Message 04517 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT03911 Message: 3/4 L2 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Sharing models (was: [ox-en] Social Web and trustworthiness)



Hi Michel and all!

Sorry, sitting in a train I can't obtain the online references you
gave :-( .

5 months (174 days) ago Michael Bauwens wrote:
I wonder if this makes sense. I'm increasing making distinctions
between on the one hand, individual sharing vs. common production
dynamics (giving the sharing and commons economy model, with
different dynamics and licensing formats),

Let me check whether I got it right. On the one hand you see
individual sharing which I could imagine means that people produce
something on an individual basis and then share it. I guess this type
of sharing is the basis of Flickr, YouTube and the like.

What comes to my mind is this: The producers of those goods are as
isolated as the typical capitalist producer. There main difference is
that they do not produce because of the money but for other reasons.

I may not know the dynamics of such sharing communities - BTW: are
they really communities at all? - well enough but to me it looks more
like self-realization (ending up in the individual) than
Selbstentfaltung (ending up in society). The act of sharing in these
communities is just an add-on to an otherwise very individualist
pattern. I publish my photos on Flickr because I need a place to show
them to some friends.

Only remixing this content would make it a societal thing then - but
that's probably not what most people aim to. That would at least
explain to me why this type of things feels so different to me. IMHO
an interesting thought..

On the other hand you see common production which we can see in Free
Software and other communities like Wikipedia or OpenAccess whose aim
it is to produce a good. Usually (always?) a good which is useful for
more people than the producer group. Here Selbstentfaltung is at work
where the effort taken is directly directed to that
"super-individual", that societal product.

and also, production for
use value vs. exchange value.

Yes. I'd even say that these are the main factors. Things change
massively if you do something for money or for other reasons such as
self-realization or Selbstentfaltung.

Of course there are many shades of grey here. For instance in Free
Software for some time now there are prize models where someone offers
prizes. To me working for such a prize is not a full-blown exchange
value production because there is also a sportive aspect here. But it
is also not completely different from market oriented production
because there is that external motive. IMHO the same applies to
donation models like you can have on SourceForce which AFAICS are a
bit older than those prize models.

In the case of common-oriented group production for use value,
revenue sharing and monetary incentives are very counterproductive,

Yes.

and I feel that benefit sharing is a good concept and approach.

Though this is not wrong it feels to me like the notion of benefit
sharing is in a way wrong if applied to peer production. Benefit
sharing is still in the logic of exchange: When I do something the
only thing I'm interested in is the benefit realized *at some later
time* (while the time I take some effort is more or less awful -
abstract labor).

However, if I emphasize Selbstentfaltung then because with
Selbstentfaltung the benefit for the individual is an inseparable part
of the activity *as such*. There need to be no later time when some
benefit realizes.

I'm not saying this doesn't happen - of course a producer is also glad
about the common benefit a common effort ends up with. But
Selbstentfaltung is not staring at this later benefit which "benefit
sharing" implies to me. It is a nice add-on to an activity which is
rewarding *in itself*.

That is also the point where I think that a historical new figure
enters the stage: Some activity is at the same time good for the
individual and for the society. In capitalism this was not possible
because abstract labor is not good for the individual. In peer
production this is possible.

It
says that in the case of non-reciprocal engagement, a non-reciprocal
return, i.e. general return to the community as a whole, is the best
way forward.

I'd favor to not talk in return (of investment) at all. To me this
sounds too much like coming from a logic which is not really adequate
to what happens.

In the case of individual minipreneurial  self or co-design, revenue
sharing is a requirement however.

To me it depends more on whether the production is an individual one
(based on self-realization) or a societal one (based on
Selbstentfaltung). For self-realization it doesn't matter much whether
you share it or not. For Selbstentfaltung in most (all?) cases it is
essential that you share it.


						Grüße

						Stefan

_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT03911 Message: 3/4 L2 [In index]
Message 04517 [Homepage] [Navigation]