[p2p-research] [Commoning] Am I missing any commons?

[Ryan Lanham]

On 2/26/10, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> In terms of cooptation, I'm in favour of social charters that clearly
> delineate what a true commons is, setting boundaries for cooperation with
> partially friendly forces,
>
> Michel
>
>

I share this pragmatic view.  Really, it is my only view.  I do not have a
framework from which I can sit in judgement of this organizational form or
that distribution mechanism and say it is good or bad.  I can only see
"better" where better is defined in some reasonably pragmatic way.
Collaboration, sharing and broader access are all reasonable goals for
"better".  That doesn't entail a set worldview with bright line boundaries.


One doesn't have to have a coherent link to a normative framework to be part
of a commons or a P2P commons or system.  There is no real weltanshauung for
the commons or for P2P beyond some pretty basic aims at increased access,
sharing, and collaboration with minimal emphasis on individual gains in the
process.

The lesson to me of P2P theory is that it is ultimately about applications.
I suspect that is the frustration Alex is expressing, and it is one I
share.  Still, I also agree with the point that we need better tools of
classification, typology, etc. so as to understand the organizational
theories of commons and P2P.  Some work has been done on that (e.g. by
Elinor Ostrom).  It is, to my mind, only the vaguest sort of beginning.  It
will not and cannot be definitive or constitutional.  Descriptive guidelines
are simply suggestions...not rules.  No one is claiming high ground.

What Alex also says I very much agree with: that is, we need a
normative guidelines of P2P and the commons that are sui generis.  This is
far more difficult territory because there are already so many normative
theories that people bring to the table: e.g. libertarian, corporate,
Marxist, anarchist, liberal, etc.  A normative theory tends to derive from a
philosophy of history...e.g. class struggle, or religious evolution toward
some necessary outcome.  It remains to be seen whether technical change is
entailing new theories of history and justice.  I suspect such theories are
needed.  I doubt they will link much with 19th or 18th century beginnings
(much less those of 20+ centuries ago).  Normative guidelines are simply
suggestions...not rules.  No one is claiming high ground.

There is no science of the ideal commons or P2P commons nor can there be.
Still, guidelines on design descriptors and normative approaches are
extremely useful.

I think a binding philosophy of history that is emerging amongst P2P
commoners is the idea that profit is increasingly problematic both
intrinsically and, for a subset, morally.  Meanwhile, the state as a
substitute for profiting institutions is even more problematic.  Thus, we
search for solutions in the applications areas...how will people live with
commons in fact, rather than in theory.  Further, there must be means by
which items easily copied and shared can be distributed broadly without some
sort of skewed and ridiculous version of a market model...even while markets
in general are not spurned and considered somehow inherently flawed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100226/bf15fd35/attachment-0001.html>