Re: [ox-en] Re: Material peer production
- From: Dmytri Kleiner <dk trick.ca>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:26:08 +0100
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:32:47 -0800 (PST), Michael Bauwens
<michelsub2003 yahoo.com> wrote:
As mentioned, so did HURD? Where is HURD?
I have no idea what HURD is, a piece of free software that no longer
HURD is the original GNU kernel project, it still exists, and has
been considered "superior" to "monolithic" kernels by the GNU project
since the beginning, many prominent members and supporters of which
considered Linux already "obsolete" when it was released.
Despite predating Linux and having the support of some of the most
capable and influential free software advocates, there is still no
usable GNU distribution based on HURD.
Why? Linux worked fine for the quick deployment of web servers by the
exploding webhosting/ecommerce/dotCom industry.
HURD has not found it's commercial application, thus has no support.
The last sentence of the "Development history" section in the _current_
wikipedia article is:
"The Debian project, among others, have started work on
the HURD project to speed up development"
In January, 1992, Andy Tannenbaum said:
"It may well be that in 2-3 years when ultra cheap BSD variants
and Hurd proliferate, that Linux will be obsolete."
Tannenbaum is among the world's greatest experts on kernels.
- the law of asymmetric competition, which says that any for-benefit
institution that can draw on peer production will eventually be more
competitive than its private alternatives working with exclusionary
property forms (more broadly: the competitive advantage of using open,
participatory, commons oriented approaches in production for any
institution and/or corporation)
Yes, I fully understand and agree with this. My argument is that whatever
additional wealth is created will be captured by owners of property.
- that any peer production project which can draw on corporate or
institutional support will be stronger than those that don't
Yes, exactly because the owners of property capture all surplus value,
they are in a position to support the projects that help them capture
This explains that once Linux and free software had demonstrated its
superiority in certain aspects, then institutions and corporations would
start to use it, thereby strengthening it even more; and those that
cannot receive that kind of support, are much harder to maintain
"Superiority" is not necessarily the criteria.
so it's not a universal available commons as in peer production, it
involves scarce goods that you rent out for a price
It is a universally available commons, rent-sharing is the allocation
mechanism, which is required for rivalrous goods. The bond-auction system
I propose also provides a mechanism for increasing the common-stock as
desired in the case of reproducible goods.
In any case, you are shifting the topic, the point was it is different
from co-operative production, not to compare to the immaterial
commons, which is different by nature from the physical commons.
However different polities in the system benefit unequally depending on
their ownership of property.
but the point is: they do not own the commons, the productive capacity
itself is no longer in their exclusive control, these are all aspects
that emancipatory forces can use
Michel, I have refuted this dozens of times now.
For the last time, because immaterial wealth has no reproduction cost,
all the wealth it helps create will be captured by owners of property.
I have no clue what you mean by "emancipatory."
As I understand most CC-authors indeed choose the non-commercial clause,
and this is precisely why GPL advocates say it is not a real commons.
Michel, as you know, I have been one of the most active voices explaining
why the CC is not a real commons, i.e, "The Creative Anit-Commons", etc,
the whole point of Copyfarleft is to make a start in addressing the issue.
And you want to strengthen that divide even more in your copyfarleft.
I am not trying to "strengthen the divide," but explain the economic
relations and begin to work towards an approach to achieve commons
based cultural production.
In any case, I felt we where making more progress before, now you
seem to be retreating into already refuted arguments.
You mean as in creative commons license, you mere allow others to share;
No, Copyfarleft proposes direct-producers have all freedoms, including
commercial use, modification, etc, and proprietary producers have no
freedoms and require permission for any use. I think the essay is
pretty clear on this.
please help me understand what this means: "independently sharing
Peers on a network, cottagers on common lands, enterprises of a
a venture commmune, copyfarleft-based creative producers,
free software developers, etc.
In all these case common productive assets are shared independently.
Compare this to a worker's or housing co-operative, where a collective
directly shares assets and uses them together, thus an individual
co-operative is not on it's own peer-production, though a co-operative
network of co-operatives could be.
This is backwards, "immaterial, non-reciprocal" *production* does *not*
exist in any economic sense.
it does, just look around, it is produced, it has an input, it has a
process, it has an output; only singly free software is only about
Michel, you are refusing to know that a mode of production must account for
the reproduction of it's inputs or it is simply a subset of another mode.
It's like arguing that milk comes from the grocery store, and when told
it actually comes from cows saying, "just look in the grocery store and
you will see it!"
2. immaterial non-rival, anti-rival goods do exist, but of course they
are embedded in a material economy, and their 'immateriality' is only
relative, as in 'digital'
It is exactly that immaterial economy that I am interested in and
want to change. Immaterial, non-rival goods exists as a subset.
Real power political power comes from control of the material
economy as owners of property capture all the additional wealth
created with immaterial assets.
The answer should be five times no, because the very fact is that we are
peer producing knowledge here, through freely engaging in collective
debate, we all generally benefit from it; we give what we can, we take
what we need
Michel, I'm sure you can guess that I understand all this, but all this
proves is that free, universal, circulation can exist within other modes of
production, not that it is itself a mode of production.
My ability to contribute to this is only possible because I acquire my
reproduction costs elsewhere.
So let's quit discussing whether it exists or not. If you deny it, please
pay to participate, say who forced you to contribute, admit that somebody
promised you concrete benefits, or prove your individual property claim.
Michel, I greatly enjoy your work and our interactions, but this is silly.
Did the existence of the Stoa prove that "peer production" was already
emerging in ancient Athens? None of this is related to my arguments,
and I suspect you do know that.
This list is not a mode of production, just one type of interaction within
a larger, more complex mode.
Production must be understood in the context of a total system, not
individual interactions within it.
sounds a legitimate distinction to me; but what about open designs for
IMO, they are capital in the case of a design for a machine, however,
open designs for cloths or furniture are inventory.
If I'm a fashion designer, I may have a problem with the Gap mass
producing my designs and crowding me out of the marketplace, but
I may have no problem if the Gap improves the design of my sowing
editing text files since 1981
Contact: projekt oekonux.de