[p2p-research] Blog on Political Economy of P2P

[Ryan Lanham]

Michel,

Please find the following to meet your request:


Why P2P isn’t Capitalism or Socialism

Ryan Lanham

A peer-to-peer (P2P) project is not suitably classified under any mainstream
economic system.  That’s because the motivations behind P2P are
fundamentally different than those allowed for in conventional political
economic theories.

In a capitalist system, a person acts to maximize profit in a
transaction.  Profit
is maximized by using property and resources efficiently and by negotiating
a sale with a marketplace that has demand and money.

In a socialist system, a commons may exist, but it is controlled by a
central authority—typically a state/government—that compels, through a
centralized decision hierarchy, participation, rules or a certain pricing
structure.  A socialist system tends to emphasize equality of output to
those who participate.

Of course these are oversimplifications that do not fit every case but they
begin to illustrate major differences.

In contrast, P2P systems optimize growth of a commons, but they do not
compel participation nor do they demand equality of use benefits or
contribution values.   There is no profit motive as a primary driver.  People
participate in P2P systems because they trust that their contributions will
be enhanced by other participants at a level that makes their investments of
time, knowledge, skill or other resources more productive—generally.

A P2P system is not a charity.  Contributions made to it are not done as a
selfless gift or out of an obligation of duty.  However, participation in a
P2P system entails a certain commitment to a shared framework and a belief
that participants will also contribute to the general benefit rather than
“free-riding” on the good created by others.   Such trust exists with
minimal policing.  P2P systems may have a membership concept, but
contribution is not compelled.  Governance, in general, is minimized.

It is unlikely that a whole economy could run by P2P mechanisms.  But that’s
not the point.  The point is that P2P systems such as free software systems,
shared data systems (e.g. Wikipedia) and other P2P models can exist side by
side with socialist or capitalist frameworks equally well.

As with any relatively leaderless organization, P2P systems are driven by
the needs, interests and investments of those who participate.  For example,
Wikipedia may have endless articles on science fiction characters that no
conventionally edited encyclopedia would carry.  That is a richness created
by the interests of users.  But it also addresses conventional topics—as
demand and interests dictate.  No one is in control to a large extent.

There can be trust and contribution reputations associated with P2P
contributions, but the “spirit” of P2P is one of sharing and commons
building.  Even academic researchers may look first to their own reputation
in publishing a work rather than the greater good the research gives to
society.  That would not be the case in a true P2P system.

P2P is not a system of personal gain as a primary motivator.  Neither is it
a model where social equality and fairness necessarily rule.  Such value
accounting is outside the ethos of sharing and contribution that makes P2P
systems powerful.

Two areas of P2P research are endlessly fascinating for those interested in
conventional political economic systems.  First, what motivates people to
lead and contribute often incredible efforts to P2P systems when such work
is minimally compensated—at least in conventional terms?  Second, what
impact does the existence of P2P systems have on conventional economic
systems?

Much more work has gone into research on motivation than on the impact of
P2P on other economic frameworks.  Clearly a highly productive system like
Wikipedia, the Creative Commons or the Free Software Foundation must have
profound economic implications, but what are they?

It appears P2P systems allow markets or government systems to be challenged
when they are inefficient, lopsided or otherwise acting poorly or unfairly.
Therefore P2P systems may create permanent efficiencies in economies no
matter what their form and structure, just as a well-functioning commons of
any sort proves a benefit to the community that works to maintain it.

Ryan Lanham
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090521/99b255c3/attachment.html>