Message 04508 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04436 Message: 7/94 L4 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: Fundamental text by StefanMn and StefanMz - Part 3




 Which raises the question what an accumulation process is. AFAICS it
 is a notion which is specific to capitalism. But I think the
 beginnings of the new era will have a shape which can not be described
 by accumulation process. But may be you thought of something else?

Well, I'm very close to the theory of cognitive capitalism, but I also
find Adam Arvidson's notion of the third circuit of value very
interesting, as explaining how the new types of value are integrated
into the existing system.

Though I do indeed think that peer production is partially
transcendent to the system, as it is not the core logic yet, talking
about  an end to accumulation is really premature.

But if we talk more generally, any system still needs ways to mobilize
resources, and unless we assume total equality, there will be
differential accumulations taking place, in different ways from
capitalism, but nevertheless.

 >> Though there are a lot of peer phenomenons, peer production is
 >> primarily about production and not distribution. This separates peer
 >> production from barter exchange and other distribution related
 >> approaches. [#WorkInProgressCriteria]_

 Generally I think we have not yet come up with a commonly agreed upon
 set of criteria for peer phenomenons. I consider this one of the major
 research topics and would welcome if we had such a list. Insofar the
 list given there is only one snapshot of an ongoing discussion.

commonly agreed? why would you be looking for commonly agreed? is
there a commonly agreed definition of capitalism?

so again, my definition includes the universal availability, and I
don't see how you can equate privatized output with peer production,
that would be very contradictory, as the output necessarily requires
conditions that affect both input and process. How can you have
privatized information commodities, that are not protected by either a
license or technological means? But doing so would affect the
voluntary contributions of anti-rival goods. Ergo, peer production
needs to include both the input (open raw material), the process
(voluntary self-aggregation) and the output (universal availability).
That on top of that, privatized added values can be marketed does  not
change the core process.



 > I define peer phenomenon in general, as the 'relational dynamic at
 > work in distributed systems', i.e. permissionlessness.

 Could that be explained by openness?

yes, you cannot have any particpatory process without open and free
raw material for the common process.


 > I also include
 > the distribution mechanism, i.e. universal distribution through a
 > commons, as part of the definition.

 IMHO that would be also explained by openness - or not?


I put openness as the precondition of the circulation of the common,
and the commons as the output. However, the commons output in turn
creates the new layer of open material for the next phase of the
circulation, and so openness, yes, it is there throughout the process.

As a reminder of the whole process description, see
http://p2pfoundation.net/Circulation_of_the_Common

By the way, this is in fact the accumulation process of peer production



 > This also excludes barter, but has
 > the advantage of distinguishing it from cooperative production for a
 > market.

 I see, but everything which is brought to a market isn't open in
 distribution. Because then it turns into a commodity which needs to be
 scarce to be sellable at all. The property concept of capitalism is
 probably the opposite of open.

Opposite or at least different, but they can co-exist, as the open
source business sector demonstrates


 Free Software which is created because of an order is an interesting
 example here. It can be created by non-volunteers - such as workers in
 a company -, is sold to the customer who ordered it in the first
 place, but afterwards is made available for general distribution.

yes, but what the client is paying for is not for exclusive property,
but for the work and the first usage


 The product is open in this case but the production process is not -
 what I called Single Free at some point. Would you consider this a
 peer phenomenon?


your own single/double and tere's triple conception, is already explicative

I use different words for a very similar argument:

Pure peer production has both input-process-output as previously
defined, but the p2p relational dynamic also creates hybrid forms and
all kinds of differnt combinations.

I have described them here in more detail:
http://www.osbr.ca/ojs/index.php/osbr/article/view/494/458

first, the trilogy sharing/commons/crowdsourcing, then the ladder of
participation, using the institutional/community polarity of control,
resulting in about a dozen possible combinations.

So, the p2p relational dynamic creates both 1) pure peer production;
2) all kinds of hybrid forms, many of them dominated by capitalism
(including pure peer production, which can be inserted into capitalist
dynamics, and it is our job to out-insert it from it)


 Also there might be Free Software which is never published - so lacks
 a distribution. The product is still Free but not distributed. Would
 you consider this a peer phenomenon?

in this case, an open input and open development, would not have been
put online but put in a drawer? that seems highly unlikely, do you
have examples

but in case that exists, it would be an incomplete, hybrid form of
'partial' peer production .., one of the many results of the p2p
relational dynamic at work


 BTW: I'm using Free Software examples because I know those best (and
 they are probably most developed). That doesn't mean that in other
 realms there could not be similar questions. In the contrary: Peer or
 not peer does not depend on the kind of product.

totally agree



 > When power is
 > distibuted, it becomes the invisible infrastructure which can enable
 > or disable certain types of relationships; the power of selection
 > moves from the a priori condition to participation, to a posteriori
 > mechanisms for quality control, through collective choice systems or
 > other means, such as the maintainer functions in free software
 > projects

 I'm not sure I understand this. Could you elaborate?


not sure what part you do not understand

1) in a distributed network without command and control, where is the
boss ...? well, it may be the platform owners, but their power is not
in their ordering around people (though they may occasional have
negative injunctions, i.e. 'this is not allowed'), but in their
control over the design of what is possible or not (youtube: sharing
yes, remixing no)

2) you generally do not have to ask whether you can write a patch, add
a video, write an article, BUT, once you have done, there are
mechanisms of either filtering (in FS, good/no good decisions by
maintainers) or ranking (digg, citizen journalism, etc...); but these
come into play 'after the fact', not as a priori selection mechanisms



 So the hope for mankind some here see in those peer phenomenons
 exclusively comes from those Selbstentfaltung aspects. I think it is
 important to emphasize this.

"exclusively" ...? so all possible positive aspects derive from this
sole cause? possible, but elaboration would be useful


 > synergestic cooperation. Benkler says: peer production are designed so
 > that any motivation becomes productive.

 I don't think that *any* motivation becomes productive. That would
 mean that it is impossible that someone with bad motives can disturb a
 project. In fact I think this is wishful thinking.

you are misreading "any", which exactly means that also negative
motivations can play a role, any = all
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT04436 Message: 7/94 L4 [In index]
Message 04508 [Homepage] [Navigation]