[p2p-research] [Commoning] agri, industrial and info modes

[Roberto Verzola]

Hello, Rainer. Thanks for jumping in. I classify because I think looking
for patterns a legitimate exercise. To look for differences and
commonalities is already a step towards classification.

>
> Following this debate anyway, your distinction, Roberto, sorry for 
this remark, seems a bit too
> simplistic:
>

I did try to simplify it a lot, to make my message clear. Point
accepted. To nuance the description, I'd refer to the dominant content
(is it living, material non-living, non-material?) of the good, rather
than simply "the good"... But there are other nuances too, I know.

Nonetheless, I would consider my attempt an advance over the usual
primary, secondary, tertiary etc., which doesn't reveal anything about
the nature of each category, or even the pre-industrial, industrial,
post-industrial categories, which don't reveal essential differences either.

Even if mining is in the primary sector, I would count it not under
agriculture but the industrial sector, because mining involves
non-living goods (coal, mineral ores, etc.)

I did mention human services and finance, but didn't want to complicate
the exchanges with new categories.

I focused on information because that is where abundance today is
hardest to deny, but we could later extend the discussion to human
services and finance. (To me, "human services" means you are using
somebody's time, which cannot be reproduced with near-zero marginal
cost, while information can be. One trend today, which is not necessary
good, is the gradual elimination of human services through robotic
devices or through automated software. As for finance, there is an
essential difference between money and information: we can't copy money
in the same way we can copy information, so I hesitate to group them
together.)

>
> * the real problem is, if course, the information (the fourth) sector 
(why, Roberto, do you use "mode"?).
>

(Also to Michel:) I used the word "mode" loosely. I have also used
"sectors" in other pieces.

I also agree with Wolfgang that this is just one way of looking at the
whole -- highlighting certain differences and commonalities. Whether it
is one valid way of doing so depends on whether we get useful insights
out of this way of looking at the matter. And I think we do. But we
highlight a different set of differences and commonalities, and maybe
other equally useful insights will reveal themselves too. As he said 
(more or less), there is no single perspective that is best in all contexts.

Greetings to all,

Roberto