An animated introduction to the commons
20th November 2010
This was produced for the International Commons Conference in Berlin, and was produced in four languages, here the English version:
P2P Foundation
Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices
- Our Wiki
- Our Ning
- Our Reddit
- Other languages
- Greek Blog and Wiki
Sites/Publications
Bookmarks
Books
Free Software, Free SocietyCommunity
Admin
Featured Book
Misunderstanding the Internet
Open Calls
- CfP: “Platform Politics” in Culture Machine
- 2012 Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest
- Open Call: Technoscience as Activism
- The Occupy Exchange Fellowship Program
Mailing List
Subscribe
Translate
Recent Comments:
- Øyvind Holmstad: “In this regard it attains the radical democratic ideal of unanimous consent of the governed, which is never completely...
- Øyvind Holmstad: No, the commons cannot work through more free time, the commons can only occur through pattern languages maintaining the human...
- Steve Herrick: The link should be: this.
- Carlos Boyle: Muro Walf says, about Elisabeth Noelle Neumann’s the Spiral of Silence, that people prioresses “where to position them selves ”...
- Øyvind Holmstad: Have you heard about the “universal scaling law” by Nikos Salingaros: http://meandering-through-m...
November 21st, 2010 at 6:01 am
As I watched the video it became clear to me that there were some basic inaccuracies that may be misleading and may contradict what happens in reality. First scarcity is not caused by “someone making a commodity short in supply” but rather our basic human nature. We have infinite wants that clash with the finite resources our planet has. And it is really that simple, scarcity does not just suddenly come into existence when someone claims a commodity as theirs. It exists because there are too few resources to sate our infinite wants to begin with . People charge money because they have an incentive to, money is the medium of exchange used in all developed cultures. And to get by in those cultures one must have the medium of exchange, if someone finds a creative, legal way to do make money, good for them, they understand the system. It is clear that money discriminates against the poor but every medium of exchange discriminates in some way. I mostly agree with the “Foundation for peer to peer alternatives”, but I feel that there are some key issues at hand. One is that by trying to find a way to change current unwanted conditions one overlooks the causes of these conditions. Several causes for the problems mentioned in the video include infinite wants, finite resources, regulation of distribution of finite resources, lack of sustainability, lack of awareness, and the current medium of exchange. Also by looking for a solution that does not involve the problem’s causes is bound to create further problems that may be more difficult to solve. Undoubtedly some of the causes are basic human nature. In order to bring about change one needs the majority, which in this case is the masses. As history goes several examples come to mind that show it is extremely difficult to sway the masses to embrace widespread reform all at once which in this case involves properly educating them, another maybe even harder task. Although I may not be as well acquainted with the ideas and aims of this foundation as others I have some fundamental questions. What is the ultimate goal of P2P? Another renaissance? Enlightened masses? What does world-making encompass? Isn’t most social technology used by the majority used to communicate irrelevant information rather than educate and share important ideas? How does P2P suggest going about changing said misuse? I would be glad to hear an insightful responses as well as any criticism, pointers, and other relevant information.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Hi Elias,
You assume there is a ‘basic human nature’ that explains scarcity. While recognizing that human greed is a universal, not all societies were based on its premise, and for hundred thousands of years, humanity lived in equilibrium, and the commons was actually very important in this. According to Ostrom, no commons has ever destroyed its ecology (see swiss and austrian mountain slope commons as an example). There is nothing wrong in se with the market as scarcity allocation mechanism, but the infinite growth mechanism of capitalism is more than that, i.e. a scarcity engineering mechanism, which goes way beyond nature and ‘human nature’, in ensuring scarcity. For example, Monsanto’s terminator seeds, or intellectual property provisions that slow down innovation and criminalizes sharing. You are also ignoring that current money is not just neutral, but has a specific design, for example, compound interest requires continues growth, to cite only one example. You pose a lot of interesting questions, which would take time to respond. Perhaps you can join our mailing list for a while, and we can have a discussion around your questions?