[p2p-research] Fwd: [ciresearchers] Yahoo shutting down delicious!

[Michel Bauwens]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Franz Nahrada <f.nahrada at reflex.at>
Date: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [ciresearchers] Yahoo shutting down delicious!
To: michelsub2004 at gmail.com, gurstein at gmail.com
Cc: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net


 Its hard to say what "commons" exactly is, its rather that we are aware of
some elementary facts totally obscured by neoliberal propaganda. Just a few
scattered thoughts on this.

1. "Structure" versus "Process": we have this parallel memes of "commons"
versus "solidarity economics" and I tend to think that "Commons" is more a
term that allows us to describe structures and "Solidarity Economics"
describes processes and methodologies. Hard to decide, indeed, because
"Commons" is linked to "Commoning", which is clearly a process.

2. What we can say clearly is that the "public" is rather a negative than a
positive interest. The constitution of a general good in a society of
competitors is abstract, empty, forceful, secondary, tends to be a separate
matter driven by a buerocratic class and so on. And it is margely depending
on the surplus imposed on a working monetary economic base, which made for
the self - destruction of the public in an era where the inner contradiction
of the wealth-by-comparison (value-) system has fully evolved and the
capital economy is in a final, fatal crisis and just is maintained by its
own costly simulation.  The aim to revamp the Friendly Leviathan is simply
part of that costly simulation.

3. We know that commons in contrary are based on direct communication,
voluntary chosen responsibility and accountable interests around which a
moral framework is built which ensures and encourages participation. Maybe
an important element of the commons is the self-assignment of actors plus
vigorous struggle for a supporters base, which explains why there is an
inner relation between entrepreneurialism and commons. Legitimacy is built
on active participation rather than on external choice mechanisms.

4. We are seing a shift towards refuge of the public to the commons, from
the "year of voluntary engagement" to the "big society" in England. But all
this is not going to work without a way to effectively transfer resources to
the third sector and allow it to produce resources itself in cooperative
cycles.

5. We need a global educational commons maintained by local communities.
Only local communities have the means to effectively organize material
resource bases, and there is a positive feedback cycle between a global
educational commons and the ability of local communities to maintain and
strengthen this material base.

6. So the answer to the problem, if we put all of this together, is to look
for actors in global networking that are willing and able to create a
covenant with local communities to help build that global educational
commons.

7. We just opened up the discussion in a new mailinglist devoted to
educational commons. One of the most interesting question that emerges is:
are there even corporate actors whose business logic is clearly built around
working with local communities? One possible answer that I did not throw
into the debate yet is that the Google business model which revolves around
exploiting spatial relations might be a more interesting backbone to enter
in strategic relationships than other corporate models which are  more
shortsighted.

8. The obvious "easyness" of the yahoo move to shut down a tool on which the
intellectual work of thousands depends is scandalous and shameful. The
answer is not necessaily in "we need to build our own ....." - but in a more
in-depth analyses of corporate strategies that lead to the maintainance or
not maintainance of infrastructures that have already become true commons.

Franz


Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Very interesting point Franz...

My first reaction is that the "commons" movement is about process and
methodology and not about "structures" such as those that might be required
for some sort of response to matters such as this one i.e. how to ensure
that for example e-mail, or the collective product of the various online
activities undertaken through social networking sites are not lost,
misappropriated, or rendered inaccessible through corporate failure or
malfeasance.

I'm wondering how exactly the "commons" might function in response to such a
situation recognizing that we understand how the "public" acting through
democratically responsible structures (in an ideal situation) might respond
as for example through "public" or quasi-public ownership structures.


*Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> writes:*

very interesting question, i.e. where exactly is the difference between
commons and public

my first inkling is to say that a commons response wants to preserve the
common assets, without necessarily involving state organisation in it, while
a public utitlity response would clearly point out to a role for  public
authorities in preserving them ...

Michel



-- 
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/20101219/d63cc050/attachment.html>