[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

Sat Oct 24 14:55:35 CEST 2009

yes, but tens of thousands of people working on wikipedia or linux without a
command and control hierarchy, without encountering blocks like the
'mythical man-month' limit affecting corporate production, isn't that  a
re-simplification of complexity ..?

Michel

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/fab35210/attachment.html>