[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

Sat Oct 24 14:48:45 CEST 2009

If a financial derivative is a complex transaction, or a big corporation
that lawyers work on for a purchase, that is complexity.   P2P eschews
that.  Its transactions are simple.  Markets are basic.  Transaction costs
are low (Oliver Williamson).

R.

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/20091024/1c16ae8b/attachment.html>