[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

Sat Oct 24 15:23:57 CEST 2009

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes it is.  But that simplicity is rooted, I suspect, in low or no
> transaction costs.

There are simple rules in non-"P2P" systems, too. There are simple
rules in *all* complex systems (and all human systems are generally
complex systems)

> 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?
>

The root building blocks, I would agree are both the internal beliefs,
and external systems of the environment. These combine to make up the
"worldview" of the individual.

> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
-- 
Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com
http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
http://socialmediaclassroom.com
http://localfoodsystems.org
http://notanemployee.net
http://communitywiki.org

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan