[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

Sat Oct 24 14:45:00 CEST 2009

it seems to me that for a system to be more encompassing, it has to combine
more complexity in a new simplicity, and in my view, p2p does that, it
solves a typical problem whereby in centralized systems, more adherents
become a drain, while in p2p, they contribute more resources for the benefit
of the overall system,

Michel

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/20091024/7e793873/attachment.html>