conceived of mine, but cover much the
same ground I did with my original critical engagement (written a bit
before Stefan's), most of which is linked here:
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/stan-rhodes-on-the-role-of-money-in-the-peer-economy/2008/03/04
and further here:
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/using-vested-commons-as-the-core-structure-of-the-macro-and-micro-economy/2008/05/01

Andreas and Christian were right to critique you dismissing Marx's
body of theoretical work because of "Marxist" political
implementations.  Further, even if his recommendations were awful--and
I'd argue that the manifesto's Conditions For Transition To Communism
qualify, although I will not presently engage in that debate--you're
still committing an ad hominem fallacy: who he is and what he
recommended does not invalidate his critique.  It might be good to at
least acknowledge that.

If I were to include the valid criticisms Marx had into a modern
critique, I would re-label the inequity (not exactly inequality, but
unfairness and forced dis-ownership) as "commons capture."  That is
essentially what Kleiner describes in his critique of intellectual
property, and it's also what Stallman describes.  Shared global and
cultural resources are being captured through the socioeconomic system
in place.  Stallman created a feasible defensive tactic against future
software capture with the GPL, whereas Kleiner says that isn't good
enough, and proposes an offensive one.

I would classify Muhammad Yunus' Grameen Danone project as an
under-the-radar attempt at using capitalistic finance to give more
control to communities.  Capital was borrowed, paid back with
interest, and yet ownership at the end was in the hands of the
community, as were future earnings from Grameen Danone.

-- Stan


On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Christian,
>
> Tell me what you think some of Marx's great and relevant insights on the
> present are?  Why don't we discuss his ideas rather than his iconic status.
>
> Your ideas on defining capital and labor are a bit broad.  I would encourage
> you to point me and others to a portrait of what such a system would look
> like...say on an island...or a sea stead.  How would it work?  Would
> interest and investment be forbidden?  What if most people didn't like those
> rules?
>
> R.
>