[p2p-research] Re(monolithic?): The "Great Transformation" to "Great Cooperation". Commons, Market, Capital and the State

Sat Apr 10 11:09:51 CEST 2010

i find nothing to disagree with in this email, and in particular, you are
describing  my own orientation when you write, see below:

(i would love references on this)

my point in my arguments with free software commons is the 'preferential
choice for allying with formats that are closest in value system'; and this
alliance should be in such a way that the commons is preserved and
sustainable livelyhoods created

the key for me is to develop clear criteria for the preservation of the
commons,

your para:

There is a very interesting range of literature on different farming
styles and their current recomposition. Jan Douwe van der Ploeg
recently pushed forward the hypothesis, that non-market agriculture,
which he (and many others) calls "peasant agriculture" is
extending for several reasons.

van der Ploeg argues that non-market (i.e. peasant) agriculture
treats markets "strategically" in order to strengthen - paradoxically -
autonomy from the market.

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Andreas Exner <andreas.exner at chello.at>wrote:

>  Hi Michel
>
> Thank you for your quick reply.
>
> *1. "Pluralism"*
>
> Concerning the subject of "pluralism", we still have issues to
> be further discussed - since I think that there are not just
> different "positions" at stake, but rather the need to sort
> out different arguments.
>
> For me, the market is the monolithic concept and praxis
> sans phrase.
>
> Anything which is non-market CANNOT be a monolithic
> concept or praxis, but IS NATURALLY a broad variety
> of different concepts/practices.
>
> Actually I wanted to explain this in my weblog-entry
> by refering to the vast literature on the issue of how
> commons-institutions work concretely and that there
> is NO way to make any "abstract models" of how commoning
> can or should work! (However, there are some general
> insights, see the studies of Elinor Ostrom and all
> the other researchers in the field...)
>
> Indeed, I clearly state that in my entry, so this is
> a critique which is not appropriate concerning my
> position, I would say.
>
> So I guess there might be a misunderstanding between
> us (except differences in "positions").
>
> *2. Refinement of commons terminology*
>
> I realize, that the concept of the commons outlined in
> the weblog-entry is still to be developed.
>
> First, I make a distinction in my weblog-entry between
> (a) "resistive commons" which are generated in a concrete
> social movement and (b) an abstract and static approach
> which merely lists "commons" of all sorts, without any
> concrete reference to social movements (e.g. there is
> no movement for language commons, so that would
> be an example in case).
>
> So (a) is a *generic concept bottom-up*, (b) is rather
> a *classificatory top-down concept*.
>
> Both imply normative issues, of course ("what shall
> be counted as commons and what not").
>
> Both might be useful, however, politically, (a) seems
> to have more relevance.
>
> In this respect I have to say that I do not understand
> why you think "radical anti-market commonism" is "incapable
> of building any new political hegemony and inherently coercive."
>
> Because actually this is precisely what commons-movements
> are all about in my view.
>
> Concerning the question of coerciveness, that is of course
> not only important but the core issue at stake.
> Coerciveness arises when individuals are bound
> to a specific community (which I reject and stress the point
> that "meta-commons" are necessary) or are forced to sell
> their labour as wage labor (which is the core of capital
> and clearly anti-common).
>
> Please note that I do NOT refer to the conscious reflection
> of social movements activities in this field. So e.g. working
> class achievements (which I understand as "commons inscribed
> into the state apparatus") were not necessarily anti-market
> or anti-capitalist in the understanding of the movement itself.
>
> So I do NOT talk about "pro-capitalist commons" - this terminology
> would not make sense in my view. I rather talk about commons
> which might be functional for capital and others which might
> be dysfunctional.
>
> The matter of "*free choice for markets and other non-common formats*"
> is a matter of the degree of the extension of commons and meta-commons.
>
> Since we all know, that there is no freedom of choice to sell ones
> labour power or not (this is the core of the critique of capitalism).
> At least I do not have this choice (maybe others are more lucky
> in this respect :), capitalists naturally :) - or people which were
> able to develop commons to a high degree (I do not think that
> commons anywhere in the world have reached this dimension).
>
> Besides the distinction between "generic commons-approach" (I do
> not know if this term makes sense in English) and a
> "classificatory approach" there is another vast issue:
>
> The question of how the "fruits" of commons are distributed.
>
> So there should be made the distinction between "common pool
> resources" (including means of production and social infrastructures,
> because you clearly cannot exclude them following accepted
> commons-definitions, see e.g. Helfrich/Haas which I cite) on the one
> hand and the "benefit flows" (this is of course a distinction you'll find
> in the literature on the commons).
>
> I am not sure if the terminology of "benefit flows" really does make
> sense, but for a first attempt that might be a useful concept.
>
> If "benefit flows" are commodities, we still could have "common
> pool resources", but there is of course a contradiction implied.
>
> So for instance what about a water-cooperative selling its water?
> Or a fishing community selling fishing rights? etc.
>
> So in these cases the "commons" are threatened to become
> simply a capitalist production unit (which is of course the
> immanent danger in all attempts to foster solidarity economy
> without developing non-market, i.e. meta-commons linkages
> between cooperatives).
>
> I plan to make another weblog-entry taking the example
> of agriculture.
>
> There is a very interesting range of literature on different farming
> styles and their current recomposition. Jan Douwe van der Ploeg
> recently pushed forward the hypothesis, that non-market agriculture,
> which he (and many others) calls "peasant agriculture" is
> extending for several reasons.
>
> van der Ploeg argues that non-market (i.e. peasant) agriculture
> treats markets "strategically" in order to strengthen - paradoxically -
> autonomy from the market.
>
> I do not go into detail in this Email, but find that very reasonable to
> treat the
> subject of market linkages of subsistence- and commons-oriented
> producers in this way...
>
> best, Andreas
>
> >
> > Thanks Andreas,
> >
> > great contribution, which I would like to reproduce in two parts on
> > the p2p blog on the 13th and 14th, if that's okay.
> >
> > sorry I'm still on the road, but I'm sure I will respond in time
> > later,
> >
> > of course, I refuse the duality pro-capitalist vs. anti-capitalist
> > commons, but rather see a triarchy between liberal commonism which
> > sees it as a support for capitalism, critical and autonomous commonism
> > which accepts free choice for markets and other non-common formats,
> > and radical anti-market commonism. I see the latter as incapable of
> > building any new political hegemony and inherently coercive.
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Andreas Exner
> > <andreas.exner at chello.at> wrote:
> >     Hi everybody
> >
> > My weblog-entry is now (roughly) translated into English
> > (and is also available in German):
> >
> > The žGreat Transformation to žGreat Cooperation . Commons, Market,
> > Capital and the State
> >
> > http://www.social-innovation.org/?p=1650
> >
> > Comments, critique etc. welcome.
> >
> > cheers, Andreas
> > PS: the list again does not seem to work well...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - 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/20100410/b887f410/attachment-0001.html>