[P2P-F] contribution to the p2p and marxism debate: Should we worry about capitalist commons?

Mon Apr 25 09:40:24 CEST 2011

I've added two replies to the p2p and marxism discussion,

time for a new round?

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> not exactly an answer to jean yet, but I thought I add it in this context
> anyway,
>
>
> Should we worry about capitalist commons?
>
>
>
>
>  There is a particular strand of thinking, which we have featured on
> occasion on our blog, with authors such as Massimo de Angelis of The
> Commoner, Syvlia Federici George Caffentzis of Midnight Notes, and Martin
> Pedersen, who particularly stress the need to be wary, and denounce,
> tendencies towards 'capitalist commons', which in there mind, have to be
> fought and resisted against.
>
>
>  I want to first discuss what aspects of this point of view I agree with,
> then discuss the eventual reservations or disagreements.
>
>
>  The distinction between capitalist and non-capitalist commons is of
> course an important one, whose validity should be acknowledged.
>
>
>  A non-capitalist commons is a commons that can socially reproduce itself
> and whose activities guarantee its continued existence to the benefit of the
> commoners; a capitalist commons is a commons which helps the (expanded)
> reproduction of capital and the capitalist system. The latter is distinct I
> believe from commons that are used and enclosed by non-commoners to their
> benefit, while weakening the commons and its use for commoners. An example
> of a pure 'capitalist' commons would be a patent commons that is constituted
> by an alliance of companies, and perhaps only usable by them.
>
>
>  Obviously, commoners should be wary of both mechanisms.
>
>
>  Nevertheless, we live in complex societies with many hybrid modalities,
> where such distinctions are not clearcut. I think the believe that commons
> are either pure or otherwise capitalist commons is a false dichotomy, and
> that the reality is that we have mostly hybrid commons processes that
> combine both aspects.
>
>
>  As an example I want to take the free software commons.
>
>
>  These commons usually consist of:
>
>
>
>    -
>
>    a commons of code, which can be used by all developers, including the
>    corporations that build more value on the code (mostly through the waged
>    labour in their employ) and market services and products related to it
>    -
>
>    a community of developers, a majority of which is usually also employed
>    by said corporations, but generally also consists of volunteers freely
>    adding to the commons
>    -
>
>    a set of institutions that manage the infrastructure of cooperation
>    needed by this commons, such as the FLOSS Foundations, and which may have
>    representatives of said corporations on the board
>
>
>  Now, the role of corporations is usually very important: 1) they use and
> expand on the code, usually though by keeping substantial improvements only
> to themselves; 2) they hire developers in order to develop their commercial
> activities, and their services are therefore constituted by both the value
> created by this paid labour, but also by the common value created by other
> corporations and especially the free labour that went into the commons. I
> don't think there is any doubt that such a commons aids the reproduction of
> the system of capital. The businesses created around such commons are
> usually also dependent on those commons, and contribute to their
> maintenance.
>
>
>  But does that mean that such a system is necessarily a negative one for
> the commoners? This is actually far from being the case. First of all, it
> guarantees the continued reproduction of the commons itself; in our actual
> society and economy, it is very difficult to expand digital commons without
> such corporate support; and the commons remain available to all, as
> guaranteed by the free software licenses; in addition, the paying of
> developers creates and maintains a livelihood around the commons, with free
> software developers actually constituting a kind of privileged labour
> aristocracy. The influence of these corporations is real, and sometimes
> (often?) dominant, and they use all kinds of value extraction and enclosure
> mechanisms, but nevertheless, they also contribute to the commons. And just
> as importantly: they are dependent on the commons and community of commoners
> and constrained by the license, the codes and norms of the software
> community.
>
>
>  This is why free software developers and commoners nevertheless consider
> such free software commons as a fundamental advance. It creates more
> freedom, makes the code base universally available, and often creates a
> vibrant economy. Many developers create their own enterprises and sometimes
> cooperatives as well. What is important here is that we have a system that
> both serves the reproduction of capital, but on a new basis of the commons;
> and a system which at the same time serves the reproduction of the commons
> and the commoners.
>
>
>  Such type of hybrid 'capitalist-commons' are without a doubt an advance
> over the purely wage-labour based forms of software creation. This is
> certainly the way the developers themselves see it, but also the wider
> community of digital knowledge workers.
>
>
>  That doesn't mean that commoners should not want more and better
> modalities. For example, they could create enterprises that are not
> profit-maximisers, but cooperatives, or they could use the peer production
> license, which allows free usage of the commons only to other commoners and
> thereby creates a counter-economy. So the existence of a capitalist software
> commons can be both a social advance, have problematic aspects, be
> beneficial to different players, such as corporations, users and developers,
> etc..
>
>
>  The right attitude is to strenghten the commons part and the commons
> logic, to fight against abuses and enclosures, and if you have radical aims
> of social transformation, to continue to work according to these aims in the
> broader context of the totality of the shift towards p2p and commons-based
> modalities.
>
>
>  But we want to make a stronger argument. Not only are these advances
> beneficial, but they are actually crucial.
>
>
>  The reason is that the alternatives modes of production based on the
> commons, cannot be created ex nihilo, but must be created within an
> environment that is dominated by the alien logic of the older dominant mode
> of production, i.e. the circulation of capital.
>
>
>  It is simply inconceivable that a slave-based empire could undergo a
> phase transition towards the feudal mode of production, without the
> existence of proto-feudal modalities within that system; it is equally
> inconceivable that the feudal mode of production could have a phase
> transition towards the capitalist mode of production, without
> proto-capitalist modalities existing within that feudal system. It is the
> ultimate strengthening and intermeshing of these proto-capitalist
> modalities, which creates the basis for a political and social revolution
> that ultimately guarantees the phase transition.
>
>
>  In other words, the existence of commons-based peer production, as
> proto-practices for a full mode of production that has still to be created
> after a phase transition, is itself a vital condition for that later
> transition. These proto-practices have to evolve within the older system,
> first as emergent practices, then on a parity level, before they can become
> dominant themselves.
>
>
>  So the question of 'capitalist commons', requires an approach that
> recognizes to what degree they benefit the commoners in the short and
> mid-term, to what degree they make a particular commons sustainable, but
> also on a systemic level, to what degree they are part of a broader change
> that fosters proto-commons practices that can serve as a basis for ultimate
> expansion on a systemic level.
>
>
>  Just as important is not to be blinded by any perceived absolute 'enemy',
> but to see the interests of the commoners first and foremost. Each
> commoner's community is involved in its own construction, struggles and
> negotiations, and makes its own arrangements with the surrounding ecology of
> enterprises, which depends in part on local, national, and global balance of
> forces; and the goal must be to make its own commons autonomous and for the
> maximum benefit of the commoners and the surrounding society. Rather than
> striving for acceptance of any a priori credo of anti-capitalism, because
> that is in the end the goal of the authors we mentioned above, what is
> really needed is to be in relations and concrete solidarity with the
> commoners, within the larger context of global social change towards a
> commons-based society. Within the context of 'really existing' hybrid
> commons, which are part of the broader process of reproduction of capital,
> what matters is to strengthen those elements which strengthen the
> circulation and expanded reproduction of the common(s).
>
>
>  Within the broader context of a capitalist society in which
> profit-maximising companies are geared towards maximal surplus value
> extraction, the existence of commons will always be precarious at best, and
> subject to enclosures and exploitation, such as the well-known capture of
> the value of the free labour of the commoners. Nevertheless, even within
> that contradictory process, there is a further strengthen of modalities of
> commons-based peer production, which is a harbinger of the society to come.
> And some forms of netarchical capital actually have a vested interest in the
> continued existence of the commons. These activities are contradictory but
> still contribute to the creation and strenghening of particular commons,
> which are also in the interest of the commoners, user communities and
> citizens generally.
>
>
>  Within the broader context of a political economy based on the
> circulation of capital, there can be no fully independent social
> reproduction of the commons, but, many elements of such full social
> reproduction are being born and gradually intermeshed, and it is our task to
> further strengthen that process, within a context of hybrid capitalist
> commons. Most commoners are not necessarily motivated by a political and
> social vision of such a future commons-based society, but their social
> conditions as digital knowledge workers nevertheless lead them to construct
> and protect concrete commons. This process is absolutely vital for the
> transition, and any political and social phase transition can only occur
> when sufficient numbers of them revolt against the limitations imposed on
> this hyperproductive modality, by outmoded, repressive and life-undermining
> modalities of capital. This process is underway but requires a continuing
> strenghtening of commons-based modalities.
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110425/107766fa/attachment.htm 