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

Wed Feb 9 06:09:29 CET 2011

Dear Martin,

I 'get' your irony and  implied condescension for the hacker and free
software community, those poor unconscious folks who lack the true
awareness,

have a look at Hacking Capitalism from Johan Soderbergh if you have not read
it yet, perhaps you'd see that there are a bit of thoughtful hackers out
there

Please be assured, I"m going to abstain to disturb you in your commanding
intellectual heights in the future, this has been my last attempt to try to
have a civil discussion about perspectives that differ from your absolute
certainties,

In the future, please consider that my messages are in no way directed to
you, I acknowledge from now on your immense superiority and apologize for
the unthoughtful intrusion that have drawn your ire and irony and disturbed
your peace of mind

my sincere hope is that you would publish your Collected Writings as a
lasting gift for humanity, in these dark times,  your Enlightenment is
sorely needed,

from the department of Pedersenian irony, which has one an extra convert

Michel

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:24 AM, j.martin.pedersen <
m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> 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..."
>

-- 
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/20110209/38004a91/attachment.htm 