[p2p-research] ecotechnic future

[Dmytri Kleiner]

Hi Michel, don't have much time to get into this at the moment, but I
agree that I am able to make my arguments more precisely now, and our many
discussions and debates over the years have certainly helped, so thanks.


Best,




On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:54:49 +0700, Michel Bauwens
<michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've had several back and forth's with Dmytri in the past, most notably
in
> Oekonux,
> 
> I felt then that he did not adequately recognize the 'reality' of peer
> production,
> 
> In the meantime, I have evolved, and seen more closely the merit of his
> analysis, while I also think that he is now formulating his critique
much
> more precisely,
> 
> I would now put it that peer production as I conceive it a incomplete
seed
> form, and that a full mode of production needs indeed to combine the
logic
> of immaterial assets with the logic of material production,
> 
> venture communism is a way to combine both in a integrated mode of
> production, whether it is appropriate to call a mode of conditional
> exchange
> as peer production is a separate semantic issue; the way I see it we
need
> to
> combine socialism in material production (fair exchange between
producers
> who own their productive assets) with commonism in immaterial assets,
i.e.
> an integration of both reciprocal and non-reciprocal modalities.
> 
> I would still say that there is real production going on in peer
production
> as I understand it, but that without solution for the reproduction of
> immaterial assets outside of capital accumulation, it is not a full and
> viable mode of production,
> 
> I would also still say that I'm agnostic as to how the combination of
both
> aspects will work, and so view VC as one possibility.
> 
> I do have a concern that immaterial commons remain open to all usage and
> improvements, and Dmytri perhaps you can re-explain your views on this,
> 
> Another concern is the transitional strategies,
> 
> the way I see it, we strengthen the commons of knowledge, code, and
design,
> and find the most appropriate ways to combine them with enterpreneurial
> entitities that are ethically closest, i.e. VC entities, solidarity
economy
> entities, cooperatives, etc..
> 
> the way I see Dmytri's option, this is my critique and worry, is to
focus
> only on a very small number of pure play peer production VC initiatives,
> but
> then, I do not see at all how this can scale in the present reality,
> '
> Michel
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Dmytri Kleiner
> <dk at telekommunisten.net>wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:11:42 +0700, Michel Bauwens
>> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I also think Dmytri Kleiner may have a different take on defining
peer
>> > production ..
>>
>> I've included a draft section on this issue below.
>>
>>
>> > I think he defines peer production everywhere where peers hold a
>> resource
>> > in
>> > common, and he would differentiate access and exchange with the
commons
>> > according to whether you are dealing with other commons, or with
>> > private
>> > for-profit enterprises, only the former would have open and free
access
>> to
>> > the knowledge commons of the community,
>>
>>
>> Michel couples venture communism and copyfarleft too closely, and thus
>> slightly misunderstands both, this is obviously a weekness in how I
have
>> expressed these things, hopefull the final versio of the
telekommunisten
>> manifesto will make this clearer.
>>
>> --- excerpt --
>>
>>
>> Imaging that a “better” copyright system or a “freer” Internet could
>> exist
>> within the present system of economic relations is to misplace the
>> deterministic factors. The intrinsic truth in arguments against
copyright
>> and the clear technical superiority of distributed technologies over
>> centralized ones have not been the deciding factors in the ultimate
>> development of our intellectual property system or our global
>> communications infrastructure, both of which have gotten more
>> consolidated,
>> regulated and restrictive. The determining factor is, as always, the
fact
>> that those whose interests are served by restricting freedom have more
>> wealth with which to relentlessly push toward their ends then is
>> available
>> to resist them. The economic reasons for this are well understood, this
>> numerically small class of Capitalists are the beneficiaries of an
unfair
>> distribution of productive assets that allows then them to capture the
>> wealth produced by the masses of property-less workers. If we want to
>> have
>> a say in the way copyright works (or to abolish it) or to influence the
>> way
>> communication networks are operated, or if we want to make any social
>> reforms whatsoever, we must start by preventing property owners from
>> turning our productivity into their accumulated wealth. The wealth they
>> use
>> to endorse restrictions on our freedoms is the wealth they have taken
>> from
>> us. Without us they would have no source of wealth, even the great
>> accumulated wealth from centuries of exploitation can not ultimately
save
>> them if the you are unable to continue to capture current wealth. The
>> value
>> of the future is far greater than the value of the past. Our ideas
about
>> intellectual property and network topology are ultimately no threat to
>> Capitalism, who can always co-opt, sabotage or simply ignore them. It
is
>> the new ways of working together and sharing that are emerging that
have
>> the potential to threaten the capitalist order and bring about a new
>> society.
>>
>> Often discussions of the productive relations in free software projects
>> and other collaborative projects such as Wikipedia attempt to bottle up
>> commons-based production and trap it within the sphere of “immaterial
>> production,” restricting it exclusively to the domain where it can not
>> affect wealth distribution and thereby play a role in class conflict.
>> Yochai Benkler, Professor for Entrepreneurial Legal Studies at Harvard
>> Law
>> School, coined the term “Peer production” to describe the way free
>> software, Wikipedia articles and similar works are produced. Benkler
>> limits
>> his analysis to the so-called “Networked Information Economy.” The
>> novelty
>> of Peer Production as understood by Benkler and many others is that the
>> property in the commons is entirely non-rivalrous property:
Intellectual
>> property and network transferable or accessible resources. Property
with
>> virtually no reproduction costs. Also, another distinguishing feature
of
>> this limited concept of Peer Production is that the producers in these
>> examples do not receiver enumeration for what they have produced since
>> their products are available for free, for example users of free
software
>> do not compensate the original developers. Thus they claim that Peer
>> Production is “Non-reciprocal.”
>>
>> There is no denying that Benkler’s wealthy network has a lot to offer.
>> The
>> value of this information commons to its users is fantastic, as evident
>> by
>> the millions who employ Free Software, Wikipedia, on-line
communications
>> and social networking tools, etc. However, if commons-based
>> peer-production
>> is limited exclusively to a commons made of digital property with
>> virtually
>> no reproduction costs, how can the use-value produced be translated
into
>> exchange-value? Where is the money to pay for the production of these
>> valuable things? Something with no reproduction costs can have no
>> exchange-value in a context of free exchange, anybody who wants a copy
>> can
>> obtain one from anybody that has one. But if what they produce has no
>> exchange-value, how can the peer producers be able to acquire the
>> material
>> needs for their own subsistence?
>>
>> The wealthy network exists within a context of a poor planet. The
source
>> of the problem of poverty does not dwell in a lack of culture or
>> information but in the direct exploitation of the producing class by
the
>> property-owning classes. The source of poverty is not reproduction
costs
>> but rather extracted economic rents, surplus value captured by way of
>> forcing producers to accept less than the full product of their labour
as
>> their wage by denying them independent access to the means of
production.
>> So long as commons-based peer-production is applied narrowly to only an
>> information commons while the capitalist mode of production still
>> dominates
>> the production of material wealth, owners of material property will
>> continue to capture the marginal wealth created as a result of the
>> productivity of the information commons. Whatever exchange value is
>> derived
>> from the information commons will always be captured by owners of real
>> property, which lies outside the commons. For Peer Production to have
any
>> effect on general material wealth it has to operate within the context
>> of a
>> overall system of goods and services, where the physical means of
>> production and the virtual means of production are both available in
the
>> commons for peer production. By establishing the idea of commons-based
>> peer-production in the context of an information-only commons, Benkler
is
>> creating a trap, ensuring the value created in the peer economy is
>> appropriated by property privilege. We have found Benkler standing on
his
>> head, and we will need to redefine Peer Production to put his head
above
>> his feet again.
>>
>> It is not the “production” in “immaterial, non-reciprocal” production
>> that
>> is immaterial. The computers, the networks and the developers and their
>> places of work and residence are all very much material and all require
>> material upkeep. What is immaterial is the distribution. Digitized
>> information, source code or cultural works, can multiply and zip across
>> global networks in fractions of a second, yet production remains a very
>> material affair. If Peer Production can only produce immaterial good,
>> such
>> as software, and the producers get nothing in return for such
production,
>> if Peer Production is “immaterial, non-reciprocal” production, then
this
>> form of “production” has no right to be called a mode of production at
>> all.
>> First and foremost any mode of production must account for it’s
material
>> inputs or else vanish, these inputs must include the subsistence costs
of
>> it’s labour contributors, to at minimum “enable the labourer’s, one
with
>> another, to subsist and to perpetuate their race” in the words of
>> Ricardo.
>> “Immaterial, Non-reciprocal” production can not do so, since to produce
>> free software, free culture or free soup the producers must draw their
>> subsistence from some other source, and therefore “immaterial,
>> non-reciprocal” production is not a form of production at all, only a
>> special case of distribution within another form of production.
>> “Immaterial, Non-reciprocal” production is no more a mode of production
>> than a charity soup kitchen or socialized medicine. It is simply a
>> super-structural phenomenon which has another mode of production as its
>> base.
>>
>> Rather than placing emphasis on the immaterial distribution of what is
>> produced by current examples of Peer Production, we may note instead
that
>> such production is characterized by independent producers employing a
>> common stock of productive assets. This view of Peer Production is not
>> categorically limited to immaterial goods. Understood this way, the
>> concept
>> of Peer Production, where a network of peers apply their labour to a
>> common
>> stock for mutual and individual benefit, certainly resonates with
age-old
>> proposed socialist modes of production where a class-less community of
>> workers(“peers”) produce collaboratively within a
>> property-less(“commons-based”) society. Unlike the “immaterial,
>> non-reciprocal” definition this formulation can account for its
material
>> inputs, its labour specialization, its means of capital formation, etc,
>> and
>> also better describes the productive basis of free software as well as
>> more
>> closely relates to the topology of peer networks from which the term is
>> derived. Further, this formulation also is better rooted in history, as
>> it
>> describes historical examples of commons-based production such as the
>> pastoral commons, cottage agriculture and cottage industry as well. As
>> the
>> distribution of productive assets is so much at the root of the
>> inequality
>> of wealth and power that perpetuates exploitive systems, a mode of
>> production where productive assets are held in common is clearly a
>> potentially revolutionary one if it could take root. However if the
form
>> of
>> production can be contained to the immaterial, if it can be categorized
>> as
>> immaterial by definition, then it’s producers can not capture any of
the
>> value they create, and thus Harvard Law Professors strive to keep it so
>> defined. However if we can implement ways of independently sharing a
>> common-stock of material assets and thereby expand the scope of the
>> commons
>> to include material as well as immaterial goods, then direct producers
>> who
>> employ these assets in their production can retain a greater portion of
>> their product.
>>
>> Peer production is distinct from other modes of production. Worker’s
>> independently employing a common-stock of productive assets is a
>> different
>> mode, distinct from both capitalist and collectivist modes. The
>> capitalist
>> mode of production is exploitive by nature, its fundamental logic is to
>> capture surplus value from labour by denying independent access to the
>> means of production. However, collectivist modes can also be
exploitive.
>> For instance in Co-operative production, in which producers
collectively
>> employ jointly owned productive assets, the distribution of productive
>> assets is likely to be unfair among different co-operatives, allowing
one
>> to exploit the other. Larger scale collectivist forms, such as
Socialist
>> states or very big diversified co-operatives can be said to eliminate
the
>> sort of exploitation that can occur between co-operatives, however, the
>> expanding coordination layers needed to manage these large
organizations
>> give rise to a coordinator class, anew class consisting of a
>> techno-administrative elite that has proven in historical examples to
>> have
>> the capacity to be just as parasitic and stifling to workers as a
>> Capitalist class. However the community of Peer producers can grow
>> without
>> developing layers of co-ordination because they are self-organizing and
>> produce independently, and as such they do not need any layers of
>> co-ordination other than that what is needed to provision the common
>> stock
>> of productive assets, thus co-ordination is limited to allocation of
the
>> common stock among those who wish to employ it. It is no surprise then,
>> that this sort production has appeared and flourished where the common
>> stock is immaterial property, the low reproduction costs eliminate
>> allocation concerns. Thus what is needed for Peer production to
>> incorporate
>> material goods into the common-stock is a system for the allocation of
>> material assets among the independent peers which imposes only a
minimal
>> co-ordination burden. Venture Communism is such a way.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dmyri Kleiner
>> Venture Communist
>>

-- 
Dmyri Kleiner
Venture Communist