[p2p-research] [Commoning] - Re: ?ce

Fri Dec 31 20:12:23 CET 2010

here is the gist of the problem as I see it, and I will try to respond later
in more detail to your exact points,

when a number of people talk about immateriality, non-rival sharing,
marginal cost of reproduction, they are talking (many of them), on the
different conditions of producing material goods vs. digital symbolic goods,
and that this is a very important distinction. They are not saying these
goods grow on trees, do not have a material basis, are not embedded in
capitalist relations etc... Instead, there are many varied positions on the
latter conditions, even if there is an agreement on the very basic
distinctions such as rivaly-nonrivalry, the degree of reproduction ability
and sharing capabilities etc ... Most of these people also think that the
cabality to create such goods is an important new capacity for humankind and
rich in possibilties for those struggling for emancipation

It seems to me that whenever you hear these concepts though, there is always
the same reaction, yes BUT, do you not realize that the internet has no
material infrastructure (translated: they are all stupid, misguided, or with
evil-intent) and that these conditions are embedded in a capitalist social
order ... (hence enemies of emancipation)

once and for all, yes, as hard as it may be to believe, some of us do indeed
understand that, but that is not going to change our mind on the objectivity
of the rival-nonrival distinctions, nor on the new fruitful terrain of
struggle and construction that this represents ...

repeating the same basic mantra over and over again is not going to change
one thing,

unless you have a credo approach (let's all say in unison: yes capitalism is
evil and we hate it, repeat  a hundred times a day), and do not expect that
everyone that does not totally agree with you is obviously wrong, then this
endless repeat is not going to be productive

if you seen that free software/free culture advocates by necessity ignore
(hear no evil, see no evil) social realities, then that is a huge
simplification of people that disagree with you, and similary, if  you
equate the 'the logic of cyberspace' with the colonial logic that is a huge
simplification (check your own paragraph, you wrote it, not I)

you say I have not integrated your critique so I repeat it once more: yes,
the internet has a material basis (thanks for that really great insight),
and yes, it is embedded in relations of capital (thanks again for that great
insight, really!). Please can we  now proceed with the finer points, and not
call someone who points to the distinctions between various modalities of
production, a 'vulgar marxist', but actually respond to the arguments ??

so in the future as you write that:

<hat Free Software and Free Culture politics have
been defined by a set of leading voices who do separate material and
immaterial in a very problematic way and that it is a commoners task to
clear up that distraction,>

a statement with which I by the way, TOTALLY AGREE, can you then please go
to specifics, and actually criticise actual statements, and give an actual
concrete critique,  instead of just repeating that general accusation

not everybody has read your thesis ... so that would be interesting, you
cannot summarize 200 pages of theoretical critique in a blanket accusation,
even if you repeat it a hundred times, and expect others to say AMEN

you write that:

< seek to argue for the idea that
organisation should strive for integration of ideas: a digital commons
has a responsibility to make its commoners aware of the material
foundations of their common ground and, for instance, when possible move
towards local, micropower production, rather than, say, Google Groups.
This doesn't mean that digital commoners who cannot do so are not part
of the commonalty, but it does mean that a philosophy of organisation
needs to recognise and make this explicit in an integrative manner.>

well that is EXACTLY what we are trying to do with the P2P Foundation,
including many other groups, and quite a few free culture and free software
activists, ,

not enough people, and perhaps with not enough integrative understanding,
and that's why we need dialogue and integration ... which also requires a
respect of the understanding and eventual limitations of others, and a
search for complementarities and commonalities ...

 is a free software activist that works on micropower through open designs
by necessity an enemy ? (say because he likes free markets and respects land
property)

well perhaps a friend in some contexts and not a friend in other contexts,
but perhaps it is useful to have her on  your side in at least the first
category?

where have you seen by the way that I demanded that you adopt my own
worldview ??

all I ask is that you move to concrete critique and construction, and not
fall for endless typecasting and pavlovian reactions any time you hear the
word immaterial or cyberspace or free culture or free software

I would  love a well argued critique, instead of pavlovian repetition,
believe me

"

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 12:49 AM, j.martin.pedersen <
m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On 31/12/10 08:39, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> > Martin,
> >
> > just an extra word, I'm using here in my last postings a somewhat more
> > agressive style,
>
> I don't mind aggression, but I find it tedious that you keep
> misrepresenting me and distort my position and paint it as lacking
> solidarity and a "hard blow" to activists and digital empowerment -
> while not actually responding to what I have been saying.
>
>
> > if you say that the logic of abundance of cyberspace is just like the
> > colonial logic, or, 'all' free advocates ignore the reality of resource
> use
> > or exploitation, you are creating absolutes that necessarily put all
> other
> > people who do not fully agree with you as straw men adversaries, and many
> > people will resent that, as I do,
>
> If, If, If - yes, if, then. But did I?
>
> > in my view, better to see the world as polarities, between what you see
> as
> > the truthful understanding and what others do, there are many shades,
>
> Indeed.. many shades..
>
>
> > given this fact, one can communicate to highlight the differences in such
> a
> > way as they create division and reaction, or you can focus on
> commonalities
> > that allow a common struggle and creation to occur, which does not mean
> at
> > all giving up on your own perspectives, but may mean expressing in such a
> > way, that others actually feel they can integrate it in their own
> > understandings
>
> Many people have indeed expressed that they have been able to integrate
> it into their own understanding - you being one exception, but then
> again, you haven't actually engaged constructively in this exchange and
> just keep painting me as an enemy for presenting a philosophical
> crtitique - a constructive critique with regards to the architecture of
> commons and their social organisation. Not an imposition, not an
> absolute, just a set of ideas.
>
>
> > do you really believe that all commoners 'see no evil, hear no evil';
> can't
>
> What I am saying is that Free Software and Free Culture politics have
> been defined by a set of leading voices who do separate material and
> immaterial in a very problematic way and that it is a commoners task to
> clear up that distraction, because many are following it and their views
> are consolidated every time they hear abundance logic, immaterial and so
> on.
>
> I don't see this as an isolated task and I don't put my faith in a
> division of labour (i.e. sitting around waiting for the perpetual motion
> machine working group to deliver), but seek to argue for the idea that
> organisation should strive for integration of ideas: a digital commons
> has a responsibility to make its commoners aware of the material
> foundations of their common ground and, for instance, when possible move
> towards local, micropower production, rather than, say, Google Groups.
> This doesn't mean that digital commoners who cannot do so are not part
> of the commonalty, but it does mean that a philosophy of organisation
> needs to recognise and make this explicit in an integrative manner.
>
>
> > you not accept that most people in the world, not just digital commoners,
> > actually know that they live in a world with much evil, but that they see
> > this as 1) a natural state of affairs and that they have to think of
> > themselves first; 2) deplore it, but don't see what they can do about it;
> 3)
> > realize it, choose to do something about it, but choose their struggles
> > based on their own inclinations, affinities, etc ... 4) realize it, but
> > choose to lie about it because it is in their interest; 5) lie so much to
> > themselve that they start believe in it 6) are so dumb that they believe
> all
> > that group 5 is telling them
> >
> > I'm suggesting that only group 4 and 5 are really problematic and thast
> > groups 1-3 and 6 could be friends, if we approach them in a right way
>
> I don't understand this type casting and your "demand" that I accept
> your world view. I see so many shades out there. In any case, I find
> that you make an enemy out of me - and present me to others as an enemy
> - which tells me that you don't like shades not of your own (or just
> mine, perhaps).
>
> Developing a critique of the foundations (or philosophy) of organisation
> doesn't just make anyone an enemy. If there is no room for fundamental
> critique, who has created the absolute?
>
>
> > I'd suggest many digital commons activists belong to group 3, and that
> they
> > are not your enemies
>
> I'd suggest that I have been working on digital empowerment with
> indigenous people - showed them how computers work, how to use email and
> so on - who taught me many things in return.
>
> I am also a volunteer with Aktivix (alt-tech collective) and have been
> on and off for years, and organised a hacklab and similar events in the
> past.
>
> What I say come from practical engagements, working with communities,
> mobilisations and so on, which I very much like - expressed with
> reference to theory. I actually *do* the things you accuse me of being
> an enemy of - I don't just talk about it.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>

-- 
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/20110101/f5cca97d/attachment.html>