[p2p-research] Am I missing any commons?

Fri Feb 26 01:30:13 CET 2010

Of course.  For now, I'll let it be in email form.

Ryan

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
>
> because of my special situation right now, preparing for a 5 week trip ...
> could I ask you to incorporate what you see as valuable corrections, into
> the draft wiki entry?
>
> I really have no time to follow this up for the moment,
>
> when you see really valuable remarks that do not 'fit' in the formal text,
> such as say, Alex's, they can always be added to the discussion page for
> later reference?
>
> Michel
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi David:
>>
>> In summary, I basically agree with all of your points.  I'll detail a bit.
>>
>>  On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:46 PM, David Bollier <david at bollier.org>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm enjoying the discussion, too -- and I hope to jump into it with a few
>>> thoughts next week.  Thank you, Ryan, for making so many valuable
>>> distinctions & basic definitions.  However, in the meantime, a couple of
>>> things jumped out at me from these proposed definitions:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  A commons is not a corporation because a corporation has a defined
>>>>>>  purpose other than useful sharing.  A commons may be organized as a
>>>>>>       corporation legally but a corporation cannot become a commons
>>>>>> unless its purpose is free, open sharing with minimal purposes
>>>>>> beyond those ends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> The idea of "free, open sharing" needs to be qualified because many
>>> commons manage finite, subtractable resources such as land, fish, timber,
>>> etc., which simply cannot allow free, open sharing with everyone.  This is
>>> just a reminder about the conceptual divide between digital/cultural commons
>>> and most natural resource commons.  The latter generally need to be
>>> "stinted" in order to preserve the asset and/or the unit-flow of resources.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed of course.  But the idea of sharing the benefit in some
>> legitimately common way is a priority even for fixed or limited assets.
>> Land trusts are a great favorite of mine and I call them commons. Heck, I
>> think a public library is a commons of sorts.  But I've always erred
>> expansively.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>   A commons is not a co-op because it is perfectly reasonable for a
>>>>>> co-op to attempt to maximize the intrinsic value of its assets.  A
>>>>>> commons would not do this as a stated goal.  Still, a co-op could
>>>>>> be structured to be a commons or to have many commons-like
>>>>>> features.  The similarities are perhaps greatest here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A commons is not a state because it does not create its own
>>>>>> mechanisms for policing and enforcement beyond rudimentary social
>>>>>> guides and constraints.  It also does not hold "public" property.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> I agree that "rudimentary social guides and constraints" are central to
>>> the policing and enforcement of usage norms.  But I disagree that those
>>> guides & constraints are necessarily rudimentary -- they can be quite
>>> involved and complex -- or that state-issued law is not involved.  In some
>>> instances, there may be actual legal frameworks promulgated by the state
>>> that create enforceable boundary conditions the facilitate the emergence of
>>> the commons and its social relationships and collaboration.  A key example
>>> is free software, which Stallman discovered does not work on social norms
>>> alone.  His invention of the GPL was an admission that there needs to be a
>>> legally enforceable "backstop" (copyright law) to enable the social
>>> cooperation & trust in the sustainability of the resource to flourish.
>>>
>>> Elinor Ostrom also notes how state law and authorities may set broad
>>> parameters within which commons may self-organize.  (Ostrom's famous case is
>>> California state authorities, who created a general framework within which
>>> municipal water districts in LA organized cooperative arrangements to
>>> protect groundwater supplies from intrusions of seawater.)
>>>
>>> The state charters corporations.  Why could it not, in benign ways, use
>>> law to facilitate the formation and maintenance of commons?  Indeed, why
>>> should commoners forswear or ignore the instrumentalities of the state to
>>> advance the commons (so long as the state & commons do not commingle in
>>> unholy ways)?
>>>
>>>
>> I agree that all the mechanisms and technologies of active societies
>> should be brought to bear--including all legal and organizational means.
>> But not every is so pragmatic.  That is where I was headed with "strong and
>> weak forms" of some typology.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>  A commons is not a commune because individual property rights are
>>>>>> not inconsistent with the commons.  A person may use, for example,
>>>>>> a creative commons license and still participate in the commons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> I agree, esp. re a commune vs. a commons, but it is worth noting that
>>> some left-wing critics criticize commons based on CC licenses as "commons
>>> without commoning."  In other words, the individual choice and ownership of
>>> a given work is a "liberal, capitalist" notion of a commons, and not a more
>>> socially based, coherent type of commons.  I think we should err on the side
>>> of more expansive notions of the commons (i.e., CC-licensed commons), but
>>> this point is worth pondering internally.
>>>
>>>
>> Again, I agree.  From my view, most co-ops are commons.  But I think there
>> is room for a more restrictive view that sees the commons in fairly pure
>> tones and in concert with differing intellectual heritages.
>>
>> What we do at the P2PF (often) is to think in ideal and future perfect
>> terms so as to attempt to gain some directional confidence for our own acts
>> and theories.  Of course we all like movements toward more collaborative and
>> shared forms, but there is often distinction and contest over "ideal" forms
>> with anarchists arguing against liberals, etc. if such titles continue to
>> hold much meaning--and I think they do.
>>
>> So, there is clearly a pragmatism for "now" (which overwhelmingly
>> interests me) and then there is, for some, a more revolutionary spirit that
>> is, to my mind, often more European, more intellectual and less inclined to
>> accommodations with Elinor Ostrom's fairly pragmatic analyses--which I have
>> long been a fan of.
>>
>> Personally, I make a poor communist/Marxist/anarchist in either heart or
>> mind.  But Michel encourages, and I think quite rightly so, a heterodox set
>> of voices on theoretical issues.  And we have it in our little
>> foundation--at times almost frighteningly so (for me).
>>
>> I have found, not surprisingly, that I learn a great deal when people of
>> differing views make their cases. It is impossible not to recognize a stream
>> of commons has roots to anarchist theories, to utopian socialism, and to
>> Marxian forms both practiced and theoretical.  Of course this is news to no
>> one.  It isn't my personal theoretical heritage, as I have said.  But it is
>> legitimate and reasonable...particularly outside North America and
>> increasingly in European grass roots commons movements.  I find the Germanic
>> countries to be particularly well represented with people steeped in such
>> views.
>>
>> I was responding to those influences (where Michel is well known and
>> highly appreciated for his openness to differences as I understand the
>> situation) and trying to allow for inclusion of more "radicalized" views
>> within the boundaries.  Sometimes more radicalized views can only be
>> accommodated by having narrower terms of core ideals.  I completely agree,
>> however, that the full definition ought to be more expansive with regard to
>> possible linkages and associates for the overall idea of the commons.
>> Still, I think there is good cause to walk with those who are theoretically
>> anti-state, etc. so long as actions are pragmatic and theories are not
>> fundamental.
>>
>>
>>> David Bollier
>>>
>>
>> Ryan Lanham
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Ryan Lanham
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
P.O. Box 633
Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
Cayman Islands
(345) 916-1712
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100225/7ab1c470/attachment-0001.html>