[ox-en] Kleiner-Bauwens debate about Benkler, part 2
- From: Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz hbv.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:53:18 +0200
Dmytri Kleiner’s critique of Benkler - discussion with Bauwens,
continued, part two
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=501
Michel Bauwens of the P2P foundation has made some comments regarding my
views on free production as expressed in my recent review of the
presentations of Lessig and Benkler at Wizards of OS 4, you can find
the here
Michel begins wondering if my argument about the “sustainability of peer
production may rest on a confusion” — I must admit a little confusion
as to where I say that peer-production is unsustainable? My specific
argument is that commons-based peer production can not change the
distribution of wealth between labour and capital so long as the
commons is made up entirely of information-product with no reproduction
cost.
In fact, commons-based peer-production is what I am advocating, only
that the commons must include actual property. Bauwens claims that
peer-production is non-reciprocal and that “direct connection between
an income, in exchange for an engagement, is not peer production, but
belongs to the exchange economy.” The fact that it is non-reciprocal is
falsified by the work of Benkler directly, as he shows that most
contributers to free software feel that they receive more than the
value of their contributions from the free software community. I guess
this may be a different interpretation of the word ‘reciprocal’.
However, his contention that peer-production does not belong to the
exchange economy is, in my mind, more problematic. Especially as food,
for instances, and shelter, are clearly part of the exchange economy.
How then are peer-producers intended to provide for their material
substance or accumulate wealth? Bauwens trots out that old neoliberal
stand-by, the “Basic Income,” as a solution for material subsistence,
but this is yet another mirage. Increasing income, without increasing
production, only serves to increase prices. The structure of
distribution of wealth between labour and property remains unchanged.
Basic Income is nothing more than a welfare system without the
disefficiency of means-testing. So long as the producer is denied
independent access to the means of production, his entire product minus
his subsistence costs will be captured by Property.
The problem is deeper than what is presented by Bauwens, you can not
simply define peer-production as being outside of the exchange economy,
you must provide an explanation as to how the use-value created by the
peer-producers can be converted into exchange-value. My contention is
that owners of scarce property will capture all of this exchange value.
Apologies for a vulgarity, but calling for a “a mixture of a reinforced
gift economies for services and surviving traditional economies, and a
reformed, peer-informed, non-capitalist market” reminds me of the
phrase “Throwing Shit Against the Wall and Seeing What Sticks.” Bauwens
makes the claim that the content of the commons for peer production can
not be scarce, yet this is not true. There exist means by which scarce
property can be communally managed. Specifically, I endorse those
argued for by ARJ Turgot, Henry George , Silvio Gesell and others,
where scarce property in the common stock is rented by it’s possessor
(or “taxed”) at the price of it’s marginal productivity, and this rent
or tax is then divided among the peer-producers equally or used to fund
further development of the commons, this is part of what Silvio Gesell
refers to as “freiwirtschaft” (free economy) and is also a part of my
work-in-progress proposal for achieving free production: Venture
Communism.
Michel is “also particularly puzzled by Kleiner’s argument that the
portion of the commons-created use value that can be monetized, can
only be appropriated by the owners of property.” but then goes on to
say that “Peer producers can, and perhaps should, create their own
vehicles to monetize the commonly created value.” Which is exactly my
point, peer-producers can and should create such vehicles, but they can
only do so to the degree that they can acquire physical capital,
without physical capital they can not do so, and they can not acquire
physical capital by applying their labour to an information-only
commons. Therefore, those that do have physical capital will always
capture the entire marginal productivity of the information-commons.
The work of Bauwens and the P2P foundation seems very interesting, and
I look forward to discussing these issues with Michel and his
colleagues further, we seem to be working towards the same goal and
therefor this could be a very productive discussion. Thank you Michel,
further comments are very welcome.
--
Start here: www.meretz.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de