In a recent Wired Article entitled The New Socialism: Global Collective Society is Coming Online Kevin Kelly considers peer production as part of a new kind of socialism optimized for the digital era:
The type of communism with which Gates hoped to tar the creators of Linux was born in an era of enforced borders, centralized communications, and top-heavy industrial processes. Those constraints gave rise to a type of collective ownership that replaced the brilliant chaos of a free market with scientific five-year plans devised by an all-powerful politburo. This political operating system failed, to put it mildly. However, unlike those older strains of red-flag socialism, the new socialism runs over a borderless Internet, through a tightly integrated global economy. It is designed to heighten individual autonomy and thwart centralization. It is decentralization extreme.
Instead of gathering on collective farms, we gather in collective worlds. Instead of state factories, we have desktop factories connected to virtual co-ops. Instead of sharing drill bits, picks, and shovels, we share apps, scripts, and APIs. Instead of faceless politburos, we have faceless meritocracies, where the only thing that matters is getting things done. Instead of national production, we have peer production. Instead of government rations and subsidies, we have a bounty of free goods.
I recognize that the word socialism is bound to make many readers twitch. It carries tremendous cultural baggage, as do the related terms communal, communitarian, and collective. I use socialism because technically it is the best word to indicate a range of technologies that rely for their power on social interactions. Broadly, collective action is what Web sites and Net-connected apps generate when they harness input from the global audience. Of course, there’s rhetorical danger in lumping so many types of organization under such an inflammatory heading. But there are no unsoiled terms available, so we might as well redeem this one.
When masses of people who own the means of production work toward a common goal and share their products in common, when they contribute labor without wages and enjoy the fruits free of charge, it’s not unreasonable to call that socialism.
However, I dispute his assertion that “there are no unsoiled terms available.” P2P is just such a term, and as we struggle to continue to define the contours of P2P theory it is important not to fall back into terminology that is inextricably linked to old economic paradigms. See the recent post from Ryan Lanham for more.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:38 am
P2P is also “socialism” in the sense that it exemplifies a phenomenon described by the individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker over a century ago: it socializes the benefits of innovation through the process of market competition, which drives price down to production cost. The entire open-source movement takes embedded rents on copyrights and patents out of the price of cultural artifacts (books and music, etc.), proprietary design and attendant planned obsolescence, and so forth.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:51 am
[...] parla è più simile «al comunitarismo che al socialismo statale». A mettere d’accordo tutti ci prova Joseph Jackson della P2P Foundation. Per descrivere i fenomeni rivoluzionari in atto nella rete [...]