[P2P-F] P2P-Foundation Digest, Vol 2, Issue 67
Neal Gorenflo
neal at shareable.net
Thu Feb 10 17:54:01 CET 2011
Hi all,
Just a quick note to say that in advocating for civility on this list, I'm
not making judgments about specific people.
I'm suggesting that discussion etiquette be considered for the list to
minimize strife. Discussion guidelines are common, here's an example from
the Mozilla Foundation: http://www.mozilla.org/about/forums/etiquette.html
I learn a ton from this list, so I'd love for it to continue to be
productive. Participants should feel free to share ideas without fear of
hostile responses or personal attacks. Here guidelines can increase the
openness of a forum, not decrease it.
No response is required to my suggestion. I'm leaving this to the list
hosts to consider.
Sincere thanks to all for the opinions, ideas, and resources shared on this
list. This is one of my universities!
-Neal
--
Neal Gorenflo | Publisher, http://Shareable.net <http://shareable.net/> |
415.867.0429
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:01 AM, <
p2p-foundation-request at lists.ourproject.org> wrote:
> Send P2P-Foundation mailing list submissions to
> p2p-foundation at lists.ourproject.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> p2p-foundation-request at lists.ourproject.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> p2p-foundation-owner at lists.ourproject.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of P2P-Foundation digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: [Commoning] new capitalism and commoning (Michel Bauwens)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:20:01 +0700
> From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [P2P-F] [Commoning] new capitalism and commoning
> To: Neal Gorenflo <neal at shareable.net>
> Cc: Massimo De Angelis <commoning at gmail.com>, P2P Foundation mailing
> list <p2p-foundation at lists.ourproject.org>, pat kane
> <playethical at gmail.com>, Adam Arvidsson <adam.arvidsson at unimi.it>,
> Commoning List <commoning at lists.wissensallmende.de>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=u0zBh1B1nb1K8NdxOuZ3E4zkYwdbGaniSyEgG at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110210/968db7fd/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2P-Foundation mailing list
> P2P-Foundation at lists.ourproject.org
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
>
> End of P2P-Foundation Digest, Vol 2, Issue 67
> *********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110210/1a46b38f/attachment.htm
More information about the P2P-Foundation
mailing list