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

Wed Feb 9 08:37:11 CET 2011

Dear kind folk, the health of this intellectual commons depends on civility.
My question is what mutual agreements do we need to keep this commons
healthy? -Neal

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commoning mailing list
> Commoning at lists.wissensallmende.de
> http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
>
>

-- 

--

Neal Gorenflo | Publisher, http://Shareable.net <http://shareable.net/> |
415.867.0429
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110208/f2b2f36f/attachment.htm 