iDear Andreas,<br><br>you write:<br><br><With peer production you have made a choice for the primacy of the
social and a specific form of social organisation. Fair enough, but you
have made a choice that puts technologies in second place. This is my
question: Does anybody believe the new interest in issues around peer
production and the commons would have happend anyway, even without the
developments of digital technologies over the past 20 years? Peer
productions has always existed. Various forms of commons and
cooperatives have always existed. But the new interest in these issue is
due to the digital, networked, and distributed technologies, and their
capabilities to open up new forms of social action.><br><br>This is well put, and for me the one of the key arguments put forward by my own P2P Theory is indeed, yes, technogical affordances matter tremendously (that does not mean they come out of nothing themselves though, but once there, they are a very important factor in determing social realities), and create new possibilities that did not exist previously. So my answer would be that peer production has been enabled by technology and would not exist on the scale we know, without it. That does not mean that societies without it have no emancipatory possibilities, but they would be different ones. Digital technologies affording 'peer production' create distinct possiblities for emancipation through autonomous distributed physical and virtual production.<br>
<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Andreas Wittel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andreas.wittel@gmail.com">andreas.wittel@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Michel, <br><br>thanks for your comments. Very useful, I will reply here to both of your responses.<br><br>I do agree, as you suggest in your first response, that there is always a multitude of determinations at work and that it is best to avoid or bracket this topic where we can.<br>
<br>As long as we analyse relations between technologies, economies, and people<i> on a micro-level</i>, we can indeed carve out these co-productions and co-dependencies, where different factors and forces are at work at the same time.<br>
<br>For ecample Raymond Williams' critique of McLuhan's technodeterminism is very correct: all technologies are produced socially, thus people produce the things and technologies they need and want to make their life better, ergo: it is nonsensical to say that things determine the actions of people.<br>
Similar Bruno Latour's famous analysis of the hotel key, which is desinged in a way that people want to get rid of it before they leave the hotel. It is designed on purpose so big, they don't want to forget to hand it back to the reception desk.<br>
<br><i>On a marco-level</i> or for a historical analysis however things get much more complicated as we have to find words which will represent transformations in the best possible way. And quickly we are back different 'determination camps' again. See below.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Michel Bauwens <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michelsub2004@gmail.com" target="_blank">michelsub2004@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Andreas,<br>I do not use informational mode of production myself as it is quite vague.<br></blockquote></div><div><br>Neither do I. I have used the term 'digital mode of production' to distinguish it from a material mode of production. The problem that you outline below is of course still valid. Digital mode of production is still vague with respect to emerging social and economic forms. It is also a simplication due to the material externalities of the virtual.<br>
�<br></div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">I think the issue is that based on the differential characteristics of information as a good, it can still be produced in several ways, i.e. in a old-style capitalist mode, where information are commodities and are kept artificially scarce, or in a new capitalist mode which recognizes that information does not need to be commoditized itself. At the same time, this new modality is also the seed form of a new 'peer production mode', if it can extend itself to the material basis. The issue is that current peer production models have both immanent features, reinforcing the current system, and transcendent features, both in terms of changing the current system but remaining 'capitalist', and containing features which transcend the capitalist mode. This is why I usually prefer to consider peer production as a seed form, needing further extension and transformation, rather than as a full mode. At present, peer production of immaterial goods cannot fully reproduce itself without use of the pre-existing mode. This requires peer production communities to think and strategize around the extension of the 'transcending' aspects of their current practices.<br>
</blockquote></div><div><br>With peer production you have made a choice for the primacy of the social and a specific form of social organisation. Fair enough, but you have made a choice that puts technologies in second place. This is my question: Does anybody believe the new interest in issues around peer production and the commons would have happend anyway, even without the developments of digital technologies over the past 20 years? Peer productions has always existed. Various forms of commons and cooperatives have always existed. But the new interest in these issue is due to the digital, networked, and distributed technologies, and their capabilities to open up new forms of social action.<br>
<br></div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>One cannot speak of a mode of production, without these broader social relations, but one can of course speak of modalities of production that take into account the specifics of the goods considered,<br></blockquote>
</div><div><br>Of course not, and nobody using Marxist theory would for get about the wider social relations. For Marx, mode of production is always both, technologies and social relations (class relations, power relations, property relations etc.). <br>
<br>Anyway, this is a mere intellectual problem. There are more pressing issue at the moment with respect to building the stuff we talk about. I just wanted to respond to the neoliberal tag.<br><br>best <br>andreas<br></div>
<br></div><div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
<a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>� - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br><br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org">http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org</a><br>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br>Think tank: <a href="http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI">http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI</a><br><br><br><br><br>