[p2p-research] Fwd: [fcforum] Fw: iPad DRM is a dangerous step backward. Sign the petition!

[Ryan Lanham]

On 2/10/10, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it is important to distinguish concepts that describe some
> objective feature of reality, like artificial scarcity and rent, as used by
> me and Kevin respectively, these are just things that exist, and our opinion
> of them.


For reasons already stated, I would merely add that the statement above is
highly contested (if nowhere else, in my own mind).  It is further lesson to
me that what we sometimes take as simple reality and existence is often
contested and primarily political and that others likely see our reality in
the same ways.  How we resolve such disputes (besides simple democracy
and/or fragmentation) is an eternal frustration.  I suppose that is the
greatest justification of all for markets and freedoms of association and
thought.

I like Kevin's positive law explanation because it is straightforward and
consistent while also something I can easily (for myself) reject
intellectually as flawed for a number of reasons he has no doubt heard and
read from the many commentators who have taken it on.  As someone with too
many arrows of Internet debates in my back since the days of USENET, I have
come to strongly prefer the arguments that are made elementally
and sequentially.  In short, I can follow them.  That may be a transatlantic
thing too, much discussed, where I think Europe tends to lean toward nuances
and encapsulations that are simply too subtle and flexible for those of us
in the newer parts of the world.

P2P (not P2PF), it seems to me, is having a down period in that it seems
that the political element of it is going to prove increasingly irrelevant
in the face of vast and titanic social waves that are moving in similar
evolutionary directions.  In my opinion that is leading to somewhat
desperate discourses in an attempt to revive something of a "movement"
element that seems adrift (or overwhelmed), at best.

I am personally invested in the anti-carbon movement and feel great
frustration at its current political dismissal even while I can plainly see
its mainstreaming is becoming self-evident even though it is much bleached
from what I wish it was.  Still, the world is slowly awakening.  I see the
whole set of IP issues similarly.  People will still write and rant and try
to be a vanguard, but those aspects don't matter much when things start to
mainstream.  Pirate parties, etc. are arising.  They are irrelevant.  Their
issue/day is already done as is predictable because organizations and
institutions are now moving far slower than societies.

My recommendation (to the theory community) has always been to focus on the
future--the relatively mid to distant future of 10-50 years.  It is in that
period that great flux will occur.  While it is true that basic assumptions
are everything in "futurism" or "future studies," it is not the case that
basic political or moral assumptions about the present necessarily disrupt
agreements about possible outcomes.  That said, I completely agree with Sam
Rose that the heroic portion (my words not his) of what was the movement is
actually "doing" resilient projects of P2P.  The heroic period of theory is
past.  I also agree with Michel that teaching and writing are always vital.
Less so, but perpetually useful...because it is from the teachers that the
doers will be sent (typically).  The Age of talk is closing.  The Age of
Doing has just begun.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100211/535e1794/attachment.html>