[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