[p2p-research] Am I missing any commons?

Fri Feb 26 01:32:26 CET 2010

ok!

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/20100226/92cd29e0/attachment.html>