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

[j.martin.pedersen]

...

On 18/12/10 17:36, Neal Gorenflo wrote:
> a response in line.
> 
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:14 AM, j.martin.pedersen
> <m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17/12/10 09:05, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>
>>> While it is legimate to develop pure analysis and theory, I think there are
>>> many places for that, but it is not what we want to do in this context, but
>>> rather find practical ways to advance both the struggles and solution space
>>> of commons-oriented movements ...
>>
>> What does this mean?
>>
>> I don't understand the juxtaposition of "pure analysis and theory" with
>> "practical ways to advance both the struggles and solution space of
>> commons-oriented movements" - what kind of advances and solutions do not
>> emerge from envisaging and planning (i.e. analysis and theory)?
> 
> There's a heavy skew here in Silicon Valley startup culture toward
> action and iteration versus planning and analysis.  The saying here is
> release early and often.  This is not to suggest that this is
> superior, but merely that there is a way to move forward that
> radically reduces the role of upfront planning and analysis. I think
> that the productivity of the region suggests that this strategy is
> effective, though it's surely not the only way to move a sector or
> movement forward.

It seems to me that upon observation and reflection - which requires a
degree of analysis - you are speaking of a theory called "release early
and often" (reflecting a rather simple reading of competition in the
market place?).

While SillyCon valley is certainly an engine of growth it might be worth
noting that this particular kind of analysis and the theory of early and
often releases it has lead to, has destroyed the water table - which was
a very fine reserve of water - and little children in China and
elsewhere in Asia are now, early in their lives and very often,
dis-assembling all of those very frequently released gadgets with all
kinds of diseases as a consequence.

While it is a theory, it doesn't appear to be based on an analysis that
exhibits any ecological consciousness, nor any solidarity with
(required) labour (input).

So, it *is* a theory, but a poor one in practice.


> Also, I should point out that the core values of P2P come from the
> culture of computer hackers, and that it's their value system that
> digital commoners are extending and generalizing in global society.
> So there's an argument here that planning and analysis as a way of
> inventing the future is in a general decline.  It is, after all, the
> preferred method of large bureaucracies which are proving largely
> ineffective in responding to humanity's greatest challenges.  In
> contrast, it seems those who are free to act are proving the most
> effective innovators.
> 
> Just a perspective.  Not overly invested in it.  Open to other perspectives.


How long do you think that Richard Stallman observed and analysed before
he began developing his theoretical perspective on the potential for the
survival of hacker culture - devising the GNU Manifesto, Emacs, FSF, the
GPL, and a load of software - and how much of his time does he still
devote to strengthen his theoretical position (software freedom) and
sustain its practical realities through writings and talks all around
the world?



>>> I think we must also guard though of the opposite danger, i..e. to fall for
>>> a credo-based approach, in which virulent anticapitalist rhetoric becomes a
>>> requirement for collaboration; I personally believe we should be able to
>>> build movements that unite both anticapitalists and people who make for all
>>> kinds of reasons, different root cause systemic analyses, and that dialogue
>>> and deliberation amongst those differences should be both to highlight
>>> differences, but also to look for common action ..
>>
>> What is virulent anticapitalist rhetoric? Can you give an example?
> 
> The Communist Manifesto ;)


I don't understand precisely how it is relevant in this context - I
haven't encountered any dogmatic old-school communists on this list or
at the conference - in fact I rarely see any of those dinosaurs anywhere
-- I was of the impression that only some minor, imploding sects of
socialism still lingered in that realm and such people are most unlikely
to join a P2P list or an hbf conference.

In other words, unless "virulent anticapitalist rhetoric" is a form of
rhetoric in itself, a strawman to prop up something else, I still fail
to understand what it means.


m