[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

Wed Oct 21 15:18:59 CEST 2009

Anything that causes identification will cause exclusion, elitism and
boundaries.  P2P is an identification.  There is nothing about it that is
inherently new as a political ideology, which it plainly is.

There is no escaping the reality of politics: Power, governance, rules,
decision processes.  Those who wish to avoid those topics, to me, are
irresponsible.

What is different about P2P is that it sets values some people can agree
with who find it difficult to agree with other political systems.   There is
nothing new here but the ethos itself.

Ryan

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> It all depends on what we call ideology ... In the old marxist sense, it
> meant a set of ideas that justify a social order and a privileged group
> position's within it ... so ideology is 'false' by definition ...
>
> Now, none of us can be totally free of our social conditioning (the
> constraints of the society we live in), our our social class, our personal
> history and limitations of consciousness ...
>
> Definitely, I think we can say that what we call peer to peer, or openness,
> or the commons, is a broad value system that has particular distinctions,
> but it is at the same time a spectrum ...
>
> We can compare it to the socialist idea, which had a wide spectrum of
> adherents, while also substantially altering what non-socialist people would
> think ...
>
> In particular I do think there is a netarchical ideology in the old sense,
> in which a privileged sector of capital, can use open and commons and peer
> to peer language, in order to justify its own position ..
>
> Within the P2P Foundation, I try to bring together lots of material
> representing the wide spectrum of p2p sensibilities and practices, aim to
> bring a platform for such varied thinking, but at the same time, I have my
> own set of ideas and theories, based on my own synthesis and deduction of
> what I'm privileged to observe ... It's open to debate, but at the same
> time, as part of the 1% of people doing most of the work, it is bound to
> have a greater effect on what appears to the outside as 'associated with the
> P2P Foundation'. While it is clear to me what the difference is between my
> version of P2P Theory and the P2P Foundation's ecology as a platform, that
> may not always be the case to the outside ...
>
> Two typical complaints are, from the right, that we are too orientated
> towards the left, see Ryan's perception that he is in a minority as a
> liberal; but I get similar complains from the radical left, with people
> telling me they feel 'sick in the stomach' with what they feel are 'our'
> compromises with capital ... Whatever, I, and we do, whatever we say,
> however we sway in one or another direction, there will always be
> boundaries, that act as self-regulated exclusion and inclusion filters ...
>
> and perhaps Sam is right that the more we 'specify', the more we exclude
> ...
>
> My take is, keep it a open platform, for people 'sympathetic' to the broad
> value system, be clear and transparent, as I try to be, about your own
> positions, and be open to dialogue at all times ... The boundaries to me is
> both the content and the style of communication which would actively demean
> other humans (as in racism, etc..), but also people who consciously favour
> the opposite values of p2p ... I honour their right to think differently,
> but feel there are enough outside places for them to communicate ...
>
> Some boundaries we only discover when they are crossed ...
>
> Michel
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Think about the nature of of online systems like wikipedia, when dogma
>> begins to rule, or open source software cultures that begin to take on
>> an ideological direction (we talked about this at Political Economies
>> of Peer production back in 2007)
>>
>> When ideological-driven thinking emerges, the nature of the system
>> starts to favor exclusion over inclusion. This begins to erode the
>> "commons" that is the participatory culture of the system. The system
>> is now changing from one state to another, from a "p2p" state to a
>> system that is ruled by a few.
>>
>> Luckily, the affordances of commons based systems tend to be able to
>> survive this co-optation, people have the ability to leave and reform
>> elsewhere (although forking is not often exercised in the case of
>> wikipedia). Particularly within the last 2-3 years, when commons
>> consist of mostly digital content, it has become quite trivial to
>> expand space, and re-boot the system, so to speak
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Where what we are calling "P2P" begins to resemble and function like
>> > an ideology, the culture attracted will begin to disaggregate. What
>> > will be left is an ideology that is fundamentally not what we are
>> > calling "P2P'.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Matt Cooperrider
>> > <mattcooperrider at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I'm forking this out from the discussion "Is the P2PFoundation a Shill
>> for
>> >> Proprietary  Software?"  The question of whether P2P is an ideology
>> needs
>> >> discussing.
>> >>
>> >> -----
>> >>
>> >> Athina wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> It seems this raises again the issue of ideology I think in p2p which
>> so
>> >>> far has been a bit conveniently thrown under the carpet, especially in
>> >>> relation to the commercialization and promotion of the open source and
>> >>> open
>> >>> products in general.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Kevin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I don't think it's been thrown under the carpet at all.  Upon close
>> >> inspection, the notion of a general ideology in p2p itself is a
>> nonsensical
>> >> concept.  P2P is a phenomenon / process.  Participants may have diverse
>> >> ideologies (e.g. profit-only vs freedom-only), but as long as they
>> agree on
>> >> the basic principles of production, that doesn't impact the process.
>> >> Ideological differences can and do impact organizations participating
>> in p2p
>> >> production, and that has come up regularly (e.g. Wikipedia).
>> >>
>> >> -------
>> >>
>> >> I don't have much of an argument, but I wanted to invite others to
>> discuss
>> >> (particularly to invite Athina to rebut, and Kevin to expand on his
>> close
>> >> inspection).
>> >>
>> >> I agree with Kevin that there is no "general ideology in p2p itself",
>> but
>> >> the notion of "p2p itself" brackets the historical context.  Employing
>> p2p's
>> >> "basic principles of production" in 2009 has potentially huge political
>> and
>> >> social implications.  Those of us who work to advance "p2p
>> alternatives" do
>> >> so because p2p processes (maybe not in every case, but when considered
>> >> together) privilege certain outcomes that we prefer.  Our preferences
>> need
>> >> to be examined.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Matt
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Matt Cooperrider, Consultant
>> >> SITE: http://mattcoop.com
>> >> SITE: http://collabforge.com
>> >> TWITTER: @mattcoop
>> >> PHONE: 774.487.8152
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> p2presearch mailing list
>> >> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> >> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > --
>> > Sam Rose
>> > Social Synergy
>> > Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
>> > Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
>> > skype: samuelrose
>> > email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
>> > http://socialsynergyweb.com
>> > http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
>> > http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
>> > http://socialmediaclassroom.com
>> > http://localfoodsystems.org
>> > http://notanemployee.net
>> > http://communitywiki.org
>> >
>> > "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
>> > ambition." - Carl Sagan
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Sam Rose
>> Social Synergy
>> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
>> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
>> skype: samuelrose
>> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
>> http://socialsynergyweb.com
>> http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
>> http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
>> http://socialmediaclassroom.com
>> http://localfoodsystems.org
>> http://notanemployee.net
>> http://communitywiki.org
>>
>> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
>> ambition." - Carl Sagan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
Ryan Lanham
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
P.O. Box 633
Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
Cayman Islands
(345) 916-1712
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091021/8e410afc/attachment.html>