Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production (was: Re: [ox-en]Motto for the 4th conference)
- From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:07:21 -0800 (PST)
----- Original Message ----
From: Dmytri Kleiner <dk telekommunisten.net>
To: list-en oekonux.org
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:07:56 PM
Subject: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production (was: Re: [ox-en]Motto for the 4th conference)
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:40:12 -0800 (PST), Michael Bauwens
wrote:
If you think the non-reciprocal aspects of peer
production is confused,
see
http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske
Hi Micheal, I am out of time for oekonux for the day, I will take
a
look
later.
and try to explain how the free contributions to free
software and the wikipedia can be explained in any
other way than through what fiske calls communal
shareholding
Quickly:
People contribute to free software because they need it in their own
production to or for wages paid by others who need for production.
This includes potential wages that motivate doing unpaid or
underpaid
work,
hoping to increase ones labour value through exposure and skills
development,this is not different than interns and apprentices in any
field who do unpaid or underpaid work hoping to increase their labour
value.
Research demonstrates that there is a wide variety of motivations, not just what you state, but this is not the point. The point is that: each freely contribute towards the common pool, can profit from that common pool, may or not gain all kinds of different value, BUT, unlike the gift economy, there is nothing strictly reciprocal about it, this is why anthropologists call it generalized exchange, as opposed to reciprocal exchange. As long as you cannot prove, that a contributor is guaranteed a reciprocal value, we are not in the field of reciprocity.
The comparison with interns is only valid form the point of view of the corporations seeking to profit from either form. Interns do not work freely for a common pool.
However, economically, the reason wages are available for
the
development
of free software is because it is an input to production, having
a
common
stock of information assets helps create more wealth, and this wealth
is the source of the motivation.
that is NOT what is commonly understood under peer
production
IMO, peer production is not commonly understood, rather commonly
misunderstood.
Co-operatives are not necessarily composed of independent equals
working on a common stock of productive assets. This, to me,
is peer production.
however, there are interpretations of it as a gift
economy, but that just doesn't work in explaining peer
production
A gift economy is reciprocal too.
yes exactly, the gift economy is based on reciprocity, peer production not
basically the scheme is one whereby every corporation
is owned by both its workers (less than half) and its
consumers/users (more than half, since price is more
than cost); this insures that these corporations are
working for social needs, and the market is
'integrated' inside the corporation (since user demand
is automatically included),not an external feature of
society
Interesting. I would especially be interested in how the
author imagined such a society coming about.
very similar to yours, by starting out one project that constitutes the capital to continue growing outwards
Thanks Michel.
--
Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de