[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

Sat Oct 24 14:36:38 CEST 2009

There is something that needs to be said about complexity.  P2P is
anti-complex transactions for the increase of utility//value.  I don't have
a mature idea here, but there is something about simplicity / complexiity
that makes P2P different.

Ryan

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091024/0d7c0b41/attachment-0001.html>