New book on the expansion of peer production in the physical economy

Christian Siefkes announces the publication of an important book about the “peer economy” which focuses on the sphere of the production of physical goods:

Text of announcement:

“The big text I was working on for the last nine months is ready. It is about the question of the potential of peer production — the way free software is produced. We know that this new mode of production is of great importance when it is about free software — success stories like GNU/Linux, Apache or Wikipedia speak for themselves.

However, is this mode of production only relevant for information goods? Or is there a potential for more, maybe a revolution of the entire societal production?

The results of my considerations are now published having the title “From Exchange to Contributions: Generalizing Peer Production
into the Physical World”. Initially It was intended to be a long article, but due to the complexity of the topic it became a book!

A new mode of production has emerged in the areas of software and content production. This mode, which is based on sharing and cooperation, has spawned whole mature operating systems such as GNU/Linux as well as innumerable other free software applications; giant knowledge bases such as the Wikipedia; a large free culture movement; and a new, wholly decentralized medium for spreading, analyzing and discussing news and knowledge, the so-called blogosphere.

So far, this new mode of production–peer production–has been limited to certain niches of production, such as information goods. This book discusses whether this limitation is necessary or whether the potential of peer production extends farther. In other words.

Is a society possible in which peer production is the primary mode of production? If so, how could such a society be organized?

Is a society possible where production is driven by demand and not by profit? Where there is no need to sell anything and hence no unemployment? Where competition is more a game than a struggle for survival? Where there is no distinction between people with capital and those without? A society where it would be silly to keep your ideas and knowledge secret instead of sharing them; and where scarcity is no longer a precondition of economic success, but a problem to be worked around?

It is, and this book describes how.

The entire text of the book can be downloaded as PDF (125 pages)

A smaller 2-up version (2 Pages on one page, 62 pages) is also available

The text can be modified and copied following the condition of the Creative Commons NonCommercial-ShareAlike-Licence.

A paperback print shall be released in some days an will cost 9 Euro — recommendable for all, who want to do their eyes, their printer, or simply me a favour:-)

Since then I will be happy about feedback, critics, and inspired debates. If my book leads to a reflection, that a post-capitalist
economy is no longer utopian as it seems to be, then its ends are achieved.

9 Comments New book on the expansion of peer production in the physical economy

  1. Avatarman

    I looked over your book and your ideas are very similar to anarchism. So it is really nothing new. Generally it is socialism.

    ps. There was NO socialism in Soviet Union (maybe in the first few months until they killed everyone who really believed it). Simple dictatorship does not count as socialism.

  2. AvatarSam Rose

    Just started reading today. I skimmed through, and I can already see quite a few applicable models for collaborative ventures.

    Thanks Christian, and Michel! Good stuff…

  3. Pingback: economy » Blog Archive » Pacific Time: Pork and the Chinese Economy

  4. AvatarChristian Siefkes

    @Man: The anarchist models I’m aware of tend to be focused on the political sphere, they don’t have much to say about production (beyond “we’ll organize this somehow”). My book is about how production can be organized without requiring a state or a market or, for that matter, a centralized planning institution. In this it goes farther than any anarchist models I know. The organization of the political sphere is quited related to anarchist ideas – I agree on that, but it’s not the core of my model.

    My models on how to distribute tasks and products without requiring centralized planning or a market are really new and have never before been discussed, to my knowledge.

    The fact that no planning institution is needed is the main difference from the non-anarchist communists models I’m aware of. Whether to still call the result “socialism” or “communism” is mainly a matter of taste — I won’t mind, but I think it would mislead people about what my model is about.

    @Sam: Thanks 🙂

  5. AvatarPatrick Anderson

    Hello Christian,

    I was very excited to read your paper, as I have been working on the same or a very similar thing since the late part of 1999.

    In it you say “‘A new mode of production has emerged in the areas of software and content production during the last decades. This mode, which is based on sharing and cooperation, has spawned whole mature operating systems such as GNU/Linux …'”

    Which seems to imply the importance of the GNU General Public License.

    Later you say “‘Peer production thus fulfills the old Marxist postulate that “control over the means of production should be in the hands of the producers”.'”

    But the GNU GPL is very clear in it’s goal to insure the virtual Means of Production (source code) should be in the hands of the CONSUMERS.

    When RMS speaks of freedom it is always about the User (consumer), not developer, author, producer, worker or owner.

    For instance, http://GNU.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html says “‘Proprietary software is an exercise of power. Copyright law today grants software developers that power, so they and only they choose the rules to impose on everyone else—a relatively few people make the basic software decisions for everyone, typically by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can’t tell what the software is doing, can’t check for back doors, can’t monitor possible viruses and worms, can’t find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can’t fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If it simply isn’t quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can’t help each other improve it.'”

    And the recent interview “Three Minutes with Richard Stallman” at http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137098-c,freeware/article.html says “‘With free software, the users are in control. Most of the time, users want interoperability, and when the software is free, they get what they want. With non-free software, the developer controls the users. The developer permits interoperability when that suits the developer; what the users want is beside the point.'”

    If a “Mode of Production” is defined by who controls the “Means of Production”, then the GNU Mode of Production is one in which the Consumers and NOT the Producers are at the helm.

    What say ye to such a monkey wrench? I am continuing with this interesting read and plan to post more at a later time.

    Thanks,
    Patrick Anderson

  6. AvatarChristianS

    Patrick:

    Which seems to imply the importance of the GNU General Public License.

    Well, I could just as well have mentioned the free *BSD systems. Free availability of knowledge and information is essential, while copyleft vs. non-copylefted free licensing is more a matter of taste, in my opinion (I also discuss this quickly in the text).

    But the GNU GPL is very clear in it’s goal to insure the virtual Means of Production (source code) should be in the hands of the CONSUMERS.

    You’re right, but you won’t need any means of production unless you want to turn from a mere consumer into a producer (or both, i.e., a prosumer). As long as you’re just a consumer, the means of production are, by definition, of no use to you (as long as I’m just eating a biscuit, I don’t want to take care of the bakery). But if the means of production are available as commons or pseudo-commons, you, as a consumer, can turn into a producer at any time (either by producing yourself or by asking others to do it for you).
    The common availability of means of production blurs the distinction between consumers and producers, since consumers can become producers when they choose to do so.

    Stallman also talks about this possibility of consumers to turn into producers/prosumers whenever they want to: “If it breaks, they can’t fix it […] They can’t help each other improve it.“ Peer production gives consumers this option to become producers/prosumers, while market production usually doesn’t.

  7. AvatarPatrick Anderson

    Hi Christian,

    “If the means of production are available as commons or pseudo-commons, you, as a consumer, can turn into a producer at any time”

    If the workers are the owners, they would not want consumers to become workers, since that would take away jobs and reduce wages.

    If the consumers are the owners, the barriers-to-entry are much lower because there is no incentive to stop consumers from becoming workers.

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.