Message 05887 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05853 Message: 21/27 L4 [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] A name for a peer-production-based society?

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

This will have to be short. Raoul, I have only read this very quickly so will not comment on the substance. I am sure your points are good. The problem for me is simple: if one were to say that a name / slogan is necessary, the name has to sound good. I'm sorry, but I cant find an aesthetic / communicational pleasure / punch in the term  "gratisist" - to me it just does not sound right. Commonist may be wrong substantially but it has a better ring in my view. A superficial point of view maybe...


----- Original Message -----
From: Raoul <raoulv>
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 1:15 am
Subject: [ox-en] A name for a peer-production-based society?
To: list-en

A name for a peer-production-based society ?

Christian Siefkes wrote (13aug09):
"So we're still faced with two very different futures, which 
Rosa Luxemburg contrasted as "socialism or barbarism" almost 
hundred years ago. Though nowadays, seeing that the reopening of 
the commons is an essential precondition for the positive 
alternative to appear, we might prefer to call it commonism instead."

The issue of giving a name to a "system" based on peer 
production principles has been dealt with recently, more or less 
directly, in the Oekonux list and also in a larger sphere. 
Especially through the discussions about the Kevin Kelly's 
article: "The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is 
Coming Online", (22may09) (1)

About this article Stefan Meretz wrote (28may09):
"Btw: Kevin Kelly used the term 'socialism' too – crazy."
And Stefan Merten (4jun09): "Well, really an interesting 
article. Indeed, very Oekonuxian in spirit."

At another level, Mathieu O'Neil wrote (27may): "In general I 
have been thinking about what Oekonux is for. My short answer: 
Oekonux aims to disseminate the idea that peer production is a 
valid alternative to capitalism." And Diego Saravia answered 
asking (27may): "Esclavism, feudalism, capitalism, p2p-ism?"

There are three interesting questions raised by these interventions:
1 The meaning of the words "socialism" and "communism" (both 
words had a similar evolution).
2 The pertinence to call socialist or communist a society fully 
based on peer production principles.
3 The need and possibility to find a new word to name such a society.

A few words about these issues.

1. The meaning of the words "socialism" and "communism"

A whole book could be written (and that has probably been done) 
about the evolution of the meaning of these words. In short one 
can say that they appeared as expressions of a dream of a post-
capitalist society and ended as synonymous of totalitarian forms 
of capitalism, state capitalism.
Even Hitler used the word socialism for his cause.

At the origin, as a negation of capitalism, the different 
meanings of these words had in common to be opposed to the two 
most specific characteristics of capitalism: capital profit as 
the goal of production and wage-labor as the way to mediate the 
participation of the majority of producers.
The project, even if often nebulous, was generally identified 
with a society without classes, without exploiters and 
exploited, without private property of the means of production, 
where production would be oriented exclusively towards the 
satisfaction of human needs and where the participation of the 
population and the distribution of goods would follow the 
principle: "From each according to his ability, to each 
according to his needs".
Other important characteristics of the original concepts of 
socialism or communism were the ideas that workers have no 
fatherland, ("The workers have no country", says The Communist 
Manifesto; "The International will be the human race", says the 
famous song), and that in a classless society there would be no 
State. Marxist and Anarchist could strongly disagree about the 
need or not of a State apparatus in a period of transition, but 
they agreed on its absence in a full-developed non-capitalist society.

For many reasons, some relating to weaknesses and defeats of the 
workers movements, some relating to the manipulation skills of 
the ruling classes, the understanding of these words evolved 
dramatically until they could be used to name different forms of 
state controlled capitalism. (2) It was the opposite of the 
original meaning.
Instead of production oriented towards humans needs, production 
remains oriented towards accumulation of capital, even if it is 
State capital, a huge share of the product being generally 
devoted to maintaining an unusually important military apparatus 
and a rich and powerful bureaucracy which controls and possesses 
collectively the means of production; instead of eliminating the 
wage system, this is generalized and the level of wages for most 
of the population is "equalized" to minimums; instead of 
internationalism and worldwide brotherhood, nationalism is 
exacerbated till its most absurd extremes ("Patria o muerte!").
Horrors like the Cambodian genocide under the Pol-Pot regime 
were made in the name of "socialism" or "communism".
Some "critical supporters" of that kind of regime argue that 
they were/are not really socialist or communist, but "steps 
towards" them. But historical evidence has violently showed that 
it has never been the case.

If one sticks to the original definition of socialism and 
communism , it is obvious that none of them has ever existed or 
even begun to exist. The identification of these terms with 
state-capitalist regimes appears then as one the greatest and 
most poisonous lies of the 20th century.
It must also be underscored that since the beginning of the 
corruption of the meaning of these terms, there have always been 
currents of Marxists or anarchists (generally minorities) which 
remained faithful to the original meanings of these words and 
permanently denounced the mystifications. Rosa Luxembourg, 
quoted by Siefkes (above) was one of them.

In any case, it is obvious that nowadays using the words 
socialism or communism without specifying the meaning given to 
them is source of important confusions.

2. The pertinence to call socialist or communist a society fully 
based on peer production principles.

Kevin Kelly's article reads:
"When masses of people who own the means of production work 
toward a common goal and share their products in common, when 
they contribute labor without wages and enjoy the fruits free of 
charge, it's not unreasonable to call that socialism."

If one respects the original meaning of the word "socialism", 
and if one leaves apart the political aspects of the question, 
K. Kelly is correct. He could also had called that "communism".
Peer Production has developed in a universe where abundance 
prevails for most of its products. Digital goods being freely 
reproducible, the principles of private/excluding property and 
symmetric exchange are not only useless but also counter-
productive. Original socialist/communist principles are also 
based on the possibility of abundance (of material goods in this 
case) and are thus basically the same. "From each according to 
his ability, to each according to his needs", for example, is a 
common practice in digital peer production. Peer production has 
in addition the specific quality of being international, without 
fatherlands and naturally worldwide oriented since the beginning.

The problem is that the meaning of the word socialism (or 
communism), for most of the population, is seldom the original 
one. It rather evokes social-democratic or Stalinists regimes. 
As Lawrence Lessig puts it in his criticisms to Kelly's article:
"So my argument against Kelly is that it is wrong to use a term 
(in the context of a Wired essay at least; a philosophy seminar 
would invoke a completely different set of ethics) that would be 
so completely misunderstood. We choose our words. We don't 
choose our meaning." (31may09) (3)

I understand Kelly's concern as I think it is useful to 
understand how peer production is the beginning of the 
concretization of an old dream of exploited and poor classes in 
history, as were the socialist/communist ideas. Even if for the 
moment peer production concerns essentially the specific area of 
digital goods, such a recognition can only be a stimulant to 
strive for its expansion to the rest of social production. 
Maybe, one day in the future, the meaning of socialism and 
communism will be again, in most of the world population's mind, 
the original one. But that would not be for tomorrow. In the 
meantime, at a "popular" level, when there is not enough time or 
place to explain, the use of this words, without precisions, is 
inevitably confusing.

3. The need and possibility to find a new word to name a peer 
production "system".

If socialism and communism are problematical, is it necessary to 
find a new "ism" to name the system which would prevail in a 
society based on peer production principles?
As Christian Siefkes (see above), I think the answer is yes. 
Even if words may become dangerous by the ambiguities in their 
meaning, as we have seen, we cannot think without them. "In the 
beginning was the word". For human beings, a collective project 
can hardly be devised, worked-out without naming it. A name 
helps to concentrate the wills, the thoughts, the actions of a 
movement in a given direction.

The word "commonism", proposed by Christian Siefkes (and Stefan 
Meretz (4)) refers indeed to one of the most specific and post-
capitalistic aspects of Peer Production: to be commons based and 
commons oriented. It also gives the idea of a continuity with 
the old dreams. But it is obvious that it echoes the word 
"communism", especially verbally, and has thus the same 
disorienting effects.

Since some time, I have been thinking that something like 
"gratisism" could be a solution.
"Gratis is the process of providing goods or services without 
monetary compensation. It is often referred to in English as 
'free of charge'. ", says Wikipedia in English. And it adds: 
"The term gratis in English comes from the Latin word "gratis" 
meaning "for thanks". In several languages, including Italian, 
French, Romanian, Swedish, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Danish, 
Norwegian, German, Polish, Bahasa Indonesia and Afrikaans it is 
the equivalent to "for free". (5)

I think that a word based on "gratis" has interesting 
advantages, but also weaknesses.
The advantages are of two kinds: theoretical and 
"communicative". From a theoretical point of view it has the 
virtue to puts the emphasis on the overcoming of the kernel of 
capitalism: the law of exchange value. You don't sell, you don't 
buy. Without exchange value, the wage system and the 
accumulation of capital become nonsenses. Use-value, usefulness 
as the object of production instead of exchange value is highlighted.
From a "communicative" point of view, I see three obvious advantages:
1. The word gratis has an immediate meaning for every one. Even 
if you are not familiar with the web and digital goods, you know 
that your best relationships with others (friends, love, 
relatives) are, generally, "gratis". 2. The word "gratisism" is 
new. It does not suffer from the weight of "the tradition of all 
dead generations". The continuity with the past is reinvented 
from a new point of view. 3. Last and... least, the word 
"gratis" has the same meaning in more than a dozen languages.

But I also see a weakness: "gratisism" may be identified with 
practices that are "gratis" only apparently. Two of them are 
particularly frequent and remain totally in a capitalistic 
logic. One concerns the goods financed by commercial 
advertising, very present in the web (Google is only one of the 
most spectacular examples). Here, the good is in reality payed 
by the buyer of the advertized products. Furthermore, 
advertising relays on one of the darkest aspects of the 20th 
century mind manipulation: "A lie repeated a thousand times 
becomes a truth", (Goebbels). The second false "gratisism" 
concerns the public services which are sometimes said "gratis" 
but are in fact payed by the tax payer.
This is not the kind of “graticism” we want. Commercial 
advertising and taxes are meaningless in a world without money.
I don't know how disorienting that can be, but there is here 
obviously a problem.
But, will we find a perfect term?

One may say that it is a waste of time to try to find a word to 
name something that can only be the product of the action of 
billions of people all over the world, that the movement itself 
will find the most appropriated terms. Which is true. But the 
problem is that we are also part of that movement.

Raoul Victor


2. Socialism and communism have not always had identical 
meanings. For example, socialism has some times been associated 
to a previous step towards communism. During the first World War 
the word "communist" was used by the left wing of the workers 
movement to distinguish themselves from the majority of the 
"socialist" (social-democratic) parties that had called in every 
country to participate to the war. After the Russian Revolution 
and the foundation of the Third International, also called the 
Communist International, the communist parties where in general 
much closer to the USSR and related regimes than the 
"socialist". During the "Cold war", the Socialist International 
regrouped parties associated to the Western (pro USA) bloc 
against the parties affiliated to the Komintern (Communist 
International, pro USSR), etc. But the evolution of the meaning 
of both words suffered an analogous dramatic corruption.
To a certain extent, something similar happened to Christianity 
which started as a "commons based" religion (first christian 
used to put in common their belongings) and evolved into one of 
the strongest pillars of the inequality-based systems: slavery, 
feudalism, capitalism.


Contact: projekt

Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University

E-mail: mathieu.oneil
Tel.: (61 02) 61 25 38 00
Mail: Coombs Building, 9
Canberra, ACT 0200 - AUSTRALIA

[2 text/html]
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT05853 Message: 21/27 L4 [In index]
Message 05887 [Homepage] [Navigation]