[P2P-F] Re(PlanetMath, Metacommons, Cooling, Projects): [Commoning] new capitalism and commoning
Andreas Exner
andreas.exner at chello.at
Wed Feb 9 09:01:13 CET 2011
Hi Michel
That's what Joe Corneli wrote to me right now:
"PS. Incidentally, as it turns out I did recently exchange
some emails with Michel Bauwens, the founder of the
Foundation for Peer-to-Peer Alternatives, where your wiki
page is hosted. A few comments from him are in the blog
for my Open Governance and Learning P2PU course,
http://open-governance-and-learning.posterous.com/."
So you know PlanetMath already :).
Here's the link to two papers I found quite interesting.
Joe wrote:
"* I did most of the drafting for this:
http://wiki.planetmath.org/AsteroidMeta/metacommons_manifesto
* I also wrote: http://metameso.org/~joe/docs/metacommons-survey.pdf"
Joe has modified the thoughts expressed there and now
is heading more in a direction that seems to overlap with
an understanding of demonetized metacommons that I
would promote.
Concerning the "temperature" of the list, I would suggest
cooling.
Concerning further "projects", I would find it useful to think
about some kind of old-style hardcopy publication of the
kind of debates here. Just in case the internet breaks down
due to Peak Oil *g*
I was wondering since the impressive
Crottorf-Meeting which gave rise to this list (indirectly), if
it would be interesting for a broader audience beyond
cyberspace to listen to the sort of arguments exchanged here.
best to all, Andreas
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> perhaps you can confirm this, but I once read a ILO reference that
> calculated coops were actually the world's largest employer, but of
> course, they are integrated in the current system. My view is that
> coops are by definition either integrated in capitalism, or in the
> market sphere, since they operate as a market entity, even if they
> have internal equality.
>
> a very interesting path for me is the Venture Communist proposal by
> Dmytri Kleiner, http://p2pfoundation.net/Telekommunist_Manifesto, and
> its related Peer Production License,
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License, which we will likely
> adopt in our new P2P Foundation Cooperative (p2p.coop), to be launched
> soon. This insures that surplus value stays within the commoners
> community, but has the disadvantage of slowing down the expansion of
> an open commons, through its non-commercial clause. It is in effect a
> semi-open (or semi-closed commons), which is why it is so strongly
> opposed by the free software community, but I believe it does make
> sense in the context of building a counter-economy. Coops could adopt
> these two important principles, in order to create a non-capitalist
> economy,i.e. a shared open design commons, i.e. a refusal to enclose
> knowledge; the PPL which keeps capital flowing within the alternative
> economy; and finally, it could use open accounting which would, in
> the slightly longer term, permit it to adopt resource-based economics,
> i.e. non-monetary exchange mechanisms. Fully distributed open
> accounting would allow any entity to check available production and
> such global distributed coordination, which has already proven to be
> fully workable for complex products such as Linux or Wikipedia, could
> then be extented to the field of material production. The latter is of
> course at this stage, an intuition and hypothesis of my part.
>
> can you send some info on planetmath?
>
> Michel
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:17 PM, <andreas.exner at chello.at> wrote:
> 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/2011/02/20112716264
> 44 > > > 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-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/
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20110209/053f38fd/attachment.htm
More information about the P2P-Foundation
mailing list