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

Wed Feb 9 00:24:04 CET 2011

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 <
> m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk> 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..."