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
<div class="gmail_quote"> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM, 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="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Dear Martin,<br><br>I 'get' your irony and implied condescension for the hacker and free software community, those poor unconscious folks who lack the true awareness,<br>
<br>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<br><br>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,<br>
<br>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<br>
<br>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,<br><br>from the department of Pedersenian irony, which has one an extra convert<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>Michel</font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:24 AM, j.martin.pedersen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:m.pedersen@lancaster.ac.uk" target="_blank">m.pedersen@lancaster.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"><br>Yes, I agree. I was being simplistic. Let us go with what hackers want -<br>their political analysis seems sound.<br>
<br>My apologies to the list for suggesting otherwise.<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div><br>On 08/02/11 21:10, Michel Bauwens wrote:<br>> the situation is a lot more complex than that<br>><br>> many different corporate players contribute to Linux, and the Linux<br>> Foundation consists for example of different players<br>
><br>> though 75% of Linux contributors are paid, 25 % are still volunteers<br>><br>> I've heard from free software developers that a substantial number of IBM<br>> Linux workers can self-determine the areas they contribute to, depending not<br>
> just on the corporate needs of IBM<br>><br>> I have yet to hear strong, or even weak, critiques of free software<br>> developers towards the general attitude of IBM in this matter, though they<br>> have 'specific' critiques about specific actions; in general, I think the<br>
> opinions of those knowledge workers directly involved in such projects,<br>> should be taken into account<br>><br>> of course, the corporatisation of a commons is a matter of concern, and<br>> changes the rules of the game, but it remains a matter of community vs.<br>
> corporate dynamics, not at all a simple and straight enclosure and<br>> programmed defeat, but a dynamic co-adaptation and struggle; nevertheless,<br>> it is a commons that continues to grow and create value for society; that<br>
> creates sustainability and social reproduction for a very large fraction of<br>> contributors; the overwhelming majority of free software workers considers<br>> this important progress, not an enclosure in which they lost<br>
><br>> nevertheless, this is why open source communities should ideally strive<br>> towards the creation of independent entities, use a logic of preferential<br>> attachment towards corporate entities that maximally share commons values,<br>
> and fight for community autonomy in the governance of such commons; it's a<br>> construction and a struggle, not a fixed and idealized situation of total<br>> defeat<br>><br>> your analysis would suggest that voluntary contributors that can't make a<br>
> living, is a superior situation where 75% percent of workers can make a<br>> living, an analysis and appreciation not shared by said commoners<br>><br>> free software workers do not share your ironic idealization of IBM, but they<br>
> appreciate a social compact that reflects a current balance of power that is<br>> not experienced as something wholly negative, but as a realistic advance in<br>> the view of current circumstances; wnen this compact is broken, they<br>
> frequently react, and frequently win these conflicts (see<br>> <a href="http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Conflicts" target="_blank">http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Conflicts</a>); commoners aware of<br>> contradictions within the present political economy also create their own<br>
> autonomous cooperatives (<a href="http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Software_Cooperatives" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Software_Cooperatives</a>)<br>> and actively propose alternatives (such as the Venture Communism of<br>
> Telekommunisten)<br>><br>> Our own <a href="http://p2p.coop/" target="_blank">p2p.coop</a> is in process of adopting the latter's peer production<br>> license, which creates a commoners-only commons, i.e. an active and mutually<br>
> supportive counter-economy; however, it comes at the price of a much slower<br>> growth of said commons, and actually 'closes' the commons to a significant<br>> degree; there is a real irony in that a real commons operating purely on<br>
> commonist principles, is open to appropriation by capital, while a closed<br>> commons has a non-commercial clause which prohibits such appropriation<br>><br>> in such a context, a conclusion like, No commons without commoning, no IBM<br>
> involvement without enclosure, would appear to deny such complexities; in<br>> fact, commoning and enclosure can co-exist in complex and paradoxical ways,<br>> in which the advantage of the one is not always a zero-sum game leading to<br>
> the loss of another<br>><br>> which why I prefer the paradoxical conclusion: no real enclosure without<br>> real enclosure, and no enclosure without the majority of commoners<br>> experience such enclosure; of course such a conclusion would warrant that we<br>
> take the experience and points of view of such workers seriously<br>><br>><br>><br>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:51 PM, j.martin.pedersen <<br>> <a href="mailto:m.pedersen@lancaster.ac.uk" target="_blank">m.pedersen@lancaster.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>>><br>>><br>>> On 08/02/11 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote:<br>>>> so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening<br>>>> the free software commons.<br>>><br>>> On the premise that there are no commons without commoning, IBM does not<br>
>> strengthen the software commons.<br>>><br>>> Rather, IBM converts the (re)production of the *resource* that software<br>>> commoners have created/established into a matter of wage labour.<br>>><br>
>> Command over wage labour - and the means of production required to<br>>> capitalise on it - are thus used to subsume control of what was<br>>> previously a commons, - a process also known as enclosure. This is the<br>
>> first step. They claim ownership, by acquiring decision-making powers,<br>>> by claiming de facto leadership of the organisation (and future<br>>> direction) of the resource. Software - like most things - is movement,<br>
>> and IBM moves it in a direction away from common ground.<br>>><br>>> Due to way in which the GPL sits on the fence, this is possible without<br>>> the immediately apparent destruction of the commons. Hence, for the<br>
>> uncritical observer it might appear as if IBM are adding to the commons,<br>>> but their interaction with the commons actually results in the<br>>> minimisation/marginalisation of commoners in the development of the<br>
>> commons: they are rendered marginal: they may still play with the code,<br>>> i.e. the resource, but their commoning is ever less significant in the<br>>> development of the resource, while waged labour and corporate planning<br>
>> increasingly determines the trajectory of the resource.<br>>><br>>> No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure.<br>>><br>>> Unless, of course, we say that IBM is such a nice trustworthy outfit<br>
>> that like our Open Source friends at Google "do no evil"(TM) and who<br>>> would never help computing another holocaust.<br>>><br>>> m<br>>><br>><br>><br>><br><br>--<br>
</div></div><a href="http://commoning.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://commoning.wordpress.com</a><br><br>"...I thought we were an autonomous collective..."<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br></div>
</div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net/" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br><br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br>Commons Strategies Group, <a href="http://www.commonsstrategies.org/" target="_blank">http://www.commonsstrategies.org/</a><br><br><br><br><br><br><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Commoning mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Commoning@lists.wissensallmende.de" target="_blank">Commoning@lists.wissensallmende.de</a><br><a href="http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning" target="_blank">http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>--<br><br>Neal Gorenflo | Publisher, <a href="http://shareable.net/" target="_blank">http://Shareable.net</a> | 415.867.0429<br>