Michel Bauwens * Political Scenarios for a peer to peer world (was: [ox-en] Conference documentation)
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:18:55 +0100
Hi list!
Here is the documentation for Michel's presentation in Manchester last
year. The pictures are in the PDF at the conference documentation
page. Below is a paraphrased plain text version of the slides.
Grüße
Stefan
=== 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< ===
The P2P 'Tipping Point'
=======================
:Author: Michel Bauwens
* The most profound finding of the 2006 Edelman Trust Barometer is
that in six of the 11 countries surveyed, the "person like yourself
or your peer" is seen as the most credible spokesperson about a
company and among the top three spokespeople in every country
surveyed. This has advanced steadily over the past three years.
* In the US, for example, the "person like yourself or your peer" was
only trusted by 22% of respondents as recently as 2003, while in
this year's study, 68% of respondents said they trusted a peer.
Contrast that to the CEO, who ranks in the bottom half of credible
sources in all countries, at 28% trust in the US, near the level of
lawyers and legislators. In China, the "person like yourself or your
peer" is trusted by 54% of respondents, compared to the next highest
spokesperson, a doctor, at 43%.
* "only 13% of consumers say they buy products because of their ads.
Contrast that to 60% of small business owners in North America that
say they use peer recommendations to make their buying decisions and
over 70% of 18-35 year olds who report the same for their media
purchases."
1. Understanding P2P
--------------------
* P2P is the relational dynamic at work in distributed networks
* Hierarchical, de-centralized networks, distributed networks
Levy: from the molar to the molecular
-------------------------------------
.. list-table::
* *
* Archaic
* Molar
* Molecular
* * Life
* Natural Selection (natural time)
* Artificial Selection (generationa l time)
* Genetic splicing (real-time)
* * Matter
* Mechanical (outside)
* Thermo- Dynamic (Warming)
* Nanotech (cold)
* * Information
* Somatic (co-presence)
* Mediatic (mass)
* Digital
* * Human Groups
* Organic
* Organizational
* Selforganized
Complexity and Hierarchy
------------------------
[see slide 5]
Usage of P2P depends on consciousness
-------------------------------------
[see slide 6]
P2P Social Processes
--------------------
1. The ability to produce in common: Peer Production as a third mode
of production
2. The ability by participants to manage distributed projects by
themselves: Peer Governance as a third mode of governance
3. The ability to protect the common project from private
appropriation: Peer Property as a third mode of nonexclusionary
property
Peer Governance as 3rd modality
-------------------------------
.. list-table::
* *
* Centralized Hierarchy
* Decentralized Heterarchy
* Distributed Autonomy
* * Economics
* Centralized Planning
* Market
* Peer Production
* * Politics
* Absolute monarchy
* Separation of powers
* Peer Governance
* * Property
* Collective State
* Private Exclusionary
* Common Inclusionary Peer Property
* Conclusion: P2P is a third mode of production, governance, and
property
The Revolution of Equipotentiality
----------------------------------
"....People would experience others as equals in the sense of their
being both superior and inferior to themselves in varying skills and
areas of endeavor (intellectually, emotionally, artistically,
mechanically, interpersonally, and so forth), but with none of those
skills being absolutely higher or better than others..."
-- Jorge Ferrer
Characteristics of Peer Production
----------------------------------
* No division of labour, but distribution of labour: equipotentiality
* No exclusivity, but inclusivity: anticredentialism
* No composite tasks, but granular tasks: self-selection
* No products, but always unfinished 'artefacts'
* No a priori, but a posteriori distributed control: communal
validation (collective choice systems, algorithms)
* No panoptism, but holoptism: participation capture, usage is
production
* Not owned, but shared content
Conditions for Succes
---------------------
* Benkler: 3 characteristics of successul group efforts:
1. "must be modular. That is, they must be divisible into components,
or modules, each of which can be produced independently of the
production of the others. This enables production to be
incremental and asynchronous, pooling the efforts of different
people, with different capabilities, who are available at
different times."
2. "For a peer production process to pool successfully a relatively
large number of contributors, the modules should be predominately
fine-grained, or small size. This allows the project to capture
contributions from large numbers of contributors whose motivation
levels will not sustain anything more than small efforts toward
the project ...."
3. "... a successful peer production enterprise must have low-cost
integration, which includes both quality control over the modules
and a mechanism for integrating the contributions into the
finished product, while defending "itself against incompetent or
malicious contributors.
The Circulation of the Common
-----------------------------
* Peer production needs open and free access to the raw material for
its production: open/free paradigm and movements
* Peer Governance is the participatory process for the production of
the common: the participatory/cooperation paradigms and movements
* "when costs of participation are low enough, any motivation may be
sufficient to lead to a contribution."
* Peer Property uses new legal and institutional formats to protect
its production: the Commons-based paradigms and movements
* The Common Property format creates open/free raw material: the viral
circle spirals onward
The Evolution of Hierarchy
--------------------------
.. list-table::
* *
* Degrees of Moral Insight
* Relationship between hierarchy, cooperation, autonomy
* * Premodern
* no rights of political participation
* Hierarchy defines, controls and constrains co-operation and
autonomy
* * Early Modern
* political participation through representation
* Hierarchy empowers a measure of co-operation and autonomy in
the political sphere only
* * Late Modern
* political representation with varying degrees of wider
participation
* Hierarchy empowers a measure of co-operation and autonomy in
the political sphere and in varying degrees in other spheres
* * P2P Era
* equipotential rights of participation of everyone in every
field
* The sole role of hierarchy is in its spontaneous emergence in
the initiation and continuous flowering of
autonomy-in-co-operation in all spheres of human endeavor
-- by John Heron
Characteristics of P2P Hierarchy
--------------------------------
* Usually consists of a core leadership embodying the original aims of
the project, sometimes - the 'benevolent dictator'
* Linux: coders - trusted Lieutenants - Linus Torvalds
* Wikipedia: contributors - core editors - Jimmy Wales
* Teams are led by flexible meritocratic leaders: jazz band logic
* Principle of non-dependence or reverse dependence
* Large projects are led by a non-profit foundation - possibility of
corporate spin-offs
Evolution of Cooperation
------------------------
"it's no longer about incentives, but about removing impediments"
.. list-table::
* * Time frame / Typology
* Cooperation & Motivation Formats
* Game Typology
* Quality of Cooperation
* * Pre-modern (feudal, imperial)
* Adversarial Extrinsic negative
* Zero Sum: Win-Lose "Power Game"
* Low, 1[PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]<2
* * Modern (market, industrial)
* Neutral Extrinsic positive
* Zero Sum: Win-win: Draw "Money Game"
* Average, 1[PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]=2
* * P2P era
* Synergistic Intrinsic positive
* The 4 wins "Wisdom Game"
* High, 1[PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]>2
P2P as a new way of working
---------------------------
.. list-table::
* * A few people do all the work
* Many people do a little of the work
* * You have to pay all of them
* You don't have to pay most of them
* * It's hard to get involved
* It's easy to get involved
* * Support from people you know
* Support from a legion of strangers
Peer Property
-------------
* Universal common property regimes are different from private
property and public collective property
* Individual authorship + share-alike + free distributed access
* Examples:
1) Creative Commons for individual expression and sharing
2) GPL for creations of 'Commons'
Part Two: P2P Business Models
-----------------------------
PRECONDITIONS FOR PEER PRODUCTION:
* Abundance/Surplus/Distribution of intellect
* Abundance/Distribution of the means of information production and
sharing
* Lowering of 'need for capital', which becomes a posteriori, not a
priori condition for success; entrepreneurship is divorcing from
capitalism
* Conclusion: the treshold of participation, i.e. the capability to
bypass centralized capital outlays is diminishing in human, physical
and financial capital
Why P2P will grow
-----------------
[see slide 20]
Conditions for expansion of 'physical' peer production
------------------------------------------------------
* The 'distribution of everything': further distributive advances in
financial and industrial capital
* Desktop manufacturing, fabbing, multi-purpose machinery,
implications of nanotech/biotech for distributed production
* Separating the design and material production phase of the
industrial process: open design communities with built-only markets
* Finding integrated processes for the physical, logical, and digital
'commons' (e.g. Semapedia, German White Bicycle program,
Bookcrossings)
Striking a Critical Balance between Giving It Away and Making Money...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[see slide 22]
...And Utilizing a Sound Business Model to Stay on Track
The role of capital?
--------------------
* The cost of starting an internet company have gone down by 80% over
the last 8 years
* "Companies no longer need to raise lots of cash, no longer need lots
of people, no longer need to even directly sell anything at all to
be considered successful. They need revenue, of course, but that's
mainly through advertising. And they need to create something people
want to use. But Super Bowl ads? Forget those."
* "So there is plenty of money available -- nearly $1 trillion -- but
it is coming at a time when, as I have just described, a whole new
class of start-ups has appeared that doesn't want VC money -- at
least not very much of it."
* Conclusion:
1) emergence of 'non-capitalist' social entrepreneurs
2) capital needed 'a posteriori', after prior success
The Laws of Asymmetric Competition
----------------------------------
1. In a competition between a for-profit entity with closed
proprietary strategies, and a for-benefit institution working with
a community and a commons, the latter will tend to win out
2. In a competition between for profit companies, those using
open/free, participatory, and commons oriented strategies will tend
to win out
User vs. corporate typology
---------------------------
.. list-table::
* * Type of Users
* Type of Corporation
* * Prosumer Mode
* Crowdsourcing
* * Swarming Mode
* Platform Enablers
* * Community Mode
* Commons-dependent
Mixing Openness and Closedness
------------------------------
* Joe West:
* "in standardization, firms face an inherent conflict between value
creation and value capture. A completely open standard creates lots
of value, none of which can be captured; a completely closed
standard captures 100 percent of no value created. So a
profit-maximizing firm must seek an intermediate point that
partially accomplishes both goals.
* Thus to pay the bills, there has to be value capture somewhere:
everything has some level of openness and some level of
proprietary-ness. Typically, standards that are open in one area are
often not open in another."
Corporate Co-Creation Strategies
--------------------------------
The Direct Economy Model of Xavier Comtesse
* Passive consumption: The consumer is getting products or services
with no real interaction and no real choice. He has to take whatever
is available.
* Self Service: The consumer is now given the ability to choose
between various products or services. This first step is already a
huge step forward, as the consumer can go around the vendor to pick
and choose what he wants.
* DIY: Do It Yourself: At this level, the consumer starts getting
involved in the value chain. This is what IKEA offers, where you are
not just buying a product, you are actually also delivering it to
your home and building it yourself. This case is an example of the
first disruption from the standard retail value chain.
* Co-design: At this level, the consumer starts adding value by
customizing the product and therefore defining his needs himself (as
opposed to buying a product defined by the product management team).
This is what Dell is asking from customers when they have to pick
and choose options to build a computer.
* Co-creation: This is the ultimate level of involvement, where the
consumer is actually involved in the design of the product or
service itself. This is what Open Source does for developers, and
what Wikipedia does for knowledge consumers. Similarly Procter and
Gamble has a "Connect and Develop" program that lets innovators
define products.
Autonomy in Production
----------------------
The Direct Economy Model updated for peer production:
* Direct peer production of use value with no concern for
monetization: the adventure economy of couchsurfing.com
* Direct peer production of use value with concern for equitable
monetization: OS Alliance, ecopyleft, user ownership theory
* Direct production of use value by groups with commons-oriented
business ecology
* Direct production of use value by individuals with monetization of
attention through proprietary platforms
* Direct production of exchange value by groups: cooperative
production
* Direct production of exchange value by individuals: minipreneurial
ecology, social commerce, social retailing
Institutions vs. Communities
----------------------------
[see slide 29]
The politics of Web 2.0
-----------------------
* Web 2.0 and peer producers, the dolphin/shark dilemma:
1) Who owns the platform (netarchical and vectoralist strategies)
2) Is the infrastructure open/free
3) Participatory design: is true sharing possible?
4) Who owns the content? (third enclosures)
5) Monetization strategies (revenue sharing)
What kind of 'intersubjectivity'?
---------------------------------
Alan Page Fiske's Relational Model
* Reciprocity: The Gift Economy (tribalism)
* Authority Ranking: The Tributary Economy (feudalism)
* Market Pricing: The Market Economy (capitalism)
* Communal Shareholding: The Sharing Economy (peer to peer)
Economic Evolution (projection)
-------------------------------
* The primary economy is based on reciprocity, which derives from
common ancestry or lineage. It is based on families, clans, tribes
and exchange mostly operates through gifts which create further
obligation. Wants are defined by the comunity. Leadership is in the
hands of the lineage leadership. Key issue: belonging.
* The secondary economy arises together with power monopolies which
engender coercion as a means to force cooperation. We enter the
domain of class societies, and production is organized by the elite
in power, which holds together through the symbolic power which
transforms power into allegiance. Respect for power, in the form of
tribute, taxes, etc. is normative. The key question is: 'to deserve
power or to deserve subjection'.
* The tertiary economy arises with the entrepreneur and capitalism. It
is based on 'equivalent', i.e. 'fair' exchange, which is normative.
Power arises from relative productivity, relative monopoly over a
needed good, and from the wage relationship which creates
dependence. Cooperation is no longer correlated to belonging.
Relationships are impersonal.
* The quaternary economy, based on peer to peer proceses, is based on
'ideological leaders' which can frame common goals and common
belonging and is based on membership and contribution. Contributing
to the best of one's ability to common goals is normative and the
key question becomes: to follow an existing group or to create one's
own, i.e. to convince or be convinced.
A peer-informed economy?
------------------------
* Today: treating scarce goods as if they were infinite; treating
abundant goods as it there were scarce: the current economy is based
on pseudoabundance and pseudo-scarcity
* Tomorrow: A steady-state economy coupled with growing immaterial
assets and a well-being economy: the P2P political economy is based
on real abundance and scarcity
* Today: the commodification of everything; cognitive and affective
capitalism; the colonization of the life-world in the market state
* Tomorrow: a pluralist economy combining:
* A core of non-reciprocal peer production
* A reciprocity-based gift economy for services and traditional
pre-capitalist economies (open money reform)
* A vibrant market based on non-externalization, non-scarce monies
and new corporate formats
* Governance based on multi-stakeholdership
P2P Politics: Strategies
------------------------
* Three strategies:
* Transgressive = ignoring the old: Filesharing, Piratbyran
* Alternative/Constructive = building the new: Creative Commons, GPL
* Reformist = changing/adapting the old: legislative reforms (DAVDSI
France)
P2P Politics: Goals
-------------------
* Recognition of true scarcities through true costing
* Reforming the market: natural capitalism, living economies
* Impeding artificial scarcities
* IP reform (against illicit monopoly rents from IP)
* Monetary reform
* Promoting true abundance
* Sustainability of peer production: p2p to market?
* Universal basic income?
Democracy vs. Self-governance
-----------------------------
* One vote, binary decicions vs. Many differentiated decisions
* Discontinuous participation and batch processing Vs. Continuous,
real-time bubbling up
* Polyphony, with prior perspective, arested products Vs. No prior
code, permanent evaluation
* Autonomy is about direct expression without representation
* Politics is no longer about having/taking power, but about
augmenting the potential for autonomy
P2P = a total social fact
-------------------------
[see slide 38]
THANK YOU
---------
Contact Information
Wiki: www.p2pfoundation.net
Blog: blog.p2pfoundation.com
Email: michelsub2004 at gmail dot com