[P2P-F] Fwd: Launch on a debate on p2p and marxism (and specifically the role of the state and civil society)

[Michel Bauwens]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:14 AM
Subject: Launch on a debate on p2p and marxism (and specifically the role of
the state and civil society)
To: p2p-foundation <p2p-foundation at lists.ourproject.org>
Cc: jean lievens <jean.lievens at base.be>, Walton Pantland <waltonp at gmail.com>,
George Papanikolaou <georgepapani at gmail.com>, Vasilis Kostakis <
kostakis.b at gmail.com>, "Dafermos, George" <g.n.dafermos at tudelft.nl>,
orsan at tie-netherlands.nl, Roberto Verzola <rverzola at gn.apc.org>, Raoul <
raoulv at club-internet.fr>, Johan Söderberg <johan.soderberg at sts.gu.se>


Jean Lievens has launched the first contribution of what should be an
interesting debate,

here at
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/p2p-and-marxism-in-search-of?
(see excerpt below)

I think we can subdivise the debate in a number of big topical chunks, so
thanks for making an effort to specify where exactly you are intervening, by
using these subheadings

- the historical failure of socialism and the continued dominance of
capitalism

- the general relationship between marxism and p2p as theoretical and
political approaches

- the general relationship between p2p movements and social movements, in
particular the labour movement

- the role of the state, and the attitude to it

- the role of civil society, and the attitude to it

If you want to join this debate, you can do so here, but I also urge to post
or repost the more substantial contributions, for eventual later
publication, here at

http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/p2p-and-marxism-launching-the

- the role of the commons

- the role of capitalism and the market

- the contemporary nature of human emancipation




<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/network-robustness-and-the-next-net/2011/03/01>

Debating the role of the state and civil society in P2P
Theory<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=14367>
[image: photo of Michel Bauwens]
Michel Bauwens
4th March 2011

A in-depth contribution by Jean Lievens, who addresses a number of important
issues in our p2p approach. The full version of Jean’s contribution is
here<http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/p2p-and-marxism-in-search-of?>
.

*Jean Lievens:*

“The very idea of changing society has suffered an enormous blow because of
what happened after the Russian Revolution. Although the murderous regimes
in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Eastern Europe… had nothing to do with
‘socialism’ or ‘Marxism’, it was in their name that millions of people
perished. One can therefore argue that very term socialism should better not
be used anymore. On the other hand in Europe, socialism is also associated
with the positive idea of the welfare state, although the right stresses the
negative features such as bureaucracy, hierarchy and waste as an excuse for
cutting state expenditure. Therefore the idea of ‘something new’, a new idea
for a new century, can hit a cord. In terminology, there is a clear link
between the terms used by the left and those by the P2P movement: commonism
(communism), the commons (communes), etc.

These ideas are however not known within the labour movement, that is
historically the main driving force behind civil liberties and social
justice. As far as I understand the ideas of P2P at the present, I think
they will play a crucial role in the transition to a new global society,
which could not have been foreseen by Marx or any other ‘classic’ socialist
thinker for the very simple reason that these new technologies did not
exist. If this future society will be called ‘socialist’ is of secondary
importance. But what is important is that it should be more just, equal and
‘happy’ than the present capitalist order witch is untenable anyways.

I do not think however that the transition will be gradual or unnoticed by
the ruling elites. I think the organized working (or middle) class has of
course a key role to play. I think that more clarity is needed on the
question of nations and the state. I think that the question of private
ownership of the commanding heights of the economy and the relationship
between this notion and ‘the commons’ (or an expansion of it) needs to be
resolved, and I think that the fundamentals of democracy, meaning exercising
control over ones own destiny politically, socially and economically, needs
to be deepened.

I think there are any overlaps between traditional Marxism and P2P, but as I
am more familiar with Marxism than with P2P, I’d like to start with some
comments and questions on Michel Bauwens’ article ‘the new triarchy: the
commons, enterprise, the state’.

P2P is defined as the ability to freely associate around the creation of
common value. Can it also be considered as the basis for a new mode of
production? The development of the Internet and of networked infrastructures
gave rise to all sorts of ‘free associations’, including a new type of
businesses. Many of them were not ‘planned’, but developed ‘spontaneously’
as a result of voluntary contributions of thousands and even millions
(Wikipedia, Flickr, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook…). On the other hand, we
witness the integration of new technologies and P2P production in existing
large corporations, finding in some cases a ‘second life’ (IBM, Lego…).

A free association of people creating common value is of course nothing new
and is proper to civil society: trade unions, political organisations,
charity organisations based on gifts and volunteers, hobby clubs, etc. What
is new is the ‘digital commons’ allowing people from all over the world to
contribute and share on an unprecedented scale, eroding national and
nationalistic barriers.

As I am not familiar with the structural anthropology of Alan Page Fiske, my
understanding of the commons is based on what I found on Wikipedia:

“The commons were traditionally defined as the elements of the environment –
forests, atmosphere, rivers, fisheries or grazing land – that are shared,
used and enjoyed by all. Today, the commons are also understood within a
cultural sphere. These include literature, music, arts, design, film, video,
television, radio, information, software and sites of heritage. The commons
can also include ‘public goods’ such as public space, public education,
health and the infrastructure that allows our society to function (such as
electricity or water delivery systems). There also exists the ‘life
commons’, e.g. the human genome.

The Ecologist refers to the commons as “the social and political space where
things get done and where people have a sense of belonging and have an
element of control over their lives”, providing “sustenance, security and
independence”.

There are a number of important features that can be used to describe true
commons. The first is that true commons cannot be commodified – and if they
are – they cease to be commons. The second aspect is that while they are
neither public nor private they tend to be managed by local communities and
cannot be exclusionary. That is, they cannot have borders built around them
otherwise they become private property. The third aspect of the commons is
that, unlike resources, they are not scarce but abundant. If managed
properly, they work to overcome scarcity.

Michel writes: It is customary to divide society into three sectors, and
what we want to show is how the new peer to peer dynamic unleashed by
networked infrastructures, changes the inter-relationship between these
three sectors.

The division of society in three sectors: the ‘public’ (or state) sector,
the private sector and civil society is indeed customary amongst
sociologists, including Marxists academics. However, there are many
definitions of civil society. Here’s what Wikipedia says on Civil Society
and Marx:

“For Marx, civil society was the ‘base’ where productive forces and social
relations were taking place, whereas political society was the
‘superstructure’. Agreeing with the link between capitalism and civil
society, Marx held that the latter represents the interests of the
bourgeoisie. Therefore, the state as superstructure also represents the
interests of the dominant class; under capitalism, it maintains the
domination of the bourgeoisie. Hence, Marx rejected the positive role of
state put forth by Hegel. Marx argued that the state couldn’t be a neutral
problem solver. Rather, he depicted the state as the defender of the
interests of the bourgeoisie. He considered the state and civil society as
the executive arms of the bourgeoisie; therefore, both should wither away.”

Gramsci rectified this negative view about civil society. He did not
consider civil society as coterminous with the socio-economic base of the
state. Rather, Gramsci located civil society in the political
superstructure. He underlined the crucial role of civil society as the
contributor of the cultural and ideological capital required for the
survival of the hegemony of capitalism. Rather than posing it as a problem,
as in earlier Marxist conceptions, Gramsci viewed civil society as the site
for problem solving. Agreeing with Gramsci, the New Left assigned civil
society a key role in defending people against the state and the market and
in asserting the democratic will to influence the state. At the same time,
Neo-liberal thinkers consider civil society as a site for struggle to
subvert Communist and authoritarian regimes. Thus, the term civil society
occupies an important place in the political discourses of the New Left and
Neo-liberals.

So, what definition are we considering here? The same clarification is
needed for “the state” and “the private sector”. Michel writes:

In the current ‘cognitive capitalist’ system, it is the private sector
consisting of enterprises and businesses which is the primary factor, and it
is engaged in competitive capital accumulation. The state is entrusted with
the protection of this process. Though civil society, through the citizen,
is in theory ‘sovereign’, and chooses the state; in practice, both civil
society and the state are under the domination of the private sector. ??

This is in line with the Marxist view on the state as a ‘capitalist’ state,
defending in the last resort the interests of capitalism or the ‘private
sector’. Also the assumption that civil society and the state are under the
domination of the private sector does not contradict traditional Marxist
thought. Does, however, civil society “choose the state”? It has, as Chomsky
point out, in contradiction to the tyranny of corporations, at least some
influence on the state through the electoral process. Only in that sense
civil society exercise some influence on how the state and state
institutions are run. In other words, civil society chooses (mainly
indirectly) the government (executive power) through the election of
representatives in parliament (the legislative power), who in their turn,
again in theory, control the state apparatus. I consider the state as a
‘hybrid’, composed on the one hand of a ‘public sector’, that takes care of
education, public transport, health care, housing -the so-called welfare
state- and is led by bureaucrats under the control of elected officials, and
on the other hand an instrument of coercion, with the police, the army… also
led by bureaucrats controlled by elected politicians, and the juridical
system (the ‘third power’). Is this view in contradiction with the above
statement?

Of course, this is not to say that the state is a mere tool of private
business. In my view, it fulfils three contradictory functions. One is the
protect the whole system, under the domination of private business, and this
is determined by a balance of power not only between different private
business sectors, but also by the social balance of power between business
and civil society, capital and labour.

I agree with the assumption that the state protects the whole system under
the domination of private business, but it could be considered as a static
view. The subsequent statement adds a dynamic element suggesting shifts in
the different balances of power. In my view, this statement is consistent
with the Marxist theory on class struggle (in a very broad sense):

It is only when this balance of power is severely disturbed, that the state
either becomes a private tool of some dominant business clique, or, can
become relatively independent, as in the case of the fascist state. ?

According to Marxism, the balance of power is severely disturbed on the
basis of antagonistic interests between different classes in society,
leading to class struggle. Does the triarchy model acknowledge the class
structure of society, or does it reject it? The fascist state became indeed
relatively independent, although it defended in the last resort the
interests of private ownership. But what about the former (and present)
Stalinist states? Does Michel’s model consider those states as sort of
‘private tool of labour’ that became relatively independent? Marxism talks
about the class nature of the state based on the property relations that it
defends. So fascism, defending in the last resort capitalist property
relations, is in that sense the opposite of Stalinism, defending in the last
resort public ownership, despite the overwhelming similarities between the
two systems.

So, to the first function of being the protector of the total system under
domination of capital, we should add two added functions. It is the
protector of civil society, depending on the balance of power and
achievements of social movements. And finally it is also the protector of
its own independent interests. ??

This statement is valid for capitalist systems, but not for the former
Stalinist states (North Korea, Cuba…), including China and Vietnam, unless
we agree with the assumption that those states were or are state capitalist.
I do not agree with this idea since private ownership of the means of
production was abolished and the economy in those states did not follow the
rules of the market. So I find it difficult to consider those states,
including present-day China and Vietnam, as the protectors of the total
system under the domination of capital. In addition, what does ‘the
protector of civil society’ mean, depending on the balance of power and
achievements of social movements? The state in its capacity of an instrument
of coercion and repression is often challenged by ‘civil society’, so how
can it be considered as ‘the protector’ of it? I think it is correct that
the state, even under ‘normal’ circumstances, has its own independent
interests to defend, although between certain limits, depending on the level
of democratic control over it.

We have historically seen three scenarios in the 20th century. Under
fascism, the state achieves great independence from the private sector,
which may become subservient to the state. Under the welfare state, the
state becomes a protector of the social balance of power and manages the
achievements of the social movement; and finally, under the neoliberal
corporate welfare state, or ‘market state’, it serves most directly the
interests of the financial sector. ??

I have no disagreement with this statement, although we need to approach
these types in a dynamic way. The welfare state is continuously under
attack, social gains are eroded, with the help of the same state that is
supposed to protect and manage the achievements of the social movements.
What we saw, in the last 25 years, was a gradual evolution from a ‘welfare
state’ (Western Europe) to a ‘marker state’ (USA). Again, the ’communist’
states (Russia, China and 35 other states, accounting for 1/3 of the world
population) are left out in this article (but I have read other material on
this issue from Michel since and will come back on it later).

Each sector also had its key institutions and forms of property. The state
managed a public sector, under its own property. The private sector, under a
regime of private ownership, is geared to profit, discounts social and
natural externalities, both positive and negative, and uses its dominance in
society to use and dominate the state. Civil society has a certain power
through the mechanisms of civil society, but the great majority of its
members are in a disadvantaged position because it lacks ownership of the
means of production. ??

The first sentence is written in the passed sense, the others in the
present. I suppose this is an unintended error, otherwise it would seem that
the state does not manage the public sector anymore. Secondly, is a private
sector not by definition operating under a regime of private ownership, or
is it, in a system of public ownership (communism), where there is a private
sector operating (NEP under Lenin, China…), not geared to profit?

In general, I think that the division of society into three sectors, the
state, the private sector and civil society hides the class nature of
society (based on the ownership of means of production). It puts all the
beans in the same basket of ‘civil society’. I think that one of the main
features of capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production
and the profit motive. Capitalist property relations are in my opinion the
main obstacles for the free development of P2P, as I understand it. In that
sense, it would seem to confirm the old assumption of Marx as presented in
the “Preface” to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Marx
assumes that the levels of productive forces are dynamic, and will
eventually outgrow the capacity a given set of relations of production to
sustain that growth. To give just one quote:

“At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of
society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or
-this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms- with the property
relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From
forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into
their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the
economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole
immense superstructure.”

According to this theory, the contradiction between the forces of production
and the relations of production eventually leads to revolutionary change.
This statement can be and often has been interpreted in a deterministic
manner, or as a pre-condition for revolutionary change. The revolutionary
movements of 68 took place during the height of the post-war boom;
revolutionary upsurges in Eastern Europe took place while the economy was
growing rapidly. I do not think that these movements were defeated (or did
not change the superstructure) because conditions were not ‘ripe’ because
the productive forces were still developing.

However, civil society has a relative power as well, through its capability
of creating social movements and associations. Amongst those are religious
institutions, civil associations, political parties, the labour movement,
identity and sectoral movements, and since the 1960’s mostly, issue-oriented
non-profits. In the context of industrial and cognitive capitalism, natural
resource commons slowly disappeared, and the institution of the commons
became a non-player, in the dual struggle between the private and the state
sector, influenced by the relative strength or weakness of civil society and
its movements.

Capitalism has historically been a pendulum between the private and the
public sector, and the commons mostly irrelevant in the struggles for more
or less state intervention. ??

I doubt that capitalism historically has been “a pendulum between the
private and public sector”. I think there has been a general trend in the
direction of an ever-increasing public sector, although this needs to be
confirmed by facts and figures. The private sector needs ‘big government’
and uses it in its own interests. But at the same time, the state is also a
big burden on the private sector in terms of taxation. Therefore in the last
25 or 30 years, the neoliberals tried to reduce the state sector through
cuts and privatisations, but they did not succeed in cutting the size of it
substantially (for example in the US there was a huge increase in defence
expenditure). What the state saves in social expenditure is partially
compensated by an increase of expenditure for security (prisons, police,
courts…). It boils down to the traditional Keynesian choice between canons
or butter.

According to Michel, the experience of creating knowledge, culture, software
and design commons, by a combination of voluntary contributions,
entrepreneurial coalitions and infrastructure-protecting for-benefit
associations, has most tangibly re-introduced the idea of commons, for all
to use without discrimination, and where all can contribute “It has
drastically reduced the production, distribution, transaction and
coordination costs for the immaterial value that is at the core also of all
what we produce physically, since that needs to be made, needs to be
designed. It has re-introduced communing as a mainstream experience for at
least one billion internet users, and has come with proven benefits and
robustness that has outcompeted and outcooperated its private rivals. It
also of course offers new ways to re-imagine, create and protect physical
commons.” ??

This is the essence of the ‘digital commons’ as I understand it. I do
believe that these new models are superior to its private rivals, but the
question is also that these private rivals use the digital commons more and
more into their own private interests, and quit successfully. I think that
the development of the ‘digital commons’ could be considered as a higher
stage in what Marxism refers to as the socialisation of labour. This point
needs to be developed further, but in my opinion, P2P activities through
global digital networks can be considered as a higher form of social labour,
voluntary and spontaneously ‘organised’ and leading to unplanned but
superior ‘business models’. The question here is: will this lead to a sort
of ‘new economy’ within the old, just as European capitalism developed under
feudal conditions until it was strong enough to ‘overthrow’ it, or will this
development be integrated into the present capitalist word order?

The combined failure of state fundamentalism in 1989 and so-called ‘free
market’ ideology in 2008, coupled with the emergence of the peer to peer
practices and the commons, has put this alternative back on the agenda. ??

State fundamentalism is an interesting description of the failed planned
economies under ‘communism’ that I don’t necessarily reject. Also, the
collapse of the international financial system followed by the Great
Recession was a big blow to the neoliberal ideology. Both systems have
indeed failed and that opens up new possibilities.

Peer production gives us an advance picture of how a commons-oriented
society would look like. At its core is a commons and a community
contributing to it, either voluntarily, or as paid entrepreneurial
employees. It does this through collaborative platforms using open
standards. Around the commons emerge enterprises that create added value to
operate on the marketplace, but also help the maintenance and the expansion
of the commons they rely on. A third partner are the for-benefit
associations that maintain the infrastructure of cooperation. Public
authorities could play a role if they wanted to support existing commons or
the creation of new commons, for the value they bring to society.

Let’s accept this model of a future commons-orientated society. It is a
novel idea that breaks with the conventional perspectives of socialism and
needs further thought. It solves some issues, but raises also a lot of
questions. The first one is: how do we get to this commons-orientated
society? Will it be a ‘spontaneous’ or gradual evolution within present
society? Will capitalist corporations be ‘outcompeted’ by P2P based
production? How will the state, as a defender of private ownership dominated
by the private sector, react to this development? What about the present
state structures? What about the political system? What about the
international institutions?

Non- or anti-rival commons do not need to worry about the depletion of their
stocks, so no trusts are necessary, but they use peer property modalities
such as special licenses, which insure the common stock cannot be
privatized, and that those that use the commons and improve on it, also
improve the commons at the same time. But commons of rival or depletable
goods need a trust. ??

To accomplish this, a whole new set of regulations will be needed,
nationally and internationally. So the question arises: how will this be
accomplished politically? Will it be done through new political parties
(such as the pirate party), through existing ones (social democracy, greens,
liberals…), or through pressure groups?

Then we arrive at Michel’s new model of the triarchy:

* The state, with its public property and representative mechanisms of
governance (in the best scenario)
* The private sector, with the corporation and private property
* The commons, with the Trust (or the for-benefit association), and which is
the ‘property’ of all its members (not the right word in the context of the
commons, since it has a different philosophy of ownership)

Here I have some additional questions. What happened with the former civil
society? It seems here to be replaced by the commons. Is there a parallel
between the commons (which is the property of all its members) with
cooperatives? The idea of the cooperative movement was to outcompete
capitalist firms, building a new type of organisation where profits are
distributed amongst its members or co-proprietors.

The emergence of peer-to-peer dynamics and the commons does not of course
mean that society will change radically from the outset. I believe some
different phases can be contemplated.?

It seems to me that the idea, in general, is that a new type of mode of
production, based on P2P dynamics, is in the making within present
capitalist society and that legal forms are proposed or introduced to
protect the (digital) commons against appropriation by the private sector.
We see on the one hand new private firms emerging (Google, Facebook,
YouTube, Flickr…) taking advantage of the free contribution of millions of
volunteers (art creators, software developers…), creating global platforms
generating millions of dollars through all sorts of commercial activity, but
mainly advertising. On the other hand, traditional private corporations use
digital networks and appeal to the input of knowledge from ‘outside’ to
develop their products further or launch new ones (Lego, BMW…). And thirdly,
there is Wikipedia, Wikileaks and other non-commercial P2P organisations
relying on non-paid volunteer work (for example civil journalists…) financed
by gifts or charity. I think that in that sense, there is nothing new within
the capitalist system, except from the fact that from a technological point
of view, social labour has reached a qualitatively higher stage.

In a first phase, the commons simply emerges as an added alternative. But as
it proves it worth and creates the accompanying social movements that
create, defend and expand it, it starts becoming a subsector of society, and
starts influencing the whole. Eventually, it reaches a phase where society
needs to be reformed (let’s call this the parity level). However, it is not
realistic that the state form that was created to protect a given class
structure, can also serve for a new structure, and therefore at some point,
phase transition and transformation will need to occur.

If I understand correctly, the further development of ‘the commons’ will
reach a point where a reform or transformation of society and the state
structure will be necessary. There seems to be a clear parallel here with
Marxist thought, where the working class seems to be replaced by the
commons? The million-dollar question is off course: how will this phase
transition and transformation occur? What will be the social and political
forces behind it?

Let us now imagine how a commons-dominated, i.e. after the phase transition,
society would look like.

* At its core would be a collection of commons, represented by trusts and
for-benefit associations, which protect their common assets for the benefit
of present and future generations
* The commons ‘rents out’ the use of its resources to entrepreneurs. In
other words, business still exists, though infinite growth-based capitalism
does not. However, it is unlikely that traditional corporations, who do not
take into account externalities, will still exist without modification. More
likely is that the corporate forms will be influenced by the commons and
that profit will be subsumed to other goals, that are congruent with the
maintenance of the commons. Also likely, these entities will be owned by the
producers, and not by abstract capital (we’re talking after the phase
transition here)
* The state will still exist, but will have a radically different nature.
Much of its functions will have been taken over by commons institutions, but
since these institutions care primarily about their commons, and not the
general common good, we will still need public authorities that are the
guarantor of the system as a whole, and can regulate the various commons,
and protect the commoners against possible abuses. So in our scenario, the
state does not disappear, but is transformed, though it may greatly diminish
in scope, and with its remaining functions thoroughly democratized and based
on citizen participation.

This model looks like a kind of Utopia, although it is rooted in the
existence of the commons and a vision for its further development. I do not
necessarily reject this vision. In fact, it seems more valid than the idea
of a “socialist market economy”, based upon the socialisation of the means
of production through the distribution of shares amongst the population
(eventually represented by ‘tokens’ that cannot be sold on the market).

In addition, given the fact that the two main currents within the labour
movement, ‘communism’ and the planned economy on the one hand, and social
democracy and the welfare state on the other -although both formally based
on Marxism- are in a blind alley, capitalism is perceived more then ever as
the natural order of things: “there is no alternative”. Despite the huge
ideological differences, the state plays a crucial role in both models.

Despite the fact that the labour movement is ideologically in a blind alley,
it continues to fight to defend its interests. However, in the last 25 or 30
years, it was mainly engaged in defensive struggles and did not fight for
better conditions and more democracy. Marx had no clear vision of the future
socialist society. He did not put forward a blueprint, but relied on the
self-organisation of the working class as the new leading force in society.
A lot of Marx’s predictions did not materialise, laying the basis for
different revisionist theories.

That changed with the Russian Revolution and the abolition of market
relations in the Soviet Union (and later also in other countries). Until
1989, despite all the crimes of those regimes, they represented at least
experiments of a new form of society. Many in the labour movement in the
West, including social democrats, hoped for a ‘democratisation’ of these
societies. However, since 1989, the main trend was towards a weak form of
bourgeois democracy, the restoration of capitalist property relations and
the ‘free’ market.

Since the failure of the Soviet experiment, I think we need to return to the
original idea of “self-organisation” of the working class by Marx (defined
as wage earners = a very broad definition), but this does not mean that
there is no need for a vision of a future society. Can Michel’s model serve
in this way? I think the ecological movement, the P2P movement, and the
labour movement have common interests and need to develop a sort of common
‘programme’ or ‘platform’. Traditional Marxism is in my opinion far too much
concentrated on materialistic gains, economic growth and the rest of it. I
think these ideas developed after Marx’ death, especially after the Russian
revolution and the development of the planned economies. So in that sense, I
think we can find more inspiration in the writings of Marx himself
(especially the ‘young Marx’) and the left critics of the so-called
‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ in Russia after 1917, like Rosa Luxemburg.
It is not because they lost that they were completely wrong.”


-- 
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








-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110302/e83a9fa3/attachment.htm