[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

Sun Oct 25 15:39:07 CET 2009

I think we agree.

Although, what i've said that shows we agree is strewn across this thread :-)

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Michel Bauwens
<michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> hi sam,
>
> this is where perhaps I would disagree, regarding localities:
>
> 1) the local of p2p can also be global, as in affinity based global peer
> production networks
>

Agree. This will be made possible by the fact that localized p2p
networks afford themselves a plurality of ways to connect with others.
You can see this happening already.

> 2) despite the differences, yes there are very real and many ways to govern
> p2p projects, there are also underlying similarities, for example the core
> p2p relationship must be present ..
>

Yes, these are the "simple rules" that Ryan and I are talking about.

> regarding 2, in my open everything mindmap, under enablers, there are quite
> a number of similarities in the different areas ...
>
> so we have to hold, integrally, both the differentiation and the common
> ground, one not excluding the other
>

I am definitely not excluding. I think we agree close to, if not fully
100% but are using different language to describe the same thing
(which could be confusing intentions of messages)

> Michel
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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