Re: [ox-en] The refutation of illusional refutations
- From: "Michel Bauwens" <michelsub2004 gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:49:25 +0700
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
You subscribe to the "immaterial, non-reciprocal" definition of peer
production.
This is fact, well described by Benkler, Webber, and various people in this
list, like Stefan, who also rejects the gift economy hypothesis. This fact
of functioning, voluntary contributions, universal availability, emerges out
of the material conditions that make it possible, it is not independent of
it, but nevertheless exists, and is widely described by people within and
without that mode. To prove that it does not exist, it is not sufficient to
point out that there is a material basis, pretty much everybody knows that,
but that the contributions are not voluntary, that free software is fully
bought and sold on the market (rather than its derivative added values), and
that it is not universally available.
To the degree that free software producers are paid for conditional work on
it, and that this work is sold on the market, it would be a capitalist mode
of production; if they are paid, but the license are free, it is
"Simply-Free", not true peer production yet, to the degree that the
contributions are voluntary, the process is participative, and the output is
a commons, that is the definition of non-reciprocal.
Important is the nature between the material basis, and the emergent working
conditions. If programmers are paid, by government and the state, under
conditions, then clearly it is not a voluntary contribution.
To the degree that contributions are voluntary, because the volunteers have
access to various forms of unconditional income, or even conditional income
but that lets them do derivative and freely contributed work on a common
project, we have peer production.
As any mode of production must account for it's material
inputs,
it does, and this has been fairly well studies by flosspols and such
and any spcialization of labour implies reciprocation, this
mode of production can not exist,
you confuse neutral exchange, or gift economy dynamics, with generalized
exchange. Peer production is 'generalized exchange', there is no guarantee
of anything specific coming back, if it does, then it is not non-reciprocal
and not peer production, but market exchange of a gift economy or a central
allocation of resources
and as such, any production you
are witnessing that seems such is simply a super-structural
phenomenon which has another mode of production as it's base.
It is a new mode of production, arising within the old; similarly, emerging
capitalist and mercantile modes could not have existed without the surplus
being generated by the slave or feudal modes of production, BUT, once it
became dominant itself, it translated everything else to its own logic;
similarly, the peer mode of production, emerges within the capitalist mode
of production, but once it achieves dominance, it will translate the other
modes into itself
Exactly. I can not understand them. And accepting arguments I do
not actually understand would be a disservice to both of us.
If these arguments are valid, demonstrate them logically so
that I can understand them.
I have done so above and many times now, so we can consider the case
demonstrated.
No such empirical evidence exists. Free software exists. That
in no way indicates that its production comes form some magical
non-reciprocal mode, all empirical evidence shows it's
producion is financed by corporate and state-based finance.
It is financed in many different ways, but doubly-free software needs
indirect financing, no conditionality; what you are saying is a partial
truth, it does not reflect that free software existed before its
commercialization, and cannot be reduced to its commercialization; it is
both immanent and transcendent, there is no either/or, just as feudal
markets where both immanent in the system, but pointing out to its future
transcendence as well
IMO, none of those are modes of production, nor are they
mutualy exclusive.
They are not mutually exclusive, but so far, the Kin-communal gift economy,
manorialist/feudalist tribute economy, and thecapitalist exchange economy
have been dominant at one time or the other, remoddeling the others to a
large degree,
My usage of peer production describes another mode of production
where independent producers employ a common productive stock.
I accept that you use a generally used concept and give it another meaning
of a mode of production which does not exist yet, that is your privilege
Unlike the "immaterial, non-reciprocal" definition this formulation
can account for it's material inputs, it's labour specialization,
it's means of capital formation, etc, and also better describes
the productive basis of free software as well as more closely
relates to the topology of peer networks from which the term
is derived.
not at all, you cannot account for the key feature of non-reciprocal peer
production, so it is a very weak explanation; on the other hand, my
intepretation includes both what you offer, and recognizes its specificity;
by analogy, you are describing the human in terms of the ape (he/she eats,
sleeps, etc..) but does not account for its differences
Further, this formulation also is better rooted in history, as it
describes historical examples of commons-based production such as
cottage agriculture and cottage industry as well.
No, my own explanation also is rooted in previous expressions of
non-reciprocal logics (the medieval commons of the peasants), but also
recognizes the differences resulting from digital technology
This material basis, simple as it is, has a very important
implication: All surplus wealth resulting from immaterial assets
will be captured by owners of material assets.
At this stage, the situation is a little more complicated
- peer produsers and users are capturing the use value directly
- the netarchical platform owners are capturing the derivative exchange
value
- it is not a good idea to make peer production directly profitable, but
rather to devise benefit-sharing, as shown by the preferences of existing
peer producing communities, who are conscious of the fact that
profit-sharing crowds out the non-reciprocal dynamic of peer production
(effectively destroying it and replacing it with a less productive market
mode, see firefox)
This simple fact, basic and self-evident as it is, obliterates
any possibility of a change in the distribution of productive
assets (the rent-capturing kind), emerging from the collective
ownership of free, immaterial assets.
I AGREE, This means that we must ultimately tackle the interface between
collaborative open design and the logic of physical production.
For an exploration of what is already happening in that field, see
http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Design
And without a change in the distribution of productive assets,
there can be no change in distribution of wealth, or any reduction
in class stratification.
This is correct, but the issue is getting from here to there, and building
on the emancipatory potential of peer production is one of the best, if not
the only way, to get from A to B
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de