P2P Foundation

Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices


Featured Book

The Social Lives of Networked Teens


Book Store



Admin

Subscribe

Translate

Everything written by Michel Bauwens

Video: Jim Zemlin on the Importance of Foundations for Collaborative Technological Development and Economics

photo of Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens
29th August 2014


Jim Zemlin gave an excellent talk about the importance of foundations in facilitating collaborative development at the 2014 State of Linux conference. He focuses on the key role of FLOSS Foundations, such as the Linux Foundation, and their key role in facilitating open production.

His main points:

* A neutral home for collection and sharing of resources.

* Enable structured investment.

* Helping industry understand how to engage with the community.

* Shared legal defense.

* Shared development infrastructure.

* A neutral home for key developers.

* Addressing market failures.

* Raising awareness (marketing) to bring in more developers and users.

* Organize events for face to face meetings and training.

* Provide training and certification to help grow the community.

Watch the video here via

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditShare

Posted in Conferences, P2P Collaboration, P2P Governance, P2P Infrastructures, P2P Technology, P2P Theory, Peer Production, Videos | No Comments »

How Algorithmic Scheduling is complicating working lives and the parenting of the poor

photo of Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens
28th August 2014


Excerpted from the NYT:

(worth reading the detailed working life profiles in detail)

“Like increasing numbers of low-income mothers and fathers, Ms. Navarro is at the center of a new collision that pits sophisticated workplace technology against some fundamental requirements of parenting, with particularly harsh consequences for poor single mothers. Along with virtually every major retail and restaurant chain, Starbucks relies on software that choreographs workers in precise, intricate ballets, using sales patterns and other data to determine which of its 130,000 baristas are needed in its thousands of locations and exactly when. Big-box retailers or mall clothing chains are now capable of bringing in more hands in anticipation of a delivery truck pulling in or the weather changing, and sending workers home when real-time analyses show sales are slowing. Managers are often compensated based on the efficiency of their staffing. Scheduling is now a powerful tool to bolster profits, allowing businesses to cut labor costs with a few keystrokes. “It’s like magic,” said Charles DeWitt, vice president for business development at Kronos, which supplies the software for Starbucks and many other chains.

Yet those advances are injecting turbulence into parents’ routines and personal relationships, undermining efforts to expand preschool access, driving some mothers out of the work force and redistributing some of the uncertainty of doing business from corporations to families, say parents, child care providers and policy experts.

In Brooklyn, Sandianna Irvine often works “on call” hours at Ashley Stewart, a plus-size clothing store, rushing to make arrangements for her 5-year-old daughter if the store needs her. Before Martha Cadenas was promoted to manager at a Walmart in Apple Valley, Minn., she had to work any time the store needed; her mother “ended up having to move in with me,” she said, because of the unpredictable hours. Maria Trisler is often dismissed early from her shifts at a McDonald’s in Peoria, Ill., when the computers say sales are slow. The same sometimes happens to Ms. Navarro at Starbucks.”

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditShare

Posted in P2P Labor, P2P Rights, P2P Technology | 1 Comment »

Why unions are necessary in the on-demand, so-called, ‘sharing’ economy

photo of Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens
25th August 2014


the workers themselves need to have a say in how this new world develops. The idea that a handful of platforms operating on razor-thin margins will create an equitable world for their workers — that algorithms written by the employers will protect workers’ rights better than the workers themselves and their elected representatives could — would be funny if the reality of this model weren’t so outright terrifying.

Excerpted from David Meyer:

“Creating a better workplace is a big part of the purpose (of unions), but so – fundamentally – is the ability of workers to organize themselves so they can speak with a collective voice. And the purpose of that is to counterbalance the voice of management or the providers of capital, in order to preserve their rights. It’s about maintaining healthy power dynamics.

There is no such opportunity for workers in the on-demand economy — no platform for organization, no collective voice, and no power. Sure, if individual workers don’t like the work then they can theoretically leave, but they can and will be replaced immediately. That’s the whole point of the on-demand economy – it’s taking full advantage of the fact that the supply of workers greatly outstrips demand. And that means that the departures of individuals will provide little incentive to on-demand employers to improve wages and working conditions.

A piece of a job is better than no job at all, but it doesn’t give you security and predictability. Want to talk about employment and health? Crichton’s big citation is the Whitehall II study, which examined how social position can affect health. The big takeaway from this study is that the poorer you are, the likelier you are to get sick. In Crichton’s hands, the study proved that “workplace flexibility can literally extend a worker’s life expectancy.”

If you’re talking flexibility in working hours, then sure, that’s definitely healthier, as Whitehall II and many other studies have established. But if by flexibility you mean uncertainty, then you’ll find an altogether different story. Indeed, studies have generally found that “flexible employment” is as bad for health as unemployment is, with the model’s inherent insecurity causing chronic anxiety and raising self-reported morbidity.

Sure, they can refuse to be picked up, as long as they’re happy to starve.

Flexibility is not necessarily control. Sitting there waiting for a task to roll in, on take-it-or-leave it terms, is not an empowering experience. Many people would genuinely prefer “the corporate grind of the past, with employees sitting in soulless cubicles and waiting thirty years to retire,” as Crichton put it, if that’s the alternative.

I’m from South Africa, where you regularly see people sitting by the side of the road, waiting for someone to pick them up and take them to go weed someone’s garden or lay a few bricks. These hopeful workers represent the ultimate commoditization of labor, a never-ending supply with no meaningful differentiation and no bargaining ability. Sure, they can refuse to be picked up, as long as they’re happy to starve. If they have any control through their “flexibility”, it’s of a pretty meaningless variety.

The fact is, it is possible to combine flexible working practices with full-time or long-term part-time employment. Thanks to the internet, we don’t all need to be behind our desks at fixed hours of the day. Sure, we’re not talking complete flexibility – timing still matters to a great extent – but nor, in many cases, are we talking old-school clocking in and out.

Some people don’t even like this kind of flexibility, when it means always being on-call. Witness the policies adopted by many German companies, which block after-hours email in order to prevent worker burnout. Who asked for that? The unions.

What some people seem to forget about unions is that they’re comprised of workers. Yes, unions can become powerful entities in themselves (which is, again, the point), but they ultimately push for what workers want. In a healthy working environment, the terms are thrashed out by mutual consent between the employers and the employees. Solidarity is key, but even when some workers don’t choose to join a union, they’ll often still benefit from the results if their colleagues do.

I get that Crichton isn’t calling for permanent instability in employment. As he wrote, “the market has to be built in such a way that stability is a possible outcome for those who seek it.” But it’s a tad naive to think that this stability will come from the startups building the platforms in question. They simply have no interest in doing so, and won’t until the demand for labor outstrips the supply.

Look at Uber, which strenuously denies that its drivers are its workers at all, which won’t guarantee to pay those drivers’ fines if they’re caught keeping Uber’s business afloat in cities where the service is banned, and which ultimately wants to get rid of those drivers altogether. TaskRabbit now matches tasks to workers by algorithm rather than letting workers bid for them, erasing much of the control its workers had over their work situation. These are the kinds of businesses that are going to be the “champions of workers”?

I have absolutely no doubt that the workplace of the future will look very different to that of today, and perhaps entirely different to that of a few decades ago. There will probably be fewer jobs to go around, and in many cases we will certainly need to adjust our conceptions of the workplace and the working week. A lot of people like the traditional setup because they care more about what happens after 5pm than the drudgery that comes before, and maybe they’re going to be out of luck.

However, the workers themselves need to have a say in how this new world develops. The idea that a handful of platforms operating on razor-thin margins will create an equitable world for their workers — that algorithms written by the employers will protect workers’ rights better than the workers themselves and their elected representatives could — would be funny if the reality of this model weren’t so outright terrifying.

Ultimately, if work is to truly benefit the worker, she needs to have a voice and real clout. Maybe the traditional union model and traditional labor laws won’t provide that, but the underlying goals of that model and those laws — to make sure employers can’t exploit employees — must be central to this brave new world of work. We just need new ways of achieving this, not to stop trying.”

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditShare

Posted in P2P Labor, Sharing | 1 Comment »

How market-based incentives erode the effectiveness of reputation systems

photo of Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens
24th August 2014


Market-based incentives erode the effectiveness of reputation, and in this respect reputation is a cultural commons. In her TED talk, influential author Rachel Botsman says that in the new economy “reputation will be your most valuable asset”, but as reputation becomes an important asset, markets will grow around it and intermediaries will claim to help you boost your reputation, but these market-based incentives destroy the value of reputation as a mechanism for establishing trust. Mechanisms for buying and selling testimonies, for example, cause testimonies to lose their ability to discriminate between trustworthiness and opportunism because an opportunist with money could buy themselves a good reputation.”

Excerpted from Tom Slee:

“BlaBlaCar, a French sharing economy company that connects “drivers with people travelling the same way” throughout Europe, has over a million registered drivers, transports over half a million passengers every month, and is expanding rapidly. Also, it makes testimonial-based ratings available on its web site.

Of 190129 distinct ratings, 2152 were one-star, there was not a single two-star rating, there was one three-star rating, five four-star ratings, and 187971 five-star ratings. A BlaBlaCar rating means something different from a Netflix movie rating.

With over 98% of ratings being five stars, the reputation system does not meaningfully discriminate among drivers or riders. A reputation system that does not discriminate fails as a reputation system: it fails to solve the problem of trust.

Collusion and fear of retaliation are the reasons why there are essentially no reviews less than five stars for rides that take place. If you give a less-than-five star review then, unlike in the case of offline community-based testimonials, it is visible to the reviewee, who can give you a harsh review in return and so affect your chance of getting future rides. Do you want to defend your opinion that the driver was a bit close to the car in front, or that the car was a bit dirty, or do you just want to give a five-star review and make a note to yourself not to ride with them again? Collusion is the other side of the retaliation coin: I know I turned up late and was eating smelly food in your car and you didn’t like it, but so long as you give me five stars I’ll give you a good positive rating and we’re both better off. Neither of these factors need to be explicit or even to be very important to produce large effects, because it makes no difference to me how I rate you. One seemingly tiny difference between word-of-mouth and the internet rating system makes all the difference, that testimonials are visible to everyone including the reviewee instead of everyone except the reviewee.

The problem is not unique to BlaBlaCar. Reciprocity and collusion in the eBay reputation system has been studied here and the authors also provide an estimate of how many dissatisfied people are not rating their trustee:

The fact that from 742,829 eBay users… who received at least one feedback, 67% have a percentage positive of 100%, and 80.5% have a percentage positive of greater than 99%, provides suggestive support for the bias. The observation is in line with Dellarocas and Wood (2008) who examine the information hidden in the cases where feedback is not given. They estimate, under some auxiliary assumptions, that buyers are at least mildly dissatisfied in about 21% of all eBay transactions, far higher than the levels suggested by the reported feedback. They argue that many buyers do not submit feedback at all because of the potential risk of retaliation.

Finally, on Airbnb, reviewing of hosts by guests and guests by hosts also happens in public and is reciprocal. The Airbnb web site does not display individual numerical reviews, although it does display individual text reviews; instead it displays the average rating that a room has received in each of several categories (cleanliness, location, communication,…) together with an overall average, rounded off to the nearest 0.5 out of five. The web site is less easy to traverse programatically, but out of well over a hundred offerings in New York, Sydney, Berlin and Paris I have yet to see a single one that is not rated 4.5 or 5.6

So even in the absence of explicit gaming, peer-to-peer internet reputation systems do not solve the problem of trust. The BlaBlaCar site fails the basic test of discriminating among almost any of the 190,000 drives that took place—it fails to deliver any useful information beyond giving the occasional sign that a driver or rider may not turn up.”

* The commercial sharing economy is abandoning its reliance on peer trust systems

“Venture capital demands for scale will produce changes in the nature of the sharing economy sites, changes that erode any community focus they have, and which turn them into far more traditional models. Such changes are already underway at the largest, most heavily funded sites.

As Gannes reports, a single bad incident has forced Airbnb to hire a 50-person “trust and safety team” headed by a former US Army intelligence office and a former government investigator. The use of a human team clearly doesn’t scale, so Airbnb is now turning to centralized analysis to solve its problems, saying “We want to apply data to every decision. We want to be a very data-driven company.” On April 30 2013, asserting that “Trust is the key to our community”, Airbnb introduced a “Verified ID program” which demands that you provide government-verified identification and permit the company to analyze your social networking presence or provide it with a video profile.

There is also a drive for more professionalism among hosts. Airbnb now lets hosts sell tours and activities, and here is Chip Conley, the new “Head of Global Hospitality” for Airbnb, hired from the hotel industry, in a September 2013 interview:

We’ll be introducing nine minimum standards around what we expect an Airbnb experience to be, whether it’s related to cleanliness or the basic amenities you expect, which is not currently the case. The idea that we create some amenities that you should expect—clean towels, clean sheets—that’s important. In short, Airbnb is abandoning the idea that peer-to-peer reputation systems can solve the problem of trust, is moving away from the casual “air bed” mentality that gave it its name, and is resorting to traditional centralized systems of enforced minimum standards, documentary verification, and so on.

There is, however, one remaining difference between Airbnb and a traditional hospitality business. To go back to the beginning of this essay, sharing economy companies claim that it is both necessary and sufficient to solve problems of trust and coordination to unlock a large new economy of resource sharing. The “sufficient” part of this is valid only if there are no spill-over effects from the operations of the sharing economy, so sharing economies will campaign for freedom from those constraints that prevent them maximizing their returns: health and safety standards, employment standards, licensing laws, and so on.

To be successful, the venture-capital-funded “sharing economy” will be forced to lose all those aspects of informal sharing that makes “sharing” attractive, and to keep those aspects that erode neighbourhoods, erode employment rights, and remove basic standards. And if they succeed, they will have used the language of sharing to bring about an unregulated, free-market, neoliberal economy.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditShare

Posted in Economy and Business, Sharing | No Comments »

In Montreal: an appeal for the taxation of AirBNB and the sharing economy

photo of Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens
23rd August 2014


Excerpted from an editorial in Montreal’s The Gazette:

“Airbnb is an efficient and popular pillar of the burgeoning sharing economy.

Whether the hotel industry likes it or not, San Francisco-based Airbnb, with a market valuation of $10 billion, is here to stay. And so, whether Airbnb and its fans like it or not, this is why it has become all the more urgent to address some related social, fiscal and legal challenges.

Those include figuring out how to track rental income earned through Airbnb, for tax purposes; raising public awareness that tenants who sublet their dwellings without the consent of their landlords are violating the rules in their leases; and making sure people know there are insurance complications when it comes to liability for property damages that may arise.

Perhaps the biggest issue, for the general taxpayer, is that Airbnb in Quebec does not currently collect any of the room or sales taxes that traditional hotels charge. It should.

The way things work now, the onus of tax compliance is on the hosts who rent out space. Currently, Airbnb advises hosts of their responsibilities, but it doesn’t do anything more than that. And so Airbnb commercial transactions aren’t automatically generating the tax revenue they should, in the same way as commercial hotel and B&B stays. Tourism Quebec understandably conducted an inspection-and-fine blitz of Airbnb operators last year, as a prelude to negotiations this summer with the company to clarify its legal and fiscal obligations.

All Airbnb operations, like hotels and B&Bs, should be responsible for collecting and remitting sales and hotel taxes to governments. Portland, Ore., recently bargained hard for such an arrangement with the company. There’s no reason why Montreal and Quebec should settle for any anything less.

Nor should any other city or state. San Francisco and other foreign destinations are also negotiating hotel-tax agreements and other fiscal arrangements. New York and Paris, meanwhile, are dealing with a shortage of affordable housing exacerbated by the growing trend of landlords transforming rental units into lucrative de-facto hotel rooms, many of them linked to Airbnb.

The sharing economy — be it for room accommodation or taxi rides — is a game-changer that should not be wished, fined or legislated out of existence. But it must not be left to operate in black-market conditions.

To its credit, Airbnb has shown it is open to addressing some of the challenges that have arisen. Just because innovations that disrupt and revolutionize establishment commerce are popular, cool and convenient for consumers doesn’t mean they should sidestep taxation responsibilities. Bringing these newcomers into the regulatory fold isn’t about strangling them with bureaucratic red tape or stifling innovation. It’s about encouraging the sharing economy to share a percentage of its economic activity with the public purse, as all for-profit commercial enterprises are supposed to do.”

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditShare

Posted in Economy and Business, P2P Public Policy, Sharing | No Comments »

Video: a short intro to the ‘moneyless’ Trade Schools in London and New York

photo of Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens
23rd August 2014


The Collaborative Cities project interviews co-founder Caroline Woolard and attends a class in London (Hub Westminster).

Trade Schools are ‘barter for education’ communities.

Watch the video here:

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditShare

Posted in P2P Education, Sharing, Videos | No Comments »

Online Employment Agencies and the Casualization of the Workforce

photo of Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens
22nd August 2014


Excerpted from Veronica Sheen (Australia):

“The online agencies extend what is already on offer by contracting and labour-hire companies, as well as self-employed contractors such as office temps, cleaners, IT specialists, gardeners, labourers, or tradespeople. But in the new model the middle-man (the contracting company) is eliminated – notwithstanding the cut that the online agency takes for itself out of the payment to the worker.

The type of work offered by online employment agencies extends the “casualisation” of the workforce accounting now for around 20 per cent of Australian employees. This casualisation is increasingly part of ongoing employment arrangements for many businesses. The “helper” employed through an online agency is in effect another “casualised” worker.

But unlike other types of contracted and casual employment, these employment relationships fall outside any labour regulatory framework as provided through the Fair Work Act. This means they do not conform to minimum wage or health and safety requirements or provide for any other entitlements. While this is not dissimilar to the situation of any self-employed contractor, its desirability depends on whether the workers have a real choice in regards to this kind of employment and are able to negotiate satisfactory pay and conditions.

On the Airtasker website, a job to clean an apartment involving a couple of hours work offers $US40. Airtasker charges 15 per cent commission for the job so the total payment the worker received – $US34. At the time of my perusing, on the Ozlance website someone is looking for a web developer which has attracted 27 quotes ranging from $250 to $2000.

These bidding arrangements for jobs may encourage undercutting of wages across the board. While the agencies themselves insist that quality – as monitored through an online review process – is also an important component of the bidding and pricing process, it is hard to see that this will outweigh price for most contracts, especially where quality factors are similar. Much online work can also be outsourced to low-wage countries as we can see on the Freelancer Australian website, where people are offering their services for as low as $US6 and $US7 per hour.

Sidekicker runs a different model with a set minimum fee of $29 per hour but deducts 20 per cent for itself so the worker will end with $23 per hour – maybe not so bad depending on what the job involves.

The online employment agencies promote the freedom and opportunity of freelancing work, but I wonder how many people find this type of work greatly congenial and rewarding over the long term. One IT commentator suggests the returns to workers are low and that many people signed up for Airtasker get very little, if any, work at all.

The type of employment arrangement from the online agencies recalls some of the disturbing employment trends in the United States as portrayed in a Foreign Correspondent program and in other articles. The essence of these stories is that the post-GFC recovery in employment in the USA is quite weak with many people forced into part-time, low-wage and casual employment because there are so few decent jobs being generated. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz believes this trend is consolidating inequality and also holding back the recovery.

In the Foreign Correspondent documentary, a young woman is employed in a bar with a nominal wage of $US2.13 per hour and relies on gratuities to make a living. What kind of employment arrangement is this? In fact, it is an employment relationship that the online agencies also propagate.

The individual worker comes into the “labour” market unfettered by any requirements, regulations or rights in relation to wages and conditions – simply what she can obtain on the day for her labour in a marketplace much as a farmer would auction a sheep or a box of oranges.

Should we be worried about this trend in online employment agencies then? It depends. In an economy and labour market with plentiful opportunity for decent work, it is really of no account and may suit some workers and some employers. But where opportunity for decent work is eroded as reports from the United States suggest, then the proliferation of unregulated employment arrangements is concerning in that it exacerbates inequality and dampens economic growth as Stiglitz argues.”

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditShare

Posted in P2P Labor | No Comments »

Video: Wallerstein vs. Rifkin, against the zero marginal cost thesis ?

photo of Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens
22nd August 2014


Well not really, though the title points to one possible way to interpret this interview with Immanuel Wallerstein.

Wallterstein argues that historically, despite oscillations, the price of inputs in labor, material/energy and taxation, have gone up, leading to a systemic crisis for capital.

Rifkin, in his last book, makes a different hypothetis, but focusing on the output. Even giving rising input costs, there is a revolution in output, that with one initial input, it is now possible to produce ever more output, reaching a level that is also problematic for the accumulation of capital.

I strongly recommend watching the video in full.

Watch the video here:

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditShare

Posted in Cognitive Capitalism, Economy and Business, P2P Theory, Videos | No Comments »

Video: a short intro the Aikapankki Timebank in Helsinki

photo of Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens
21st August 2014


The Collaborative Cities project interviews Ruby Van der Wekken and colleague Piia on the experiences of the Helsinki Time Bank, one of the most elaborate projects of this type in Europe:

Watch the video here:

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditShare

Posted in P2P Money, Videos | No Comments »

A political evaluation of bitcoin

photo of Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens
20th August 2014


Bitcoin is a complex phenomenom, and it is a landmark development, even a technological singularity, for good or ill. At the P2P Foundation, we also have complicated feelings about it.

* The Positive Aspects of Bitcoin

Let us first summarize why Bitcoin is indeed such a singularity.

Bitcoin is the first globally scaleable, social-sovereign, post-Westphalian currency

This is not trivial. Before the Treaty of Westphalia, local currencies where the norm, many with negative interest rates, and they bolstered local independence, but the scaling effects of the printing press, which led to a Europe-wide religious civil war, made necessary a re-organization of the political space around the emerging nation-states. These nation-states outlawed local currencies, destroyed local autonomy, and also relied on sovereign currency to establish their power. While local currencies have a periodic resurgence in times of crisis, none of the complementary currencies scaled. Local currencies can therefore never be the expression of global commons power, i.e. the power of global virtual communities. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, it is a hyper-fiat currency, i.e. it only exists because of the trust and political will of the international libertarian hacker segments of the population, in the particular algorithm.

Bitcoin is a weapon of last resort for activist communities

The mainstream monetary and payment system is at the service of a particular world order, and can be mobilized against opposition to it, as became very clear around the Wikileaks affair, where banks, VISA and Paypal collaborated with various authorities to block the fundraising for Wikileaks. In such times, access to alternatives like Bitcoin is vital for activist groups, it becomes their lifeline to funding outside of the control of the central authorities.

The potential of the Bitcoin ledger as a tool for human self-organization

Apart from being a currency, the underlying universal ledger technology of Bitcoin has potential to usher in a new era of more easy self-organisation, by enabling the possibility of smart contracts and software-driven ‘distributed autonomous organisation, as expressed by initiatives like Ethereum, Common Accord, and the crypto-equity experiment of Swarm. Though these developments and possibilities are not without danger, and though most of the current enthusiasm is utopian and mostly based on hopes and just a few budding experiments, this technology is potentially a game changer by bringing down the transaction cost for self-organization.

* The Negative Aspects of Bitcoin

Notwithstanding the above, Bitcoin’s development comes with a potentially very high and anti-social price tag.

Bitcoin is not a true peer to peer currency but leads to more extreme inequality

It is sometimes asserted that Bitcoin is a peer to peer currency because any computer with mining software can create the currency, but not everyone has access to the same number of computers and not everyone has computers, hence, the design of Bitcoin, which favours early entrants and those with investing power, is an engine of inequality. Bitcoin’s Gini coefficient, a metric of inequality, is a whopping 0.87709 and according to Bitcoinica, 1% of the players own 50% of the coins.1 That inequality is not diminishing, but rising: according to Bitcoin Trader, for a given period, “the top 100 have gone from holding 1,776,434 coins to holding 2,254,634 Bitcoins, a whopping 27% increase!”2 The mining capacity is also already concentrated.

Bitcoin can’t lead on its own to a disintermediated society

We live in an epoch of techno-utopianism with a strong drive for techno-cracy. The former means that many believe that technology alone determines certain outcomes, while the latter believes it is a good thing that flawed human processes are replaced by ‘clean’ technological processes. Both attitudes are very dangerous. First, distributed technologies do not necessarily lead to distributed outcomes. We have seen this historically with the effect of the invention of printing, which led to a democratisation of knowledge and literacy, but also in time replaced the local autonomy of free medieval cities with much stronger and controlling nation-states, i.e. more political centralization, not less. Networks which have no counter-measures to maintain equality inevitably lead in time to a new concentration of resources. Hence, in Amazon and iTunes, the so-called long tail of culture consumption predicted by Chris Anderson is no longer operative, and in p2p social lending, 80% of loans are provided by big bangs and institutions, the very forces the technology was supposed to disintermediate. Again and again, we see that the potential disintermediation of power, which may affect established powers, creates new intermediaries, such as the platform monopolies. Technologies are indeed, used by social forces, who inflect technologies for their own needs. The inequality of bitcoin ownership will inevitably further affect the structures that make bitcoin operational, leading to new kinds of monopolies. Technologies are always infused with human values, no programming or infrastructure is truly neutral in that respect.

Bitcoin funds a dangerous ideology

The big danger to the social movements of the industrial era were fascism and stalinism, both forms in which the power of the state became extreme. But what fascism is to the state, propertarian libertarians are to the markets: they aim for the realization of a total market, where every aspect of human life is commodified. The design of Bitcoin is anarcho-capitalist, i.e. it is designed to favour the freedom of property owners, and the more you own, the freeer you are. Because such propertarians do not want to see the existing inequalities in society, decreeing them to be the result of free choice, they inevitably ally themselves with oligarchic forces and support their political programs of the dismantling of social solidarity mechanism, and any regulation which limits the freedom of powerful corporate forces. The valuation of Bitcoin means an important transfer of social wealth to this political tendency, which allied with venture capital and the oligarchies that invest in Bitcoin, alters the balance of power away from emancipatory and progressive political forces. Early libertarian investors in Bitcoin, can sell their bitcoins at a premium to new entrants, thereby capturing substantial speculative value. So while the claim that Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme is obviously false, it does institute a rent from new entrants to existing owners. In this sense, Bitcoin, far from being a tool of distribued equality, which is already a false empirical claim at present, is an ideal tool for the development of hyper-capitalist economic models. In this sense, Bitcoin is an ideal tool for netarchical capitalism, the hierarchies that enable, but also control the networks, and capture value from it.

* In Conclusion

Despite all the drawbacks mentioned, Bitcoin remains a landmark and pivotal development, showing that globally scaleable currencies are technically feasible. It sets the stage for potential commons-based p2p-driven currency systems and the Bitcoin ledger can become a tool for self-organizing communities.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditShare

Posted in P2P Money, P2P Theory, Politics | 6 Comments »