[p2p-research] ecotechnic future

[Michel Bauwens]

the appreciation is mutual, I have learned a lot from your clear challenges,
and in some ways, moved more in that direction,

Michel

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Dmytri Kleiner <dk at telekommunisten.net>wrote:

>
> 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
>



-- 
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

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100722/5f5181d6/attachment.html>