Message 04229 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04222 Message: 8/13 L2 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production




On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:10:19 -0800 (PST), Michael Bauwens
<michelsub2003 yahoo.com> wrote:
I"m going to try to formulate things in a positive manner, to avoid the
tit
for tat.

Great Idea Michel, thanks for the summary. I think it's a very good
approach if 
we reformulate periodically.


- DK's emphasis is that any mode of production must be able to socially
reproduce itself, it is a point well taken, and of course crucial

- peer production has a problem with this, it is a present collective
sustainable, as long as a relatively same number of volunteers can
sustain
projects, but not for the individual participating, who must be able to
make a living

I would remove "volunteers" here, as part of my point is that many
contributers, 
particularly in many projects in wide commercial use are paid wages.

I would simply say "workers," "developers," "producers," etc.

Also, I suppose this distinction stems from our difference in the 
definition of "peer production" which you define as "non-reciprocal
production" and I define as "independent equals working with and
on a common stock of productive assets."

Thus for you, developers that are paid wages to develop free software are 
not peer producers, while for me peer producers that are not sharing in the
exchange value they create are being exploited.

In the end, language is arbitrary, so neither of us can claim our
definition of 
"peer production" is categorically correct.

However, in arguing for the definitional I propose, it seems to me that 
"non-reciprocal" not logically related to the word "peer," which means 
"independent equals" in both plain English and network topology.

As mentioned, a P2P network is not a "non-reciprocal" network, but a 
network made up of independent nodes.

If you accept the emphasis on "independant, equal" as opposed to 
"non-reciprocal," which -- as I have explained -- describes circulation,
not production in an economic sense, then I feel you will begin to see
the question, like I do, in terms of class-stratification, the origins
of which are rooted in control of circulation byway of property.

Which is why the core of my critique of Benkler and others is that they
insist that "peer production" can only exist in the context of the
production
of freely circulating immaterial capital, and my contention is unless we 
have a commons of material land and capital we can not be equals, and thus 
can not even be peers. Unless we eliminate property, we can not control 
circulation.

Economicaly, I express this by demonstrating that surplus value will always
flow through to scarcity, that owners of property will always capture the 
exchange value created by an immaterial commons.

Thus, unless we address the formation and allocation of a a commons
of material productive assets, capitalism will continue to be the
dominant mode of production and the interests of property owners 
will continue to subjugate the interest of direct-producers.


- in some ways then, we have to acknowledge that peer production is
building on (parasitical, some would say), the wealth created
'elsewhere'.
This is true, but the opposite is just as true. In other words, the
increasingly social nature of innovation (diffiuse, as emerging property
of
networks, located outside of any organizational boundaries, etc...),
makes
existing production in the monetary economy just as dependent on peer
production, and increasingly so.

Here I think we have a subtle, but rather major, difference in
understanding, 
as to me it is not peer production, which I consider very productive, that
is 
parasitic, but rather capitalism, which is based on systemic theft of 
surplus value.


Essentially that, whatever method society uses to produce material goods,
this will increasingly be derivative of the value created in peer
production, there, in the open design communities, in the knowledge and
science that is no longer 'proprietary' (in the sense of private
exclusionary IP), is where the value will be created; and any
'businesses' 
or organizations (capitalist or cooperative) that integrate open,
participatory, and commons oriented practices will be more competitive
than
those that don't.

Yes, this is my argument as well, as it says on Telekommunisten.net:

    "telekommunisten is controlled by it's workers and committed to
     staying that way, we believe we can serve our customers best 
     and at the lowest cost by remaining focused on meeting the needs
     of our employees and customers, not on profits for outside 
     shareholders. Being worker-owned means that all the money you
     spend on our products goes directly to the maintenance and 
     improvement of the service you receive."

I agree that peer production is more efficient than capitalist production,
but
the fact is Capitalism does not function by way of competition, that 
is a fairy tail.

Capitalism functions by using State violence to eliminate competition.

For us to succeed requires more than simply saying that eliminating
exploitation
would increase efficiency. That is self-evident!

We need to understand the basis of Capitalist power, and defeat it on it's
own terms. 

The Capitalists call their system of producing new Capitalist organization,

"Venture Capital," that is the purpose of "Venture Communism," to produce
new peer-based organizations, Which means addressing the questions of how
to 
form and allocate productive assets.


material economy, recognizing this, creates mechanisms so that this
constant process of social innovation can be sustained, and is this way
the
material economy feeds the 'immaterial process of value creation".

Exactly, and these mechanisms, if created by Capitalist finance, will also
feed the 
material process of value capture upon which it depends.

For our vision to be realized, the mechanisms must be created by and for
peer producers,
by venture communism, not venture capital. By self-organized workers, not
corporate and
state agencies. Funded with the value produced, not rent-seeking investors.
Otherwise, we
are just daydreaming.




-- 
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



Thread: oxenT04222 Message: 8/13 L2 [In index]
Message 04229 [Homepage] [Navigation]