Message 04230 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04222 Message: 9/13 L1 [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




----- Original Message ----
From: Dmytri Kleiner <dk telekommunisten.net>
To: list-en oekonux.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:24:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production


- 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.


The essence of doubly-free software are not the paid wages, which may support the project, but the free engagement and self-unfolding of the process, so the volunteer part is important. Linux pre-existed the subsequent commercial implication, after it was already successfull.



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."


this is the definition of cooperative production, which predates the emergence of peer production by many decades, and the latter being only possible on a global scale through the new technological affordances of the last 15 years. Why use the   same concept for two very different processes.

Here are three things:

- people working voluntarity to create common assets, which are universally available

- people being paid to work for making common assets, but in a context of value added scarcity elements which can be marketed and monetized

- people being paid to work on common assets, which will be sold on a market

Can't you really see no difference (item 2 is what businesses do with peer production, not peer production itself)


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.


yes, I disagree with your fundamental premise. Businesses may use and exploit the process as a whole, and get surplus value from the workers that they pay. The system as a whole may be said to benefit/profit from the commons. But the voluntary engagement is not exploitation, but free engagement of producers. Furthermore, because it is an essentially non-reciprocal system, these peer producers not only do not object to commercial usage, but in fact usually favour it, because in the end this commercial and institutional engagement strenghtens the commons. What they object to however are attempts to privately appropriate the commons, or to use/exploit without returning any benefits to sustain the commons.




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.

commons-based peer production has been used first I believe by Benkler,and has taken on a rather precise meaning from that point onwards; you are using this concept out of context to give a new name for cooperative production, which you can't distinguish (see the above 3 processes) and therefore, that creates confusion.

The peer in peer production refers to equal in potential to participate, what I call, after Jorge Ferrer, equipotentiality. It does not refer to equal ownership of a limited common stock, because by definition, the non-producers have just as much right to use them. It's a right of participation more than anything else.


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

You can have that insight without equation peer production with cooperative production, I have written many articles on the topic.

For example, here at http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=261

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.

two points, empirically, it is benkler that is correct, since peer production already exists in the context of freely circulating immaterial goods

but their mistake is to believe it can only exist in the context of a capitalist marketplace

the interpretation I propose is that we can strengthen the already emerging peer production, by societal and economic reform (I mean that in the meaning of change, however it is obtained); then, peer production can become the rule rather than the exception.




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.

the exchange value yes, the use value no, expect in ways such as you propose


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.


yes



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.


I understand, it's a matter of perspective



Capitalism functions by using State violence to eliminate competition.

what it means is that it is constrained competition, not that there is none





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.


you are addressing the needs of cooperative production, and the material exploitation of the immaterial commons; but do you want to abolish that commons? in a sense, you do, or as I understand it, you want to allow access only to other peer producers; the key question is: will these other peer producers have to pay for it or not, will you use open licenses, or closed licenses?










      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT04222 Message: 9/13 L1 [In index]
Message 04230 [Homepage] [Navigation]