[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

[Stan Rhodes]

I think there are three issues here:
1) What is p2p?  How do we define it? Is it peer production?
2) Does p2p ideology exist?  If so, how do we define it, and do all people
using p2p have that ideology?
3) Does P2P Foundation ideology exist?  Do only certain people "subscribe"
to it, with the rest simply keeping tabs or organizing around the general
interest area of p2p?

I see "peer production" as being describable in the forming language of
behavioral science (the science parts of anthro + soc + psych + econ).  I
also think that is the only way it will be a useful and legitimate term.  In
my opinion, terms such as capitalism, communism, socialism, and similar are
scarcely useful at all.  They do not lend themselves to good research, nor
understanding.

My answers to the questions above:
1) p2p = peer production = "Voluntary production of a good that is shared
through a peer common."
2) No, peer production in a process only, there is no inherent ideology.
3) Yes, although fuzzy.  Essentially, my take on the P2P Foundation ideology
is that p2p should be a) studied and b) applied to many areas where
artificial scarcity is imposed--doing so will move everyone toward freeing
artificially scarce goods, which generally improves social justice and
sustainability.

To flesh out my first two points, I reply to Kevin's email, below.

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Kevin Carson <
free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> If P2P is an ideology--and I agree that it is--then it's an ideology
> that cuts across preexisting ideological divisions and is compatible
> with holding to older ideologies at the same time.
>
> The key components of P2P ideology are 1) eliminating artificial
> scarcity and the rents that come from it, and 2) the effects of
> network culture.
>
> Most of us are agreed that eliminating rents from copyright and
> patents, and the bottom-up organizational forms made possible by the
> network, will have a revolutionary effect on the social system,
> regardless of what we otherwise favor as defining characteristics of
> that system.
>
> --
> Kevin Carson
>
>

Kevin, thank you for presenting a definition of p2p ideology.  As I'm sure
you expect, I have major criticisms.

Consider that people agreeing on the elimination of rents from "IP" and
advocating network forms does not really explain the emergence of things
like Wikipedia and file-sharing.  Most people do not share things because of
ideological points 1 and 2.  If we were to pool all PirateBay seeders and
Wikipedia-contributors, I find it doubtful they'd be participating because
of 1.  1--eliminating artificial scarcity and rents--is a result of peer
production.  So is 2--the effects of network culture.  Network culture
creates a reward system for contributing, and thus an attractive incentive
to participate, but I would hesitate to call it ideology.

The fundamental action seems to be sharing.  Cascading effects result from
the sharing, but are not the sources of action.  These effects are sometimes
organized in a narrative about a movement of some sort, and used as a
"hindsight ideology."  In other words, ideology is applied after the fact as
a more noble reason for the original action, but it had no influence on the
action.  It did not exist as an incentive--at least, originally.  But, it
makes a good narrative, far better than "I thought it might get me some
kudos."

Technology determines both the barriers to entry for sharing, and the "hard"
contraints of the network(s)' efficiency.  I figure most of us agree with
that.

I stand by my earlier claim that no ideology exists inherently in p2p, as
in, the process of p2p production, also called peer production.  I erred in
my earlier email, though, by not actually defining it.  Again, my current
definition:

"Voluntary production of a good that is shared through a peer common."

I am not sure what Michel's most current definition is.  I think I will just
use "peer production" instead of "p2p" until "p2p" is agreed to mean "peer
production."  If it isn't, I want to make sure I use a specific word for a
specific concept that we can all understand.  If my definition breaks with
certain examples we'd all agree is peer production, or is too broad and
would include examples we'd generally agree are not peer production, then we
can try to revise it accordingly.

When everyone uses "p2p," it's not clear what they mean.  If we agree that
p2p is peer production, and thus a process, it has no ideology or identity
except those foisted upon it, and while those may change, the definition of
the process itself does not.  Someone may suggest that the term "p2p"
identifies a different concept than peer production. If so, what?

If peer production is used as a strategy to build an information commons, or
to guarantee user freedom, it does not follow that peer production has an
ideology.  Instead, someone with an ideology is using peer production.

Peer production is not an identification unless it has a social context and
someone to interpret it, both of which vary.  Just because--in a particular
snapshot of a particular time and place--a process is associated with an
identity or ideology does not mean they're in any way inherent to the
process itself.  This point is why I brought up methodological nonviolence.
  I could also bring up backyard gardening, or fuel-maximizing driving
behavior, of vegetarianism.  While these may be associated with particular
identities, those are only associations (and often, stereotypes).  A
reliable definition for concise discussion does not contain associations of
identity or ideology.  There's a very good reason not to: you cannot be sure
of motivations or ideologies.

Companies that use peer production are a good break test.  A company may use
peer production only because it is most profitable for them.  Their
employees likely have a variety of motivations and ideologies as well.  So
then, are they using peer production, or not?

I really want to stress that motivations and ideologies are hard to measure
and verify.  The few studies I have seen--sorry, I cannot find them right
now, so they may still be in my "to-tag queue"--find that most people
contribute to information commons primarily so they will be recognized and
appreciated by that peer group.  I don't find anything wrong with that, but
it highlights the difficulty in assuming that associated ideologies are
primary motivating forces.

Please feel invited to beat on my definition of peer production ("voluntary
production of a good that is shared through a peer common"), particularly
with examples that make or break it.

-- Stan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091022/d9fab0d7/attachment.html>