[p2p-research] commentary to nicholas carr piece

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Neal,

this is the commentary I have added to the Carr piece:

  "Whatever its exagerrations, Nicholas Carr does point to a real point of
debate and division amongst those that favour openness, sharing, and the
commons as social practices.


 It's important to note that these are first of all social practices, and
though these are not value-less, people from different sides of the
political spectrum can love and adhere to those practices.


 People with leftist leanings will typically like the communal aspects of
the new practices; while people on the right will love the free initiative,
i.e. enterpreneurship, that is linked to these practices; people on the left
will insist on the aspects of the new practices that transcend capitalism
and its ideology; while people on the right will insist on how it not only
accomodates with business practices but promotes wealth.


 Here I would like to outline the kind of attitude I have favoured within
the dialogical community of the P2P Foundation:



   -

   the dialogue must be pluralistic and honour all those who approve of the
   practice, within the limits of civil discourse
   -

   communities, markets and states are all part of our lifeworld, and we
   must all deal with it, and somehow accommodate them for the sake of our
   livelyhoods and those of our families, communities, and projects


 Nevertheless, I personally add the following basic attitudes:



   1.

   capitalism, as an infinite growth system that does not take into account
   negative environmental and social externalities is not compatible with the
   survival of the biosphere and our species, and is headed, at most in a few
   decades, towards some form of self-destruction
   2.

   markets, have pre-existed and will probably survive the destruction of
   capitalism; markets are simply one of the ways to allocate scarce resources
   3.

   communities and commons can accommodate, cooperate and even honour market
   players who acknowledge the rules and norms of a commons, and contribute to
   its sustainability
   4.

   nevertheless, profit maximisation is unethical and should be subsumed to
   ethical goals and the benefit of the common good
   5.

   peer communities should preferentially choose for those enterpreneurial
   forms that honour the value systems of the commons, and even create their
   own vehicles, phyles, as ideally, the people who create the value should
   also be the people who realize the value
   6.

   peer to peer is the most economically, politically and socially
   productive mode of value creation presently available to humankind and is
   part of an important emancipatory process; in the last analysis, this makes
   it incompatibe with the eternal continuation of a system where inequality
   and injustice are structrural features
   7.

   it's aim is to supersede capitalism and to embed market structures in a
   higher ethical superstructure that acknowledges the common good
   8.

   in order to achieve this transformation to a civilisation and political
   economy where the commons and peer production are at its core, we need to
   develop a new and broad social hegemony, and this entails seeking
   commonality with a wide variety of social forces, including progressive
   enterpreneurs, genuine conservatives, including forces thay may nominally
   claim they are in favour of 'capitalism' (but in practice mostly mean
   'markets')
   9.

   we have to acknowledge that it is frequently a positive thing for peer
   communities in particular, and the growth of peer production generally, when
   it is taken up by enterpreneurial forces, even as they themselves supporters
   of profit maximisation


 With all these caveats in mind, it is still important to recognize the
distinction between those social forces 1) who are simply interested in
'exploiting' peer to peer practices; 2) want to limit peer to peer practices
to what is compatible with the continued existence of a infinite growth
system.


 Netarchical capitalism, as a concept, not only is meant to convey that
sections of capital, understand the importance of peer production to their
own viability and profitability, but also to denote ideological efforts to
keep peer production within the bounds of, and eternally subordinated to the
market system.


 In my view, then the key to judge the works of people like Don Tapscott,
Steven Johnson and Rachel Botsman, is to go beyond their own focus on
market-friendlyness but to see whether they honour the autonomy of peer
production communities, the fair exchange between the commons and
enterpreneurial entities; and if their imaginary is compatible with peer
production and the commons taking a core role in our society, rather than a
subordinated role.


 I have not read any of the three works mentioned by Nicholas Carr, so I
have to withhold any judgment on this. But even if I would disagree with
their staying within the bounds of the present system, this would not
preclude dialogue and mutual learning.


-- 
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

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20101201/47b9d01b/attachment.html>