Re: Sharing models (was: [ox-en] Social Web and trustworthiness)
- From: "Michel Bauwens" <michelsub2004 gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 12:05:44 +0700
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 would say that they have 'weak ties' in sharing, vs. 'stronger ties'
in the commons, as the latter imposes much deeper interactions with
collaborators.
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.
This is an important insight. It all depends on how you define
communities I suppose, but I believe they are generally much weaker in
sharing communities, which is why I think they seem unable to take
care of their own platforms.
> 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).
No benefit sharing is not about exchange, but about justice and
reciprocity. From those that receive, they recognize the gift and
decide to return other gifts to the community that gave them. The
important thing is to see that benefit sharing is not individually
oriented, not a reward for specific work, but a general support for
the infrastructure of cooperation. Precisely because it not tied to
concrete individual effort on a one to one basis, it respects the
non-reciprocal logic of peer production.
I agree that it is a nice add-on, but it is also crucial to the
self-reproduction of the infrastructure of cooperation. All peer
projects do need resources for their infrastructure etc.. which they
can obtain through fundraising (wikimedia foundation) but also through
benefit sharing (relation between Linux and IBM)
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.
Yes, P2P is not based on altruism, but on designing for conversion
between individual and collective interests. It is an indicator of
human growth.
Citation from http://p2pfoundation.net/Primary_vs_Secondary_Individual-Group_Mentality,
see http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Relational
A distinction made by Heb Shepard, summarized by Rosa Zubizarreta:
from the perspective of "primary mentality", 'individual' and 'group'
are experienced as opposite... in order to have a strong group, it
appears that we need to 'give up' some of our individuality;
conversely, to be 'individuals', it appears we need to 'distance'
ourselves from the group...
in contrast, from the perspective of "secondary mentality"
'individual' and 'group' are experienced in a synergistic way: the
MORE room there is for people to be individual and unique and
eccentric, the stronger a group we will have; conversely, the more
real support i can feel from the group, the more individual and unique
and eccentric i can be...
Michel
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de