Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production
- From: Dmytri Kleiner <dk telekommunisten.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:19:04 +0100
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:19:08 -0800 (PST), Michael Bauwens
<michelsub2003 yahoo.com> wrote:
we have free software now, either because people get a wage to do it,
this
is simply free software in oekonux terms, just a license producing a
commons; or you have doubly-free software, with programmers freely
engaging
in the project, which is peer production.
Michel, I think I understand what you are describing, however my focus is
understanding
economic relations and understanding how commons-based production can work
self-sufficiently. Let's rewind a bit.
I feel that in our various conversation I have argued quite clearly that
developers require
material subsistence and more broadly that any community with specialized
labor requires exchange.
As, in the context of free exchange, exchange-value is a function of
reproduction costs, thus free
software doesn't have any and therefore can not account for own material
subsistence without
access to other means.
Will you agree that none of the above claims have been refuted?
Therefore, if peer-production is used in the sense of "non-reciprocal
labour producing immaterial
goods," peer-production can not exist. I can see no way around this basic
fact.
And in fact it does not exist, as I have also extensively argued, but
rather this so-called
"non-reciprocal" production is funded directly or indirectly by owners of
property, and can
not exist otherwise.
This is also evident in the actual free-software applications that are
successful
and have significant resources: they are commonly depended upon by
wealth-owning
enterprises engaging in commercial and therefore reciprocal production.
As a result, I think it makes no sense to employ the "immaterial,
non-reciprocal"
definition. In fact, I think this definition serves the interests of
apologists
for capitalism that do not want material peer production, and thus want to
box it in and confuse the discourse, a job often relegated by the ruling
class
to law and philosophy professors. You know who they are.
To me, as with the idea of peer-to-peer networked applications, the essence
of
"peer production" is that producers are independent equal peers working
with
and on a common-stock of productive assets.
But it is important that the income is unconditional,
This would violate the basic facts of objective reality.
Specialized labour can never be _unconditional_ because it depends on
exchange,
and unreciprocated exchange is theft.
Economically, "wage" is simply the income of labour.
that's not how I use it, I use it to mean the specific form of 'salary'
given by capitalist enterprises conditional on the performance of
dictated
tasks. I guess we can have wages outside of capitalism (please explain
then
what you mean), and/or we can have other forms of income, such as a
unconditional basic income.
The terminology of classical economics defines three "factors of
production,"
Land, Labour and Capital, and names the incomes recieved by each Rent,
Wages,
and Interest, respectively.
I find that using this language allows consistent and clear communications
regarding heterodox political economics.
Therefor, whatever income is received by contributors of labour to a
productive
process is called wages, regardless of the terms of work, mode of
production,
or economic relations.
if they work for a commons, the material must be freely available, and
hence, it is difficult to obtain money from it;
Not necessarily, the material must be available under equal (free) terms
but not necessary at no cost as material assets have reproduction costs.
No, that has nothing specific to do with peer production. Essential to
peer production is the free engagement of the work, the participatory
process of doing the work, and the universal availability of the output;
Would you use these concepts to describe peer networks? I wouldn't.
the very fact that the 'product' is in the commons, means that it is in
control of all who can use the commons, not just the producers, who in
fact
voluntary relinquish control.
I disagree, it is the productive assets (Land and Capital) that are in the
commons,
not the product itself, which because production is not alienated control
the
circulation of the product to the "next hop."
Again, the fact that peer production is an analogy to peer networks
illustrates this.
Imagine the physical network infrastructure and it's running software as
land and
capital, imagine the data traffic (including distributions of software,
media and
private communications) as the circulating product, imagine the stored data
on every
node as possessed assets.
Each node has equal access to the physical network infrastructure and it's
running
software (land and capital), but controls all transmissions of any of it's
"own"
stored data (product) to the next hop, but not beyond.
Depends on the context, in endogenous gift relations among kin,
transactions are not accounted, only relationships matter.
that would be communal shareholding then;
"kin-communal" is a mode of production, not just holding.
Interesting that you mention Thailand, as Marxians sometimes talk
about the "Asiatic" mode of production, however I have not looked
much into the distinctions between Asiatic, Germanic, etc.
Maybe somebody else on the list can elaborate.
good definition of communal sharehoding, but the obligation to contribute
is related to the physical nature of this type of commons; in immaterial
production, there is no such expectation, and even passive use is
welcomed,
as it increases network effects
Yet in talking about network effects your are talking about circulation,
not production.
We are talking peer production. Neither software, nor anything else
is magically produced just because because people use it or talk about it.
When you talk about production, you must talk about providing for the
reproduction costs of all inputs, which include land, labour and capital,
only the last of which can ever be immaterial in free exchange.
The mere fact that you contribute a little, means that you get the whole
commons at your disposal; furthermore, as you engage, you gain knowledge,
relationships, reputation; and you may or may not get material benefits
in
the form of a job, but not specifically in that specific commons.
If you don't get material benefits, you can not produce, meaning the mode
of
production you are imaging can not exist. Look upstream at the sources of
material subsistence to understand the real mode of production being
employed.
--
Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de