Message 04214 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04211 Message: 2/2 L1 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production (was: Re: [ox-en]Motto for the 4th conference)

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:13:22 -0800 (PST), Michael Bauwens
<michelsub2003> wrote:
reciprocity required, at the least for
the material substance of the contributers.

No, there is no such direct specific expectation if you contribute to

No, but specific or not, a economical system which does not provide for the
subsistence of free software developers, will have none eventually. 

As far as I know, mostly from wage labour.

unless they are conditionally paid to do free software, which is wage
labour, not peer production,

Economically, "wage" is simply the income of labour.

"Wage labour," on it's own is not a mode of production and thus is not
directly comparable to peer production, 
although it often identified with the Capitalist mode, what is definitive
of the Capitalist mode is that 
the direct-producer is not the "owner" of their product and does not
control it's circulation, in other words, 
it is alienated.

Under Capitalism, the "Capitalists" control circulation by preventing
workers from having independent access
to productive assets, thus direct-producers are forced to sell their labour
and forfeit their product.

In contrast, in peer production, producers work on a "commons" of
productive assets and retain control of their product,
thus it is not alienated.

Thus, for something to be "peer production" the key fact is not whether or
how they receive a wage (which somehow they must), but
whether or not they retain control of the circulation of their product.

Since peer producers can not exploit the labour of others, there is no way
to control reproduction or interfere
with upstream circulation, thus neither immaterial or alienated "property"
can't exist.

This doesn't mean that peers don't exchange, any more than you can claim
that P2P network nodes don't
reciprocate, it only means they interact as peers.

indirectly that is the point, you may very well work for a free software
project that sustains another project of wealth creation, while you
on a wage for another activity

Indirectly doesn't change the logic, the source of the reciprocated wealth
to sustain the peer producer is know: the wealth created.


in kin-communities, there were also forms of communal shareholding and
generalized exchange, but this is not what is meant by the gift economy,
which is a symmetrical system (although that symmetry could be defined in
various 'spiral' ways), but the point is: the gift created an obligation;
the free contribution towards a commons project creates no such

Depends on the context, in endogenous gift relations among kin, 
transactions are not accounted, only relationships matter. 

The idea of one-to-one reciprocation on a per-transaction level is not
rather the overall relationship and the idea that everyone should

an obligation was created, and a certain type of obligation insured, this
is driven by what Fiske calls equality matching, which is different from
communal shareholding; again, take a few minutes to read fiske, it's not
long and will clear up the difference

I will.

mutual contribution in communal shareholding  IS NOT a demand for
reciprocity from any particular person, ONLY a general expectation that
contributor will also benefit in some way or other

I don't see this being significantly different, when the relationship
breaks down, 
conflict becomes specified in specific reciprocity. For example, a family
might force a 
shirking teenager to do specific chores when they don't help out around the
enough on their own.

Economically, when you look it from the point of view of production and
the difference is even less significant.

NO, and Benkler never uses the concept of gift economy in his book

I didn't mean that Benkler uses the concept of the gift economy, only  that
cites research showing that most developers of free software feel the get
from free software then they give, thus it is from their point view

in France such
as Motion Twin and FDN?

I do not think so, do you have info about these projects, which I think
are un-related

I've met members of both, but didn't ask about "Communism Liberale."


Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981

Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04211 Message: 2/2 L1 [In index]
Message 04214 [Homepage] [Navigation]