Message 00684 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00680 Message: 8/13 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [jox] Journal report - 19 August 2011

Hi Mathieu and all,

First I do not know about the procedures, I am just new. But I can tell you about my emprical and theoretical interests. I became interested in p2p production via studying intangible commodities. I tried to theorize knowledge-sign capitalism. Then, I came across p2p production which is a decommoditization of knowledge.  I came to the conclusion (which some other people had reached before me)that p2p is a new communist mode of production. This mode of production consists of small Islands within the capitalist mode of production. Its relation to capitalism includes a dialectic of articulation and negation.Capitalism also  had this  relation of articulation/negation with  pre-capitalist modes of production. The major difference is that in the communist-capitalist articulation the communist mode of production is the negating force, while capitalism was the main negating force in the precapitalist-capitalist articulation. Theory of articulation is well known among Maxists. The negation of the capitalist mode of production by the emerging communist mode of production includes p2p productive activity, but cannot be limited to it. It requires, spreading a new communist consciuosness which aims at generalization of p2p production to all branches of production. Moreover, the political activists of p2p production need to make a broad alliance with other movements and convince them that p2p production offers sollutions to many problems that are created by capitalism. In brief we need a new social revolution that replaces capitalism with p2p production. Although the p2p productive activity is the core driving force of this revolution, political activity, and theoretical work is also essential. 

I have submitted a long article on these issues to NEw Left Review, waiting for their reply.
 I think you are  doing  a pioneering work which is not only intellectually exciting but will play a significant role in bolstering p2p production against capitalism. You are a force of productive negation. So I am  excited to join you.
all the best

Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil> 08/19/11 14:14 PM >>>
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Jakob, all

Pleasure to meet you! 

Your arrival raises an interesting question : how does one become a member of our SC? The criteria for inclusion are along the lines of "must be a member of a scientific institute, and have expertise in issues around peer production". 

So, you seem to fit the criteria, but what makes you a member of our SC? 

Until now, people were invited informally. But now that this SC has been in place for a while and that a smaller number of people have taken on extra responsibilities, such as editing special issues, I think it would be good to clarify this point which - I think, could be wrong - someone once grumbled about anyway.

So, do we want to have the editor inviting people pretty much as before, based on personal assessment that the person would be a worthwhile addition as a reviewer and participant?

Or do we say that anyone who is editing an issue can make that decision, still based on the criteria mentioned above?

Or do we want to use a more collective method, through this list for example?

I have not completely worked out my own position yet, so I'm curious as to what people think about this?



On 08/19/11, Jakob Rigi  <rigij> wrote:
Thank you very much Johan and Mathieu,

It is really exciting to be part of the group and learn from you, I will also do my best to contribute to the debates.

Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil> 08/19/11 03:49 AM >>>
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Journal report - 19 AUGUST 2011

Hi everyone, a number of issues for the journal project.
If you want to address a specific issue it might be best to start a new thread to avoid confusion - thanks.


Johan suggested that we invite Jakob Rigi of the Central European University in Budapest to join our SC, as he expressed a strong interest in our journal and related work. I have subscribed Jakob to this list.

@Jakob: welcome aboard, please feel free to join in debates and get involved as you see fit!



- ISSN number
- Inclusion in Google Scholar

It was suggested to me a couple of months ago that it would be useful to obtain these things. If anyone knows how to do this quickly, or feels like doing this, could you please let me know - thanks.


-Research papers section 
3 papers submitted through the contact form on the website are at various stage of being completed and reviewed.

-Reports/Reviews section
In the first issue we had two conference reports. This time I think it would be good to have some book reviews. I could try to do one or two. If anyone has any suggestions that would be good. 

In particular if anyone has read Christian Fuch's latest book "Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies"? I have not read it but I think it would be highly relevant to review it for CSPP.

Finally if someone is interested in being "Book review editor" that could a good way to develop this - any takers? 
We can start a new thread about this.

-Debate section
Nothing yet - see below for a suggestion.



From what I have heard from Johan and Alessandro they have had a ton of submissions - well done.

@Johan and Alessandro: you can update the list periodically on how you are going, if you like.



Mayo and I have been working on a CFP. I have been slack about this and will focus on it now so we can release it soon.



Still waiting to hear from Maurizio and Vincenzo on how they want to address the criticism by StefanMn that they are not properly addressing the issue. So far StefanMz has expressed support for StefanMn. This is an edited version of what I wrote on the issue on july 21: 

"I understand what you say about peer production being a new phenomenon, but I don't see how it can be separated from the 95% rest of the world economy which is capitalistic. PP is both dependent on and enmeshed within this wider order. For me the interesting thing scientifically is precisely to work out the relationship between these two orders and - possibly from a more activist perspective - to work out how to extend the commons and peer production (...) if you want to get your point across effectively IMHO it would be best to submit a paper to the journal for our upcoming issue on peer production theory - that way you can explain what new tools and concepts are needed etc. A whole issue on Oekonux can be envisaged for later, we don't have the writing and editorial resources right now. The peer production theory issue can be released next December. Is an article possible?"

Matthew Allen then agreed with this (sort of) see:



Perhaps a productive way to move this issue forward would be to articulate the different positions in a formal "Debate" section which would appear in the next issue, in December. There could be a statement by StefanMn and/or StefanMz on why he/they think peer production transcends current analytical categories and Maurizio and/or someone else could write a response.

This would have several advantages:
- There would be a Debate section in the next issue ;-)
- There would be a text by people in Oekonux in the journal
- There would be a clarification of how the FLOSS/peer production issue can be approached 



Our first issue had two research papers (including one by the editor...), and the next "general/theory" one will have three. This is not a very high number. Then with the upcoming special issues we should have more.

I thought a way around this would be to have a couple of "invited comments" whereby we ask people who are knowledgeable about peer production to articulate their understanding of it. These invited comments would not be peer reviewed and would be around 4,000 words (?). They could be a remixed version of a text published elsewhere. I got the idea from the Journal of Science Communication which Alessandro edits which also has invited comments.

For the general issue on peer production of CSPP here are some people who I thought could be approached. Some are already involved in the journal:

-Christian Siefkes 
Christian did an interesting piece on "commonism" in the recently published okcon conference proceedings, which he has agreed to adapt for the next issue of CSPP.

-Michel Bauwens

-Stefan Meretz

-Stefan Merten

@Michel, StefanMn, StefanMz - if there is a medium-sized text (around 4,000 words?) which summarises some of your main ideas regarding peer production and the work you have been doing it could be useful for the P2P Foundation and Oekonux projects. In my view as it would not be peer reviewed it doesn't matter if it has been previously published in a different form.

Of course if StefanMn and/or StefanMz decide they want to do this instead of start a "Debate" then that does not help the abovementioned Suggestion 1. Ideally they could do both? The Debate paper does not have to be very long (1,000-3,000 words).

-Finally there is a very stimulating French author, Jean Zin, who often writes for EcoRev. I was thinking I could contact him and offer to translate one of his texts.


Well, glad you made it to the end! ;-)
What does everyone think?


[2 text/html]


Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University
email: mathieu.oneil[at]

[2 text/html]


Thread: joxT00680 Message: 8/13 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00684 [Homepage] [Navigation]