[P2P-F] [Commoning] new capitalism and commoning

Tue Feb 8 13:14:40 CET 2011

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 <commoning at gmail.com>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.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
>
> --
> 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
> Commoning at lists.wissensallmende.de
> 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110208/bf7f88a9/attachment.htm 