Re: [ox-en] Out-Cooperating the Empire? - Exchange with Christoph Spehr
- From: Michael Bouwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Before I add some interspersed commentary, here is a video interview on the peer to peer paradigm, at
http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm
A more edited and extensive two-written part interview by Richard Poynder, treating with similar subject matters as Christopher Spehr, is at http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
Comments are below:
Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:
Why? Isn't it possible that conforming to something is a typical
outcome of acting free? Why freedom needs to mean to be against?
MB: I THINK I made a similar mistake during the early formulations of P2P Theory. Peer projects are not anti-institutional, they create different institutions, such as the Commons legal framework, the use of nonprofit foundations, and the body of regulations arising out of the problems of working together. Institutionalization is simply a crystallisation of experience: when you are encountering similar problems time and again, it is natural to have a consensus on process, but this of course constrains to a certain degree the next generations. But the institutions themselves should be open to revision. The differences between 'normal' institutions and 'peer' institutions is that, distributed networks or peer projects lead to non-representational governance, where participants co-decide, while for decentralized networks such as our democracies, where no common goal or a priori consensus exists, it has to be decided by representatives of stakeholder groups.
First, we have to study the complicity between neo-liberalism and
institutions,
MB: Neoliberalism is against the institutions which are a hindrance to the rule of the privileged strata it represents, but it can gain sympathy because centralized state institutions have become in many ways even more dysfunctional than decentralized market process. The answer is not a return to centralized state planning, but to distributed forms of governance. Neoliberalism is not at all about a free market, but about the forcible imposition of anti-markets designed to maintain privilege.
Yes.
The more
peer-to-peer networks there are, the less likely it will be for
'precarious? creative workers to get out of the amateurization trap.
Instead of Lawrence Lessig, Joi Ito and other Creative Commons gurus we
should argue in favour of professionalization.
I'm not clear what Geert means by professionalization and
amateurization. Being paid or not? I'd use these words differently.
Working in a professional way to me means to know how to do a task
well - by education and/or experience.
MB: PRESUMABLY professionalization refers to the modernist style of certification and instutionalized validation. I think this is a totally wrong and irrealistic approach. The cat of 'professional amateurs' is out of the bag, and that is altogether a good thing. There will be a mix of amateur led (user-generated) processes, while existing professional institutions will open up to more participation, to enhance their own processes with the collective intelligence of the passionate amateurs.
The question of income is a separate one. What we need is a set of solutions which can ease the continuous flow of people from paid jobs in the market, to free passionate participation in peer projects. Ultimately, only a basic income will guarantee this on a mass scale.
CS:
[...]
We have to realize that 'free? projects can be more exclusive than
'non-free? structures in terms of gender, race, qualification, class.
I'm not sure what is meant by exclusive here. Is an exclusive project
one where there actually is no equal distribution of gender, race,
qualification, class, religion, [your favorite separation criteria
here]? Then there is probably no non-exclusive project at all. But
what would be won at all?
Or does exclusive mean active exclusion based on criteria like this?
Then at least in the Free Software world there are probably very few
projects which do so on race, class, religion.
You need institutions to be inclusive.
MB: RATHER than focus on 'mere equality', peer projects are based on equipotentiality.
See http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Equipotentiality
and in particular this quote:
"equals in the sense of their being both superior and inferior to themselves in varying skills and areas of endeavor (intellectually, emotionally, artistically, mechanically, interpersonally, and so forth), but with none of those skills being absolutely higher or better than others. It is important to experience human equality from this perspective to avoid trivializing our encounter with others as being merely equal." (http://www.estel.es/EmbodiedParticipationInTheMystery,%201espace.doc)
There can be many hidden obstacles to true equipotential participation and it is true that free projects often do not have a fair distribution pattern, but this is not a natural process that we are powerless to face. Processes can be designed to overcome such a priori biases. I agree with Stefan that old-style institutionalized equality, based on decentralized representativity rather than distributed participation, may not be the best options for this.
GL: Is it productivity that counts? Ultimately a new system will win
against the existing system, just because it?s more productive?
CS: Yes, I think so. More productive, not more efficient. Usually, a
new way of production, and a new society linked to it, is successful
because it can accomplish something the old way of production (and the
old social structures linked to it) could not. Machines, weapons,
ideologies, structures of environmental control, intelligent machines,
you name it. It is not successful because it is more cost-efficient. If
something really new, really useful, really powerful can be
accomplished, costs really don?t matter. That?s a very important
historical lesson.
I think using the term "cost" in this way is misleading because the
meaning of the term costs relates heavily to a given regime. In
capitalism costs are measured in terms of dead labor crystallized in
money. In the GPL society costs are probably measured in terms of
useful work for which only little volunteers are available.
MB: I agree with Stefan. Costs are indeed misleading. Capitalist and monopolistic centralized factory models were more productive not by itself, but because a whole institutionalized infrastructure and state intervention to reduce externalities made it so. Peer production is only more productive because it can draw on free non-monetized labour.
GL: Let?s go back to the question of the (im)possibility of an online
economy. Is giving away for free really the only option left?
Well, the twin question is: Is taking for free really the only option
left? Though Geert's question seems hard the twin question seems
really clear to me: Free Software and other Free Projects have shown
that on the level of productive forces we reached, on the ongoing
scientification of production taking Freely by anyone who desires so
is the only option. This logically implies that giving away your
products in the same mode *is* the only option left.
MB: I think we should untangle different things: pure non-reciprocal peer production does not need monetization, it works fine as is. Many projects have proven to be collective sustainable. However they are not individually. Partially this can be solved by new ways of capitalizing on derivative monetization based on services etc .... This can be done through new forms of organizations which are more equitable than corporate forms. A separate question is how to render such value creation more sustainable as a vital part of society, to strengthen and expand it. There is no alternative to the basic income in this regard.
As we reverse our political economy to a situation where rival goods will be treated as scarce and non-rival goods as non-scarce (instead of the opposite now), a new dynamic interplay will arise between non-recicprocal peer production, reciprocity-based gift economies, and non-capitalist markets. In the meantime, we can only learn and observe from the peer projects themselves, who are tackling these issues in creative ways.
GL: We might agree with a lot of people that the Oekonux debate would
need a restart, with a fresh input from various directions. Originally
German Oekonux debate (2000-2002) tried to make a blueprint for society
centred around the free software production principles.
I don't know exactly what Geert thinks Oekonux needs and during his
time here was obviously not able to formulate. Anyway Oekonux is still
moving on and I for one started to see a lot of similarities to market
like phenomenons and think this is a very interesting path to follow -
mainly because it indicates potential to overcome capitalism in a
synthesis - and a synthesis always contains parts of thesis and
anti-thesis.
MB: I actually think that the weakness of Oekonux theory is indeed its too-close mixing with free software experience. Free software is merely the first historical expression of peer production, which is why we need a peer to peer theory, focusing on the general aspects of the new mode of production, not just a sectoral approach, and therefore not just an oekonux theory. In the long run, the latter will only appeal to free software practicioners.
Which of course doesn't mean that it does not have many valuable insights. I tend to agree with Stefan that an integrative approach is needed and that common ground can be found between left-commonist approach and libertarian free-market ideas. Capitalism is unsustainable and destroys the biosphere, but the free exchange of markets by itself is not necessarily antithetical to a comons-centered society.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de