[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

Sat Oct 24 15:06:16 CEST 2009

Hi Ryan,

as stan has indicated, it's not minimal expectations of personal gain (since
motivations are highly variable, but according to benkler, it makes every
motivation productive)  and in fact, individuals get a lot out of it, i.e.
give a brick, get a house ... but yes, low transaction cost are an absolute
essential feature in making p2p scalable beyond space and time limitations,
making it globally scalable, and hence, an alternative to market and state
in more and more areas ... and beyond the areas where it can operate 'on its
own', it becomes part and parcel of the other modes ... because of the low
transaction cost, it moves from the margins to the core, and indeed, creates
a crisis in value which is problematic to some market operations, displacing
them ... usually, around the non-market commons core, a thriving mraket can
exist though ..

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes it is.  But that simplicity is rooted, I suspect, in low or no
> transaction costs.  It may be that things like the Creative Commons license
> are anti-P2P by instituting too much complexity for certain moral reasons.
> A P2P ethos would give guidance on simplicity gains (low transaction costs)
> versus moral gains (preventing profit).
>
> What are the root building blocks of P2P?  Is it perhaps low or zero
> transaction costs?   Is it minimal expectations of personal gain?  Both?
>
> R.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/d5d2e9b8/attachment.html>