[p2p-research] Non digital commons a lot more complicated than Free Software

[Roberto Verzola]

Since these exchanges used my paper on abundance as example of what
seems to be seen by some as a failing of the ICC, I'd like to respond.

> One is the absence of the sustenance commoners, the voices from the 
> Global South, unmediated by mythological representations  of Western 
> NGOs that want-to-do-good. Jai did a tremendous job in collecting

I do come from the Global South, from a network that promotes
sustainable agriculture (in particular the system of rice
intensification/SRI), and was asked to give one of two keynotes, in the
third of 3 streams of the ICC. It was a welcome opportunity to present
one of many perspectives from the South. I know a few who specifically
went to the third stream because one of the speakers was from the Global
South.

> same room digital commonists and sustenance  commonists and get them 
> to talk and start answer the question of "what to do about" the 
> relation between the tangible and intangible commons that you, Michel, 
> are quite rightly keen to answer, and that you, Martin, are quite 
> rightly keen to keep rising. This is a

I would have wanted more questions from the audience, especially since
I've worked both on ICT and the agriculture/natural
resources/environment issues. I would have wanted to talk to more people
too, but time was simply not enough. Indeed some people were interested
enough in a dialogue that they sought me out and we had a good exchange,
from which I learned much too  (this will be reflected in the final
version of the abundance paper I distributed at the ICC).


> The other is the absence of a critical perspective about the current 
> phase of capitalism. I suggested I made

The abundance paper has been criticized too for not dwellling enough on
the environmental crisis. I just wonder how much of this criticism is
from an unfairly selective reading of the paper, which *did* talk about
the environmental crisis and the dominance of corporate power that is
bringing this about. In fact, at the conclusion of the paper AND my
talk, I focused on the global domination by corporations, and how this
was the greatest challenge of this century. To mechanically count words
associated with the paper's positive message of abundance and words
associated with "crisis", as  some have done, will not do justice to a
paper that has specifically chosen to focus on a positive message while
acknowledging the dominant negative context. Of course, I'm only
speaking about my paper on abundance and the criticisms raised against
it. But perhaps, the ICC organizers were trying to do something similar:
to focus on a positive message while acknowledging the dominant negative
context.


> it). But this methodological separation between crisis and solution 
> misses the point. Commons can be a solution to the crisis for *both* 
> the perspective of capital and the perspective of commoners/labourers, 
> and these solution do not necessarily coincide. The ICC was silent on 
> this very topical "frontline" matter. And

As one of the ICC keynote speakers, I was *not* silent on this matter,
both in my paper and in my talk. I pointed out that abundance had two
consequences: positive if the source of abundance is held in common, for
the common good, and negative if the source of abundance is held
privately for corporate profit-making. But none in the audience picked
up on it however. In a way, after the keynotes, it is the audience that
sets the direction of further exchanges through questions and comments
on the floor. I have not been through all the ICC papers yet, especially
the workshops, but I suspect similar observations as yours and mine were
also raised in some of them, but these need to be teased out for further
discussions.


> I give you an example. In my place of work, I had a chat with the new 
> deputy vice-chancellor, i.e. the deputy boss. He is all into commons 
> and gift exchange, fantastic! At the meeting about the staff crisis of my

I sympathize with your example above. This very similar to what I
pointed out in the abundance paper and my keynote -- that commoners can
pull the events one way, but corporate power and their domesticated
humans can pull them another way, that this was still an open-ended
issue, the results of which would define the 21st century.


> and the commons are key strategic questions we need to keep posing in 
> order to -- as Martin says -- promote a public debate in the search 
> for some effective answers. But the ICC seemed  totally uninterested 
> even in posing the questions, as if the book of capitalism had never 
> entered the library of the "commons strategy group".

My keynote did raise some of these strategic questions you refer to above.

However, I would also like to point out that public debates cannot
settle which solutions are effective. Everyone has their own idea about
specific solutions. (In my particular case, we are exploring the higher
yields possible from the system of rice intensification/SRI to help
farmers trapped in chemical farming to shift to organic approaches. We
are using a mix of traditional approaches -- one-day trainings, printed
primers, tabloid ads -- and newer technologies like texting/SMS with
cellphones, video CDs and DVDs for farmer education and training, etc.)
Only when we see proposed solutions actually implemented can we actually
observe the real results, the consequences down the line, and especially
unintended side-effects of each solution. Your boss' approach exposes
itself fairly quickly. But we have to stick with some solutions for
sometime, and let these work themselves out, before all consequences and
side-effects can show up. And you'd have to understand that once people
are focused on particular solutions, the negative context, though still
dominant, recedes in the background, and people are full of great ideas,
full of hope and brimming with positive thoughts. It doesn't mean they
are denying the negative context; it means not letting it rule their
lives. It means they have passed the pessimist stage and can now see a
way out of the current crises. They don't anymore mechanically project
into the future the negative context that dominate present.

May I also add that from a Philippine perspective (and perhaps much of
the Global South as well), the past 3 decades or so have all been
decades of crisis -- from the oil crisis, to the debt crisis, to the
financial crisis, all kinds of environmental crises, not to mention the
regular natural disasters that visit our country, from typhoons,
earthquakes to volcanic eruptions and tsunamis. Many people from the
highly developed economies are probably feeling the effects of the
economic crisis directly and personally for the first time, so I can see
why crisis currently dominates their thinking.

This is why I like about the P2P Foundation approach. I come across a
rich variety of solutions actually being tried out and implemented,
exploring a range of loosely- to tightly-connected approaches. For me,
it is the diversity that is important, giving people the option to
choose whichever suits them best. Very different from the Old Left
approach which, in the past, seemed to be the only alternative to the
existing capitalist mode.

Greetings to all from the Philippines,
Roberto