[P2P-F] new article on netarchical state

[Michel Bauwens]

here's a copy of my latest article:
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/choosing-between-3-strategies-against-netarchical-capital-and-its-state-form/2014/11/11

Choosing between 3 strategies against netarchical capital and its state form
<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/choosing-between-3-strategies-against-netarchical-capital-and-its-state-form/2014/11/11>
[image: photo of Michel Bauwens]

Michel Bauwens
11th November 2014


The internet and technology are often essentialized which then results in
versions of technological gnosticism, where technology is either seen as a
false god that inevitably plays an evil role in human society, or the
different forms of cyber-utopianism. In its most recent iterations, the
dark vision takes root in the revelations of Edgar Snowden about NSA and
other surveillance, to argue that the internet has become a tool of control
and oppression; while for example the bitcoin enthusiasts often see the
mis-identified ‘peer to peer’ currency as the tool that will bring down
governments and large banks to usher in a anarcho-capitalist utopia.

To avoid these simplifying debates, it helps to see technology and the
internet specifically, as socially constructed and reflecting various
social interests and biases, who are engaged in an ongoing battle. In order
to do this, it helps to make some crucial distinctions. The first is the
polarity between centralized and distributed control, which can also be
interpreted in the context of scope or geographical orientation,
distinguishing the global vs local polarity. The second polarity is
economic, which allows us to distinguish for-profit orientations, i.e.
maximizing shareholder value, from ‘for-benefit’ orientations, where the
economic logic is subsumed to the achievement of social goals.

This allows us to look at at least four possible scenarios that can serve
both as analytical tools for the critique and identification of current
technological models, but also to envisage them as ‘societal scenarios’,
i.e. socio-technological structures that are dominated by either one of the
four models.

The first model we can identify is the ‘netarchical’ model, which combines
centralized control of the technological infrastructure with a for-profit
orientation. In this model, exemplified by the internet giants such as
Amazon, eBay, Google or Facebook, while the front-end allows a certain, and
even large measure, of peer to peer driven interactions, the technology
itself is nevertheless owned and controlled by shareholders. These forces
are the new ‘intermediaries’ of the internet, positioning themselves as
facilitators of social cooperation and peer to peer interaction, but
connecting these sharing platforms and spaces, dominated by the logic of
use value, to the logic of exchange value. Users have very limited ways to
create livelihoods, pay heavy transaction taxes to the platform owners,
have no input into the design or social protocols which govern their own
behaviour and interaction. Netarchical capital ‘enables and empowers’ peer
to peer interactions, while also exploiting it. In fact, we can consider
this as a form of hyper-exploitation, since in many cases, nearly 100% of
the extracted exchange value goes to the owners, while the creators of the
use value, without which the platform could not exist nor extract exchange
value, remain unrewarded.

Could we argue that to this emerging new sector of capital, corresponds a
new state model ? We would say yes, and the Snowden revelations point
towards the emergence of netarchical state forms, in which peer to peer
interactions are allowed, but also monitored and controlled. It is no
secret that there is a close cooperation between both the commercial
netarchical operators, and the national governments that support them. The
dream of the netarchical state is behavioural control and modification by
directly connecting our online behaviours, to neurological prompts.

There is a second for-profit model, which is ideologically distinct, though
pragmatically leads to very similar results. This second model opts for
distributed infrastructures, but with a underlying for-profit orientation.
Bitcoin is of course the exemplar of this approach. The ‘peer to peer’
aspect of bitcoin however, is limited to consider computers as peers,
obviously not seeing any issue with the existence of super-peers which own
thousands if not more computers, vs. the poorest three billion of the
population, who may not have access to computers at all. With its
deflationary design, its highly unequal property structure which exceeds
the GINI coefficient of countries with sovereign currencies, it favours the
‘hacker class’ of early believers and investors and quickly leads to
domination by a new class of ‘mining’ intermediaries. Because
anarcho-capitalism sees no qualms in inequality, it ignores power law
dynamics (concentration of resources in the hands of the few), and rather
quickly moves to netarchical monopoly. We also put in this category the
emerging sharing economy, which similarly aims to “liberate” p2p commercial
interactions for idle goods. While we could say that netarchical capital
capitalizes directly on non-commercial social cooperation, and creates
market dynamics around it, distributed capitalism aims to commodify every
social interaction directly. Things that could have been shared (excess
space through non-monetary couchsurfing), are monetized and commodified,
turning every citizen in a owner of distributed capital. At least in the
sharing economy, though perhaps less in the bitcoin economy, all
interactions are also transparent to the platform owners and the same
techniques of social and behavioural control, can be perfected over time.
While anarcho-capitalist ideology may be theoretically opposed to
concentration of resources, they quickly lead to highly unequal social
structures.

However, there are alternatives, for-benefit alternatives, which we believe
hold a better deal for the majority of citizens and technology users.

The third model, and our first alternative model, combines a local
orientation with a focus on community benefits. We have seen over the last
few years an exponential growth of open food networks, of local
complementary currencies and time banks, of Transition Towns and their
multiple localization initiatives, where networked technology is used to
increase local resilience. Countless fablabs, hackerspaces, and co-working
spaces have also been created to stimulate local cooperation. While the
orientation is local, the cooperation is often global, such as for example
the co-learning through a formal pattern language, undertaken by the
Transition Towns the world over. Nevertheless, we believe this approach is
still insufficient in terms of the creation of global counter-power.

Thus, we would argue for the fourth model, which combines for-benefit
practices with a global commons orientation. In this model, the internet
and networked technology is not seen as a means of communication, but as a
‘means of production’. Global open design (and knowledge, software)
communities create global technical, scientific commons that allow for
local distributed manufacturing, using these open designs for local
benefit. At the same time, the local producers see themselves as nodes of a
global cooperative value-creation and on-demand manufacturing network, that
can create global ‘phyles’, i.e. global community-oriented, commons
co-producing alliances that have the potential to become peer to peer
transnational organisations creating global solidarity mechanisms. In time,
these organisations will also produce social and political power that can
challenge the domination of the shareholder multinationals. We have argued
elsewhere for the adoption of new cooperative governance mechanisms, on the
basis of commons-based reciprocity licenses.

So what are we to do. We see three main options ?

The first option is the hacker option, which entails the reconstruction of
a wholly new true p2p internet. This is necessary and vital work but it
should be undertaken without illusions. Thus, it may already be too late to
wean average consumers from the netarchical platforms, which are highly
funded, easy to use and already have obtained insurmountable network
effects. We would argue that such hacker alternatives should be above all
used internally by the global peer producing communities, as real tools of
production, that could be increasingly inter-networked.

The second approach is to directly challenge the governance, ownership and
extractive practices of the netarchical platforms. Rather than leave them
and isolate the most conscious activists amongst themselves, this approach
calls for organizing user groups, and create political pressure to regulate
these platforms for public benefit. Eventually, depending on social
strength and the balance of forces, the private ownership or at least
exclusive hierarchical governance, of such public utilities can be
challenged. This strategy is pretty much akin to the strategies of the
labour movement and how it tackled privately owned factories. If we have no
real choice but to use them, then we need to challenge them and change them.

But the third approach is to concentrate on the actual reconstruction of a
different counter-economy at the heart of value creation. To create
vibrant, self-governed, cooperatively owned peer production communities, as
we have indicated above. And from this practice, reconstruct political and
social movements.



Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at:
http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20141111/6f6ff0ae/attachment.htm