On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 5:36 PM, <[email protected]
wrote:
Michel's Equipotentiality envisages no fixed roles. But it would seem to me that 'contributory roles' are likely to give rise to some form of hierarchy, ie extended rights based on a person's contribution. Also I see them rising out of fear, fear that people will not contribute unless they have some incentive, like social recognition. The understanding that it is natural, inherent, to want to contribute, is absent from this analysis.
a clarification in the context of anna's remark, I saw Equipotentiality first explained by Jorge Ferrer, but did not further inquire into its prior origins. Although social recognition is very important, and though contributions often lead to social recognition, and though I believe that contributions will be a primary generator of social recognition in a commons-based society, I do not hold that people only contribute out of fear, i.e. negative extrinsic motivation. On the contrary, for about ten years, I have insisted that peer production is mostly passionate production, i.e. instrinsic, and multi-motivational. The idea that contributions are incentived by recognition is a neoliberal idea that I do not hold. Michel -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/