[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

Sun Oct 25 15:22:02 CET 2009

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Michel:
>
> I am traveling and on a very small keyboard.  I apologize for brevity.
> Athina interprets me just right I think...there is always ideology.  There
> is no such thing as an anti-ideology or ideology free identity.
>
> Inother words, if one has an ethos, one must differentiate and exclude.  The
> commons is a power.  It may be a tolerant power, but it is nevertheless a
> force that makes rules, excludes, decides.  It must be constituted so as to
> be confronted, challenged and accepted.
>

When earlier I wrote this:

"Where what we are calling "P2P" begins to resemble and function like
an ideology, the culture attracted will begin to disaggregate. What
will be left is an ideology that is fundamentally not what we are
calling "P2P'."

What I probably should have written was this:

"Where what we are calling "P2P" begins to resemble and function like
a *mass* ideology, the culture attracted will begin to disaggregate. What
will be left is an ideology that is fundamentally not what we are
calling "P2P'."

I agree with all of you that there will still be an ideology, but it
is already emerging and evolving to operate in different ways and on
different scales than previous mass culture based "ideologies".

More below...

> And to identify with P2P is a political ideology.  It disallows certain
> norms, and encourages others.  The key to any political ethos is to achieve
> means of operations that advance, preserve and protect the ideals of those
> who hold that ethos.
>
> Going back to what I wrote some months ago, the normative foundations of P2P
> are all important.  It is, in my opinion, folly to avoid discussing what is
> entailed in the normative ethos of P2P.  P2P must have clear boundaries for
> many reasons.
>
> What is always needed is a manifesto...a constitution.  Politics only work
> when the rules are articulated and understood.  Without that one is
> discussing techniques and technologies in other defining contexts.

There will be, and are constitutions and manifestos, but the nature of
the mediums that make p2p possible are affording the following:

Those constitutions and manifestos are emerging on smaller local
scales, they exhibit some basic simple rules that are characteristic,
but also exhibit highly diverse characteristics from local network to
localnetwork. Plus, the mediums are affording a plurality of
interfacing, which allows small networks to connect with one another
in ad-hoc ways.

The new landscape is not a world of averages. It is a world of
networked unique local niches, which when filled, open (eventually
exponentially) more niches. It's the world of the power law, not the
bell curve. There are many other factors, but this picture is vital in
my opinion, to understanding what is emerging now.

>
> Hope this is clearer.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ryan,
>>
>> I usually understand very clearly what you say, no question about it, your
>> prose is clear, but this time, I don't really know what you are saying?
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anything that causes identification will cause exclusion, elitism and
>>> boundaries.  P2P is an identification.  There is nothing about it that is
>>> inherently new as a political ideology, which it plainly is.
>>>
>>> There is no escaping the reality of politics: Power, governance, rules,
>>> decision processes.  Those who wish to avoid those topics, to me, are
>>> irresponsible.
>>>
>>> What is different about P2P is that it sets values some people can agree
>>> with who find it difficult to agree with other political systems.   There is
>>> nothing new here but the ethos itself.
>>>
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It all depends on what we call ideology ... In the old marxist sense, it
>>>> meant a set of ideas that justify a social order and a privileged group
>>>> position's within it ... so ideology is 'false' by definition ...
>>>>
>>>> Now, none of us can be totally free of our social conditioning (the
>>>> constraints of the society we live in), our our social class, our personal
>>>> history and limitations of consciousness ...
>>>>
>>>> Definitely, I think we can say that what we call peer to peer, or
>>>> openness, or the commons, is a broad value system that has particular
>>>> distinctions, but it is at the same time a spectrum ...
>>>>
>>>> We can compare it to the socialist idea, which had a wide spectrum of
>>>> adherents, while also substantially altering what non-socialist people would
>>>> think ...
>>>>
>>>> In particular I do think there is a netarchical ideology in the old
>>>> sense, in which a privileged sector of capital, can use open and commons and
>>>> peer to peer language, in order to justify its own position ..
>>>>
>>>> Within the P2P Foundation, I try to bring together lots of material
>>>> representing the wide spectrum of p2p sensibilities and practices, aim to
>>>> bring a platform for such varied thinking, but at the same time, I have my
>>>> own set of ideas and theories, based on my own synthesis and deduction of
>>>> what I'm privileged to observe ... It's open to debate, but at the same
>>>> time, as part of the 1% of people doing most of the work, it is bound to
>>>> have a greater effect on what appears to the outside as 'associated with the
>>>> P2P Foundation'. While it is clear to me what the difference is between my
>>>> version of P2P Theory and the P2P Foundation's ecology as a platform, that
>>>> may not always be the case to the outside ...
>>>>
>>>> Two typical complaints are, from the right, that we are too orientated
>>>> towards the left, see Ryan's perception that he is in a minority as a
>>>> liberal; but I get similar complains from the radical left, with people
>>>> telling me they feel 'sick in the stomach' with what they feel are 'our'
>>>> compromises with capital ... Whatever, I, and we do, whatever we say,
>>>> however we sway in one or another direction, there will always be
>>>> boundaries, that act as self-regulated exclusion and inclusion filters ...
>>>>
>>>> and perhaps Sam is right that the more we 'specify', the more we exclude
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> My take is, keep it a open platform, for people 'sympathetic' to the
>>>> broad value system, be clear and transparent, as I try to be, about your own
>>>> positions, and be open to dialogue at all times ... The boundaries to me is
>>>> both the content and the style of communication which would actively demean
>>>> other humans (as in racism, etc..), but also people who consciously favour
>>>> the opposite values of p2p ... I honour their right to think differently,
>>>> but feel there are enough outside places for them to communicate ...
>>>>
>>>> Some boundaries we only discover when they are crossed ...
>>>>
>>>> Michel
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Think about the nature of of online systems like wikipedia, when dogma
>>>>> begins to rule, or open source software cultures that begin to take on
>>>>> an ideological direction (we talked about this at Political Economies
>>>>> of Peer production back in 2007)
>>>>>
>>>>> When ideological-driven thinking emerges, the nature of the system
>>>>> starts to favor exclusion over inclusion. This begins to erode the
>>>>> "commons" that is the participatory culture of the system. The system
>>>>> is now changing from one state to another, from a "p2p" state to a
>>>>> system that is ruled by a few.
>>>>>
>>>>> Luckily, the affordances of commons based systems tend to be able to
>>>>> survive this co-optation, people have the ability to leave and reform
>>>>> elsewhere (although forking is not often exercised in the case of
>>>>> wikipedia). Particularly within the last 2-3 years, when commons
>>>>> consist of mostly digital content, it has become quite trivial to
>>>>> expand space, and re-boot the system, so to speak
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > Where what we are calling "P2P" begins to resemble and function like
>>>>> > an ideology, the culture attracted will begin to disaggregate. What
>>>>> > will be left is an ideology that is fundamentally not what we are
>>>>> > calling "P2P'.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Matt Cooperrider
>>>>> > <mattcooperrider at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> I'm forking this out from the discussion "Is the P2PFoundation a
>>>>> >> Shill for
>>>>> >> Proprietary  Software?"  The question of whether P2P is an ideology
>>>>> >> needs
>>>>> >> discussing.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> -----
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Athina wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> It seems this raises again the issue of ideology I think in p2p
>>>>> >>> which so
>>>>> >>> far has been a bit conveniently thrown under the carpet, especially
>>>>> >>> in
>>>>> >>> relation to the commercialization and promotion of the open source
>>>>> >>> and
>>>>> >>> open
>>>>> >>> products in general.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Kevin wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I don't think it's been thrown under the carpet at all.  Upon close
>>>>> >> inspection, the notion of a general ideology in p2p itself is a
>>>>> >> nonsensical
>>>>> >> concept.  P2P is a phenomenon / process.  Participants may have
>>>>> >> diverse
>>>>> >> ideologies (e.g. profit-only vs freedom-only), but as long as they
>>>>> >> agree on
>>>>> >> the basic principles of production, that doesn't impact the process.
>>>>> >> Ideological differences can and do impact organizations
>>>>> >> participating in p2p
>>>>> >> production, and that has come up regularly (e.g. Wikipedia).
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> -------
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I don't have much of an argument, but I wanted to invite others to
>>>>> >> discuss
>>>>> >> (particularly to invite Athina to rebut, and Kevin to expand on his
>>>>> >> close
>>>>> >> inspection).
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I agree with Kevin that there is no "general ideology in p2p
>>>>> >> itself", but
>>>>> >> the notion of "p2p itself" brackets the historical context.
>>>>> >> Employing p2p's
>>>>> >> "basic principles of production" in 2009 has potentially huge
>>>>> >> political and
>>>>> >> social implications.  Those of us who work to advance "p2p
>>>>> >> alternatives" do
>>>>> >> so because p2p processes (maybe not in every case, but when
>>>>> >> considered
>>>>> >> together) privilege certain outcomes that we prefer.  Our
>>>>> >> preferences need
>>>>> >> to be examined.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Best,
>>>>> >> Matt
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> --
>>>>> >> Matt Cooperrider, Consultant
>>>>> >> SITE: http://mattcoop.com
>>>>> >> SITE: http://collabforge.com
>>>>> >> TWITTER: @mattcoop
>>>>> >> PHONE: 774.487.8152
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> 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
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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