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

[Michel Bauwens]

These theses are relevant to the discussion with Peter:

Appendix 1: *: Summary theses on the emergence of the peer to peer
civilization and political economy*

1. Our current world system is marked by a profoundly counterproductive
logic of social organization:

a) it is based on a false concept of abundance in the limited material
world; it has created a system based on infinite growth, within the confines
of finite resources

b) it is based on a false concept of scarcity in the infinite immaterial
world; instead of allowing continuous experimental social innovation, it
purposely erects legal and technical barriers to disallow free cooperation
through copyright, patents, etc…

2. Therefore, the number one priority for a sustainable civilization is
overturning these principles into their opposite:

a) we need to base our physical economy on a recognition of the finitude of
natural resources, and achieve a sustainable steady-state economy

b) we need to facilitate free and creative cooperation and lower the
barriers to such exchange by reforming the copyright and other restrictive
regimes

3. Hierarchy, markets, and even democracy are means to allocate scarce
resources through authority, pricing, and negotiation; they are not
necessary in the realm of the creation and free exchange of immaterial
value, which will be marked by bottom-up forms of peer governance

4. Markets, as means to to manage scarce physical resources, are but one of
the means to achieve such allocation, and need to be divorced from the idea
of capitalism, which is a system of infinite growth.

5. The creation of immaterial value, which again needs to become dominant in
a post-material world which recognized the finiteness of the material world,
will be characterized by the further emergence of non-reciprocal peer
production.

6. Peer production is a more productive system for producing immaterial
value than the for-profit mode, and in cases of the asymmetric competition
between for-profit companies and for-benefit institutions and communities,
the latter will tend to emerge

7. Peer production produces more social happiness, because 1) it is based on
the highest from of individual motivation, nl. intrinsic positive
motivation; 2) it is based on the highest form of collective cooperation,
nl. synergestic cooperation characterized by four wins (both the
participants in the exchange , the community, and the universal system)

8. Peer governance, the bottom-up mode of participative decision-making
(only those who participate get to decide) which emerges in peer projects is
politically more productive than representative democracy, and will tend to
emerge in immaterial production. However, it can only replace representative
modes in the realm of non-scarcity, and will be a complementary mode in the
political realm. What we need are political structures that create a
convergence between individual and collective interests.

9. Peer property, the legal and institutional means for the social
reproduction of peer projects, are inherently more distributive than both
public property and private exclusionary property; it will tend to become
the dominant form in the world of immaterial production (which includes all
design of physical products).

10. Peer to peer as the relational dynamic of free agents in distributed
networks will likely become the dominant mode for the production of
immaterial value; however, in the realm of scarcity, the peer to peer logic
will tend to reinforce peer-informed market modes, such as fair trade; and
in the realm of the scarcity based politics of group negotiation, will lead
to reinforce the peer-informed state forms such as multistakeholdership
forms of governance.

11. The role of the state must evolve from the protector of dominant
interests and arbiter between public regulation and privatized corporate
modes (an eternal and improductive binary choice), towards being the arbiter
between a triarchy of public regulation, private markets, and the direct
social production of value. In the latter capacity, it must evolve from the
welfare state model, to the partner state model, as involved in enabling and
empowering the direct social creation of value.

12. The world of physical production needs to be characterized by:

a) sustainable forms of peer-informed market exchange (fair trade, etc..);

b) reinvigorated forms of reciprocity and the gift economy;

c) a world based on social innovation and open designs, available for
physical production anywhere in the world.

13. The best guarantor of the spread of the peer to peer logic to the world
of physical production, is the distribution of everything, i.e. of the means
of production in the hands of individuals and communities, so that they can
engage in social cooperation. While the immaterial world will be
characterized by a peer to peer logic on non-reciprocal generalized
exchange, the peer informed world of material exchange will be characterized
by evolving forms of reciprocity and neutral exchange.

14. We need to move from empty and ineffective anti-capitalist rhetoric, to
constructive post-capitalist construction. Peer to peer theory, as the
attempt to create a theory to understand peer production, governance and
property, and the attendant paradigms and value systems of the open/free,
participatory, and commons oriented social movements, is in a unique
position to marry the priority values of the right, individual freedom, and
the priority values of the left, equality. In the peer to peer logic, one is
the condition of the other, and cooperative individualism marries
equipotentiality and freedom in a context of non-coercion.

15. We need to become politically sensitive to invisible architectures of
power. In distributed systems, where there is no overt hierarchy, power is a
function of design. One such system, perhaps the most important of all, is
the monetary system, whose interest-bearing design requires the market to be
linked to a system of infinite growth, and this link needs to be broken. A
global reform of the monetary system, or the spread of new means of direct
social production of money, are necessary conditions for such a break.

16. This is the truth of the peer to peer logical of social relationships:
1) together we have everything; 2) together we know everything. Therefore,
the conditions for dignified material and spiritual living are in our hands,
bound with our capacity to relate and form community. The emancipatory peer
to peer theory does not offer new solutions for global problems, but most of
all new means to tackle them, by relying on the collective intelligence of
humankind. We are witnessing the rapid emergence of peer to peer toolboxes
for the virtual world, and facilitation techniques of the physical world of
face to face encounters, both are needed to assist in the necessary change
of consciousness that needs to be midwifed. It is up to us to use them.

17. At present, the world of corporate production is benefiting from the
positive externalities of widespread social innovation (innovation as an
emerging property of the network itself, not as an internal characteristic
of any entity), but there is no return mecachism, leading to the problem of
precarity. Now that the productivity of the social is beyond doubt, we need
solutions that allow the state and for-profit corporation to create return
mechanisms, such as forms of income that are no longer directly related to
the private production of wealth, but reward the social production of
wealth.


Appendix 2: *how peer production and innovation affect innovation policy*:

*1) the law of asymmetric competition: any corporation or nation, facing a
for-benefit institution as competitor, which uses open and free forms of
knowledge, participatory modes of production, and commons oriented knowledge
pools, will tend to loose to the latter*

*2) any nation or corporation using closed proprietary formats of knowledge,
cannot rely on participatory communities for co-creation, and does not
develop commons oriented knowledge pools, which tend to loose to those who
do adopt such pracitices*

*3) therefore, we need partner state approaches and platforms which enable
and empower the social production of use value, and mechanisms through which
the benefits of private capture of positive externalisations of social
innovation, can flow back to the communities to make them more sustainable*



Appendix 3: A legal and regulatory framework for the participative society


1) In the immaterial sphere

a)      diminish artificial scarcities in the informational field so that
immense social value can be created, and immaterial conviviality can replace
the deadly logic of material accumulation.

b)      Public authorities adapt Partner State policies that enable and
empower the direct creation of social value



2)  In the sphere of materiality

a) introduce true costing in the material field so that the market no longer
creates negative exernalities in the natural environment; dissociate the
marketplace from the system of infinite material growth


3) create more distributed access to the means of production (peer-based
financing, distributed energy production, etc…) so that the peer to peer
dynamic can be introduced in the sphere of material production as well.


2010/2/18 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>

> Hi Michael,
>
> 2010/2/17 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> > 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)
>
> Thank you for the idea: could you connect us?
>
> > 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
>
> The last link is broken: could you please attach it?
>
> > 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
>
> I am definitely not against the state: I think the invention of the
> state & the (originally anarchistic) interstate (=international) order
> is one of the great achievements of the humanity during the last half
> millenium (based on my theoretical considerations I won't specify
> here). From this point of view, we are living in the best of all
> possible worlds (supposed that our resources are practically not
> limited, which I think to be true, and that we survive until we
> populate at least the inner solar system, which I think to be
> uncertain).
>
> Moreover, I completely agree: "14. We need to move from empty and
> ineffective anti-capitalist rhetoric, to constructive post-capitalist
> construction. [...]"
>
> http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/11/03/the_peer_to_peer_manifesto.htm
>
> We agree (with Benkler
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks) on the significance
> of the commons...: "Indeed, from civil society emerges a new
> institutionalization, the commons, which is a distinct new form of
> regulation and property. Unlike private property, which is
> exclusionary, and unlike state property, in which the collective
> ‘expropriates’ the individual; by contrast in the form of the commons,
> the individual retains his sovereignity, but has voluntarily shared
> it."
> http://democracybythepeople.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-to-peer-politics.html
>
> ... and on their organizational consequences: "5. The creation of
> immaterial value, which again needs to become dominant in a
> post-material world which recognized the finiteness of the material
> one, will be characterized by the further emergence of non-reciprocal
> peer production system."
>
> http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/11/03/the_peer_to_peer_manifesto.htm
>
> > 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'
>
> You say that because the state has a coordination function p2p is not
> able to fulfill...
> "It is important to distinguish the peer governance of a multitude of
> small but coordinated global groups, which choose non-representational
> processes in which participants co-decide on the projects, from
> representative democracy. The latter is a decentralized form of
> power-sharing based on elections and representatives. Since society is
> not a peer group with an a priori consensus, but rather a
> decentralized structure of competing groups, representative democracy
> cannot be replaced by peer governance."
> http://democracybythepeople.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-to-peer-politics.html
> ... we should reform/transform it into a state which absorbs the p2p
> fabric:
> "11. The role of the state must evolve from the protector of dominant
> interests and arbiter between public regulation and privatized
> corporate modes (an eternal and unproductive binary choice), towards
> being the arbiter between a triad of public regulation, private
> markets, and the direct social production of value. In the latter
> capacity, it must evolve from the  welfare state model, to the partner
> state model, as involved in enabling and empowering the direct social
> creation of value."
>
> http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/11/03/the_peer_to_peer_manifesto.htm
>
> What I say here is different: I think
> - states are intrinsically unfit to manage "bits" (however they try to
> fill the void)
> - p2p-s are potentially (but not actually) fit to manage bits
> (supposed there is an appropriate infrastructure for them)
> - state is intrinsically monopolistic organization, practically
> unreformable even in its democratic form (you know that I was a member
> of the State Reform Cabinet of the Hungarian Government when I first
> wrote you:)), and the only way to deal with it is to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast , not with voluntary tax
> cuts but by way of "driving out" unfitting taxes of intangibles (while
> giving to "Caesar what is Caesar's"
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2020:25 ), and
> attaching them to elements of an "intangible" political system we feel
> allegiance to,
> - we are both the states and the p2p kind of organizations, and as
> states we are not more fit to manage the business of our freely
> chosen, functionally alien political units, than as member of p2p
> networks to manage states.
>
> > 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,
>
> This could be a firm basis for a joint venture: if we agree that if
> anything, the intangibles are our abundant resources (and the natural
> scope for different kinds of commons), we are both at home:) What do
> you think?
>
>
> Peter
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
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/20100220/e027eb12/attachment.html>