[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

Sat Oct 24 14:32:34 CEST 2009

here are a few definitions:

1) peer to peer is a form of human dynamic and relationship in which human
permissionlessly aggregate around the creation of common value, resulting in
peer production

So, Stan, peer production, objectively defined, is an instantiation of the
p2p dynamic.

This relationship works according to the principle: from each what he can,
to each what he needs ...

There are 3 other types of human relationship, equality matching (gift and
reciprocity), authority ranking, and market pricing ...

Historically, each of these <are> related to ideologies, though they are not
the same.

So, where does ideology come in for the p2pfoundation, in my vision?

Because, we do not just 'research' p2p, but also 'promote' it, in other
words, there is a preferential choice for that dynamic, wherever it can
occur, and in my case, I go further, since I want to make it the dominant
(but not exclusive) dynamic in a future human society.

So there are different layers,

- an objective behaviour

- a mode of production

- values linked to the above, though people with different values can adhere
to them and indeed do

- a movement with a preferential attachnment, i.e. ideology, to these
practices,

Michel

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091024/a08cf674/attachment.html>