Re: [jox] A response to Michel and Jakob
- From: Michel Bauwens <michel p2pfoundation.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:53:09 +0700
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Christian, but why not have an integrative approach, you go from one
special case, the need for reciprocity, to another, that doesn't require
it, but the point is that we need both approaches, depending on the context
... in some cases, like say requiring emergency medical care, do you want
to exclusively rely on people's goodwill?
that's the whole point of relational pluralism, that no size fits all, and
that a complex society needs differentiated systems ... the key question is
which system is the dominant one, now it is a specific type of exchange,
and it need not be that way ...
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Christian Siefkes <christian siefkes.net>wrote:
Hi Franco, Jakob, all,
On 03/20/2012 03:48 AM, Franco Iacomella wrote:
El 19/03/12 23:33, Jakob Rigi escribió:
Hi Stefan,
WHAT IS THE TITLE OF CHRISTIAN BOOK? I WILL SEARCH FOR IT IN THE NET,
BUT I STILL WANT TO GET THE TITLE YOU QUOTE FROM.
It's "From Exchange to Contributions: Generalizing Peer Production into
the
Physical World": http://peerconomy.org/wiki/Main_Page#The_Book
for my more current standpoint, see e.g. "The Emergence of Benefit-driven
Production" at http://keimform.de/2011/benefit-driven-production/ . While
in
my book I describe what could be described as "open sharing communities
requiring reciprocity" (you are required to contribute in order to
benefit"), my more recent work is about "open sharing communities
facilitating reciprocity" -- where contributing in some ways is easy and
encouraged, but it is not required in order to benefit. When we look at
existing successful peer communities, we see that they tend to follow this
latter model, hence the change.
The old model was more concerned about lifting the "protestant work ethic"
into a context of peers (as opposed to the buyer/seller relation of
capitalism) -- work is considered as a necessary evil, which people will
only do if required/forced to do so, hence contributions must be required
or
they won't be done. But actually, successful peer production is more about
extending and generalizing the "hacker ethic" -- turning work into
something
that is fun, pleasurable and rewarding in itself. If you manage to do this,
requiring contributions or giving an additional external reward is no
longer
required and indeed often harmful (the crowding-out effect described by
Benkler and others, cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation_crowding_theory ).
I think that much of the scepticism voiced e.g. by Toni comes from thinking
in terms of the "protestant work ethic."
Best regards
Christian
--
|------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian siefkes.net -------
| Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
| Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/
|---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.
-- Abbie Hoffman
--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal