P2P Civilization
[Contribution to the Reimagining Society Project hosted by ZCommunications...]
Some theses on the emergence of the peer to peer civilization and political economy
The following presents, in the form of a number of theses, the vision as developed by the P2P Foundation, a community researching and promoting peer to peer alternatives in all areas of human life. Peer to peer is not just a vision of concrete alternatives, but also a vision of a new post-capitalist society that is founded on peer production, peer governance and peer property formats being at the core of value creation, and inspired by three new central social paradigms: 1) open and free availability of ‘intellectual' raw material and voluntary engagement of workers; 2) participatory processes of value creation; 3) commons-oriented output, i.e. universal availability of the common creation.
1. Our current world system is marked by a profoundly counterproductive logic of social organization:
a) it is based on a false concept of abundance in the limited material world; it has created a system based on infinite growth, within the confines of finite resources
b) it is based on a false concept of scarcity in the infinite immaterial world; instead of allowing continuous experimental social innovation, it purposely erects legal and technical barriers to disallow free cooperation through copyright, patents, etc...
2. Therefore, the number one priority for a sustainable civilization is overturning these principles into their opposite:
a) we need to base our physical economy on a recognition of the finitude of natural resources, and achieve a sustainable steady-state economy
b) we need to facilitate free and creative cooperation and lower the barriers to such exchange by reforming the copyright and other restrictive regimes
A society achieving these two priorities would be sustainable, but not necessarily just, so it is necessary to add a third ‘positive' requirement, that of social justice.
3. Hierarchy, markets, and even democracy are means to allocate scarce resources through authority, pricing, and negotiation; they are not necessary in the realm of the creation and free exchange of immaterial value, which will be marked by bottom-up forms of peer governance
4. Markets, as means to manage scarce physical resources, are but one of the means to achieve such allocation, and need to be divorced from the idea of capitalism, which is a system of infinite growth. For physical production, we need a pluralist economy where the free use of open designs is matched by collaborative entities producing through resource based economies, gift economies and reciprocity systems, fair markets and trade by producer cooperatives and other types of governance.
5. The creation of immaterial value, which again needs to become dominant in a post-material world which recognized the finiteness of the material world, will be characterized by the further emergence of non-reciprocal peer production.
6. Peer production is a more productive system for producing immaterial value than the for-profit mode, and in cases of the asymmetric competition between for-profit companies and for-benefit institutions and communities, the latter will tend to emerge
7. Peer production produces more social happiness, because 1) it is based on the highest from of individual motivation, nl. intrinsic positive motivation; 2) it is based on the highest form of collective cooperation, nl. synergestic cooperation characterized by four wins (both the participants in the exchange , the community, and the universal system)
8. Peer governance, the bottom-up mode of participative decision-making (only those who participate get to decide) which emerges in peer projects is politically more productive than representative democracy, and will tend to emerge in immaterial production. However, it can only replace representative modes in the realm of non-scarcity, and will be a complementary mode in the political realm. What we need are political structures that create a convergence between individual and collective interests and that insure all stakeholders have a say in processes affecting them.
9. Peer property, the legal and institutional means for the social reproduction of peer projects, are inherently more distributive than both public property and private exclusionary property; it will tend to become the dominant form in the world of immaterial production (which includes all design of physical products).
10. Peer to peer as the relational dynamic of free agents in distributed networks will likely become the dominant mode for the production of immaterial value; however, in the realm of scarcity, the peer to peer logic will tend to reinforce peer-informed market modes, such as fair trade; and in the realm of the scarcity based politics of group negotiation, will lead to reinforce the peer-informed state forms such as multistakeholdership forms of governance.
11. The role of the state must evolve from the protector of dominant interests and arbiter between public regulation and privatized corporate modes (an eternal and unproductive binary choice), towards being the arbiter between a triarchy of public regulation, private markets, and the direct social production of value. In the latter capacity, it must evolve from the welfare state model, to the partner state model, as involved in enabling and empowering the direct social creation of value.
12. The world of physical production needs to be characterized by:
a) sustainable forms of peer-informed market exchange (fair trade, etc..);
b) reinvigorated forms of reciprocity and the gift economy;
c) a world based on social innovation and open designs, available for physical production anywhere in the world.
13. The best guarantor of the spread of the peer to peer logic to the world of physical production, is the distribution of everything, i.e. of the means of production in the hands of individuals and communities, so that they can engage in social cooperation. While the immaterial world will be characterized by a peer to peer logic on non-reciprocal generalized exchange, the peer informed world of material exchange will be characterized by evolving forms of reciprocity and neutral exchange.
14. We need to move from empty and ineffective anti-capitalist rhetoric, to constructive post-capitalist construction. Peer to peer theory, as the attempt to create a theory to understand peer production, governance and property, and the attendant paradigms and value systems of the open/free, participatory, and commons oriented social movements, is in a unique position to marry the priority values of the right, individual freedom, and the priority values of the left, equality. In the peer to peer logic, one is the condition of the other, and cooperative individualism marries equipotentiality and freedom in a context of non-coercion.
15. We need to become politically sensitive to invisible architectures of power. In distributed systems, where there is no overt hierarchy, power is a function of design. One such system, perhaps the most important of all, is the monetary system, whose interest-bearing design requires the market to be linked to a system of infinite growth, and this link needs to be broken. A global reform of the monetary system, or the spread of new means of direct social production of money, are necessary conditions for such a break.
16. This is the truth of the peer to peer logical of social relationships: 1) together we have everything; 2) together we know everything. Therefore, the conditions for dignified material and spiritual living are in our hands, bound with our capacity to relate and form community. The emancipatory peer to peer theory does not offer new solutions for global problems, but most of all new means to tackle them, by relying on the collective intelligence of humankind. We are witnessing the rapid emergence of peer to peer toolboxes for the virtual world, and facilitation techniques of the physical world of face to face encounters, both are needed to assist in the necessary change of consciousness that needs to be midwifed. It is up to us to use them.
17. At present, the world of corporate production is benefiting from the positive externalities of widespread social innovation (innovation as an emerging property of the network itself, not as an internal characteristic of any entity), but there is no return mecachism, leading to the problem of precarity. Now that the productivity of the social is beyond doubt, we need solutions that allow the state and for-profit corporation to create return mechanisms, such as forms of income that are no longer directly related to the private production of wealth, but reward the social production of wealth.
By Michel Bauwens, P2P Foundation (http://p2pfoundation.net)
ZNet Articles
Blog Posts
immaterial value?
By Grinder, Matt at Jun 23, 2009 21:27 PM
I don't understand the term, "immaterial value". All values are immaterial, in that values do not have mass or charge or take up space or anything like that. If that's what it means, then "immaterial" is an unecessary qualifier. Maybe it means the value of immaterial things, like the value of my love? Or perhaps it means the value of immaterial goods that you pay for but can't hold in your hand, like the value of a massage?
Also, what is a "post-material" world? A world without materials? Of course you can't live in such a place, as we need materials to build shelters, eat things, etc. Again I can't follow.
The other thing I can't follow is what P2P is, I find the language here difficult. I will attempt to summarize what I understand. P2P wants people to only work at things they like to do, where we are willing and voluntary. I won't build houses or farm crops unless I like doing it. That's work life in a P2P, people doing what they want. For allocation, we are to retain markets, but add on a gift economy and fair trade. That's about all I get, how's that for a start?
If that's a fair if very short description, what about things nobody wants to do? what if nobody likes cleaning out the sewer? What do we do then? BTW, I don't want to live under markets, I find parecon's allocation system much more desirable.
Reply this comment
Re: immaterial value?
By Bauwens, Michel at Jul 01, 2009 00:25 AM
It is quite customary in general discourse to distinguish things that have material value as objects, from objects that derive value from say non-material things. The typical example is the difference between the material cost of producing a Nike shoe, and the much higher price it fetches, because 'consumers', buy it for non-material aspects, such as status acquisition and such. Similarly, it is not difficult to understand that producing software, knowledge of designs, which can be digitally reproduced, is quite different from making 'hard material things'. Post-material is like post-agricultural (industrial), or like saying post-industrial. It doesn't mean that industry abolishes the need to eat, or that a knowledge focused economy abolishes the need for material things, but rather only that the focus of society and what it values, shifts from one field to another. This new layer then retrospectively influences the previous modes. For example, agriculture becomes industrial, or industry becomes knowledge-intensive. Of course, all these new 'immaterial' layers rest on a material basis, and could not exist without it. Our internet as socialized network requires a whole physical infrastructure of physical hardware, energy, etc ...
Nevertheless, P2P indeed recognizes the difference involved in making 'immaterial' products from material ones. To produce knowledge, designs, software, it is sufficient to have cooperating human beings with access to computers and a socialized network, and once done, the result is abundant because it becomes easy to reproduce without much extra cost.
This is why currently Peer Production exists in those fields, but not in the field of material production where cost recovery mechanism and much higher prior investment is needed. This is why it makes sense to combine open design communities, where knowledge is freely shared and non-proprietary, with an ecology of entities (which could be corporations or Parecon organizations) that produce the material that has been designed by such open design communities.
The question then becomes, with what kind of entities should or could free software and open design communities ally themselves. The answer would be: preferably with those that are ethically closest to the p2p value system (i.e. open and free input, participatory process and commons oriented or universally available output. Of course, this is not always possible in the 'really existing world', but the choice will always be influenced by the desire to protect the achieved autonomy of individuals and communities in a p2p context, and its need for self-reproduction.
To your question, what about things that nobody wants to do, there are various proposed answers, the one that you like least (and me neither) is to let the market continue to exercise this task. Amongst the alternatives, like Parecon, is the one by
Christian Siefkes, in his book, From Exchange to Contributions: Generalizing Peer Production into the Physical World. Edition C. Siefkes, Berlin, 2007
It proposes a full p2p or commons compatible mechanism for effort and task distribution.
More information here at http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Peereconomy
Reply this comment
Please Don't Call Us Childish, Anymore
By Ward, Peter at Jun 21, 2009 19:28 PM
It always leaves me cold when one hear that by being too leftwing one is in fact endangering progress. That one's views exceed a certain, arbitrarily defined mile marker, it does not necessarily follow that one is either unrealistic about or impotent of action in the present. It is true of some optimists that they are restricted by their impatience from taking action in the present, but they are generally at least as effective as those who are merely “liberal” and there for presumably more pragmatic. And, more importantly, one thing does not imply the other. One has to have goals that are based on an imaginative optimism to some degree for any intentional progress to happen at all and therefore presumably the more optimistic—i.e., the more radical one's outlook—the faster one will reach one's destination. Note that the discussion is not about this or that specific left goal goal being unrealistic but about having anything beyond modest reformist ambitions being impractical and harmful.*
Frankly, I find this position offensive: the implication is that one is being childish for dreaming about a better world. And it is usually the argument of a bet-hedger, a reactionary posing as a leftist—a privileged individual wishing to be thought well of.
Regarding the specifics of P2P: Can we at least work with it in the mean time since our paths seem to coincide? I think in fact the routes diverge pretty quickly. What P2P offers it offers only to a very narrow and already highly privileged sector of society, as sector including: art directors, architects, designers, software developers and a handful of other agents in related half-arts. It offers nothing for the rest of us and may even make things worse if proposals to abolish Intellectual Property Rights laws succeed while the present economy remains intact, by destroying the modest protection these laws offer individuals against theft of their work by Big Business.
Finally, P2P is either naïve or mendacious in two respects: by failure to acknowledge explicitly even the existence of class [as noted]—the heart of the matter—and by the implication that social responsibility is restricted to those belonging to one's P2P organization. A major means reactionaries have of subverting natural socially constructive tenancies has been to generate the false brief that one's responsibility, i.e., the potential harm one can do (benefit is admitted to reach more broadly), is restricted to people one is direct personal contact.**
*In fact, the argument boils down to saying one must either be a reactionary or a hypocrite in order to contribute to making the world better.
**E.g., the wage-slave labour an environmental destruction that went into the P2P journalist's writing computer is treated as like an irrelevancy, an “externality” to use the analogy from orthodox economics. Obviously, there is already a certain psychological bias in the direction of this thinking since we can't literally live in another's shoes but it is one amplified by education and other means. Instead education should show people how they fit in to society as a whole, in significant respects.
Reply this comment
Re: Please Don't Call Us Childish, Anymore
By Bauwens, Michel at Jun 21, 2009 21:23 PM
Hi Peter,
I think spending time to discuss things with you is pretty fruitless, since you obviously can't read so your critique is full of imaginary interpretations.
So one last time for those who do make an effort:
1) p2p theory doesn't ignore class (http://del.icio/us/mbauwens/P2P-Class-Theory; http://del.icio.us/mbauwens/P2P-Hierarchy-Theory
2) I don't think dreaming of a better world is childish (http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Politics)
3) p2p is not restricted in any way to people in the sectors you describe, see http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality, but also all we already know about participation in sharing and peer producing networks (though that doesn't mean there are no issues to be solved to further extend participation)
4) it doesn't want to abolish IP laws but I do note that you are a supporter of such monopolies which are a linchpin of the entertainment multinationals; always good to see which side people are on (http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:IP)
5) it does not see the environmental cost of computing as an externality, on the contrary (http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Ecology; http://del.icio.us/mbauwens/Green-Computing); in fact, the greatest promise for open design and distributed manufacturing is in the field of renewable energy development (http://p2pfoundation.net/Product_Hacking)
All these different elements above are described extensively elsewhere, but don't worry, I don't expect you to do any homework and make the unreasonable demand that you inform yourself before opinionating
Michel
Reply this comment
By McGehee, Michael at May 08, 2009 13:55 PM
“Hierarchy, markets, and even democracy are means to allocate scarce resources through authority, pricing, and negotiation; they are not necessary in the realm of the creation and free exchange of immaterial value, which will be marked by bottom-up forms of peer governance.”
Reply this comment
Re: definitions etc...
By Bauwens, Michel at May 19, 2009 21:48 PM
Hi Michael,
I'm guessing your hostile questions are not aimed at creating understanding, more a kind of a aggressive game for you, but I'll answer them anyway. It seems a persistent characteristic of your communication that what you fail to understand immediately, is termed gibberish. It is probably a waste of time to communicate with you, but perhaps others may benefit. So be it.
Do you really have difficulty in understanding what immaterial value is? Obviously referring to the third definition at dictionary.com
Say you buy a Nike shoe, the cost of production is $5 but you are willing to pay $150 for it. Where does that extra value come from? Not from the material production, but from intangible value, like the trust you have in the brand, your willingness to buy it to show your belonging to a sociological tribe etc... Probably most of the value you 'pay' for today, refers to these kinds of intangible.
About hierarchy, if you reread you will see that I'm talking about hierarchical allocation, i.e. allocation through hierarchy, as happens in a corporate or organizational environment. In peer production, the productive resources are not allocated through hierarchy, but through self-allocation of free individuals. There is a hierarchy of sorts, there is leadership in peer production. For details, see http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Governance and books like The Success of Open Source from Steve Webber and Cyberchiefs from Mathieu O'Neill.
Markets are not necessary to allocate abundant resources, where there is no tension between supply and demand, but <may> be used to allocate scarce resources. Peer production, the emergent mode to produce immaterial resources, has to co-exist with modes of material production.
From your objection that peer production based on freely chosen passionale pursuits and intrinsic motivation 'makes absolutely no sense', I gather you prefer to work under coercion or motivated by greed. That is fine by me, but do understand that not everyone is similarly motivated. This is actually a well studied area, and motivational studies do point to free choice and productive autonomy as being most apt at producing happiness. For details you could look here at http://p2pfoundation.net/Intrinsic_vs._Extrinsic_Motivation
One way to divide property modes is into the following typology:
- private property, which is exclusionary, i.e. what is mine is not yours
- public 'state' property, it is from 'all of us', but governed by an institution, existing separately from the collective 'public', and which has the power to exclude
- common property, which makes the good universally available to all and does not exist separately from the collective. It is generally referred to as a commons.
Peer property is the latter. If you use the General Public License, you are free to use and modify the material, but anything you change will belong to the common pool. Through this mechanism, the commons cannot be captured and privatized.
Michel
Reply this comment
Re: Re: definitions etc...
By McGehee, Michael at May 20, 2009 09:43 AM
michel,
thanks for the replies. to be honest, my initial hostility was due to how you wrote certain things or at least how i perceived them (and to be honest others i have talked to noticed the same thing - so please take this as food for thought). i tried emailing you to apologize. i dont know if you got it. even if you were rude in some of what you wrote - whether you intended to or not - my behavior and some others was still uncalled for.
i am completely open to a diaglogue and am finding some good clarification in your response. so i appreciate that. albert's latest response says pretty much everything i would say and a bit more, so i wont duplicate it here.
i also found your comment urging parecon intitiatives to start being put into practice to be a fair and sound comment though i think there are some intrinsic factors that largely prevent it from doing so. i think we can move forward for reforms that lead us towards parecon but i dont think the prospects of an authentic parecon workplace with respective consumer councils and an IFB existing in a state capitalist economy is feasible. the programmatic steps building towards a parecon society are projects that are underway.
i guess a comparable analogy would be if we have some software that is revolutionary but incompatible with our pc we can install the software until we change "institutional boundaries" of our pc to compliment the new software.
again, i apologize for getting started on the wrong foot and appreciate your responses. i know you didnt have to do it.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: definitions etc...
By McGehee, Michael at May 20, 2009 10:20 AM
Okay, on some of what you wrote:
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: definitions etc...
By Bauwens, Michel at May 20, 2009 20:57 PM
Dear Michael,
I appreciate your time and effort to respond and to clarify the differences in approach.
Perhaps in my view the essential difference boils down to this: 1) do we need one system that governs the total production process for value in the world, say for parecon; 2) or can we envision a multitude of processes, though one governed by a core logic.
My understanding is that Parecon favours the former, and that's why it also seems to have that problem of 'all or nothing', because it needs to change the totality of social structures before it becomes operative. In your system, it would seem that free productive choice is always tempered by social necessity and collective agreement.
In the p2p approach, we have a core logic of peer to peer value creation, where people have full productive choice (provided they don't harm others), where they coordinate their actions around a common object they all agree on. Around this core of open design, operates the material economy, which may or not be a Parecon economy, provided of course that such a Parecon economy does not close down the possibility for peer production to occur outside its boundaries.
If Parecon is too monological in its approach, i.e. closes down the avenues for peer production, then in my view it weakens itself.
Then there is the other difference I see, which may explain the initial hostility. Parecon sympathesizers look at the world from a glass full perspective, they start from the ethical requirements and what flows from that, and see an evil world of class oppression, whereby those who are seen to compose with it, are seen as part of the problem, not the solution.
My own p2p approach acknowledges the desire for a better world, but also sees that the world has never, (perhaps if ever it was in pre-civilisational tribal times) really conformed to that expection. So, I choose to see the world from a glass half full, looking for practical and concrete ways to advance the realization of ethical ideals. Concurrently, from this point of view, people who advocate the glass-full approach can then also be seen as part of the problem, because their radical expectations can also lead to powerlessness, and even hurting the many progresses that could be made.
I believe these basic life choices are partly related to personal temperament (which can change, since I have been in the 'worldspace' currently occupied by Parecon), partly by outside circumstances (the more extreme the collapse of society, the more people desire more radical change approaches, though not necessarily in the direction that Parecon advocates).
All this being said, it is my view that these differences need not be radically antagonistic, since practical progress can be a waystation to more radical change; and radical change demands exert pressures that promote practical progress.
By inclination, I'm in favour of integrative approaches that seek congruence amongst different emancipatory approaches.
Michel
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: definitions etc...
By Albert, Michael at May 21, 2009 07:11 AM
Just to clarify, and I hope not get involved more than that - lest there be much more discussion of things that are the case -
Bauwens: Perhaps in my view the essential difference boils down to this: 1) do we need one system that governs the total production process for value in the world, say for parecon; 2) or can we envision a multitude of processes, though one governed by a core logic.
Actually, however, what parecon believes in this vein is that you cannot have two different prices, valuations, operating simultaneously in an economy for the same item - not rationally, at any rate, and not pragmatically if one is vastly more accurate as well as in accord with one's broader ethics (self management) than the other. This is quite analogous, in fact, to p2p feeling the same way regarding a more limited domain, production of public goods where costs of production are low. You can have more than one "logic" operating in a whole economy, or a part of an economy, but they must have means to mesh, rather than one or the other being imperial, having a tendency to spread, and their being no means of accommodation of each with the other. For example, a political apparatus could set a price, or forbid or require some acts - in a parecon - or in p2p - along with participatory planning or p2p operating successfully outside that constraint. But you can't have participatory planning arriving at one valuation of oil - say - taking into account full social costs and benefits, and markets simultaneously and in the same context arriving at a vastly different valuation, as they always would - nor even have markets arrriving at prices for some items, and participatory planning sensibly handling the rest, or vice versa, since all valuations affect the rest - and you also can't have two different contradictory aims for the same activity both simultaneously implemented.
You could technically have some workplaces with balanced job complexes and others without, just like you could have some farms with slaves and others without - but parecon argues having balanced job complexes is essential to the overall project and having corporate divisions of labor is contradictory to it, yes, and, in any event, once they exist no one would opt for corporate divisions of labor over balanced job complexes unless it was to dominate - again, this is all quite analogous to p2p arguing that once it exists in the information realm, in time it will spread to characterize to the whole of that realm. This idea that there is a single logic versus pluralism, is, in other words, a red herring, I think is the phrase. In fact, both approaches allow and even welcome diversity, but have some aspects that are deemed essential and reject some features as contradictory.
In fact, in parecon, there is incredible room for diversity beyond four very basic attributes and even in the implementation of these four - workers and consumers self managed councils, balanced job complexes, remuneration for duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valued labor, and participatory planning (where the last can easily accommodate impositions, as well).
Bauwens: My understanding is that Parecon favours the former, and that's why it also seems to have that problem of 'all or nothing', because it needs to change the totality of social structures before it becomes operative.
There is no such all or nothing problem in a pareconist perspective of what to be doing now, which is what you are referring to - or at any time along the way, or at the "end point" either, as noted above. Thus, in the present, I have helped create pareconish firms in a sea of private property and market competition, etc. Others have too, and more will follow, one hopes. One can also win reforms that move toward parecon, both in immediate social relations and in the emerging desires and capacities of constituencies, not only creating pareconish institutions. There is no difference at all between p2p and parecon on this score - the difference is that one project addresses the whole economy and all workers and consumers, the other overwhelmingly addresses one sector of workers, and where parecon generates the same benefits for all actors, p2p's benefits (and sacrifices) are confined to a limited sector with elite privilege.
Bauwens: There is another confusion here: If Parecon is too monological in its approach, i.e. closes down the avenues for peer production, then in my view it weakens itself.
This too, keeps coming up, and also seems to be inapplicable. Parecon not only doesn't preclude the desirable attributes of p2p it vastly enlarges and extends them - and it conflicts with p2p only in that it lets p2p advovates do their work and get equitable remuneration for it, rather than having to forego income to get other benefits that parecon provides to all workers, and in that it enlarges the gains and extends them universally.
Bauwens: Then there is the other difference I see, which may explain the initial hostility. Parecon sympathesizers look at the world from a glass full perspective, they start from the ethical requirements and what flows from that, and see an evil world of class oppression, whereby those who are seen to compose with it, are seen as part of the problem, not the solution.
You say, end copyrights, but that doesn't mean you think every operation that uses them is a despicable bunch, etc. etc. Same goes for us - I work all the time with people in organizations and projects that have views I question, or who engage in practices, largely with no alternative, for now, that I reject - including myself, as I must compromise pretty much every day, nearly every minute. We are the same in this, different only in what we criticize...not in that we do have critiques. And as far as seeing the glass half full, or not - I would reverse the judgement. I see the possibility and likelihood of a classless economy and liberated society for all participants, in all venues and realms. You seem to have grave doubts about, and indeed almost rule out for any forseeable future, any gain to be had outside a narrow domain where some technical relations favor some limited changes on behalf of a rather small constituency. To me, it is your view that is defeatist and accepting of a glass that is permanently empty, or nearly so, for most people, while a narrow groups get to have some additional nourishment in their personal glasses - though not very much, actually.
Similarly, where I think the critical constituencies for social change are the poor and weak, those most degraded and oppressed by existing structures - p2p virtually ignores such constituencies ) or so it seems to me, and instead communicates overwhelmingly with a narrow sector of folks largely in or near coordinator class status. This is a big difference, indeed.
Bauwens: All this being said, it is my view that these differences need not be radically antagonistic, since practical progress can be a waystation to more radical change; and radical change demands exert pressures that promote practical progress.
But this is my view too and I wonder why you keep writing as though I am saying p2p is a bad thing that ought to go away...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: definitions etc...
By McGehee, Michael at May 21, 2009 07:40 AM
“My understanding is that Parecon favours the former, and that's why it also seems to have that problem of 'all or nothing', because it needs to change the totality of social structures before it becomes operative.”
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: definitions etc...
By Bauwens, Michel at May 22, 2009 01:25 AM
I've read both last precisions regarding Parecon, so thanks for that.
Just a little remark, regarding Mafia etc.. This is actually a good example. It is like 'corruption' or 'prostitution'. I would question that we can really 'abolish' them without any full change of all the conditions that give rise to them, which is a short term impossibility. So in practice, you end up with 'concrete measures' which indeed to regulate them, diminish their capacity to do harm, etc...
Michel
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: definitions etc...
By McGehee, Michael at May 22, 2009 09:22 AM
"I would question that we can really 'abolish' them without any full change of all the conditions that give rise to them..."
I agree, and that's basically what I meant about changing the institutional boundaries.
"...which is a short term impossibility."
Again, I agree. In the short term we should seek reforms or "concrete measures [that] diminish their capacity to do harm." But I agree with Albert in that we should structure our reform movements so that they are not open-ended but lead to further changes that result in "full change of all the conditions that give rise to them." There is no reason we cannot be conscious of this tactic when employing it; we can know that, yes, we want living wages in the short term but that were also looking further towards fair remuneration standards, changes in property rights, democratic councils and so on.
Anyway, sorry for initially being an ass and thanks for sticking around and clearing things up. You didnt have to but im glad you did!
Reply this comment
Re:
By McGehee, Michael at May 11, 2009 06:57 AM
michel,
i would really like a more detailed explanation and description of the institutions. what exactly is immaterial production/value, and what is peer governance/property/production.
for example, when i read your statement on peer governance i would like to know how we say who can and should participate. the thing i like about parecon is that it is based on who affected. saying "only those who participate" doesnt say whether they are affected or not. what if someone is not affected but wants to participate?
Also, you threw in a disclaimer, "However, it can only replace representative modes in the realm of non-scarcity." This is a semantic argument but I dont think there really is such a thing as non-scarcity (or post-scarcity). the materials used for production are finite and always scarce, just that some are in less supply than others. we may have more abundance of wood than something else but wood is still scarce. if we use wood to make chairs then that is less wood we would use for guitars.
i guess my concers on P2P is largely semantic. i would like to see a fuller description and defining of the institutional boundaries of P2P.
thanks!
Reply this comment
Re: Re: p2p institutions
By Bauwens, Michel at May 19, 2009 22:02 PM
Hi Michael,
Thanks for that second intervention.
Here is a text that describes the boundaries of peer to peer, and the interplay between community, the NGO Foundations that usually manage the infrastructure of cooperation, and the businesses that work with the commons:
* The social web and its social contracts. Re-public, . Retrieved from http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=261
Similar, but focused more on the business model side of things, is:
* Business Models for Peer Production. Open Source Business Resource, January 2008. Retrieved from http://www.osbr.ca/ojs/index.php/osbr/article/view/494/458
The peer governance models in free software communities have been well studied, and here is a bibliography of research articles: http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Governance_Bibliography
The following is a more detailed treatment of the emancipatory possibilities inherent in peer production, and hence related to the ideals of Parecon:
Roberto Verzola, a green agro-activist in the Philippines, has studied the economic logics of abundance vs. scarcity rather well.
An example of his typology is here at http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/abundance-as-a-field-of-study-2-a-typology/2008/11/22
More from him at http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?s=Verzola
Some extra discussion on the abundance/scarity polarity at http://p2pfoundation.net/Abundance_vs._Scarcity
Michel
Reply this comment
Re: Re:
By Sperber, Joshua at May 12, 2009 00:52 AM
Good God Michael, I only glanced at this debate, but even with that I noticed that Bauwens' definition of "immaterial production" is the conventional -- presumably self-explanatory -- one: intangible products, such as information, for example.
More strangely, you write "the materials used for production are finite and always scarce, just that some are in less supply than others." So sunlight and air, which are used to grow things, are finite? There's an abundance of production, and capitalism has been destroying "excess" food supplies, or merely paying farmers not to produce, for a century, so scarcity is hardly at issue.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re:
By McGehee, Michael at May 19, 2009 13:21 PM
hey josh, nice to see you again.
umm, the debate is broader then just "information" so asking for a definition isnt unreasonable. the debate is on the economy as a whole and im sure we agree that produce more than information in whole economies.
also, maybe our difference on scarcity is semantic cuz in my view having abundance (which includes air and sunlight - which are finite) of something is still scarce, though as i pointed out, not as scarce as other items. thats why i question bauwen's caveat about scarcity. i even gave an example to explain my view of scarcity. we can have an abundant amount of wood but its still scarce since producing so much of X means we have less to produce of Y. or take your example, if we direct so much of sunlight for X then we have less sunlight to use for Y - i.e., these items are scarce.
Reply this comment