Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production
- From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:10:19 -0800 (PST)
I"m going to try to formulate things in a positive manner, to avoid the tit for tat.
Some important points:
- DK's emphasis is that any mode of production must be able to socially reproduce itself, it is a point well taken, and of course crucial
- peer production has a problem with this, it is a present collective sustainable, as long as a relatively same number of volunteers can sustain projects, but not for the individual participating, who must be able to make a living
- in some ways then, we have to acknowledge that peer production is building on (parasitical, some would say), the wealth created 'elsewhere'. This is true, but the opposite is just as true. In other words, the increasingly social nature of innovation (diffiuse, as emerging property of networks, located outside of any organizational boundaries, etc...), makes existing production in the monetary economy just as dependent on peer production, and increasingly so.
Also important is this: what do I mean when I say that I expect peer production to be the core logic of the coming economy and civilization?
Essentially that, whatever method society uses to produce material goods, this will increasingly be derivative of the value created in peer production, there, in the open design communities, in the knowledge and science that is no longer 'proprietary' (in the sense of private exclusionary IP), is where the value will be created; and any 'businesses' or organizations (capitalist or cooperative) that integrate open, participatory, and commons oriented practices will be more competitive than those that don't.
I think Franz Nahrada's point is very important, so I want to use an analogy.
Let's go back to feudalism, or my understanding of it <g>, and Franz's point about the Sangha.
In feudalism, the core economic mode is undoubtedly tributary, i.e. the producers giving part of their produce to their 'protectors', but at the same time, the spiritual value core is located in the Church and the Sangha, this is basically what people live for, both high and low social orders. Because of its crucial role in creating 'value', in the form of spiritual sustenance, one quarter of the male population, and a significant proportian of the female population, is subsidized by a gifting competition.
So, you can tell me, go upstream, yes that would be correct, to the tributary social system, but nobody can deny the core role of religion in these types of societies, both these elements co-exist.
So, back to our analogy.
We have a core process for creation social value, meaning, technological and social progress, located in freely engaging produser communities working with open designs. This process feeds the material economy. The material economy, recognizing this, creates mechanisms so that this constant process of social innovation can be sustained, and is this way the material economy feeds the 'immaterial process of value creation". What the core of this material economy will be remains to be seen, we can only confidently say that it will not be a system of infinite growth in a finite natural system, as this is a logical and physical impossibility.
Most likely, we'll have a mechanism that will allow produsers to move in and out of the material economy, and into the open immaterial economy. The institutions of the new economy and civilization will practice benefit sharing on the micro-level, making sure to sustain the commons from which their own wealth is derived, and society will also look for macro-solutions, so that the transitions of people can be supported.
What we wish for in this list, I think, is that the mechanism for the material economy, will be some form of 'cooperative production', rather than dominated by the market mode.
The danger I see in not recognizing this duality, and to look for monist solutions in which they will be only a conditional, exchange or gift based cooperative economy, is that by doing this, you effectively destroy the potential of non-reciprocal peer production in open communities.
What we need there for is a form of cooperative economy, that recognizes pluralism, and that can sustain peer production, rather than replace and destroy it.
Michel
The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer alternatives.
Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html; video interview, at http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm
----- Original Message ----
From: Dmytri Kleiner <dk telekommunisten.net>
To: list-en oekonux.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:36:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production
Hi Michel, I agree to call it a day, so just a few sentences.
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:22:18 -0800 (PST), Michael Bauwens
wrote:
and you seem even more unable to imagine that it could exist on
the
basis
of a society based on cooperative forms of production
My goal is to achieve a self-sustaining form of
co-operative
production.
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
Rather I am trying to explain the actual economic facts of
what
generalized
non-specific exchange really means.
I agree with that assessment, as long as we understand that peer
production requires some form of unconditional subsistence to be
operative.
Where does the scarce material wealth to provide for "unconditional
subsistence"
come from? The condition is that the wealth actually exists,
which
means it
was produced.
It can exist if there exists other forms for income to sustain it.
Then it can't exist alone, what you describe must therefore not be
a
mode
of production, but rather a component of another mode. Look upstream.
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.
I disagree with this. In my understanding, "Communism" is a state-less,
property less _society_, "Socialism" is _a mode of production_
where
the
direct-producers own their instruments of production.
One being a type of society, the other being a productive mode,
they
are
not comparable to each other, though the former implies the later.
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
Right, which means it is not "a mode of production," which must be
explained
in turns of inputs and outputs and account for the reproduction
costs
of
all
inputs and the circulation of the outputs.
I am interested in peer production as a self-sustaining mode, not
a
special
case
circulation pattern.
I agree that such free software projects are significantly
stronger,
but
please note that Linux pre-existed the engagement of IBM etc...
So did HURD.
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.
Interesting point Michel, I will take this into consideration.
I would like to point out that my contention that specialized labour
requires exchange is, in my opinion, a fact of economic reality, this
does not, however, imply a specific system of circulation.
I too prefer more collective forms that maximize universality
and
sharing,
I think most people do.
However, just like the laws of thermodynamics must be observed if
you
are
building a machine, the laws of economics must be observed
when
proposing
a mode of production, and this means that you must account for the
reproduction
costs of all inputs within the model, not point to external sources
as
the
explanation.
Just like you can't build a machine and say it creates energy and then
when somebody points out it is actually plugged into an
electrical
outlet
simply ignore that fact by saying the neighbors pay the
electricity
bill.
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
The basic income is not unconditional, it has as a condition
the creation of wealth somewhere, the production of which will
have to account for the reproduction of it's inputs.
Regardless of how you circulate wealth, your mode of production
still
must
produce it.
Basic income is another concept that is not understood, but that
is for a different thread.
. And the fact that
peer production already exists proves the point that it is entirely
'real'.
No.
Free software exists, yes, but you have not demonstrated that any
"immaterial, non-reciprocal"
mode of production exists. Only that some goods are circulated freely
within a mode that is
both material and reciprocal, and that the former circulation
is
dependent
upon and can
not exist without the later mode.
capital,
only the last of which can ever be immaterial in free exchange.
so you would call free software, and anti-rival knowledge,
"capital"
...
???
Yes, software is capital.
Anything that is the output of a previous production cycle that is an
input into a later one is capital.
As software is produced and used in production, software is capital.
different modes can co-exist;
Certainly, but each mode must be internally complete otherwise it
is
not a
mode, but rather
a component of a larger one.
SO DMYTRI, I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT YOU DON'T HERE WHAT I'M
SAYING!!
I think I do Michel, and I share your vision as well.
Cheers.
--
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
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de