new capitalism and commoning
I got this from Pat Kane, an initiative that resonates with Umair Haque's Capitalist Manifesto See: http://fearlessrevolution.com/blog/introducing-common.html "Benefiting people, communities, society, the environment and future generations is the new advantage in business. Our *new capitalist* brand is about transitioning from competitive advantage to collaborative advantage. COMMON is a brand that is community designed, community owned, and community directed. It is a single open source brand — a living network — for rapidly prototyping many progressive businesses that unleash creativity to solve social problems." Michel's comments: why is this interesting, well, in the context of the stress that our friends like Massimo and Silvia Federico place on opposing 'capitalist commons' my question is the following, generally, as I don't know much about this particular initiative: - are these people 'enemies' simply because they are 'pro-capitalist' - or are they friends because their heart is in the right place, and they want to create and share value, and have generally progressive social goals This is not just a matter of analysis, but also of language, and it poses a key question: should a new 'hegemony' (not the right word, I know, but even in a distributed world, something like that does exist) for a progressive commons approach, not necessarily include progressive social and other enterpreneurs ? My answer would tend to be yes, as many young people in the West, but even outside the West, especially here in East Asia, think that way; they want to see progress, don't believe in old-style socialism, believe in cooperation and sharing, but believe only free enterpreneurship offers progress and dynamism for their society and their own projects. Such an approach would require an analysis that distinguished exploitative commons approaches, from genuine commons; but also in a language that doesn't construct such people as enemies, and a pragmatic openness. To come back to the notion of capitalist/anticapitalist commons, through an example. Take the free software movement, a movement of a particular labour aristocracy, that has resulted in the creation of a strong commons, strong relatively autonomous communities, but also with a strong ecology of supportive corporate entities, that both profit from those commons, but also, pay wages to free software developers, practice various forms of benefit sharing, and support the communities and commons in various ways. (this of course needs to be problematized, but nevertheless, this is an important side of the equation) So here we have a commons that is both instrumental to corporate entities and 'capitalism', but also beneficial in substantial ways to a particular type of knowledge workers. In this scenario, both sides have both concurring and antagonistic interests. The model of the free software movement is not unique, as it is now largely replicated in many other open knowledge, open design and open manufacturing projects, for whom it served as a successfull template I'm not advocating either uncritical support of the model, nor a pure antagonistic approach, but rather an approach that starts with the interests of the peer producing communities and their commons, and looks at how they can optimally reproduce within current economic and power structures, and advance their goals, step by step, until they are stronger to achieve more fundamental transformations, In many cases, the creation of a successful ecology of corporate entities, and the attraction of progressive young enterpreneurs who may be willing to create non profit maximisation market-operating entitities, will be a sine qua non for the social reproduction and growth of the concrete commons and their contributors/users Michel -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
you can work out the answer by reflecting on the motto of the web page http://fearlessrevolution.com : "collaboration is the new competition" . . .well actually, competition has always been based on degrees of collaboration, pitting different forms of social cooperation one against the other . . .the ideas of this web page would be great, assuming 90% of our livelihoods was reproduced outside capitalist markets, so as if we really needed something outside the commons, well, this could be how to go for it . . .But as they stand, they are just another way to make business, one business strategy among many, maybe preferable and kinder than others, maybe its novelty may help some in time of crisis and in presence of lack of imagination and effective powers to work out a non- profit business alternative, . . .hence, if contingent necessity requires it, let us collaborate . . . but please, do not conflate this type of stuff being debated on the Harward Business Review with the emancipatory practices that are core for the production of a socially and environmentally just world . . .please, just look at Egypt, they have businesses along many commons in Tahiri square (http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middleeast/2011/02/201127162644461244.htm... ), small vendors, but they operate within the contexts of the commons, hence they are not the enemy, but they reinforce the commons. They would become opponents in the very moment they were to declare that all in the square had to organise as a market, or if they were to define procedures that for every problem one had to find a market solution and this is precisely what seems to be happening in the example you are circulating. m On 8 Feb 2011, at 07:51, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I got this from Pat Kane, an initiative that resonates with Umair Haque's Capitalist Manifesto
See: http://fearlessrevolution.com/blog/introducing-common.html
"Benefiting people, communities, society, the environment and future generations is the new advantage in business. Our new capitalist brand is about transitioning from competitive advantage to collaborative advantage. COMMON is a brand that is community designed, community owned, and community directed. It is a single open source brand — a living network — for rapidly prototyping many progressive businesses that unleash creativity to solve social problems."
Michel's comments:
why is this interesting, well, in the context of the stress that our friends like Massimo and Silvia Federico place on opposing 'capitalist commons'
my question is the following, generally, as I don't know much about this particular initiative:
- are these people 'enemies' simply because they are 'pro-capitalist'
- or are they friends because their heart is in the right place, and they want to create and share value, and have generally progressive social goals
This is not just a matter of analysis, but also of language, and it poses a key question: should a new 'hegemony' (not the right word, I know, but even in a distributed world, something like that does exist) for a progressive commons approach, not necessarily include progressive social and other enterpreneurs ?
My answer would tend to be yes, as many young people in the West, but even outside the West, especially here in East Asia, think that way; they want to see progress, don't believe in old-style socialism, believe in cooperation and sharing, but believe only free enterpreneurship offers progress and dynamism for their society and their own projects.
Such an approach would require an analysis that distinguished exploitative commons approaches, from genuine commons; but also in a language that doesn't construct such people as enemies, and a pragmatic openness.
To come back to the notion of capitalist/anticapitalist commons, through an example.
Take the free software movement, a movement of a particular labour aristocracy, that has resulted in the creation of a strong commons, strong relatively autonomous communities, but also with a strong ecology of supportive corporate entities, that both profit from those commons, but also, pay wages to free software developers, practice various forms of benefit sharing, and support the communities and commons in various ways. (this of course needs to be problematized, but nevertheless, this is an important side of the equation)
So here we have a commons that is both instrumental to corporate entities and 'capitalism', but also beneficial in substantial ways to a particular type of knowledge workers. In this scenario, both sides have both concurring and antagonistic interests.
The model of the free software movement is not unique, as it is now largely replicated in many other open knowledge, open design and open manufacturing projects, for whom it served as a successfull template
I'm not advocating either uncritical support of the model, nor a pure antagonistic approach, but rather an approach that starts with the interests of the peer producing communities and their commons, and looks at how they can optimally reproduce within current economic and power structures, and advance their goals, step by step, until they are stronger to achieve more fundamental transformations,
In many cases, the creation of a successful ecology of corporate entities, and the attraction of progressive young enterpreneurs who may be willing to create non profit maximisation market-operating entitities, will be a sine qua non for the social reproduction and growth of the concrete commons and their contributors/users
Michel
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/ mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
"Non profit business" -- there is no such thing. Business means profit, if there is no profit, you are quickly out of business. So: "are these people 'enemies'"? No, capitalism is not about people, it is about structures being exclusive or inclusive. Thus "enemies" are not people, but those structures which exclude people. Generally, markets are exclusive, because you can not participate if you have nothing to sell or to buy -- be it on the world market or on Tahiti square. Thus business can not be a commons. But there can be an intimate relationship between commons and business, which has to be analysed carefully. While we say "There is no commons without commoning" the same holds true for business: "There is no business without commoning", but the relationship addressed here is completely different. Best, Stefan On 2011-02-08 10:07, Massimo De Angelis wrote:
you can work out the answer by reflecting on the motto of the web page http://fearlessrevolution.com
: "collaboration is the new competition" . . .well actually,
competition has always been based on degrees of collaboration, pitting different forms of social cooperation one against the other . . .the ideas of this web page would be great, assuming 90% of our livelihoods was reproduced outside capitalist markets, so as if we really needed something outside the commons, well, this could be how to go for it . . .But as they stand, they are just another way to make business, one business strategy among many, maybe preferable and kinder than others, maybe its novelty may help some in time of crisis and in presence of lack of imagination and effective powers to work out a non- profit business alternative, . . .hence, if contingent necessity requires it, let us collaborate . . . but please, do not conflate this type of stuff being debated on the Harward Business Review with the emancipatory practices that are core for the production of a socially and environmentally just world . . .please, just look at Egypt, they have businesses along many commons in Tahiri square (http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middleeast/2011/02/2011271626444 61244.html ), small vendors, but they operate within the contexts of the commons, hence they are not the enemy, but they reinforce the commons. They would become opponents in the very moment they were to declare that all in the square had to organise as a market, or if they were to define procedures that for every problem one had to find a market solution and this is precisely what seems to be happening in the example you are circulating.
m
On 8 Feb 2011, at 07:51, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I got this from Pat Kane, an initiative that resonates with Umair Haque's Capitalist Manifesto
See: http://fearlessrevolution.com/blog/introducing-common.html
"Benefiting people, communities, society, the environment and future generations is the new advantage in business. Our new capitalist brand is about transitioning from competitive advantage to collaborative advantage. COMMON is a brand that is community designed, community owned, and community directed. It is a single open source brand — a living network — for rapidly prototyping many progressive businesses that unleash creativity to solve social problems."
Michel's comments:
why is this interesting, well, in the context of the stress that our friends like Massimo and Silvia Federico place on opposing 'capitalist commons'
my question is the following, generally, as I don't know much about this particular initiative:
- are these people 'enemies' simply because they are 'pro-capitalist'
- or are they friends because their heart is in the right place, and they want to create and share value, and have generally progressive social goals
This is not just a matter of analysis, but also of language, and it poses a key question: should a new 'hegemony' (not the right word, I know, but even in a distributed world, something like that does exist) for a progressive commons approach, not necessarily include progressive social and other enterpreneurs ?
My answer would tend to be yes, as many young people in the West, but even outside the West, especially here in East Asia, think that way; they want to see progress, don't believe in old-style socialism, believe in cooperation and sharing, but believe only free enterpreneurship offers progress and dynamism for their society and their own projects.
Such an approach would require an analysis that distinguished exploitative commons approaches, from genuine commons; but also in a language that doesn't construct such people as enemies, and a pragmatic openness.
To come back to the notion of capitalist/anticapitalist commons, through an example.
Take the free software movement, a movement of a particular labour aristocracy, that has resulted in the creation of a strong commons, strong relatively autonomous communities, but also with a strong ecology of supportive corporate entities, that both profit from those commons, but also, pay wages to free software developers, practice various forms of benefit sharing, and support the communities and commons in various ways. (this of course needs to be problematized, but nevertheless, this is an important side of the equation)
So here we have a commons that is both instrumental to corporate entities and 'capitalism', but also beneficial in substantial ways to a particular type of knowledge workers. In this scenario, both sides have both concurring and antagonistic interests.
The model of the free software movement is not unique, as it is now largely replicated in many other open knowledge, open design and open manufacturing projects, for whom it served as a successfull template
I'm not advocating either uncritical support of the model, nor a pure antagonistic approach, but rather an approach that starts with the interests of the peer producing communities and their commons, and looks at how they can optimally reproduce within current economic and power structures, and advance their goals, step by step, until they are stronger to achieve more fundamental transformations,
In many cases, the creation of a successful ecology of corporate entities, and the attraction of progressive young enterpreneurs who may be willing to create non profit maximisation market-operating entitities, will be a sine qua non for the social reproduction and growth of the concrete commons and their contributors/users
Michel
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundatio n
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/ mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- Start here: www.meretz.de
what I meant by "non-profit business alternative" was actually a non- profit alternative to business . .the rush in any case, viva the street vendors in Tahrir square, in this moment they are definitively more commonist than harward proponents of community shared value, for the very simple reason that in moments of struggle, the income of their "exclusive" business operations is often shared to meet needs of the commons . . . m On 8 Feb 2011, at 09:42, Stefan Meretz wrote:
"Non profit business" -- there is no such thing. Business means profit, if there is no profit, you are quickly out of business.
So: "are these people 'enemies'"? No, capitalism is not about people, it is about structures being exclusive or inclusive. Thus "enemies" are not people, but those structures which exclude people.
Generally, markets are exclusive, because you can not participate if you have nothing to sell or to buy -- be it on the world market or on Tahiti square.
Thus business can not be a commons. But there can be an intimate relationship between commons and business, which has to be analysed carefully.
While we say "There is no commons without commoning" the same holds true for business: "There is no business without commoning", but the relationship addressed here is completely different.
Best, Stefan
On 2011-02-08 10:07, Massimo De Angelis wrote:
you can work out the answer by reflecting on the motto of the web page http://fearlessrevolution.com
: "collaboration is the new competition" . . .well actually,
competition has always been based on degrees of collaboration, pitting different forms of social cooperation one against the other . . .the ideas of this web page would be great, assuming 90% of our livelihoods was reproduced outside capitalist markets, so as if we really needed something outside the commons, well, this could be how to go for it . . .But as they stand, they are just another way to make business, one business strategy among many, maybe preferable and kinder than others, maybe its novelty may help some in time of crisis and in presence of lack of imagination and effective powers to work out a non- profit business alternative, . . .hence, if contingent necessity requires it, let us collaborate . . . but please, do not conflate this type of stuff being debated on the Harward Business Review with the emancipatory practices that are core for the production of a socially and environmentally just world . . .please, just look at Egypt, they have businesses along many commons in Tahiri square (http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middleeast/2011/02/2011271626444 61244.html ), small vendors, but they operate within the contexts of the commons, hence they are not the enemy, but they reinforce the commons. They would become opponents in the very moment they were to declare that all in the square had to organise as a market, or if they were to define procedures that for every problem one had to find a market solution and this is precisely what seems to be happening in the example you are circulating.
m
On 8 Feb 2011, at 07:51, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I got this from Pat Kane, an initiative that resonates with Umair Haque's Capitalist Manifesto
See: http://fearlessrevolution.com/blog/introducing-common.html
"Benefiting people, communities, society, the environment and future generations is the new advantage in business. Our new capitalist brand is about transitioning from competitive advantage to collaborative advantage. COMMON is a brand that is community designed, community owned, and community directed. It is a single open source brand — a living network — for rapidly prototyping many progressive businesses that unleash creativity to solve social problems."
Michel's comments:
why is this interesting, well, in the context of the stress that our friends like Massimo and Silvia Federico place on opposing 'capitalist commons'
my question is the following, generally, as I don't know much about this particular initiative:
- are these people 'enemies' simply because they are 'pro-capitalist'
- or are they friends because their heart is in the right place, and they want to create and share value, and have generally progressive social goals
This is not just a matter of analysis, but also of language, and it poses a key question: should a new 'hegemony' (not the right word, I know, but even in a distributed world, something like that does exist) for a progressive commons approach, not necessarily include progressive social and other enterpreneurs ?
My answer would tend to be yes, as many young people in the West, but even outside the West, especially here in East Asia, think that way; they want to see progress, don't believe in old-style socialism, believe in cooperation and sharing, but believe only free enterpreneurship offers progress and dynamism for their society and their own projects.
Such an approach would require an analysis that distinguished exploitative commons approaches, from genuine commons; but also in a language that doesn't construct such people as enemies, and a pragmatic openness.
To come back to the notion of capitalist/anticapitalist commons, through an example.
Take the free software movement, a movement of a particular labour aristocracy, that has resulted in the creation of a strong commons, strong relatively autonomous communities, but also with a strong ecology of supportive corporate entities, that both profit from those commons, but also, pay wages to free software developers, practice various forms of benefit sharing, and support the communities and commons in various ways. (this of course needs to be problematized, but nevertheless, this is an important side of the equation)
So here we have a commons that is both instrumental to corporate entities and 'capitalism', but also beneficial in substantial ways to a particular type of knowledge workers. In this scenario, both sides have both concurring and antagonistic interests.
The model of the free software movement is not unique, as it is now largely replicated in many other open knowledge, open design and open manufacturing projects, for whom it served as a successfull template
I'm not advocating either uncritical support of the model, nor a pure antagonistic approach, but rather an approach that starts with the interests of the peer producing communities and their commons, and looks at how they can optimally reproduce within current economic and power structures, and advance their goals, step by step, until they are stronger to achieve more fundamental transformations,
In many cases, the creation of a successful ecology of corporate entities, and the attraction of progressive young enterpreneurs who may be willing to create non profit maximisation market-operating entitities, will be a sine qua non for the social reproduction and growth of the concrete commons and their contributors/users
Michel
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundatio n
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/ mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- Start here: www.meretz.de
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Stefan Meretz <[email protected]> wrote:
"Non profit business" -- there is no such thing. Business means profit, if there is no profit, you are quickly out of business.
So: "are these people 'enemies'"? No, capitalism is not about people, it is about structures being exclusive or inclusive. Thus "enemies" are not people, but those structures which exclude people.
Generally, markets are exclusive, because you can not participate if you have nothing to sell or to buy -- be it on the world market or on Tahiti square.
Thus business can not be a commons.
There are many examples from history where groups of people created a corporation, or "business" entity *not* for the purpose of participating in markets, but rather to solve a specific problem or set of problems for a community. The corporations in some cases were specifically created to handle the pooling of resources among participants. In the early days of the United States, these types of corporations were required to be dissolved when their purpose was fulfilled. Around the time of the US Civil War, railroad companies lobbied and fought in court to change the nature of corporate law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad I can imagine that laws, cultures, and traditions around this type of organization vary around the world. -- -- Sam Rose Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation Tel:+1(517) 639-1552 Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451 skype: samuelrose email: [email protected] http://forwardfound.org http://futureforwardinstitute.org http://hollymeadcapital.com http://p2pfoundation.net http://socialmediaclassroom.com "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition." - Carl Sagan
Thanks Massimo, your example of the small vendors in Tahir square is pertinent, but then, look at the strategy of the protest, which is predicated on the broadest possible unity, including even with the army, while they are actually fighting not a family dictatorship but a military dictatorship ... (the tahir class alliances are well explained here at http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/516/why-mubarak-is-out) i'd like to make a difference between subjective and objective factors, you point out the subjective fact of the analysis of 'collaboration is the new competition', but so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening the free software commons. In Tahir square, I have no information about the subjectivity of the vendors, but they might as well be petty profit maximisers than acting in solidarity with the movement. Their motivation would not stand in the way of their objective cooperation with the Tahir commons. To go back to the example of the Common, I don't know enough about them, but, following your argument in your last phrase, I conclude that if they would not force everybody else to act according to a market logic, that such would be compatible with a commons approach? What makes you conclude that Common argues that there is a market solution for everything and that it is obligatory and that this is indeed 'what seems to be happening' in the example I have circulated? I do agree with this conclusion of yours, but again, the subjective intent of a particular player, may not be the most important factor for a particular commons. You probably know my own proposed approach, that of creating vehicles for the commons that have the social reproduction of the commons of its contributors as the main reason of being (and thus keeps the circulation of surplus value within the commons), and failing that, for commoners to choose partners according to the criteria of preferential attachment, i.e. to choose to collaborate with those entities that are maximally aligned with the values of the common project. However, in the current circumstances neither choice is always available, and therefore the most realistic criteria is to go for an ecology which allows for the commons to continue to co-exist, provides a living for its contributors, in the context of maximum (by force relative) autonomy of that commons and its commoners. Without conflating HBR with the commons, I do think the creation and emergence of the free software commons, the creation and emergence of multiple knowledge commons, and the creation and emergence of open design commons, is part of an emancipatory process; repressents a social advance, despite all the difficulties associated with such developments in the current context. I also think that the existence of a large movement towards fair trade, social financing, ethical markets, social enterpreneurships, the growth of cooperatives, the players in social and solidarity economies, are generally positive steps within the current context. Michel On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Massimo De Angelis <[email protected]>wrote:
you can work out the answer by reflecting on the motto of the web page http://fearlessrevolution.com: "collaboration is the new competition" . . .well actually, competition has always been based on degrees of collaboration, pitting different forms of social cooperation one against the other . . .the ideas of this web page would be great, assuming 90% of our livelihoods was reproduced outside capitalist markets, so as if we really needed something outside the commons, well, this could be how to go for it . . .But as they stand, they are just another way to make business, one business strategy among many, maybe preferable and kinder than others, maybe its novelty may help some in time of crisis and in presence of lack of imagination and effective powers to work out a non-profit business alternative, . . .hence, if contingent necessity requires it, let us collaborate . . . but please, do not conflate this type of stuff being debated on the Harward Business Review with the emancipatory practices that are core for the production of a socially and environmentally just world . . .please, just look at Egypt, they have businesses along many commons in Tahiri square ( http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middleeast/2011/02/201127162644461244.htm...), small vendors, but they operate within the contexts of the commons, hence they are not the enemy, but they reinforce the commons. They would become opponents in the very moment they were to declare that all in the square had to organise as a market, or if they were to define procedures that for every problem one had to find a market solution and this is precisely what seems to be happening in the example you are circulating.
m
On 8 Feb 2011, at 07:51, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I got this from Pat Kane, an initiative that resonates with Umair Haque's Capitalist Manifesto
See: http://fearlessrevolution.com/blog/introducing-common.html
"Benefiting people, communities, society, the environment and future generations is the new advantage in business. Our *new capitalist* brand is about transitioning from competitive advantage to collaborative advantage. COMMON is a brand that is community designed, community owned, and community directed. It is a single open source brand — a living network — for rapidly prototyping many progressive businesses that unleash creativity to solve social problems."
Michel's comments:
why is this interesting, well, in the context of the stress that our friends like Massimo and Silvia Federico place on opposing 'capitalist commons'
my question is the following, generally, as I don't know much about this particular initiative:
- are these people 'enemies' simply because they are 'pro-capitalist'
- or are they friends because their heart is in the right place, and they want to create and share value, and have generally progressive social goals
This is not just a matter of analysis, but also of language, and it poses a key question: should a new 'hegemony' (not the right word, I know, but even in a distributed world, something like that does exist) for a progressive commons approach, not necessarily include progressive social and other enterpreneurs ?
My answer would tend to be yes, as many young people in the West, but even outside the West, especially here in East Asia, think that way; they want to see progress, don't believe in old-style socialism, believe in cooperation and sharing, but believe only free enterpreneurship offers progress and dynamism for their society and their own projects.
Such an approach would require an analysis that distinguished exploitative commons approaches, from genuine commons; but also in a language that doesn't construct such people as enemies, and a pragmatic openness.
To come back to the notion of capitalist/anticapitalist commons, through an example.
Take the free software movement, a movement of a particular labour aristocracy, that has resulted in the creation of a strong commons, strong relatively autonomous communities, but also with a strong ecology of supportive corporate entities, that both profit from those commons, but also, pay wages to free software developers, practice various forms of benefit sharing, and support the communities and commons in various ways. (this of course needs to be problematized, but nevertheless, this is an important side of the equation)
So here we have a commons that is both instrumental to corporate entities and 'capitalism', but also beneficial in substantial ways to a particular type of knowledge workers. In this scenario, both sides have both concurring and antagonistic interests.
The model of the free software movement is not unique, as it is now largely replicated in many other open knowledge, open design and open manufacturing projects, for whom it served as a successfull template
I'm not advocating either uncritical support of the model, nor a pure antagonistic approach, but rather an approach that starts with the interests of the peer producing communities and their commons, and looks at how they can optimally reproduce within current economic and power structures, and advance their goals, step by step, until they are stronger to achieve more fundamental transformations,
In many cases, the creation of a successful ecology of corporate entities, and the attraction of progressive young enterpreneurs who may be willing to create non profit maximisation market-operating entitities, will be a sine qua non for the social reproduction and growth of the concrete commons and their contributors/users
Michel
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
Michel see below On 8 Feb 2011, at 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Thanks Massimo,
your example of the small vendors in Tahir square is pertinent, but then, look at the strategy of the protest, which is predicated on the broadest possible unity, including even with the army, while they are actually fighting not a family dictatorship but a military dictatorship ... (the tahir class alliances are well explained here at http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/516/why-mubarak-is-out)
so? what has this got to do with my point? Alliances are always situated in given contexts, not on abstract principles
i'd like to make a difference between subjective and objective factors, you point out the subjective fact of the analysis of 'collaboration is the new competition', but so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening the free software commons. In Tahir square, I have no information about the subjectivity of the vendors, but they might as well be petty profit maximisers than acting in solidarity with the movement. Their motivation would not stand in the way of their objective cooperation with the Tahir commons.
no, simply because their motivations are several,
To go back to the example of the Common, I don't know enough about them, but, following your argument in your last phrase, I conclude that if they would not force everybody else to act according to a market logic, that such would be compatible with a commons approach? What makes you conclude that Common argues that there is a market solution for everything and that it is obligatory and that this is indeed 'what seems to be happening' in the example I have circulated?
the argument in their slides made me conclude that . .they propose a method that starts from "problem" and end with a business solution passing through tapping on social networks and commoning of knowledge . . .but maybe it was a fast read, maybe they do offer solutions to any of our social problems, which could be such a great thing, so I can play more my fiddle rather than writing posts on a list. . .
I do agree with this conclusion of yours, but again, the subjective intent of a particular player, may not be the most important factor for a particular commons.
You probably know my own proposed approach, that of creating vehicles for the commons that have the social reproduction of the commons of its contributors as the main reason of being (and thus keeps the circulation of surplus value within the commons), and failing that, for commoners to choose partners according to the criteria of preferential attachment, i.e. to choose to collaborate with those entities that are maximally aligned with the values of the common project. However, in the current circumstances neither choice is always available, and therefore the most realistic criteria is to go for an ecology which allows for the commons to continue to co-exist, provides a living for its contributors, in the context of maximum (by force relative) autonomy of that commons and its commoners.
Without conflating HBR with the commons, I do think the creation and emergence of the free software commons, the creation and emergence of multiple knowledge commons, and the creation and emergence of open design commons, is part of an emancipatory process; repressents a social advance, despite all the difficulties associated with such developments in the current context.
you can claim that something like the above represent a "social advance" only when you have computed the costs, and agreed on a method for doing so. We do not agree on this, as for you it seems destruction of communities to make space for fibre optical cables and computers is a cost worth paying "in the long run". To me all the free software common above is just stuff that happens, that is, and whether it is a social advance or not will depend on the power relations on the ground. I much welcome p2p in cyberspace as much as I do not welcome the destruction of communities necessary for the production of p2p infrastructure given current capitalist regimes. Free software commons open up new opportuninities and make us think and act organisationally in different ways, many of which are empowering and eye-opening: I am hooked in cyberspace and try to get as many people hooked as possible in the rural community where I live. But you do not care for children with free software commons, you do not eat with it, you do not make love or bury the dead. And if we'll ever get to a point in which free software commons and life come to clash (as it is the case for the above mentioned community whose resources are enclosed to make space for the infrastructure of cyberspace), well then I know what side I am on, and if you will be on the other side because it will be "good in the long run", then I am afraid you will be my class enemy. . . .but now, for sure, we are still certainly friends, aren't we? best Massimo
I also think that the existence of a large movement towards fair trade, social financing, ethical markets, social enterpreneurships, the growth of cooperatives, the players in social and solidarity economies, are generally positive steps within the current context.
Michel
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Massimo De Angelis <[email protected]
wrote: you can work out the answer by reflecting on the motto of the web page http://fearlessrevolution.com: "collaboration is the new competition" . . .well actually, competition has always been based on degrees of collaboration, pitting different forms of social cooperation one against the other . . .the ideas of this web page would be great, assuming 90% of our livelihoods was reproduced outside capitalist markets, so as if we really needed something outside the commons, well, this could be how to go for it . . .But as they stand, they are just another way to make business, one business strategy among many, maybe preferable and kinder than others, maybe its novelty may help some in time of crisis and in presence of lack of imagination and effective powers to work out a non-profit business alternative, . . .hence, if contingent necessity requires it, let us collaborate . . . but please, do not conflate this type of stuff being debated on the Harward Business Review with the emancipatory practices that are core for the production of a socially and environmentally just world . . .please, just look at Egypt, they have businesses along many commons in Tahiri square (http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middleeast/2011/02/201127162644461244.htm... ), small vendors, but they operate within the contexts of the commons, hence they are not the enemy, but they reinforce the commons. They would become opponents in the very moment they were to declare that all in the square had to organise as a market, or if they were to define procedures that for every problem one had to find a market solution and this is precisely what seems to be happening in the example you are circulating.
m
On 8 Feb 2011, at 07:51, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I got this from Pat Kane, an initiative that resonates with Umair Haque's Capitalist Manifesto
See: http://fearlessrevolution.com/blog/introducing-common.html
"Benefiting people, communities, society, the environment and future generations is the new advantage in business. Our new capitalist brand is about transitioning from competitive advantage to collaborative advantage. COMMON is a brand that is community designed, community owned, and community directed. It is a single open source brand — a living network — for rapidly prototyping many progressive businesses that unleash creativity to solve social problems."
Michel's comments:
why is this interesting, well, in the context of the stress that our friends like Massimo and Silvia Federico place on opposing 'capitalist commons'
my question is the following, generally, as I don't know much about this particular initiative:
- are these people 'enemies' simply because they are 'pro-capitalist'
- or are they friends because their heart is in the right place, and they want to create and share value, and have generally progressive social goals
This is not just a matter of analysis, but also of language, and it poses a key question: should a new 'hegemony' (not the right word, I know, but even in a distributed world, something like that does exist) for a progressive commons approach, not necessarily include progressive social and other enterpreneurs ?
My answer would tend to be yes, as many young people in the West, but even outside the West, especially here in East Asia, think that way; they want to see progress, don't believe in old-style socialism, believe in cooperation and sharing, but believe only free enterpreneurship offers progress and dynamism for their society and their own projects.
Such an approach would require an analysis that distinguished exploitative commons approaches, from genuine commons; but also in a language that doesn't construct such people as enemies, and a pragmatic openness.
To come back to the notion of capitalist/anticapitalist commons, through an example.
Take the free software movement, a movement of a particular labour aristocracy, that has resulted in the creation of a strong commons, strong relatively autonomous communities, but also with a strong ecology of supportive corporate entities, that both profit from those commons, but also, pay wages to free software developers, practice various forms of benefit sharing, and support the communities and commons in various ways. (this of course needs to be problematized, but nevertheless, this is an important side of the equation)
So here we have a commons that is both instrumental to corporate entities and 'capitalism', but also beneficial in substantial ways to a particular type of knowledge workers. In this scenario, both sides have both concurring and antagonistic interests.
The model of the free software movement is not unique, as it is now largely replicated in many other open knowledge, open design and open manufacturing projects, for whom it served as a successfull template
I'm not advocating either uncritical support of the model, nor a pure antagonistic approach, but rather an approach that starts with the interests of the peer producing communities and their commons, and looks at how they can optimally reproduce within current economic and power structures, and advance their goals, step by step, until they are stronger to achieve more fundamental transformations,
In many cases, the creation of a successful ecology of corporate entities, and the attraction of progressive young enterpreneurs who may be willing to create non profit maximisation market-operating entitities, will be a sine qua non for the social reproduction and growth of the concrete commons and their contributors/users
Michel
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/ mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/ mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
hi massimo, you write: - as for you it seems destruction of communities to make space for fibre optical cables and computers is a cost worth paying "in the long run". where have you read that? that is so at the opposite of my way of thinking that I'm flabbergasted, though of course, there are cases where the common good can override individual objections, given due process and participation you write: - To me all the free software common above is just stuff that happens, that *is, *and whether it is a social advance or not will depend on the power relations on the ground*. I tend to ask people what they think, how their lived have changed, for better or for worse; in this case, both free software 'producers' and users, are overwhelmingly positiive, as is the general user base, as you could read from the Pew surveys - *you do not care for children with free software commons, you do not eat with it, you do not make love or bury the dead. literally of course you are right, but in may other ways, no, in fact, software <is> a universal enabler, and, , it makes a crucial importance 'in real life'; in fact, it affects the care for children (through advances in medical knowledge, increased autonomy of patients, reachability of disadvantaged populations), it has potentially a huge impact on food production ( for example in the way you could share advances in organic agriculture, or how it dramatically reduces energy costs, etc.. ), and even the 'bury of the dead' (in the way it increases the memory and presence of the diseased). Cyberspace is NOT some separate realm apart from 'physical' life, and software is not some technical issue separate from the functioning of society. - the above mentioned community whose resources are enclosed to make space for the infrastructure of cyberspace again that fantasy that I am somehow an advocate of destroying communities ???? these kind of smears are really disappointing, probably say more about your respect for dialogic partners than about myself, and indeed not good for 'friendship'; to be clear, I think every community should have a say in infrastructure, but with provisions for democratically processed common good exceptions, otherwise all NIMBY communities will stop alternative energy and wind power developments), I am totally opposed to the mining exploitation for rare earth materials for mobile phones, and have published regular items about green computing and for the health dangers of wireless transmissions ... I think internet investments are necessary to achieve dramatic reductions in the human footprint, and to drastically reduce material consumption in favour of cultural development; I also think they will make possible dramatic productivity gains that are making open peer producing communities dramatically more efficient and lighter in resource use, than capitalist firms using privative IP, and planned obsolence based production without regard for externalities. By the way, is the laying of fibre optic cables really such a big deal?? it must be one of the lightest infrastructures around, just a few cables in the ground, and in most countries, it's just added to the railway infrastructure, no community would probably even notice it, except for the major benefits that broadband would bring to their cultural development and sharing capacities; in any case a much lighter infrastructure than say roads ... this is by the way a good example, the internet has made possible a flowering of bike-sharing and car-sharing, both of which dramatically reduce environmental impacts, but for which the transaction costs were too high before ... (nearly all bike-sharing schemes failed before the advent of technology, and car-sharing was limited to private car-rental companies with their own networks). Community-owned product service systems are a major ecological and civic advance to minimize individualist, privately-owned gas-guzzling private vehicles and many other physical items that are a drain on the planet. Michel On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Massimo De Angelis <[email protected]>wrote:
Michel
see below
On 8 Feb 2011, at 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Thanks Massimo,
your example of the small vendors in Tahir square is pertinent, but then, look at the strategy of the protest, which is predicated on the broadest possible unity, including even with the army, while they are actually fighting not a family dictatorship but a military dictatorship ... (the tahir class alliances are well explained here at http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/516/why-mubarak-is-out)
so? what has this got to do with my point? Alliances are always situated in given contexts, not on abstract principles
i'd like to make a difference between subjective and objective factors, you point out the subjective fact of the analysis of 'collaboration is the new competition', but so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening the free software commons. In Tahir square, I have no information about the subjectivity of the vendors, but they might as well be petty profit maximisers than acting in solidarity with the movement. Their motivation would not stand in the way of their objective cooperation with the Tahir commons.
no, simply because their motivations are several,
To go back to the example of the Common, I don't know enough about them, but, following your argument in your last phrase, I conclude that if they would not force everybody else to act according to a market logic, that such would be compatible with a commons approach? What makes you conclude that Common argues that there is a market solution for everything and that it is obligatory and that this is indeed 'what seems to be happening' in the example I have circulated?
the argument in their slides made me conclude that . .they propose a method that starts from "problem" and end with a business solution passing through tapping on social networks and commoning of knowledge . . .but maybe it was a fast read, maybe they do offer solutions to any of our social problems, which could be such a great thing, so I can play more my fiddle rather than writing posts on a list. . .
I do agree with this conclusion of yours, but again, the subjective intent of a particular player, may not be the most important factor for a particular commons.
You probably know my own proposed approach, that of creating vehicles for the commons that have the social reproduction of the commons of its contributors as the main reason of being (and thus keeps the circulation of surplus value within the commons), and failing that, for commoners to choose partners according to the criteria of preferential attachment, i.e. to choose to collaborate with those entities that are maximally aligned with the values of the common project. However, in the current circumstances neither choice is always available, and therefore the most realistic criteria is to go for an ecology which allows for the commons to continue to co-exist, provides a living for its contributors, in the context of maximum (by force relative) autonomy of that commons and its commoners.
Without conflating HBR with the commons, I do think the creation and emergence of the free software commons, the creation and emergence of multiple knowledge commons, and the creation and emergence of open design commons, is part of an emancipatory process; repressents a social advance, despite all the difficulties associated with such developments in the current context.
you can claim that something like the above represent a "social advance" only when you have computed the costs, and agreed on a method for doing so. We do not agree on this, as for you it seems destruction of communities to make space for fibre optical cables and computers is a cost worth paying "in the long run". To me all the free software common above is just stuff that happens, that *is, *and whether it is a social advance or not will depend on the power relations on the ground*. *I much welcome p2p in cyberspace as much as I do not welcome the destruction of communities necessary for the production of p2p infrastructure given current capitalist regimes. Free software commons open up new opportuninities and make us think and act organisationally in different ways, many of which are empowering and eye-opening: I am hooked in cyberspace and try to get as many people hooked as possible in the rural community where I live. But you do not care for children with free software commons, you do not eat with it, you do not make love or bury the dead. And if we'll ever get to a point in which free software commons and life come to clash (as it is the case for the above mentioned community whose resources are enclosed to make space for the infrastructure of cyberspace), well then I know what side I am on, and if you will be on the other side because it will be "good in the long run", then I am afraid you will be my *class* enemy. . . .but now, for sure, we are still certainly friends, aren't we?
best
Massimo
I also think that the existence of a large movement towards fair trade, social financing, ethical markets, social enterpreneurships, the growth of cooperatives, the players in social and solidarity economies, are generally positive steps within the current context.
Michel
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Massimo De Angelis <[email protected]>wrote:
you can work out the answer by reflecting on the motto of the web page http://fearlessrevolution.com: "collaboration is the new competition" . . .well actually, competition has always been based on degrees of collaboration, pitting different forms of social cooperation one against the other . . .the ideas of this web page would be great, assuming 90% of our livelihoods was reproduced outside capitalist markets, so as if we really needed something outside the commons, well, this could be how to go for it . . .But as they stand, they are just another way to make business, one business strategy among many, maybe preferable and kinder than others, maybe its novelty may help some in time of crisis and in presence of lack of imagination and effective powers to work out a non-profit business alternative, . . .hence, if contingent necessity requires it, let us collaborate . . . but please, do not conflate this type of stuff being debated on the Harward Business Review with the emancipatory practices that are core for the production of a socially and environmentally just world . . .please, just look at Egypt, they have businesses along many commons in Tahiri square ( http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middleeast/2011/02/201127162644461244.htm...), small vendors, but they operate within the contexts of the commons, hence they are not the enemy, but they reinforce the commons. They would become opponents in the very moment they were to declare that all in the square had to organise as a market, or if they were to define procedures that for every problem one had to find a market solution and this is precisely what seems to be happening in the example you are circulating.
m
On 8 Feb 2011, at 07:51, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I got this from Pat Kane, an initiative that resonates with Umair Haque's Capitalist Manifesto
See: http://fearlessrevolution.com/blog/introducing-common.html
"Benefiting people, communities, society, the environment and future generations is the new advantage in business. Our *new capitalist* brand is about transitioning from competitive advantage to collaborative advantage. COMMON is a brand that is community designed, community owned, and community directed. It is a single open source brand — a living network — for rapidly prototyping many progressive businesses that unleash creativity to solve social problems."
Michel's comments:
why is this interesting, well, in the context of the stress that our friends like Massimo and Silvia Federico place on opposing 'capitalist commons'
my question is the following, generally, as I don't know much about this particular initiative:
- are these people 'enemies' simply because they are 'pro-capitalist'
- or are they friends because their heart is in the right place, and they want to create and share value, and have generally progressive social goals
This is not just a matter of analysis, but also of language, and it poses a key question: should a new 'hegemony' (not the right word, I know, but even in a distributed world, something like that does exist) for a progressive commons approach, not necessarily include progressive social and other enterpreneurs ?
My answer would tend to be yes, as many young people in the West, but even outside the West, especially here in East Asia, think that way; they want to see progress, don't believe in old-style socialism, believe in cooperation and sharing, but believe only free enterpreneurship offers progress and dynamism for their society and their own projects.
Such an approach would require an analysis that distinguished exploitative commons approaches, from genuine commons; but also in a language that doesn't construct such people as enemies, and a pragmatic openness.
To come back to the notion of capitalist/anticapitalist commons, through an example.
Take the free software movement, a movement of a particular labour aristocracy, that has resulted in the creation of a strong commons, strong relatively autonomous communities, but also with a strong ecology of supportive corporate entities, that both profit from those commons, but also, pay wages to free software developers, practice various forms of benefit sharing, and support the communities and commons in various ways. (this of course needs to be problematized, but nevertheless, this is an important side of the equation)
So here we have a commons that is both instrumental to corporate entities and 'capitalism', but also beneficial in substantial ways to a particular type of knowledge workers. In this scenario, both sides have both concurring and antagonistic interests.
The model of the free software movement is not unique, as it is now largely replicated in many other open knowledge, open design and open manufacturing projects, for whom it served as a successfull template
I'm not advocating either uncritical support of the model, nor a pure antagonistic approach, but rather an approach that starts with the interests of the peer producing communities and their commons, and looks at how they can optimally reproduce within current economic and power structures, and advance their goals, step by step, until they are stronger to achieve more fundamental transformations,
In many cases, the creation of a successful ecology of corporate entities, and the attraction of progressive young enterpreneurs who may be willing to create non profit maximisation market-operating entitities, will be a sine qua non for the social reproduction and growth of the concrete commons and their contributors/users
Michel
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
On 08/02/11 16:26, Michel Bauwens wrote:
- *you do not care for children with free software commons, you do not eat with it, you do not make love or bury the dead.
literally of course you are right, but in may other ways, no, in fact, software <is> a universal enabler, and, , it makes a crucial importance 'in real life'; in fact, it affects the care for children (through advances in medical knowledge, increased autonomy of patients, reachability of disadvantaged populations)
The WHO estimates that 85% of the world's population rely on traditional medicine. The major threat to traditional medicine according to many - and this I have found to be a general consensus among the people I have worked with in the Amazon - is foreign language, education, medicine, technology and all the side effects (land grabs etc.) of the production of these.
translated, modernity threatens pre-modernity ... yes, that is undoubtedly true, but I would add that trans-modernity can regenerate pre-modernity hence the many initiatives by people protecting traditional knowledge and medicine; we also see a enormous revival of traditional and complementary medicines in advanced western countries, which correlates with educational level (higher educated people rely less on scientific medicine) a strategy of protection of traditional medicine which would rely on forbidding foreign language, education and western medicine, does not seem to have much chance of achieving anything, least of all the protection of traditional medicine, which in a unprotected traditional society would be swept away in an instant; hence an intelligent mix of resistance to protect traditional lifestyles and modes of production, mixed with an adaptation to modernity, and a strong push straight towards transmodernity, would seem like better strategies amongst the local poor people I have spoken with here, there is a universal consensus that they would like education for their children and the protection of their own culture, and access to western medicine as well as continued use of traditional medicine; I have actually never meet anyone who refused access to education and medicine, given the chance; rather they complain about the lack and inequality of access for example, such were the demands of the rural red shirt uprising, and their desire to protect the advances they had obtained under a previous pre-coup administration: universal healthcare, and scholarships for poor children On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:54 PM, j.martin.pedersen < [email protected]> wrote:
On 08/02/11 16:26, Michel Bauwens wrote:
- *you do not care for children with free software commons, you do not eat with it, you do not make love or bury the dead.
literally of course you are right, but in may other ways, no, in fact, software <is> a universal enabler, and, , it makes a crucial importance 'in real life'; in fact, it affects the care for children (through advances in medical knowledge, increased autonomy of patients, reachability of disadvantaged populations)
The WHO estimates that 85% of the world's population rely on traditional medicine. The major threat to traditional medicine according to many - and this I have found to be a general consensus among the people I have worked with in the Amazon - is foreign language, education, medicine, technology and all the side effects (land grabs etc.) of the production of these.
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
On 08/02/11 21:20, Michel Bauwens wrote:
translated, modernity threatens pre-modernity ... yes, that is undoubtedly true,
but I would add that trans-modernity can regenerate pre-modernity hence the many initiatives by people protecting traditional knowledge and medicine; we also see a enormous revival of traditional and complementary medicines in advanced western countries, which correlates with educational level (higher educated people rely less on scientific medicine)
a strategy of protection of traditional medicine which would rely on forbidding foreign language, education and western medicine, does not seem to have much chance of achieving anything, least of all the protection of traditional medicine, which in a unprotected traditional society would be swept away in an instant; hence an intelligent mix of resistance to protect traditional lifestyles and modes of production, mixed with an adaptation to modernity, and a strong push straight towards transmodernity, would seem like better strategies
Yes, you are right. The indigenous people with that position have it wrong. My apologies for once more being simplistic and supporting that position. They need a better analysis. I will leave the matter for the more educated and experienced strategists.
On 08/02/11 21:20, Michel Bauwens wrote:
translated, modernity threatens pre-modernity ... yes, that is undoubtedly true,
Forgot to ask - from the perspective of the people are not born into the linear time and culture of Euro-America - what exactly is premodernity? Something to suggest that they - the others, the outsiders - are backwards? Correspondingly, what exactly is modernity? Something they have to get into, in order to get out of it? Finally, what might transmodernity be? Do I get to wear women's dresses? -- http://commoning.wordpress.com "...I thought we were an autonomous collective..."
On 08/02/11 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote:
so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening the free software commons.
On the premise that there are no commons without commoning, IBM does not strengthen the software commons. Rather, IBM converts the (re)production of the *resource* that software commoners have created/established into a matter of wage labour. Command over wage labour - and the means of production required to capitalise on it - are thus used to subsume control of what was previously a commons, - a process also known as enclosure. This is the first step. They claim ownership, by acquiring decision-making powers, by claiming de facto leadership of the organisation (and future direction) of the resource. Software - like most things - is movement, and IBM moves it in a direction away from common ground. Due to way in which the GPL sits on the fence, this is possible without the immediately apparent destruction of the commons. Hence, for the uncritical observer it might appear as if IBM are adding to the commons, but their interaction with the commons actually results in the minimisation/marginalisation of commoners in the development of the commons: they are rendered marginal: they may still play with the code, i.e. the resource, but their commoning is ever less significant in the development of the resource, while waged labour and corporate planning increasingly determines the trajectory of the resource. No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure. Unless, of course, we say that IBM is such a nice trustworthy outfit that like our Open Source friends at Google "do no evil"(TM) and who would never help computing another holocaust. m
the situation is a lot more complex than that many different corporate players contribute to Linux, and the Linux Foundation consists for example of different players though 75% of Linux contributors are paid, 25 % are still volunteers I've heard from free software developers that a substantial number of IBM Linux workers can self-determine the areas they contribute to, depending not just on the corporate needs of IBM I have yet to hear strong, or even weak, critiques of free software developers towards the general attitude of IBM in this matter, though they have 'specific' critiques about specific actions; in general, I think the opinions of those knowledge workers directly involved in such projects, should be taken into account of course, the corporatisation of a commons is a matter of concern, and changes the rules of the game, but it remains a matter of community vs. corporate dynamics, not at all a simple and straight enclosure and programmed defeat, but a dynamic co-adaptation and struggle; nevertheless, it is a commons that continues to grow and create value for society; that creates sustainability and social reproduction for a very large fraction of contributors; the overwhelming majority of free software workers considers this important progress, not an enclosure in which they lost nevertheless, this is why open source communities should ideally strive towards the creation of independent entities, use a logic of preferential attachment towards corporate entities that maximally share commons values, and fight for community autonomy in the governance of such commons; it's a construction and a struggle, not a fixed and idealized situation of total defeat your analysis would suggest that voluntary contributors that can't make a living, is a superior situation where 75% percent of workers can make a living, an analysis and appreciation not shared by said commoners free software workers do not share your ironic idealization of IBM, but they appreciate a social compact that reflects a current balance of power that is not experienced as something wholly negative, but as a realistic advance in the view of current circumstances; wnen this compact is broken, they frequently react, and frequently win these conflicts (see http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Conflicts); commoners aware of contradictions within the present political economy also create their own autonomous cooperatives (http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Software_Cooperatives) and actively propose alternatives (such as the Venture Communism of Telekommunisten) Our own p2p.coop is in process of adopting the latter's peer production license, which creates a commoners-only commons, i.e. an active and mutually supportive counter-economy; however, it comes at the price of a much slower growth of said commons, and actually 'closes' the commons to a significant degree; there is a real irony in that a real commons operating purely on commonist principles, is open to appropriation by capital, while a closed commons has a non-commercial clause which prohibits such appropriation in such a context, a conclusion like, No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure, would appear to deny such complexities; in fact, commoning and enclosure can co-exist in complex and paradoxical ways, in which the advantage of the one is not always a zero-sum game leading to the loss of another which why I prefer the paradoxical conclusion: no real enclosure without real enclosure, and no enclosure without the majority of commoners experience such enclosure; of course such a conclusion would warrant that we take the experience and points of view of such workers seriously On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:51 PM, j.martin.pedersen < [email protected]> wrote:
On 08/02/11 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote:
so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening the free software commons.
On the premise that there are no commons without commoning, IBM does not strengthen the software commons.
Rather, IBM converts the (re)production of the *resource* that software commoners have created/established into a matter of wage labour.
Command over wage labour - and the means of production required to capitalise on it - are thus used to subsume control of what was previously a commons, - a process also known as enclosure. This is the first step. They claim ownership, by acquiring decision-making powers, by claiming de facto leadership of the organisation (and future direction) of the resource. Software - like most things - is movement, and IBM moves it in a direction away from common ground.
Due to way in which the GPL sits on the fence, this is possible without the immediately apparent destruction of the commons. Hence, for the uncritical observer it might appear as if IBM are adding to the commons, but their interaction with the commons actually results in the minimisation/marginalisation of commoners in the development of the commons: they are rendered marginal: they may still play with the code, i.e. the resource, but their commoning is ever less significant in the development of the resource, while waged labour and corporate planning increasingly determines the trajectory of the resource.
No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure.
Unless, of course, we say that IBM is such a nice trustworthy outfit that like our Open Source friends at Google "do no evil"(TM) and who would never help computing another holocaust.
m
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
Yes, I agree. I was being simplistic. Let us go with what hackers want - their political analysis seems sound. My apologies to the list for suggesting otherwise. On 08/02/11 21:10, Michel Bauwens wrote:
the situation is a lot more complex than that
many different corporate players contribute to Linux, and the Linux Foundation consists for example of different players
though 75% of Linux contributors are paid, 25 % are still volunteers
I've heard from free software developers that a substantial number of IBM Linux workers can self-determine the areas they contribute to, depending not just on the corporate needs of IBM
I have yet to hear strong, or even weak, critiques of free software developers towards the general attitude of IBM in this matter, though they have 'specific' critiques about specific actions; in general, I think the opinions of those knowledge workers directly involved in such projects, should be taken into account
of course, the corporatisation of a commons is a matter of concern, and changes the rules of the game, but it remains a matter of community vs. corporate dynamics, not at all a simple and straight enclosure and programmed defeat, but a dynamic co-adaptation and struggle; nevertheless, it is a commons that continues to grow and create value for society; that creates sustainability and social reproduction for a very large fraction of contributors; the overwhelming majority of free software workers considers this important progress, not an enclosure in which they lost
nevertheless, this is why open source communities should ideally strive towards the creation of independent entities, use a logic of preferential attachment towards corporate entities that maximally share commons values, and fight for community autonomy in the governance of such commons; it's a construction and a struggle, not a fixed and idealized situation of total defeat
your analysis would suggest that voluntary contributors that can't make a living, is a superior situation where 75% percent of workers can make a living, an analysis and appreciation not shared by said commoners
free software workers do not share your ironic idealization of IBM, but they appreciate a social compact that reflects a current balance of power that is not experienced as something wholly negative, but as a realistic advance in the view of current circumstances; wnen this compact is broken, they frequently react, and frequently win these conflicts (see http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Conflicts); commoners aware of contradictions within the present political economy also create their own autonomous cooperatives (http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Software_Cooperatives) and actively propose alternatives (such as the Venture Communism of Telekommunisten)
Our own p2p.coop is in process of adopting the latter's peer production license, which creates a commoners-only commons, i.e. an active and mutually supportive counter-economy; however, it comes at the price of a much slower growth of said commons, and actually 'closes' the commons to a significant degree; there is a real irony in that a real commons operating purely on commonist principles, is open to appropriation by capital, while a closed commons has a non-commercial clause which prohibits such appropriation
in such a context, a conclusion like, No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure, would appear to deny such complexities; in fact, commoning and enclosure can co-exist in complex and paradoxical ways, in which the advantage of the one is not always a zero-sum game leading to the loss of another
which why I prefer the paradoxical conclusion: no real enclosure without real enclosure, and no enclosure without the majority of commoners experience such enclosure; of course such a conclusion would warrant that we take the experience and points of view of such workers seriously
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:51 PM, j.martin.pedersen < [email protected]> wrote:
On 08/02/11 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote:
so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening the free software commons.
On the premise that there are no commons without commoning, IBM does not strengthen the software commons.
Rather, IBM converts the (re)production of the *resource* that software commoners have created/established into a matter of wage labour.
Command over wage labour - and the means of production required to capitalise on it - are thus used to subsume control of what was previously a commons, - a process also known as enclosure. This is the first step. They claim ownership, by acquiring decision-making powers, by claiming de facto leadership of the organisation (and future direction) of the resource. Software - like most things - is movement, and IBM moves it in a direction away from common ground.
Due to way in which the GPL sits on the fence, this is possible without the immediately apparent destruction of the commons. Hence, for the uncritical observer it might appear as if IBM are adding to the commons, but their interaction with the commons actually results in the minimisation/marginalisation of commoners in the development of the commons: they are rendered marginal: they may still play with the code, i.e. the resource, but their commoning is ever less significant in the development of the resource, while waged labour and corporate planning increasingly determines the trajectory of the resource.
No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure.
Unless, of course, we say that IBM is such a nice trustworthy outfit that like our Open Source friends at Google "do no evil"(TM) and who would never help computing another holocaust.
m
-- http://commoning.wordpress.com "...I thought we were an autonomous collective..."
Dear Martin, I 'get' your irony and implied condescension for the hacker and free software community, those poor unconscious folks who lack the true awareness, have a look at Hacking Capitalism from Johan Soderbergh if you have not read it yet, perhaps you'd see that there are a bit of thoughtful hackers out there Please be assured, I"m going to abstain to disturb you in your commanding intellectual heights in the future, this has been my last attempt to try to have a civil discussion about perspectives that differ from your absolute certainties, In the future, please consider that my messages are in no way directed to you, I acknowledge from now on your immense superiority and apologize for the unthoughtful intrusion that have drawn your ire and irony and disturbed your peace of mind my sincere hope is that you would publish your Collected Writings as a lasting gift for humanity, in these dark times, your Enlightenment is sorely needed, from the department of Pedersenian irony, which has one an extra convert Michel On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:24 AM, j.martin.pedersen < [email protected]> wrote:
Yes, I agree. I was being simplistic. Let us go with what hackers want - their political analysis seems sound.
My apologies to the list for suggesting otherwise.
On 08/02/11 21:10, Michel Bauwens wrote:
the situation is a lot more complex than that
many different corporate players contribute to Linux, and the Linux Foundation consists for example of different players
though 75% of Linux contributors are paid, 25 % are still volunteers
I've heard from free software developers that a substantial number of IBM Linux workers can self-determine the areas they contribute to, depending not just on the corporate needs of IBM
I have yet to hear strong, or even weak, critiques of free software developers towards the general attitude of IBM in this matter, though they have 'specific' critiques about specific actions; in general, I think the opinions of those knowledge workers directly involved in such projects, should be taken into account
of course, the corporatisation of a commons is a matter of concern, and changes the rules of the game, but it remains a matter of community vs. corporate dynamics, not at all a simple and straight enclosure and programmed defeat, but a dynamic co-adaptation and struggle; nevertheless, it is a commons that continues to grow and create value for society; that creates sustainability and social reproduction for a very large fraction of contributors; the overwhelming majority of free software workers considers this important progress, not an enclosure in which they lost
nevertheless, this is why open source communities should ideally strive towards the creation of independent entities, use a logic of preferential attachment towards corporate entities that maximally share commons values, and fight for community autonomy in the governance of such commons; it's a construction and a struggle, not a fixed and idealized situation of total defeat
your analysis would suggest that voluntary contributors that can't make a living, is a superior situation where 75% percent of workers can make a living, an analysis and appreciation not shared by said commoners
free software workers do not share your ironic idealization of IBM, but they appreciate a social compact that reflects a current balance of power that is not experienced as something wholly negative, but as a realistic advance in the view of current circumstances; wnen this compact is broken, they frequently react, and frequently win these conflicts (see http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Conflicts); commoners aware of contradictions within the present political economy also create their own autonomous cooperatives ( http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Software_Cooperatives) and actively propose alternatives (such as the Venture Communism of Telekommunisten)
Our own p2p.coop is in process of adopting the latter's peer production license, which creates a commoners-only commons, i.e. an active and mutually supportive counter-economy; however, it comes at the price of a much slower growth of said commons, and actually 'closes' the commons to a significant degree; there is a real irony in that a real commons operating purely on commonist principles, is open to appropriation by capital, while a closed commons has a non-commercial clause which prohibits such appropriation
in such a context, a conclusion like, No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure, would appear to deny such complexities; in fact, commoning and enclosure can co-exist in complex and paradoxical ways, in which the advantage of the one is not always a zero-sum game leading to the loss of another
which why I prefer the paradoxical conclusion: no real enclosure without real enclosure, and no enclosure without the majority of commoners experience such enclosure; of course such a conclusion would warrant that we take the experience and points of view of such workers seriously
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:51 PM, j.martin.pedersen < [email protected]> wrote:
On 08/02/11 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote:
so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening the free software commons.
On the premise that there are no commons without commoning, IBM does not strengthen the software commons.
Rather, IBM converts the (re)production of the *resource* that software commoners have created/established into a matter of wage labour.
Command over wage labour - and the means of production required to capitalise on it - are thus used to subsume control of what was previously a commons, - a process also known as enclosure. This is the first step. They claim ownership, by acquiring decision-making powers, by claiming de facto leadership of the organisation (and future direction) of the resource. Software - like most things - is movement, and IBM moves it in a direction away from common ground.
Due to way in which the GPL sits on the fence, this is possible without the immediately apparent destruction of the commons. Hence, for the uncritical observer it might appear as if IBM are adding to the commons, but their interaction with the commons actually results in the minimisation/marginalisation of commoners in the development of the commons: they are rendered marginal: they may still play with the code, i.e. the resource, but their commoning is ever less significant in the development of the resource, while waged labour and corporate planning increasingly determines the trajectory of the resource.
No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure.
Unless, of course, we say that IBM is such a nice trustworthy outfit that like our Open Source friends at Google "do no evil"(TM) and who would never help computing another holocaust.
m
-- http://commoning.wordpress.com
"...I thought we were an autonomous collective..."
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
Dear kind folk, the health of this intellectual commons depends on civility. My question is what mutual agreements do we need to keep this commons healthy? -Neal On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>wrote:
Dear Martin,
I 'get' your irony and implied condescension for the hacker and free software community, those poor unconscious folks who lack the true awareness,
have a look at Hacking Capitalism from Johan Soderbergh if you have not read it yet, perhaps you'd see that there are a bit of thoughtful hackers out there
Please be assured, I"m going to abstain to disturb you in your commanding intellectual heights in the future, this has been my last attempt to try to have a civil discussion about perspectives that differ from your absolute certainties,
In the future, please consider that my messages are in no way directed to you, I acknowledge from now on your immense superiority and apologize for the unthoughtful intrusion that have drawn your ire and irony and disturbed your peace of mind
my sincere hope is that you would publish your Collected Writings as a lasting gift for humanity, in these dark times, your Enlightenment is sorely needed,
from the department of Pedersenian irony, which has one an extra convert
Michel
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:24 AM, j.martin.pedersen < [email protected]> wrote:
Yes, I agree. I was being simplistic. Let us go with what hackers want - their political analysis seems sound.
My apologies to the list for suggesting otherwise.
On 08/02/11 21:10, Michel Bauwens wrote:
the situation is a lot more complex than that
many different corporate players contribute to Linux, and the Linux Foundation consists for example of different players
though 75% of Linux contributors are paid, 25 % are still volunteers
I've heard from free software developers that a substantial number of IBM Linux workers can self-determine the areas they contribute to, depending not just on the corporate needs of IBM
I have yet to hear strong, or even weak, critiques of free software developers towards the general attitude of IBM in this matter, though they have 'specific' critiques about specific actions; in general, I think the opinions of those knowledge workers directly involved in such projects, should be taken into account
of course, the corporatisation of a commons is a matter of concern, and changes the rules of the game, but it remains a matter of community vs. corporate dynamics, not at all a simple and straight enclosure and programmed defeat, but a dynamic co-adaptation and struggle; nevertheless, it is a commons that continues to grow and create value for society; that creates sustainability and social reproduction for a very large fraction of contributors; the overwhelming majority of free software workers considers this important progress, not an enclosure in which they lost
nevertheless, this is why open source communities should ideally strive towards the creation of independent entities, use a logic of preferential attachment towards corporate entities that maximally share commons values, and fight for community autonomy in the governance of such commons; it's a construction and a struggle, not a fixed and idealized situation of total defeat
your analysis would suggest that voluntary contributors that can't make a living, is a superior situation where 75% percent of workers can make a living, an analysis and appreciation not shared by said commoners
free software workers do not share your ironic idealization of IBM, but they appreciate a social compact that reflects a current balance of power that is not experienced as something wholly negative, but as a realistic advance in the view of current circumstances; wnen this compact is broken, they frequently react, and frequently win these conflicts (see http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Conflicts); commoners aware of contradictions within the present political economy also create their own autonomous cooperatives ( http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Software_Cooperatives) and actively propose alternatives (such as the Venture Communism of Telekommunisten)
Our own p2p.coop is in process of adopting the latter's peer production license, which creates a commoners-only commons, i.e. an active and mutually supportive counter-economy; however, it comes at the price of a much slower growth of said commons, and actually 'closes' the commons to a significant degree; there is a real irony in that a real commons operating purely on commonist principles, is open to appropriation by capital, while a closed commons has a non-commercial clause which prohibits such appropriation
in such a context, a conclusion like, No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure, would appear to deny such complexities; in fact, commoning and enclosure can co-exist in complex and paradoxical ways, in which the advantage of the one is not always a zero-sum game leading to the loss of another
which why I prefer the paradoxical conclusion: no real enclosure without real enclosure, and no enclosure without the majority of commoners experience such enclosure; of course such a conclusion would warrant that we take the experience and points of view of such workers seriously
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:51 PM, j.martin.pedersen < [email protected]> wrote:
On 08/02/11 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote:
so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening the free software commons.
On the premise that there are no commons without commoning, IBM does
not
strengthen the software commons.
Rather, IBM converts the (re)production of the *resource* that software commoners have created/established into a matter of wage labour.
Command over wage labour - and the means of production required to capitalise on it - are thus used to subsume control of what was previously a commons, - a process also known as enclosure. This is the first step. They claim ownership, by acquiring decision-making powers, by claiming de facto leadership of the organisation (and future direction) of the resource. Software - like most things - is movement, and IBM moves it in a direction away from common ground.
Due to way in which the GPL sits on the fence, this is possible without the immediately apparent destruction of the commons. Hence, for the uncritical observer it might appear as if IBM are adding to the commons, but their interaction with the commons actually results in the minimisation/marginalisation of commoners in the development of the commons: they are rendered marginal: they may still play with the code, i.e. the resource, but their commoning is ever less significant in the development of the resource, while waged labour and corporate planning increasingly determines the trajectory of the resource.
No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure.
Unless, of course, we say that IBM is such a nice trustworthy outfit that like our Open Source friends at Google "do no evil"(TM) and who would never help computing another holocaust.
m
-- http://commoning.wordpress.com
"...I thought we were an autonomous collective..."
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- -- Neal Gorenflo | Publisher, http://Shareable.net <http://shareable.net/> | 415.867.0429
I don't know what to say to this Neal, direct ad hominem attacks are easy to spot and can be moderated away, the use of irony and hostile interpretations are a more subtle form of intellectual intimidation I can only say, being on the receiving end more than others, that I'm not the only one, and have received email letters from others complaining about this, people who feel explicitely intimated to contribute out of fear of similar treatment, and having it experienced themselves already I don't know the rules of the commoning list, where I'm a guest like others, but the unwritten rules of the p2p foundation list are broad enough to allow it, even though it makes me uncomfortable and keeps other people away from participating, who unlike me, are wiser to stay outside the firing line, personally, it makes me sick in the stomach, and I will probably never get used to it, but since I'm one of the parties to this exchange, I'll abstain from any proposals my earlier proposal to Martin is to consider that my attempts at creating a dialogue are not directed to him, since they only provoke his hostility; I can also try to abstain from responding to Martin, though of course, in case of multiple dialogue between different persons, that may be difficult of course, that does not help others who may have the same experiences and feelings sometimes, you learn from your critics, and that is really good, but here, I have learned a lot from Martin and a good friend of his, that I'm intend on imposing internet infrastructures on local communities ????, that I oppose or deny the political views of indigenous communities ???, that I have a blind faith in IBM ???, and that I am totally gullible as far as the ideas of free software hackers ???. These are four lies, and just the recent ones I remember, and the truth being the opposite, I have not learned anything useful from such attacks, but find it profoundly disturbing to have to deal with such distortions so frequently. I would wish it to stop and have respectful correspondents, but as to how to achieve this, I don't know. As far as my own behaviour is concerned, yes I have been overly reactive to it, and would wish that I could just let it wash away, and not respond reactively, which continues the cycle, but I'm pretty sure I have never initiated any similar personal attacks Michel On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Neal Gorenflo <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear kind folk, the health of this intellectual commons depends on civility. My question is what mutual agreements do we need to keep this commons healthy? -Neal
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>wrote:
Dear Martin,
I 'get' your irony and implied condescension for the hacker and free software community, those poor unconscious folks who lack the true awareness,
have a look at Hacking Capitalism from Johan Soderbergh if you have not read it yet, perhaps you'd see that there are a bit of thoughtful hackers out there
Please be assured, I"m going to abstain to disturb you in your commanding intellectual heights in the future, this has been my last attempt to try to have a civil discussion about perspectives that differ from your absolute certainties,
In the future, please consider that my messages are in no way directed to you, I acknowledge from now on your immense superiority and apologize for the unthoughtful intrusion that have drawn your ire and irony and disturbed your peace of mind
my sincere hope is that you would publish your Collected Writings as a lasting gift for humanity, in these dark times, your Enlightenment is sorely needed,
from the department of Pedersenian irony, which has one an extra convert
Michel
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:24 AM, j.martin.pedersen < [email protected]> wrote:
Yes, I agree. I was being simplistic. Let us go with what hackers want - their political analysis seems sound.
My apologies to the list for suggesting otherwise.
On 08/02/11 21:10, Michel Bauwens wrote:
the situation is a lot more complex than that
many different corporate players contribute to Linux, and the Linux Foundation consists for example of different players
though 75% of Linux contributors are paid, 25 % are still volunteers
I've heard from free software developers that a substantial number of IBM Linux workers can self-determine the areas they contribute to, depending not just on the corporate needs of IBM
I have yet to hear strong, or even weak, critiques of free software developers towards the general attitude of IBM in this matter, though they have 'specific' critiques about specific actions; in general, I think the opinions of those knowledge workers directly involved in such projects, should be taken into account
of course, the corporatisation of a commons is a matter of concern, and changes the rules of the game, but it remains a matter of community vs. corporate dynamics, not at all a simple and straight enclosure and programmed defeat, but a dynamic co-adaptation and struggle; nevertheless, it is a commons that continues to grow and create value for society; that creates sustainability and social reproduction for a very large fraction of contributors; the overwhelming majority of free software workers considers this important progress, not an enclosure in which they lost
nevertheless, this is why open source communities should ideally strive towards the creation of independent entities, use a logic of preferential attachment towards corporate entities that maximally share commons values, and fight for community autonomy in the governance of such commons; it's a construction and a struggle, not a fixed and idealized situation of total defeat
your analysis would suggest that voluntary contributors that can't make a living, is a superior situation where 75% percent of workers can make a living, an analysis and appreciation not shared by said commoners
free software workers do not share your ironic idealization of IBM, but they appreciate a social compact that reflects a current balance of power that is not experienced as something wholly negative, but as a realistic advance in the view of current circumstances; wnen this compact is broken, they frequently react, and frequently win these conflicts (see http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Conflicts); commoners aware of contradictions within the present political economy also create their own autonomous cooperatives ( http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Software_Cooperatives) and actively propose alternatives (such as the Venture Communism of Telekommunisten)
Our own p2p.coop is in process of adopting the latter's peer production license, which creates a commoners-only commons, i.e. an active and mutually supportive counter-economy; however, it comes at the price of a much slower growth of said commons, and actually 'closes' the commons to a significant degree; there is a real irony in that a real commons operating purely on commonist principles, is open to appropriation by capital, while a closed commons has a non-commercial clause which prohibits such appropriation
in such a context, a conclusion like, No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure, would appear to deny such complexities; in fact, commoning and enclosure can co-exist in complex and paradoxical ways, in which the advantage of the one is not always a zero-sum game leading to the loss of another
which why I prefer the paradoxical conclusion: no real enclosure without real enclosure, and no enclosure without the majority of commoners experience such enclosure; of course such a conclusion would warrant that we take the experience and points of view of such workers seriously
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:51 PM, j.martin.pedersen < [email protected]> wrote:
On 08/02/11 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote:
so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening the free software commons.
On the premise that there are no commons without commoning, IBM does
not
strengthen the software commons.
Rather, IBM converts the (re)production of the *resource* that software commoners have created/established into a matter of wage labour.
Command over wage labour - and the means of production required to capitalise on it - are thus used to subsume control of what was previously a commons, - a process also known as enclosure. This is the first step. They claim ownership, by acquiring decision-making powers, by claiming de facto leadership of the organisation (and future direction) of the resource. Software - like most things - is movement, and IBM moves it in a direction away from common ground.
Due to way in which the GPL sits on the fence, this is possible without the immediately apparent destruction of the commons. Hence, for the uncritical observer it might appear as if IBM are adding to the commons, but their interaction with the commons actually results in the minimisation/marginalisation of commoners in the development of the commons: they are rendered marginal: they may still play with the code, i.e. the resource, but their commoning is ever less significant in the development of the resource, while waged labour and corporate planning increasingly determines the trajectory of the resource.
No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure.
Unless, of course, we say that IBM is such a nice trustworthy outfit that like our Open Source friends at Google "do no evil"(TM) and who would never help computing another holocaust.
m
-- http://commoning.wordpress.com
"...I thought we were an autonomous collective..."
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
--
--
Neal Gorenflo | Publisher, http://Shareable.net <http://shareable.net/> | 415.867.0429
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
Dear Michel please, don't play the victim, there are two to dance, and you seem be playing at your own tune all the time. A brief top-of-the-head list on my part: you accused Martin to "equate the zapatistas use of cyberspace with that of imperial forces" (31st Dec) as soon as he makes a *systemic* argument about the material impact of the "abundance" logic of cyberspace, now, that is smearing; you portray me as some anti-cyberspace weirdo by patronising me about software being "enabler", as if we disagree about such obvious point, and instead refusing to engage with the critical point I continuously raise about the fact that enabling goes both ways, for commons but also for capital; and last but not least, you publicly and eagerly follow up my suggestions to move forward productively together and discuss about crisis in Greece or other places from the perspective of commons, but at the same time you send emails to your greek friends warning them I am a sectarian always looking for a fight while saying "massimo is part of the radical set that always judges others to be coopted, and always calling for struggle, with little regard for constructive altenatives, and also little regard of whether a struggle can actually win ... People like him, and his associate martin pedersen usually like to act as troublemakers during conferences and such ... . " Now, that is behind the back smearing that truly makes me sick in the stomach! If only you knew the type of people I deal with any single day in my community work to construct alternatives, you would be ashamed to even mention the word "sectarian" to me! Obviously, it is also a question of trust here and not just a question of house rules. Since trust is broken, I propose we cool it on this topic, while continue discussing on a different place and context in the hope a different healing atmosphere may develops. Massimo On 10 Feb 2011, at 10:20, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I don't know what to say to this Neal,
direct ad hominem attacks are easy to spot and can be moderated away,
the use of irony and hostile interpretations are a more subtle form of intellectual intimidation
I can only say, being on the receiving end more than others, that I'm not the only one, and have received email letters from others complaining about this, people who feel explicitely intimated to contribute out of fear of similar treatment, and having it experienced themselves already
I don't know the rules of the commoning list, where I'm a guest like others, but the unwritten rules of the p2p foundation list are broad enough to allow it, even though it makes me uncomfortable and keeps other people away from participating, who unlike me, are wiser to stay outside the firing line,
personally, it makes me sick in the stomach, and I will probably never get used to it, but since I'm one of the parties to this exchange, I'll abstain from any proposals
my earlier proposal to Martin is to consider that my attempts at creating a dialogue are not directed to him, since they only provoke his hostility; I can also try to abstain from responding to Martin, though of course, in case of multiple dialogue between different persons, that may be difficult
of course, that does not help others who may have the same experiences and feelings
sometimes, you learn from your critics, and that is really good,
but here, I have learned a lot from Martin and a good friend of his, that I'm intend on imposing internet infrastructures on local communities ????, that I oppose or deny the political views of indigenous communities ???, that I have a blind faith in IBM ???, and that I am totally gullible as far as the ideas of free software hackers ???. These are four lies, and just the recent ones I remember, and the truth being the opposite, I have not learned anything useful from such attacks, but find it profoundly disturbing to have to deal with such distortions so frequently. I would wish it to stop and have respectful correspondents, but as to how to achieve this, I don't know.
As far as my own behaviour is concerned, yes I have been overly reactive to it, and would wish that I could just let it wash away, and not respond reactively, which continues the cycle, but I'm pretty sure I have never initiated any similar personal attacks
Michel
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Neal Gorenflo <[email protected]> wrote: Dear kind folk, the health of this intellectual commons depends on civility. My question is what mutual agreements do we need to keep this commons healthy? -Neal
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]
wrote: Dear Martin,
I 'get' your irony and implied condescension for the hacker and free software community, those poor unconscious folks who lack the true awareness,
have a look at Hacking Capitalism from Johan Soderbergh if you have not read it yet, perhaps you'd see that there are a bit of thoughtful hackers out there
Please be assured, I"m going to abstain to disturb you in your commanding intellectual heights in the future, this has been my last attempt to try to have a civil discussion about perspectives that differ from your absolute certainties,
In the future, please consider that my messages are in no way directed to you, I acknowledge from now on your immense superiority and apologize for the unthoughtful intrusion that have drawn your ire and irony and disturbed your peace of mind
my sincere hope is that you would publish your Collected Writings as a lasting gift for humanity, in these dark times, your Enlightenment is sorely needed,
from the department of Pedersenian irony, which has one an extra convert
Michel
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:24 AM, j.martin.pedersen <[email protected]
wrote:
Yes, I agree. I was being simplistic. Let us go with what hackers want - their political analysis seems sound.
My apologies to the list for suggesting otherwise.
On 08/02/11 21:10, Michel Bauwens wrote:
the situation is a lot more complex than that
many different corporate players contribute to Linux, and the Linux Foundation consists for example of different players
though 75% of Linux contributors are paid, 25 % are still volunteers
I've heard from free software developers that a substantial number of IBM Linux workers can self-determine the areas they contribute to, depending not just on the corporate needs of IBM
I have yet to hear strong, or even weak, critiques of free software developers towards the general attitude of IBM in this matter, though they have 'specific' critiques about specific actions; in general, I think the opinions of those knowledge workers directly involved in such projects, should be taken into account
of course, the corporatisation of a commons is a matter of concern, and changes the rules of the game, but it remains a matter of community vs. corporate dynamics, not at all a simple and straight enclosure and programmed defeat, but a dynamic co-adaptation and struggle; nevertheless, it is a commons that continues to grow and create value for society; that creates sustainability and social reproduction for a very large fraction of contributors; the overwhelming majority of free software workers considers this important progress, not an enclosure in which they lost
nevertheless, this is why open source communities should ideally strive towards the creation of independent entities, use a logic of preferential attachment towards corporate entities that maximally share commons values, and fight for community autonomy in the governance of such commons; it's a construction and a struggle, not a fixed and idealized situation of total defeat
your analysis would suggest that voluntary contributors that can't make a living, is a superior situation where 75% percent of workers can make a living, an analysis and appreciation not shared by said commoners
free software workers do not share your ironic idealization of IBM, but they appreciate a social compact that reflects a current balance of power that is not experienced as something wholly negative, but as a realistic advance in the view of current circumstances; wnen this compact is broken, they frequently react, and frequently win these conflicts (see http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Conflicts); commoners aware of contradictions within the present political economy also create their own autonomous cooperatives (http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Software_Cooperatives ) and actively propose alternatives (such as the Venture Communism of Telekommunisten)
Our own p2p.coop is in process of adopting the latter's peer production license, which creates a commoners-only commons, i.e. an active and mutually supportive counter-economy; however, it comes at the price of a much slower growth of said commons, and actually 'closes' the commons to a significant degree; there is a real irony in that a real commons operating purely on commonist principles, is open to appropriation by capital, while a closed commons has a non-commercial clause which prohibits such appropriation
in such a context, a conclusion like, No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure, would appear to deny such complexities; in fact, commoning and enclosure can co-exist in complex and paradoxical ways, in which the advantage of the one is not always a zero-sum game leading to the loss of another
which why I prefer the paradoxical conclusion: no real enclosure without real enclosure, and no enclosure without the majority of commoners experience such enclosure; of course such a conclusion would warrant that we take the experience and points of view of such workers seriously
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:51 PM, j.martin.pedersen < [email protected]> wrote:
On 08/02/11 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote:
so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening the free software commons.
On the premise that there are no commons without commoning, IBM
does not
strengthen the software commons.
Rather, IBM converts the (re)production of the *resource* that software commoners have created/established into a matter of wage labour.
Command over wage labour - and the means of production required to capitalise on it - are thus used to subsume control of what was previously a commons, - a process also known as enclosure. This is the first step. They claim ownership, by acquiring decision-making powers, by claiming de facto leadership of the organisation (and future direction) of the resource. Software - like most things - is movement, and IBM moves it in a direction away from common ground.
Due to way in which the GPL sits on the fence, this is possible without the immediately apparent destruction of the commons. Hence, for the uncritical observer it might appear as if IBM are adding to the commons, but their interaction with the commons actually results in the minimisation/marginalisation of commoners in the development of the commons: they are rendered marginal: they may still play with the code, i.e. the resource, but their commoning is ever less significant in the development of the resource, while waged labour and corporate planning increasingly determines the trajectory of the resource.
No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure.
Unless, of course, we say that IBM is such a nice trustworthy outfit that like our Open Source friends at Google "do no evil"(TM) and who would never help computing another holocaust.
m
-- http://commoning.wordpress.com
"...I thought we were an autonomous collective..."
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/ mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
--
--
Neal Gorenflo | Publisher, http://Shareable.net | 415.867.0429
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/ mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
Sorry Massimo, I can only judge from what I see on this list, and I have a responsibility to my friends to warn them what they're getting into; once they engage, it's their responsiblity, but they deserve a warning, Michel On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Massimo De Angelis <[email protected]>wrote:
Dear Michel
please, don't play the victim, there are two to dance, and you seem be playing at your own tune all the time. A brief top-of-the-head list on my part: you accused Martin to "equate the zapatistas use of cyberspace with that of imperial forces" (31st Dec) as soon as he makes a *systemic* argument about the material impact of the "abundance" logic of cyberspace, now, that is smearing; you portray me as some anti-cyberspace weirdo by patronising me about software being "enabler", as if we disagree about such obvious point, and instead refusing to engage with the critical point I continuously raise about the fact that enabling goes both ways, for commons but also for capital;
and last but not least, you publicly and eagerly follow up my suggestions to move forward productively together and discuss about crisis in Greece or other places from the perspective of commons, but at the same time you send emails to your greek friends warning them I am a sectarian always looking for a fight while saying "massimo is part of the radical set that always judges others to be coopted, and always calling for struggle, with little regard for constructive altenatives, and also little regard of whether a struggle can actually win ... People like him, and his associate martin pedersen usually like to act as troublemakers during conferences and such ... . "
Now, that is behind the back smearing that truly makes me sick in the stomach! If only you knew the type of people I deal with any single day in my community work to construct alternatives, you would be ashamed to even mention the word "sectarian" to me!
Obviously, it is also a question of trust here and not just a question of house rules. Since trust is broken, I propose we cool it on this topic, while continue discussing on a different place and context in the hope a different healing atmosphere may develops.
Massimo
On 10 Feb 2011, at 10:20, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I don't know what to say to this Neal,
direct ad hominem attacks are easy to spot and can be moderated away,
the use of irony and hostile interpretations are a more subtle form of intellectual intimidation
I can only say, being on the receiving end more than others, that I'm not the only one, and have received email letters from others complaining about this, people who feel explicitely intimated to contribute out of fear of similar treatment, and having it experienced themselves already
I don't know the rules of the commoning list, where I'm a guest like others, but the unwritten rules of the p2p foundation list are broad enough to allow it, even though it makes me uncomfortable and keeps other people away from participating, who unlike me, are wiser to stay outside the firing line,
personally, it makes me sick in the stomach, and I will probably never get used to it, but since I'm one of the parties to this exchange, I'll abstain from any proposals
my earlier proposal to Martin is to consider that my attempts at creating a dialogue are not directed to him, since they only provoke his hostility; I can also try to abstain from responding to Martin, though of course, in case of multiple dialogue between different persons, that may be difficult
of course, that does not help others who may have the same experiences and feelings
sometimes, you learn from your critics, and that is really good,
but here, I have learned a lot from Martin and a good friend of his, that I'm intend on imposing internet infrastructures on local communities ????, that I oppose or deny the political views of indigenous communities ???, that I have a blind faith in IBM ???, and that I am totally gullible as far as the ideas of free software hackers ???. These are four lies, and just the recent ones I remember, and the truth being the opposite, I have not learned anything useful from such attacks, but find it profoundly disturbing to have to deal with such distortions so frequently. I would wish it to stop and have respectful correspondents, but as to how to achieve this, I don't know.
As far as my own behaviour is concerned, yes I have been overly reactive to it, and would wish that I could just let it wash away, and not respond reactively, which continues the cycle, but I'm pretty sure I have never initiated any similar personal attacks
Michel
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Neal Gorenflo <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear kind folk, the health of this intellectual commons depends on civility. My question is what mutual agreements do we need to keep this commons healthy? -Neal
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>wrote:
Dear Martin,
I 'get' your irony and implied condescension for the hacker and free software community, those poor unconscious folks who lack the true awareness,
have a look at Hacking Capitalism from Johan Soderbergh if you have not read it yet, perhaps you'd see that there are a bit of thoughtful hackers out there
Please be assured, I"m going to abstain to disturb you in your commanding intellectual heights in the future, this has been my last attempt to try to have a civil discussion about perspectives that differ from your absolute certainties,
In the future, please consider that my messages are in no way directed to you, I acknowledge from now on your immense superiority and apologize for the unthoughtful intrusion that have drawn your ire and irony and disturbed your peace of mind
my sincere hope is that you would publish your Collected Writings as a lasting gift for humanity, in these dark times, your Enlightenment is sorely needed,
from the department of Pedersenian irony, which has one an extra convert
Michel
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:24 AM, j.martin.pedersen < [email protected]> wrote:
Yes, I agree. I was being simplistic. Let us go with what hackers want - their political analysis seems sound.
My apologies to the list for suggesting otherwise.
On 08/02/11 21:10, Michel Bauwens wrote:
the situation is a lot more complex than that
many different corporate players contribute to Linux, and the Linux Foundation consists for example of different players
though 75% of Linux contributors are paid, 25 % are still volunteers
I've heard from free software developers that a substantial number of IBM Linux workers can self-determine the areas they contribute to, depending not just on the corporate needs of IBM
I have yet to hear strong, or even weak, critiques of free software developers towards the general attitude of IBM in this matter, though they have 'specific' critiques about specific actions; in general, I think the opinions of those knowledge workers directly involved in such projects, should be taken into account
of course, the corporatisation of a commons is a matter of concern, and changes the rules of the game, but it remains a matter of community vs. corporate dynamics, not at all a simple and straight enclosure and programmed defeat, but a dynamic co-adaptation and struggle; nevertheless, it is a commons that continues to grow and create value for society; that creates sustainability and social reproduction for a very large fraction of contributors; the overwhelming majority of free software workers considers this important progress, not an enclosure in which they lost
nevertheless, this is why open source communities should ideally strive towards the creation of independent entities, use a logic of preferential attachment towards corporate entities that maximally share commons values, and fight for community autonomy in the governance of such commons; it's a construction and a struggle, not a fixed and idealized situation of total defeat
your analysis would suggest that voluntary contributors that can't make a living, is a superior situation where 75% percent of workers can make a living, an analysis and appreciation not shared by said commoners
free software workers do not share your ironic idealization of IBM, but they appreciate a social compact that reflects a current balance of power that is not experienced as something wholly negative, but as a realistic advance in the view of current circumstances; wnen this compact is broken, they frequently react, and frequently win these conflicts (see http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Conflicts); commoners aware of contradictions within the present political economy also create their own autonomous cooperatives ( http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Software_Cooperatives) and actively propose alternatives (such as the Venture Communism of Telekommunisten)
Our own p2p.coop is in process of adopting the latter's peer production license, which creates a commoners-only commons, i.e. an active and mutually supportive counter-economy; however, it comes at the price of a much slower growth of said commons, and actually 'closes' the commons to a significant degree; there is a real irony in that a real commons operating purely on commonist principles, is open to appropriation by capital, while a closed commons has a non-commercial clause which prohibits such appropriation
in such a context, a conclusion like, No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure, would appear to deny such complexities; in fact, commoning and enclosure can co-exist in complex and paradoxical ways, in which the advantage of the one is not always a zero-sum game leading to the loss of another
which why I prefer the paradoxical conclusion: no real enclosure without real enclosure, and no enclosure without the majority of commoners experience such enclosure; of course such a conclusion would warrant that we take the experience and points of view of such workers seriously
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:51 PM, j.martin.pedersen < [email protected]> wrote:
On 08/02/11 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote: > so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening > the free software commons.
On the premise that there are no commons without commoning, IBM does
not
strengthen the software commons.
Rather, IBM converts the (re)production of the *resource* that software commoners have created/established into a matter of wage labour.
Command over wage labour - and the means of production required to capitalise on it - are thus used to subsume control of what was previously a commons, - a process also known as enclosure. This is the first step. They claim ownership, by acquiring decision-making powers, by claiming de facto leadership of the organisation (and future direction) of the resource. Software - like most things - is movement, and IBM moves it in a direction away from common ground.
Due to way in which the GPL sits on the fence, this is possible without the immediately apparent destruction of the commons. Hence, for the uncritical observer it might appear as if IBM are adding to the commons, but their interaction with the commons actually results in the minimisation/marginalisation of commoners in the development of the commons: they are rendered marginal: they may still play with the code, i.e. the resource, but their commoning is ever less significant in the development of the resource, while waged labour and corporate planning increasingly determines the trajectory of the resource.
No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure.
Unless, of course, we say that IBM is such a nice trustworthy outfit that like our Open Source friends at Google "do no evil"(TM) and who would never help computing another holocaust.
m
-- http://commoning.wordpress.com
"...I thought we were an autonomous collective..."
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
--
--
Neal Gorenflo | Publisher, http://Shareable.net <http://shareable.net/> | 415.867.0429
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
On 02/10/2011 01:28 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Sorry Massimo, I can only judge from what I see on this list, and I have a responsibility to my friends to warn them what they're getting into; once they engage, it's their responsiblity, but they deserve a warning, [...] On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Massimo De Angelis <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: [...] the same time you send emails to your greek friends warning them I am a sectarian always looking for a fight while saying "massimo is part of the radical set that always judges others to be coopted, and always calling for struggle, with little regard for constructive altenatives, and also little regard of whether a struggle can actually win ... People like him, and his associate martin pedersen usually like to act as troublemakers during conferences and such ... . "
Did you really write that, Michel?? I must say, I'm shocked. I sometimes disagree with what Massimo and Martin are saying, but I've not the slightest idea what made you label them as "troublemakers". Nor why you felt to had to send "warnings" to others. Surely we can do much, much, much better than that in our interactions with each other... Best regards Christian -- |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- [email protected] ------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/ |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. -- Anatole France
Silke has asked several of us to refrain from further communication, so I have sent a reply privately to Christian, Michel On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Christian Siefkes <[email protected]>wrote:
On 02/10/2011 01:28 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Sorry Massimo, I can only judge from what I see on this list, and I have a responsibility to my friends to warn them what they're getting into; once they engage, it's their responsiblity, but they deserve a warning, [...] On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Massimo De Angelis <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: [...] the same time you send emails to your greek friends warning them I am a sectarian always looking for a fight while saying "massimo is part of the radical set that always judges others to be coopted, and always calling for struggle, with little regard for constructive altenatives, and also little regard of whether a struggle can actually win ... People like him, and his associate martin pedersen usually like to act as troublemakers during conferences and such ... . "
Did you really write that, Michel?? I must say, I'm shocked. I sometimes disagree with what Massimo and Martin are saying, but I've not the slightest idea what made you label them as "troublemakers". Nor why you felt to had to send "warnings" to others. Surely we can do much, much, much better than that in our interactions with each other...
Best regards Christian
-- |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- [email protected] ------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/ |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. -- Anatole France
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
On 10/02/2011 13:35, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Silke has asked several of us to refrain from further communication, so I have sent a reply privately to Christian,
This has the virtue of opening up a space where other perspectives might be of assistance. This is this a research group so I'll free free to jump with an outline of a piece of research that, improprieties apart, can account for some of the miscommunication and disagreement that has been prevalent here lately. A well validated piece of research, the Kirton Adaption Innovation [KAI] scale points to a spectrum of Creative Styles ranging from Adaptive to Innovative. The detail of the scale doesn't need to concern us here. What matters is that while the KAI says nothing about the value or amount of creativity a person manifests, it has a lot to offer about different approaches/styles through which we prefer to be creative, and how we view or engage in change. Headlines: (keep in mind that the distribution in the researched populations is a bell curve) People with an Adaptive style prefer evolution of the present as a form of change and seek to work within settled boundaries. They come up with few but realistic ideas and projects that are often implemented. They are often found settled near centres of power/influence. People with a strong Innovative style tend to be outsiders or on the margins of institutions and prefer fresh starts and out of the box thinking. They are commonly prolific with lots of not very well grounded ideas, which they have difficulty in getting implemented. They may face considerable disappointment and rejection. Why might this be relevant here? One of the outcomes of the KAI work is that it shows that people who are 10 points away from each other in style will need to take care to understand and be understood, and that people 2O points apart will likely see each other as aliens, wrong, impossible, problematic. As a high innovator who's experienced enough rejection and disappointment I have moved, partly due the KAI perspective to respect for the more adaptive person's capacity to hold and sustain continuity, something I find hard to do. Conversely, organizations that become too dependent on Adaptive creativity tend to eventually slip into stagnation. The task for people with a highly adaptive style is to find respect for the alien innovators who want to overturn everything that is settled. I hope this helps account for some of the current distance between list participants here. Our server is down at the moment, when it is available, I'll post an introduction to the KAI. Denis
Michel
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Christian Siefkes <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 02/10/2011 01:28 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote: > Sorry Massimo, I can only judge from what I see on this list, and I have a > responsibility to my friends to warn them what they're getting into; once > they engage, it's their responsiblity, but they deserve a warning, [...] > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Massimo De Angelis <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: [...] > the same time you send emails to your greek friends warning them I am a > sectarian always looking for a fight while saying "massimo is part of > the radical set that always judges others to be coopted, and always > calling for struggle, with little regard for constructive altenatives, > and also little regard of whether a struggle can actually win ... People > like him, and his associate martin pedersen usually like to act as > troublemakers during conferences and such ... . "
Did you really write that, Michel?? I must say, I'm shocked. I sometimes disagree with what Massimo and Martin are saying, but I've not the slightest idea what made you label them as "troublemakers". Nor why you felt to had to send "warnings" to others. Surely we can do much, much, much better than that in our interactions with each other...
Best regards Christian
-- |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/ |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. -- Anatole France
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- The Mind Gymnasium FREE ebook Library <http://www.mind-gymnasium.com/> A unique digital resource for Personal and Professional development
thank you Denis, you're right that obviously some perverse relational dynamics are going on that go beyond individual differences and make people, myself included, misunderstand and be misunderstood, in an iterative way ... Michel On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Denis Postle <[email protected]>wrote:
On 10/02/2011 13:35, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Silke has asked several of us to refrain from further communication, so I have sent a reply privately to Christian,
This has the virtue of opening up a space where other perspectives might be of assistance.
This is this a research group so I'll free free to jump with an outline of a piece of research that, improprieties apart, can account for some of the miscommunication and disagreement that has been prevalent here lately.
A well validated piece of research, the Kirton Adaption Innovation [KAI] scale points to a spectrum of Creative Styles ranging from Adaptive to Innovative. The detail of the scale doesn't need to concern us here. What matters is that while the KAI says nothing about the value or amount of creativity a person manifests, it has a lot to offer about different approaches/styles through which we prefer to be creative, and how we view or engage in change.
Headlines: (keep in mind that the distribution in the researched populations is a bell curve)
People with an Adaptive style prefer evolution of the present as a form of change and seek to work within settled boundaries. They come up with few but realistic ideas and projects that are often implemented. They are often found settled near centres of power/influence.
People with a strong Innovative style tend to be outsiders or on the margins of institutions and prefer fresh starts and out of the box thinking. They are commonly prolific with lots of not very well grounded ideas, which they have difficulty in getting implemented. They may face considerable disappointment and rejection.
Why might this be relevant here? One of the outcomes of the KAI work is that it shows that people who are 10 points away from each other in style will need to take care to understand and be understood, and that people 2O points apart will likely see each other as aliens, wrong, impossible, problematic.
As a high innovator who's experienced enough rejection and disappointment I have moved, partly due the KAI perspective to respect for the more adaptive person's capacity to hold and sustain continuity, something I find hard to do. Conversely, organizations that become too dependent on Adaptive creativity tend to eventually slip into stagnation. The task for people with a highly adaptive style is to find respect for the alien innovators who want to overturn everything that is settled.
I hope this helps account for some of the current distance between list participants here.
Our server is down at the moment, when it is available, I'll post an introduction to the KAI.
Denis
Michel
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Christian Siefkes <[email protected]>wrote:
On 02/10/2011 01:28 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Sorry Massimo, I can only judge from what I see on this list, and I have a responsibility to my friends to warn them what they're getting into; once they engage, it's their responsiblity, but they deserve a warning, [...] On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Massimo De Angelis < [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: [...] the same time you send emails to your greek friends warning them I am a sectarian always looking for a fight while saying "massimo is part of the radical set that always judges others to be coopted, and always calling for struggle, with little regard for constructive altenatives, and also little regard of whether a struggle can actually win ... People like him, and his associate martin pedersen usually like to act as troublemakers during conferences and such ... . "
Did you really write that, Michel?? I must say, I'm shocked. I sometimes disagree with what Massimo and Martin are saying, but I've not the slightest idea what made you label them as "troublemakers". Nor why you felt to had to send "warnings" to others. Surely we can do much, much, much better than that in our interactions with each other...
Best regards Christian
-- |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- [email protected] ------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/ |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. -- Anatole France
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing listhttp://www.p2pfoundation.nethttps://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/lis...
-- The Mind Gymnasium FREE ebook Library <http://www.mind-gymnasium.com/> A unique digital resource for Personal and Professional development
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
Here is the Mind-Gymnasium FREE ebook library address for Bringing About Change <http://www.mind-gymnasium.com/ebooks/PDFs/BringAboutChange.pdf>, an introduction to the KAI Creative Styles work<http://www.mind-gymnasium.com/ebooks/PDFs/BringAboutChange.pdf> that I mentioned in a previous message. I believe it sheds light on a wide range of difficulties we may have in collaborative work, on and off line. If it raises questions I'll be happy to deal with them, however I'll be offline until Monday am. Denis On 10/02/2011 16:37, Michel Bauwens wrote:
thank you Denis, you're right that obviously some perverse relational dynamics are going on that go beyond individual differences and make people, myself included, misunderstand and be misunderstood, in an iterative way ...
Michel
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Denis Postle <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 10/02/2011 13:35, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Silke has asked several of us to refrain from further communication, so I have sent a reply privately to Christian,
This has the virtue of opening up a space where other perspectives might be of assistance.
This is this a research group so I'll free free to jump with an outline of a piece of research that, improprieties apart, can account for some of the miscommunication and disagreement that has been prevalent here lately.
A well validated piece of research, the Kirton Adaption Innovation [KAI] scale points to a spectrum of Creative Styles ranging from Adaptive to Innovative. The detail of the scale doesn't need to concern us here. What matters is that while the KAI says nothing about the value or amount of creativity a person manifests, it has a lot to offer about different approaches/styles through which we prefer to be creative, and how we view or engage in change.
Headlines: (keep in mind that the distribution in the researched populations is a bell curve)
People with an Adaptive style prefer evolution of the present as a form of change and seek to work within settled boundaries. They come up with few but realistic ideas and projects that are often implemented. They are often found settled near centres of power/influence.
People with a strong Innovative style tend to be outsiders or on the margins of institutions and prefer fresh starts and out of the box thinking. They are commonly prolific with lots of not very well grounded ideas, which they have difficulty in getting implemented. They may face considerable disappointment and rejection.
Why might this be relevant here? One of the outcomes of the KAI work is that it shows that people who are 10 points away from each other in style will need to take care to understand and be understood, and that people 2O points apart will likely see each other as aliens, wrong, impossible, problematic.
As a high innovator who's experienced enough rejection and disappointment I have moved, partly due the KAI perspective to respect for the more adaptive person's capacity to hold and sustain continuity, something I find hard to do. Conversely, organizations that become too dependent on Adaptive creativity tend to eventually slip into stagnation. The task for people with a highly adaptive style is to find respect for the alien innovators who want to overturn everything that is settled.
I hope this helps account for some of the current distance between list participants here.
Our server is down at the moment, when it is available, I'll post an introduction to the KAI.
Denis
Michel
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Christian Siefkes <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 02/10/2011 01:28 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote: > Sorry Massimo, I can only judge from what I see on this list, and I have a > responsibility to my friends to warn them what they're getting into; once > they engage, it's their responsiblity, but they deserve a warning, [...] > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Massimo De Angelis <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: [...] > the same time you send emails to your greek friends warning them I am a > sectarian always looking for a fight while saying "massimo is part of > the radical set that always judges others to be coopted, and always > calling for struggle, with little regard for constructive altenatives, > and also little regard of whether a struggle can actually win ... People > like him, and his associate martin pedersen usually like to act as > troublemakers during conferences and such ... . "
Did you really write that, Michel?? I must say, I'm shocked. I sometimes disagree with what Massimo and Martin are saying, but I've not the slightest idea what made you label them as "troublemakers". Nor why you felt to had to send "warnings" to others. Surely we can do much, much, much better than that in our interactions with each other...
Best regards Christian
-- |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/ |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. -- Anatole France
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- The Mind Gymnasium FREE ebook Library <http://www.mind-gymnasium.com/> A unique digital resource for Personal and Professional development
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
-- The Mind Gymnasium FREE ebook Library <http://www.mind-gymnasium.com/> A unique digital resource for Personal and Professional development
thanks Denis, will have a look, Michel On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Denis Postle <[email protected]>wrote:
Here is the Mind-Gymnasium FREE ebook library address for Bringing About Change <http://www.mind-gymnasium.com/ebooks/PDFs/BringAboutChange.pdf>, an introduction to the KAI Creative Styles work<http://www.mind-gymnasium.com/ebooks/PDFs/BringAboutChange.pdf>that I mentioned in a previous message. I believe it sheds light on a wide range of difficulties we may have in collaborative work, on and off line.
If it raises questions I'll be happy to deal with them, however I'll be offline until Monday am.
Denis
On 10/02/2011 16:37, Michel Bauwens wrote:
thank you Denis, you're right that obviously some perverse relational dynamics are going on that go beyond individual differences and make people, myself included, misunderstand and be misunderstood, in an iterative way ...
Michel
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Denis Postle <[email protected]>wrote:
On 10/02/2011 13:35, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Silke has asked several of us to refrain from further communication, so I have sent a reply privately to Christian,
This has the virtue of opening up a space where other perspectives might be of assistance.
This is this a research group so I'll free free to jump with an outline of a piece of research that, improprieties apart, can account for some of the miscommunication and disagreement that has been prevalent here lately.
A well validated piece of research, the Kirton Adaption Innovation [KAI] scale points to a spectrum of Creative Styles ranging from Adaptive to Innovative. The detail of the scale doesn't need to concern us here. What matters is that while the KAI says nothing about the value or amount of creativity a person manifests, it has a lot to offer about different approaches/styles through which we prefer to be creative, and how we view or engage in change.
Headlines: (keep in mind that the distribution in the researched populations is a bell curve)
People with an Adaptive style prefer evolution of the present as a form of change and seek to work within settled boundaries. They come up with few but realistic ideas and projects that are often implemented. They are often found settled near centres of power/influence.
People with a strong Innovative style tend to be outsiders or on the margins of institutions and prefer fresh starts and out of the box thinking. They are commonly prolific with lots of not very well grounded ideas, which they have difficulty in getting implemented. They may face considerable disappointment and rejection.
Why might this be relevant here? One of the outcomes of the KAI work is that it shows that people who are 10 points away from each other in style will need to take care to understand and be understood, and that people 2O points apart will likely see each other as aliens, wrong, impossible, problematic.
As a high innovator who's experienced enough rejection and disappointment I have moved, partly due the KAI perspective to respect for the more adaptive person's capacity to hold and sustain continuity, something I find hard to do. Conversely, organizations that become too dependent on Adaptive creativity tend to eventually slip into stagnation. The task for people with a highly adaptive style is to find respect for the alien innovators who want to overturn everything that is settled.
I hope this helps account for some of the current distance between list participants here.
Our server is down at the moment, when it is available, I'll post an introduction to the KAI.
Denis
Michel
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Christian Siefkes <[email protected]
wrote:
On 02/10/2011 01:28 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Sorry Massimo, I can only judge from what I see on this list, and I have a responsibility to my friends to warn them what they're getting into; once they engage, it's their responsiblity, but they deserve a warning, [...] On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Massimo De Angelis < [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: [...] the same time you send emails to your greek friends warning them I am a sectarian always looking for a fight while saying "massimo is part of the radical set that always judges others to be coopted, and always calling for struggle, with little regard for constructive altenatives, and also little regard of whether a struggle can actually win ... People like him, and his associate martin pedersen usually like to act as troublemakers during conferences and such ... . "
Did you really write that, Michel?? I must say, I'm shocked. I sometimes disagree with what Massimo and Martin are saying, but I've not the slightest idea what made you label them as "troublemakers". Nor why you felt to had to send "warnings" to others. Surely we can do much, much, much better than that in our interactions with each other...
Best regards Christian
-- |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- [email protected] ------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/ |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. -- Anatole France
_______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing listhttp://www.p2pfoundation.nethttps://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/lis...
-- The Mind Gymnasium FREE ebook Library <http://www.mind-gymnasium.com/> A unique digital resource for Personal and Professional development
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
-- The Mind Gymnasium FREE ebook Library <http://www.mind-gymnasium.com/> A unique digital resource for Personal and Professional development
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
CALL FOR PAPERS Digital Taylorism, Human Capital and the Knowledge Economy Editors: Daniel Araya and Michael A. Peters This issue of the Journal of Global Studies in Education will focus on “digital Taylorism”, and the growing influence of technology in mediating industrialized modes of work and learning. Over the past decade it has become commonplace to claim that economic progress depends upon human capital and the exploitation of knowledge. As one of the major areas of public policy investment, governments in advanced economies have begun restructuring education systems to reflect the need to develop highly skilled “knowledge workers”. Workers are now routinely encouraged to upgrade and broaden their skills through formal education and lifelong learning. What is clear, however, is that globalization is reconfiguring all parts of the labor market including “left-brain” knowledge industries (Pink, 2005). Like the migration of low-wage labor before it, "cognitive labor " is now embedded in a global labor market. As a rising tide of knowledge workers begins to grow outside of rich countries, predictions of a Western-biased knowledge economy look increasingly naive. Perhaps even more problematic is the growing power of computers to automate labor. While early industrial machines simply leveraged physical labor, information technology has begun to replace labor entirely. Brown, Ashton and Lauder (2010), for example, argue that the capacities of technology to extract, codify and digitize knowledge work has begun a long-term process that is industrializing human capital. Here, advances in computing power and software design enable companies to package and distribute cognitive labor, and to manage globally “industrialized” labor systems. This “digital Taylorism” enables innovation to be translated into routines that might require some degree of education but not the kind of creativity and innovation that is often associated with the knowledge economy. In this issue of JGSE, we are particularly concerned with critical analysis of the knowledge economy. How far will automation go over the coming decades? What is the university’s proper role in a high-tech global age? Does technology in the knowledge economy necessarily lead to digital Taylorism? How dependent are companies today on national education systems for the supply of skilled labor? What can governments in advanced capitalist countries do to stem the tide of labor market migration? Articles for Consideration Articles for submission should be no more than 6000 words. It is essential that an Abstract (100-200 words) be provided with each article. The author's name and affiliation should appear at the beginning of the article, together with full mailing and email addresses. Abstracts should be sent by email to: [email protected] Deadline for Abstracts: June 1, 2011 Deadline for final submission: Sept 1, 2011 All papers submitted will be evaluated using the Journal of Global Studies in Education normal peer review process. All submissions are published in accordance with international academic standards for research publication. Please also see the Journal’s information for authors: http://www.jgse.org/jgse/index.php/Journal/about/submissions EDITORIAL CONTACTS Daniel Araya Global Studies in Education Educational Policy Studies University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [email protected] Michael A. Peters Global Studies in Education Educational Policy Studies University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [email protected]
participants (9)
-
Christian Siefkes -
Daniel Araya -
Denis Postle -
j.martin.pedersen -
Massimo De Angelis -
Michel Bauwens -
Neal Gorenflo -
Samuel Rose -
Stefan Meretz