<div dir="ltr"><div>here's a copy of my latest article: <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/choosing-between-3-strategies-against-netarchical-capital-and-its-state-form/2014/11/11">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/choosing-between-3-strategies-against-netarchical-capital-and-its-state-form/2014/11/11</a></div><div><br></div><div><p class="" style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;color:rgb(42,42,42);font-size:11.1111116409302px;font-family:Lato,sans-serif!important"><a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/choosing-between-3-strategies-against-netarchical-capital-and-its-state-form/2014/11/11" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to Choosing between 3 strategies against netarchical capital and its state form" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;font-size:1.7em">Choosing between 3 strategies against netarchical capital and its state form</a></p><img src="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/Michel%20Bauwens.jpg" alt="photo of Michel Bauwens" align="left" style="color: rgb(42, 42, 42); font-family: Ubuntu, 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11.1111116409302px;"><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;color:rgb(42,42,42);font-family:Ubuntu,'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11.1111116409302px"></p><div id="postauthorname" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-weight:bold;padding:1px;font-family:Ubuntu,'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11.1111116409302px">Michel Bauwens</div><div id="postdate" style="color:rgb(153,153,153);padding:2px;font-family:Ubuntu,'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11.1111116409302px">11th November 2014</div><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;color:rgb(42,42,42);font-family:Ubuntu,'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11.1111116409302px"></p><br style="color:rgb(42,42,42);font-family:Ubuntu,'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11.1111116409302px"><div class="" style="font-size:1.2em;overflow:hidden;color:rgb(42,42,42);font-family:Ubuntu,'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,sans-serif"><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">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.</span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">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.</span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">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.</span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">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.</span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">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.</span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">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.</span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">However, there are alternatives, for-benefit alternatives, which we believe hold a better deal for the majority of citizens and technology users.</span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">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.</span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">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.</span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">So what are we to do. We see three main options ?</span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">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.</span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">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.</span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">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.</span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small"><br></span></span></p><p style="line-height:1.5em;margin:0px 0px 15px;padding:0px;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small"><br></span></span></p></div></div><div>Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: <a href="http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan" target="_blank">http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan</a> <br></div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">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><a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank"></a>Updates: <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>#82 on the (En)Rich list: <a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/</a> <br></div></div>
</div>