Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production
- From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:22:18 -0800 (PST)
Dmytri,
see my replies
but in general, you seem not to understand that a non-reciprocal mode can exist, as it already does, in a context of an already existing society based on market exchange
and you seem even more unable to imagine that it could exist on the basis of a society based on cooperative forms of production
that is the gist of it
you see only exchange or gifting and direct reciprocity, for some reason you are not able to see the processes of generalized non-specific exchange ...
strange ...
similarly, peer production has to be seen both within and without the present mode, within, because it objectively exists and is used by the existing social forces, and without, because it exhibits qualities which are beyond market exchange
see below for detailed back and forth, but I think we should stop, as we are turning in circles
----- Original Message ----
From: Dmytri Kleiner <dk telekommunisten.net>
To: list-en oekonux.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:19:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:19:08 -0800 (PST), Michael Bauwens
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?
I agree with that assessment, as long as we understand that peer production requires some form of unconditional subsistence to be operative.
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.
It can exist if there exists other forms for income to sustain it. Note that peer production obeys to the definition of communism of Marx. The diffrence is that he could not foresee the emergence of a form of cybernetic communism within the existing capitalist sphere. And what you want, is what he describes as socialism, i.e. conditional engagement and income.
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.
by the owners of property, which derive their income from the real producers; from the state, from a variety of means
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.
I agree that such free software projects are significantly stronger, but please note that Linux pre-existed the engagement of IBM etc...
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.
I do not agree, peer production is non-reciprocal in the sense that I describe it, but can only exist on the basis of various forms of subsistence; because it has a number of important advantages, and emancipatory potential, and is a superior form of creating value, it deserves our support, in order to free it from the existing constraints of capitalism (in other words, we have to find other ways of distributing income, so that it can move form the margins to the core)
The definition is simply true, whether that serves the apologists or not. But in fact, the apologists refuse to call it non-reciprocal, like you, and insist on calling a market , or a gift economy, because they cannot imagine non-reciprocity, which flouts their image of man and the economy.
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.
depends whether you use common-stock to denote rival assets that belong to a specific group of people (cooperative mode of production) or commons as universal availability (peer production)
But it is important that the income is unconditional,
This would violate the basic facts of objective reality.
No, the basic income would not violate that reality. And the fact that peer production already exists proves the point that it is entirely 'real'.
Specialized labour can never be _unconditional_
the proof is in the pudding, you cannot deny that free software and peer production exists
because it depends on
exchange,
and unreciprocated exchange is theft.
no gifting and sharing are not theft, especially the un-reciprocal free gift, which is the highest ethical action that there is. are mothers thieves?
peer production does not obviate the need for exchange, but that exchange needs to be based not on market exchange, not on reciprocal giving, but on a generalized support for life, which can be the result of a productive economy and society; just as today the abundance and surplus of the existing society is creating peer production (along with the motivation and desires of the self-allocating peer producers) just so we can imagine other types of social and economic arrangements that would be even better at funding it
Economically, "wage" is simply the income of labour.
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.
in this case, depending on projects, some, most or all peer producers in existing projects do not receive wages for that activity
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.
presently, most peer produced material is available for free; a super marginal fraction of it is sold; the economic derivatives are scarcity-designed added values that are sold under capitalist conditions, a minor fraction of which goes back to the peer producing communities (IBM returns 10%); peer production is not possible, as non-reciprocal form, for material assets, but peer production, under the form of open designs, can co-exist with cooperative material production. My form of ideal society would combine open design commons with materially-based cooperatives, instead of the present format of built-only capitalism we would have built-only cooperative production formats
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.
no, I use that to describe peer production communities, not generalized networks of people and computers, if that is what you mean by peer networks; but it is the existence of peer networks that enable peer production to emerge
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."
at present, I know of very little land and capital that are in the format of the commons, though I would wish them to be; the existing commons today are either limited physical resources under the control of local communities (common pool resources) or, in the context of peer production, immaterial collaborative goods that are non-rival and anti-rival; these 'products' (but you can't really call it like that), do exist under a commons format, thanks to the open licenses such as the GPL;
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.
I don't know much about it, but one thing I noticed in Thailand, is that unlike bottom-up feudalism in Europe, here it was entirely the central state which "gave" land to the vassals
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.
so you would call free software, and anti-rival knowledge, "capital" ... ???
If you don't get material benefits, you can not produce, meaning
the
mode
of
production you are imaging can not exist.
sorry, it simply does, I have 5,000 pages of documentation on it
Look upstream at the
sources
of
material subsistence to understand the real mode of production being
employed.
different modes can co-exist; what we have is an existing capitalist mode of production, and techno-social infrastructure, and ideals and desires of peer producers, which allowed for the emergence of non-reciprocal peer production to exist, and it is embedded in various ways in it;
SO DMYTRI, I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT YOU DON'T HERE WHAT I'M SAYING!!
but as it is immanent in it, so it also transcends the main features of the market-based exchange, and that is what makes it interesting
let's call it a day?
Michel
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de