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

Thu Feb 10 13:28:50 CET 2011

Sorry Massimo, I can only judge from what I see on this list, and I have a
responsibility to my friends to warn them what they're getting into; once
they engage, it's their responsiblity, but they deserve a warning,

Michel

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Massimo De Angelis <commoning at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Michel
>
> please, don't play the victim, there are two to dance, and you seem be
> playing at your own tune all the time. A brief top-of-the-head list on my
> part: you accused Martin to "equate the zapatistas use of cyberspace with
> that of imperial forces" (31st Dec) as soon as he makes a *systemic*
> argument about the material impact of the "abundance" logic of cyberspace,
> now, that is smearing; you portray me as some anti-cyberspace weirdo by
> patronising me about software being "enabler", as if we disagree about such
> obvious point, and instead refusing to engage with the critical point I
> continuously raise about the fact that enabling goes both ways, for commons
> but also for capital;
>

> and last but not least, you publicly and eagerly follow up my suggestions
> to move forward productively together and discuss about crisis in Greece or
> other places from the perspective of commons, but at the same time you send
> emails to your greek friends warning them I am a sectarian always looking
> for a fight while saying "massimo is part of the radical set that always
> judges others to be coopted, and always calling for struggle, with little
> regard for constructive altenatives, and also little regard of whether a
> struggle can actually win ... People like him, and his associate martin
> pedersen usually like to act as troublemakers during conferences and such
> ... . "
>
> Now, that is behind the back smearing that truly makes me sick in the
> stomach! If only you knew the type of people I deal with any single day in
> my community work to construct  alternatives, you would be ashamed to even
> mention the word "sectarian" to me!
>
> Obviously, it is also a question of trust here and not just a question of
> house rules. Since trust is broken, I propose we cool it on this topic,
> while continue discussing on a different place and context in the hope a
> different healing atmosphere may develops.
>
> Massimo
>
> On 10 Feb 2011, at 10:20, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
> I don't know what to say to this Neal,
>
> direct ad hominem attacks are easy to spot and can be moderated away,
>
> the use of irony and hostile interpretations are a more subtle form of
> intellectual intimidation
>
> I can only say, being on the receiving end more than others, that I'm not
> the only one, and have received email letters from others complaining about
> this, people who feel explicitely intimated to contribute out of fear of
> similar treatment, and having it experienced themselves already
>
> I don't know the rules of the  commoning  list, where I'm a guest like
> others, but the unwritten rules of the p2p foundation list are broad enough
> to allow it, even though it makes me uncomfortable and keeps other people
> away from participating, who unlike me, are wiser to stay outside the firing
> line,
>
> personally, it makes me sick in the stomach, and I will probably never get
> used to it, but since I'm one of the parties to this exchange, I'll abstain
> from any proposals
>
> my earlier proposal to Martin is to consider that my attempts at creating a
> dialogue are not directed to him, since they only provoke his hostility; I
> can also try to abstain from responding to Martin, though of course, in case
> of multiple dialogue between different persons, that may be difficult
>
> of course, that does not help others who may have the same experiences and
> feelings
>
> sometimes, you learn from your critics, and that is really good,
>
> but here, I have learned a lot from Martin and a good friend of his, that
> I'm intend on imposing internet infrastructures on local communities ????,
> that I oppose or deny the political views of indigenous communities ???,
> that I have a blind faith in IBM ???, and that I am totally gullible as far
> as the ideas of free software hackers ???. These are four lies, and just the
> recent ones I remember, and the truth being the opposite, I have not learned
> anything useful from such attacks, but find it profoundly disturbing to have
> to deal with such distortions so frequently. I would wish it to stop and
> have respectful correspondents, but as to how to achieve this, I don't know.
>
> As far as my own behaviour is concerned, yes I have been overly reactive to
> it, and would wish that I could just let it wash away, and not respond
> reactively, which continues the cycle, but I'm pretty sure I have never
> initiated any similar personal attacks
>
> Michel
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Neal Gorenflo <neal at shareable.net> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/20110210/537f7074/attachment.htm 