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

[andreas.exner at chello.at]

Hi Michel

I consider initiatives such as Planetmath, that want to expand metacommons
by using funding by institutions and businesses, as paramount.

The incorporation of "social values" into business might also be seen as a
last step of capital to colonize lifeworld. So I am not so cheerful about this, while
acknowledging at the same time, that it might sometimes open up new
opportunities for commons.

Solidarity Economy is not only about "normal" enterprises, but also about
demonetized (and then, of course, strictly non-capitalist) initiatives.

Talking about capitalism, one points toward a debate of what constitutes
capital. Concerning Mondragon, workers are at the same time capitalists,
they internalized the class contradiction (it would not be overcome by
multiplying "Mondragon" - as soon as a labour market appears, the initial
class split also comes to the fore again.) Nevertheless, Mondragon is a very
important example that steps forward to a more direct and egalitarian form
of cooperation are possible and can even coexist (for a while and under
specific circumstances, i.e. Basque nationalism...) with capital.

best, Andreas

> Hi Andreas,
> 
> this I think is a crucial insight:
> 
> "Certain forms of business might reinforce commons, but only to the
> detriment of
> business, in the long run. Probably, the structural and personal
> shortsigthedness
> of capitalists will enable to exploit this asymetrical synergie without
> harming the
> "mutual relationship" in the short run."
> 
> Lenin had a famous phrase, 'they will sell the ropes we will hang them with"
> 
> But what we are seeing now is more than that: a huge movement towards market
> forms that are not geared towards profit maximisation at all: cooperatives,
> solidarity economics, social economy, fair trade, mission-oriented
> enterprises, social investing, and many more. They operate within
> capitalism, as do we all, but they are not themselves capitalistic in nature
> if they do not strive for profit maximisation. Each case is of course
> different and has to be looked at carefully. For example, Mondragon is
> currently involved in a strike action by Polish workers who feel exploited
> by their non-cooperative holdings. In this case I would stay, it is great
> that Mondragon shows the viability of cooperatives, but it is regretful, and
> must be changedd, that they are creating a two-tier system where they
> themselves act as capitalist vis a vis exploited labourers abroad.
> 
> These are significant developments, but the question is: what do they mean,
> especially in the context of the commons. My take would be that a number of
> these developments are commons-positive and can be used by commoners to
> strengthen commons and move towards a commons-centered economy
> 
> Michel
> 
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:55 PM, <andreas.exner at chello.at> wrote:
> 
> > Structures do not exist beyond people, and "people", in the sense of
> > subjects,
> > do not exist beyond structures.
> >
> > We should not forget, that people do not reproduce as simply "people", but
> > as
> > wage labourers and capitalists or petty commodity producers or peasants.
> > Those subjects will tend to reproduce their status (or improve on it, i.e.
> > becoming
> > capitalists).
> >
> > Reproduction and status improvement function within structures. In as far
> > as
> > people tend to reproduce and improve their lives and status within those
> > very
> > structures, they will defend those structures (by force of the state).
> >
> > So capitalists will defend their position to exploit labourers. And
> > labourers will
> > defend their position of being exploited - in a way that seems "acceptable"
> > to them.
> > Peasants will ususally defend the possibility to become small capitalists
> > and
> > sell to regional and/or global markets (most of them currently do this only
> > to a very
> > limited extent, worldwide).
> >
> > While markets were not invented by capitalists, they defend them because it
> > is
> > the market - as long as the capitalist mode of production exists - that
> > enables them
> > as a class to exploit labourers. (And it is the capitalist mode of
> > production
> > that propagates the market - but this discussion we already had...). That
> > holds true for
> > any business that participates on the social surplus value pressed out of
> > labourers.
> >
> > While markets are not controlled by capitalists, capitalists do control
> > labourers
> > directly within the realm of their domination, i.e. the office, factory,
> > outgrower
> > associations etc... So strengthening commons means limiting markets and
> > abolishings
> > capital.
> >
> > Certain forms of business might reinforce commons, but only to the
> > detriment of
> > business, in the long run. Probably, the structural and personal
> > shortsigthedness
> > of capitalists will enable to exploit this asymetrical synergie without
> > harming the
> > "mutual relationship" in the short run.
> >
> > > "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
> > > > Commoning at lists.wissensallmende.de
> > > > http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
> >
> >
> > --
> > Start here: www.meretz.de
> > _______________________________________________
> > Commoning mailing list
> > Commoning at lists.wissensallmende.de
> > http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/