Message 04281 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT03939 Message: 6/9 L2 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Peer production as post-X (was: Re: [ox-en] Triply-Free software)

Hi Michel and all!

2 months (61 days) ago Michael Bauwens wrote:
Stefan Merten asked:

I also wonder whether then something like ownership makes actually
sense. Even today we see that something like Internet access step by
step becomes a pre-condition for live and thus a society does well to
simply deliver it.

This actually relates to something Hans-Gert mentioned some time ago:
That the preconditions of production get more and more important. The
production process itself becomes more and more irrelevant compared to
the preconditions.

I often say that peer production is post-capitalist,

Because it's post-exchange.

peer governance post-democratic (because non-representational)

Not only because it is non-representational. It's also not so tied to
in numeric majorities - which to me is the core of democracy. It's
participative of course - something which is said to be a feature of

and peer property is 'post-ownership'.

Steven Weber had an interesting concept of ownership in Free Software:

    Open source radically inverts the idea of exclusion as a basis of
    thinking about property. Property in open source is configured
    fundamentally around the right to distribute, not the right to
    exclude. [p.16]

for more quotes.

But here comes the point I originally wanted to make in this post:

In any case, we see sharing occuring on private platforms, and
commons-production using licenses such as the GPL, creating new
types of ownership. In the immaterial field of non-rival goods, it
does not make sense to have a property of something that can be
easily and freely copied (despite efforts to the contrary) and of
which you loose nothing by sharing it What to do then with common
'physical property'.

Sorry, but there is no much difference if you look at capitalism. For
a store it perfectly makes no sense to hoard all these commodities -
if they could not be sold. Hoarding commodities or goods makes sense
only if you have reasons alienated from the use value of the goods.

Physical goods can be used up which makes them unsharable (or rival).
That much is true. But for this type of relation between humans and
things I'd use possession. I'd guess a good part of ownership of
material goods in capitalism is for alienated reasons - i.e. the right
to exclude to sell them. Insofar the difference to restrictive
licenses for information goods is only marginal.



Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT03939 Message: 6/9 L2 [In index]
Message 04281 [Homepage] [Navigation]