[p2p-research] Request: Peer to Peer and Human Evolution

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Peter,

it all depends whom you are addressing, the p2p-f is a pluralist platform
with people holding different views, and kevin carson for example, may share
your position on the state (not sure, but perhaps)

but as for myself, in my own formulation of a p2p theory and program and
vision, it's not libertarian and anti-state

here is a short version,
http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/11/03/the_peer_to_peer_manifesto.htm

and two longer political pieces:


   - P2P Politics, the State, and the Renewal of the Emancipatory
   Traditions. Re-public, Wiki Politics issue, 2007. Retrieved from
   http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=133. Reprint at Democracy by the People
   blog,
   http://democracybythepeople.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-to-peer-politics.html


   - The Political Implications of the Peer to Peer Revolution. Knowledge
   Politics, Volume 1 Issue 2 (April 2008), pp. 1-24 . Retrieved from
   http://www.knowledgepolitics.org.uk/kpq-1-2-Bauwens.pdf


In short, I consider the state inevitable in a class society, and much like
the ego, something that cannot be abolished, but must be outgrown, and this
in a probably very long historical process

I see the state as fullfilling 3 roles: 1) protecting the system as a whole
and hence defender of the existing elite and status quo ; 2) reflecting its
own interest as a separate body; 3) reflecting the balance of power
resulting from social struggles and social progress

this last characteristic makes it an object of political struggle between
the elite and other forces in society, which can partially use it to their
own purposes

obviously I think p2p communities should strive for the maximal autonomy,
both vis a vis corporations and the state, but I believe that they will also
inevitably have to compose with them; I also think traditional political
struggle, for influence within the state, and molding state actions to one's
own interests, is a necessary part of the mix which will continue to be
needed for a long time

however, what is new is that the sphere of autonomy can be increased
substantially, and that if both autonomy and political strength increase to
a certain level, we could morph the state into a partner state model, just
as the worker's movement succeeded in molding it to a welfare state model

as we develop p2p value creation in more and more social domains and
activities, then the objective conditions which necessitate a state, will
slowly start to unravel, and more and more state functions will lose
legitimacy and they will be replaced by p2p processes

I do also expect however, that no matter how much confederative processes
p2p communities achieve, a guarantor of the general public interest will
remain a necessity, but I expect this type of 'p2p state' to be totally
unrecognizable from the current form

one final item is the distinction you make between bits and atoms in terms
of the state; I think this distinction is too binary and polarized, and that
the role of the state in cyberspace will similarly not be avoided, and is
not necessarity less legitimate

however, we have the great opportunity to create millions of p2p communities
which will largely escape the role and control of the state, and will
determine more and more of their own affairs, again this is part of what I
see as the process of 'outgrowing'

an extra final point, I see peer governance as occuring wherever abundance
makes allocation of resources redundant, but in every area where this is not
the case, democratic decision-making will remain necessary,


Michel


2010/2/17 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>

> Dear Michael, Chris and Research List Members,
>
>
> first of all, sorry for the almost 1 month delay.
>
> The translation of the amendment is ready, we will check it, put it on
> our blog, I think Stefan will post you soon along with his comments
> and questions, and I will join the debate.
>
> As for now, I want to ask your help in a different way, concerning the
> core of your (our) P2P cause, more exactly, the politics of it.
>
> I wrote an article (& at last finished the proofreading and correcting
> today:) which, as my understanding goes, is a possible political
> vision of the P2P evolution.
>
> This is the link:
>
>
> http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/states-let-them-prey-on-atoms-but-not-on-bits
>
> I think you have the experience (and the feeling in your gut:) to help
> me in answering my question: is it a desirable vision of the future of
> P2P evolution? Do we have discrepancies in our understanding of the
> explicite/implicite politics of P2P?
>
>
> Thank you for your help:
>  Peter
>
>
> 2009/12/23 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> > That's fine, Peter, good timing,
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > 2009/12/23 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Hi Michael,
> >>
> >> I'll contact you (cc Chris & the Research List) asap, I think first
> >> half of january. We are translating the amendment and I should clear
> >> some open issues for myself. I am driving to Berlin for 2 weeks, there
> >> I'll have time to think. Stef suggested we should argue on open
> >> standards & other stuff in english: I feel inclined to accept this in
> >> order to be able to have your opinion.
> >>
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> 2009/12/23 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Peter,
> >> >
> >> > thanks for the details,
> >> >
> >> > on what point exactly are you asking my opinion?
> >> >
> >> > Michel
> >> >
> >> > 2009/12/23 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> No, I think you should not refrain.
> >> >>
> >> >> The main question is whether p2p process is a necessary condition for
> >> >> a standard to be open: based on my research in Hungarian sketched in
> >> >> English
> >> >>
> >> >>
> http://visszaajovo.be/mazsa/the-5-and-only-5-open-standards-requirements
> >> >> I am not sure about it, and there is not yet an official standpoint.
> >> >> We should make it clear publicly first in Hungarian.
> >> >>
> >> >> However, like stef, I prefer setting standards p2p rather than g2p
> >> >> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1483836&cid=30495906
> >> >>
> >> >> This is the official formula: "Nevertheless, there is much yet to be
> >> >> done to have the specifications of sockets established in the future
> >> >> more by means of a public process rather than exclusively by the
> >> >> government."
> >> >>
> >> >>
> http://nyissz.hu/blog/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/
> >> >>
> >> >> And this is our strategy @EU-level
> >> >> "In the near future, [...]
> >> >> in spite of EU tendencies [
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2620&blogid=14
> >> >> ] the Alliance seeks to make its approach – interoperability based on
> >> >> publicly defined [!] open standards – the EU norm under the Hungarian
> >> >> presidency of the European Union in 2011. To that end, it will
> promote
> >> >> public collaboration – possibly between every interested party, civil
> >> >> and political organisation in the European Union."
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> http://nyissz.hu/blog/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/
> >> >>
> >> >> About global strategy I am intended to publish later, definitely in
> >> >> spirit of p2p: i'll be interested very much in your opinion.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yours:
> >> >> P.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2009/12/22 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> >> >> > should I understand from the comments of stef in the fcforum list
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > we
> >> >> > should refrain from further publishing it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Michel
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2009/12/22 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I realized because we got hits from your blog. Thanks, both of
> you:)
> >> >> >> Yours,
> >> >> >> P.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2009/12/22 chris at cataspanglish.com <chris at cataspanglish.com>:
> >> >> >> > ;-)
> >> >> >> > Cheers,
> >> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On 22 Dec 2009, at 14:28, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Dear Peter,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > by coincidence, chris pinchen just published it on our blog,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > see:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/2009/12/22
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 2009/12/18 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Hi Michael,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> could you help me to publish this article:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> http://nyissz.hu/blog/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/
> >> >> >> >> We have been working on this since 2007.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> And/or tweet:
> >> >> >> >> http://j.mp/OpenStandardsinHungary
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Thank you:
> >> >> >> >> Peter
> >> >> >> >>
>



-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100217/bac2b5d2/attachment.html>