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

Tue Feb 8 17:26:58 CET 2011

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 <commoning at gmail.com>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 <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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/ef929761/attachment.htm 