[P2P-F] prince of networks and grid group theory

Sat Mar 19 09:17:07 CET 2011

andy, response inline

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hiya,
>
> OK, so the individual in CS doesn't just relate to the community as an
> undifferentiated whole, but the whole becomes something like a corporate
> being separate from each of the contributors - as a result of which, one can
> provide a gift to the whole, or receive something from it?

I don't think that is the case actually, and this is what differentiate the
commons from the state; the state aims 'in theory' to handle the collective,
but is separated from that collective, and in the best of cases, use
representational mechanisms; but in say digital commons, the whole exists
for everyone (with access), without exclusion (at least for use); the
commons should not be confused with the community and the community should
not be confused with the 'infrastructure of cooperation' which may be
managed by a democratic representative body. The real answer is that what
you say 'can' happen, but is not a necessary feature, the whole can take on
different configurations, some of which, as you say below, can be dangerous.
In free cooperation commons, 'you must submit to the greater whole', simply
does not exist, since your contribution, and your usage for that matter, are
free. In physical commons of course, there are many different issues, yet
decades of study show they work quite well under a variety of hybrid
regimes.

Don't know enough of the specifics of potlach to answer question, but it is
quite possible that some of it may be CR, though it is generally classified
as a gift dynamic ... It seems to me that, because of the essential
hybridity of human relations and projects, things may have AND communal
shareholding aspects AND gift aspects etc .. each relation to be examined
specifically. However, I do believe that social systems can have a dominant
core, but again, to be examined concretely,

how to analyse LInux as a corporate dominated commons for example, what
dominates, the commons aspects of the code, or the privatising aspects of
the participating corporations, both are probably in tension with each
other,

Michel

> Does the community have to be something like a Stirnerian spook for this to
> work?  I wonder, too, what the role of status is here: if Linus has status
> because he contributes to the collective instead of to the individual
> contributors, does this mean the collective outranks each of the
> participants (i.e. the collective has a claim to gifts, whereas the
> contributors do not)?  If so, how does this fit with the apparent right to
> appropriate from the collective?
>
> I'm trying to get my head round the implications, because communitarianism
> has conservative and authoritarian implications, and often seems to carry
> the implications, "individuals must submit to the greater whole" (which
> functions like an external figure, very similar to "individuals must submit
> to God" or "the king") and "individuals must NOT ask what the collective
> will do for them" (need, demand, desire and entitlement figure as sins, and
> human rights as outer frame restricting the collective's demands/acts is
> rejected) - both typical of gemeinschaft.  There's left and right versions
> of this perspective, but they're pretty much invariant in how they construct
> the collective-individual relation, and they're also invariant in their
> social authoritarianism and borderline misanthropy.  This doesn't seem to be
> how you see CR working, and it doesn't seem to be how Open Source works in
> practice (I've never got that authoritarian/misanthropic/anti-rights vibe
> from Open Source, quite the opposite), but it sounds closer to CR than to
> ER, AR or MP.  Is this kind of thing CR?  Maybe it's a fifth system, or some
> kind of hybrid?
>
> Also, the fused-group or bund seems to function without reference to a
> spook, forming immanently around rituals (it sometimes has an
> object-reference which is also expressive).  Fused-groups seem capable of
> potlatch with collective elements, without the formation of a spook.  Does
> CR vary depending if its context is gemeinschaft, gesellschaft or bund?  Or
> is CR impossible in principle in the bund?  (Maybe the moment of intense
> experience IS the community in a bund?)
>
> Also, wouldn't some variants of potlatch also be gifts to the collective
> (or to all members in an undifferentiated way), rather than to a specific
> other person?  I'm thinking of the mass-consumption event in which a
> contribution of (say) food goes into the production of a feast which is
> consumed by the entire band - an exceptionally high contributor gains
> status, but the status comes from the common-pool contribution, not from
> obligations to each specific person.  Would this kind of potlatch be CR
> rather than ER?
>
> bw
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> thanks for this genealogy!, would be nice to see this in an essay form one
>> day <g>
>>
>> so the difference between CS and ER (gift economy),
>>
>> is that in CR, you have a general exchange with the whole, and indeed, you
>> gain reputation by contributing the most, but there is no 'individual'
>> expectation of any precise return to that whole, as long as enough
>> individuals contribute enough to maintain the system going; in physical
>> systems, this is regulated since the resource is scarce and needs
>> replenishing; in 'immaterial systems', this is usually not so regulated
>> (however any online CS system is predicated on a physical cooperation
>> infrastructure which is predicated on scarcity rules and managed
>> differentially from the online polarity)
>>
>> in the gift exchange you are exchanging between individuals, families,
>> clans, tribes; in the case of potlach, the chief, representing a clan or
>> tribe, 'gives' to the other tribe, thereby creating a clear debt to that
>> other clan/tribe
>>
>> I don't see Linux as a gift chief giving to other clans/tribes, but rather
>> as somebody seen as contributing the most to a particular commons, and thus,
>> it's a CS and not a gift logic
>>
>> I think the psychology is different, i.e. Linux people would feel
>> gratitude and respect to Linux for his contributions, and support him as a
>> key asset, but would not feel to obligated to give back to the individual
>> LInux as  a competitive gift
>>
>> I see an ethical growth between authoritiy ranking, market pricing, gift
>> economy, and communal shareholding, each one has a greater degree of
>> gifting/sharing than the other; and therfore, I see CS dominance as part of
>> an ethical growth ; of course, historically, the logic is rather CS / ER/
>> AR/ MP / CS
>>
>> This would mean a core of society governed by communal sharing, through
>> commons for open knowledge, software and design; surrounded by a level of
>> gift economy; surrounded by a level of market mechanisms; and finally
>> surrounded by a level of hierarchical distribution, with the different
>> levels in a level of 'subsidiarity'
>>
>> in other words, do whatever you can as communal shareholding (giving
>> without direct expectation of return); if that doesn't work, what can work
>> through gifting exchange (giving with indirect expectation of return), if
>> that doesn't work, what can work through equivalent market exchange (giving
>> with direct expectation of immediate return of same value), and if that
>> doesn't work, what can work through some form of centrally decided
>> allocation/distribution (centrally regulated obligated giving/receiving)
>>
>> This is the 'ethical' logic, I see, though in practice, a centrally
>> allocated basic income, may actually be necessary for CS to work in a
>> sustainable manner in the first place,
>>
>> Michel
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hiya,
>>>
>>> Well, the way you're talking about communal sharing reminds me a lot of
>>> the fused-group in Sartre, its descendant the subject-group in Guattari, and
>>> its close relative the bund/band/sect in Peterson, which is traced back to
>>> Toennies.  Communal ownership has been theorised by people like Owen J.
>>> Lynch as underpinning traditional land-use rights in relation to CBNRM,
>>> although i think it's being stretched a bit.  There's other precedents in
>>> anarcho-mutualism and utopian socialism (Fourier, Morris).  Fourier's idea
>>> of 'harmonisation' is intriguing, basically turning all problems of need
>>> into common problems and seeking to solve them by systemic rearrangements
>>> which turn problems into assets.  Illich talks about certain
>>> tools/technologies as 'convivial', implying something like CR, in various
>>> works including Deschooling Society and Tools for Conviviality: something
>>> like the phone system and the postal system would be a convivial tool
>>> (roughly speaking, use-neutral and user-led), whereas the road system and
>>> the school system would not be (because it imposes particular uses, has a
>>> scarcity structure and is oriented to individualised/competitive use).  He
>>> talks about using low-tech alternatives, such as 2-way radios and
>>> audiocassette networks instead of TV and radio, and electronic mules instead
>>> of cars, as appropriate technologies in the South, in similar terms; ditto
>>> his 'learning webs' as alternatives to school.  His work actually reads
>>> nowadays as proto-internet.  Something else to look at might be
>>> autoreduction, the idea of making services (public transport, electricity,
>>> etc) free/common by refusing to pay, which emerged in Italy from autonomia:
>>> http://libcom.org/history/autoreduction-movements-turin-1974
>>>
>>> I can see why you'd make the move from gift economy to CR.  But how would
>>> this fit with the authority/status which accrues to people like Linus
>>> Torvalds and Assange?  This would fit very well with gift economy (the
>>> cyber-chief accumulates status by means of disproportionately large
>>> contributions, as in potlatch, Big Man systems etc) and not so well with CR
>>> (why would contributions be recognised if contributions count as if from a
>>> single body?)
>>>
>>> bw
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Andy,
>>>>
>>>> thanks a lot for this,
>>>>
>>>> defining all the characteristics of p2p would take some time,
>>>>
>>>> but in a nutshell, from
>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske
>>>>
>>>> Communal Sharing (CS) is a relationship in which people treat some dyad
>>>> or group as equivalent and undifferentiated with respect to the social
>>>> domain in question. Examples are people using a commons (CS with respect to
>>>> utilization of the particular resource), people intensely in love (CS with
>>>> respect to their social selves), people who "ask not for whom the bell
>>>> tolls, for it tolls for thee" (CS with respect to shared suffering and
>>>> common well-being), or people who kill any member of an enemy group
>>>> indiscriminately in retaliation for an attack (CS with respect to collective
>>>> responsibility).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm starting to list the essential concepts here as well:
>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Companion_Concepts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hiya,
>>>>>
>>>>> Actor-network theory (ANT) which Latour is associated with, views
>>>>> everything which exists (people, animals, objects) as 'actors', these actors
>>>>> as arranged more-or-less horizontally in networks, and seeks to analyse the
>>>>> composition of particular networks (e.g. science as an interaction of
>>>>> scientists with one another, with their equipment, with whatever they're
>>>>> studying, etc).  It's a bit different from peer-to-peer in that, while it's
>>>>> an anti-authoritarian view, it doesn't really distinguish horizontal and
>>>>> vertical organisations, and the actors can co-constitute in different ways -
>>>>> in a sense, peer-to-peer would lose its specificity when everyone and
>>>>> everything is a peer.  Also, it would imply that something like open-source
>>>>> programming is not simply a network of programmers, or even programmers and
>>>>> users, but also of computers, peripherals, bits of code and so on, which are
>>>>> all actors in their own right.  It's certainly similar to peer-to-peer
>>>>> approaches but it would be hard to unpack its influence from other
>>>>> horizontalist theories, e.g. Deleuze and Situationism, which precede it by a
>>>>> long way (ANT really took off in the 80s, horizontalism has been around
>>>>> since the 60s), and contempotaries such as Hakim Bey.  If I was tracing a
>>>>> genealogy for peer-to-peer ideas it would probably go from Situationism to
>>>>> culture-jamming (things like subvertising, subway graffiti, street theatre),
>>>>> to DIY activism in the techno field (such as phone phreaking, rave and
>>>>> pirate radio), to early hacker culture, to peer-to-peer, but I might be
>>>>> wrong.  (Also, weren't some of the early hacktivists rather
>>>>> techno-progressivist?  This would sit badly with perspectives such as ANT).
>>>>> ANT is mostly used in Science and Technology Studies, but has become a
>>>>> significant force in sociology too.  Certainly worth reading up on if you're
>>>>> interested in networks more broadly than in the computer setting.  I think
>>>>> Latour has written his own introduction to ANT as well.  Latour declares his
>>>>> own inspiration to be Gabriel Tarde, who would arguably be a further
>>>>> 'original' a long time before - though I think some variety of peer-to-peer
>>>>> production has been around since time immemorial.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would you take to be the defining characteristics/ideas of p2p?  I
>>>>> can probably tell you when they first popped-up in theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> bw
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
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/20110319/b1444ff5/attachment.htm 