Though based on a total misreading of both the work of Benkler (The Wealth of Nations) and myself (The P2P Manifesto), there is a stimulating analysis of our work on peer production in the blog Artifice and Agency, presumable from a student of Dale Carrico, Ben N.

Here is my response, I’m only quoting the parts to which I’m explicitely referring, so please read the full text as well.

Discussion: peer production and the market

Ben N: In reading the works by Bauwens and Benkler, it is clear that they both see the arrival of peer-to-peer production as the heralding of a new era. However, both writers have radically different ideas about how peer-to-peer should work, and what a p2p world would look like. Putting Bauwens and Benkler in a dialogue exposes these extreme differences and suggests that their works are influenced more by predominant political philosophies than an interest in developing a new mode of economic production while refusing to give proper credit to the free market roots on which peer-to-peer production would inevitably need to rely on.

My response: First of all, thanks to Ben N. for taking the time to read and compare the 2 approaches. However, I have to disagree from the start, in almost all my writings, I stress both points at the same time: nl. that peer to peer is indeed a new mode of production, and that at present, peer production and the market are mutually dependent and interconnected. If the author were to read the blog, newsletter or tags (http://del.icio.us/mbauwens/Open-Source-Commercialization; http://del.icio.us/mbauwens/P2P-Business ), he would see that not only to acknowledge that, but it is central to the research we are undertaking. Not only that, but even in the future vision of the political economy, the role of the market is explicitely recognized, albeit we favour peer-informed markets (i.e. forms of the market which are not predicated upon endless growth and usage of limited natural resources, and not exclusively based on power relationships). The difference with Benkler is I believe one of degree. Benkler sees peer production as an integral part of a market economy, while I believe there is a strong possibility that peer production may become the core of a new economy, with the market as subsystem. Another issue I want to stress is: yes, P2P is co-dependent on the market, but the opposite is also true: the market is increasingly dependent on social innovation and participation; on the free use value created by peer production, which the market subsequently and until today, insufficiently achieves to monetize. In any case, the characterization that I refuse to give proper credit to the market roots, is a mistaken interpretation.

Ben N. Bauwens’ piece consistently tries to delineate peer-to-peer as a third mode of production, but clearly aligns itself with a Marxist ideology, borrowing heaving from socialist philosophy in his description of a utopian peer-to-peer system. Bauwens is not subtle about his alignment, calling upon Marx’s writings on the Birmingham industrial complex in the first paragraph. Bauwens constantly disavows the market, stating that peer-to-peer should work to “…make use-value freely accessible on a universal basis, through new common property regimes…” Later on, when discussing how peer-to-peer production can transcend capitalism, Bauwens makes a seemingly passing comment that “… P2P could be expanded and sustained through the introduction of universal basic income…”, making anyone to the right of the International Socialist Organization on the political spectrum potentially quiver at the thought of wealth redistribution through a government allowance.

Response: It is of course true that both Benkler and Bauwens are influenced by pre-existing political philosophies, but these sources are far from being so unequivocal as stated. It is clear that Benkler is more clearly influenced by liberal political and economic philosophies, and that I’m using some Marxist concepts. My own philosophical history is quite complex, and to pigeonhole my writings as an alignement on Marxist ideology is erroneous (as the ideology of the socialist systems, I explicitely disavow it). However, I use it in a meta-paradigmatic fashion, drawing from different sources and different toolboxes. That peer production make use-value available on a universal basis, is not a wish, but a description of the factual situation today, and again does not mean, see above, that I constantly disavow the market. The universal income is not an extreme left idea, and comes in many varieties, right down from the negative income tax idea of Milton Friedman. It’s proponents therefore include ‘right’ libertarians, left libertarians, Christian-democrats in Europe, and even the extreme right (Le Pen in France, if I’m not mistaken). Of course, it is not mainstream, but it exists in all political families, makes periodic comebacks in political discussions, and they are a variety of official reports on the topic. The universal income is not a governmental handout, nor a means of redistribution, but rather an acknowledgement of the use value that is generated by civil society for the market; a guarantee that more of such use value can continue to be generated, to the benefit of the market, amongst other things. This being said, I’m not hung up on the universal income at all.

Ben N. In discussing the transcendence, however, Bauwens follows in the model of Marx in accepting that some tenets of capitalism will continue to be pervasive. One of the key characteristics of peer-to-peer for Bauwens is that “…autonomous agents can freely determine their behavior and linkages without the intermediary of obligatory hubs…” The market is not mentioned here, but the passage suggests that the p2p system is possibly open to strong market forces through the natural demands of the network users. Later, Bauwens admits that “… [despite] significant differences, P2P and the capitalist market are highly interconnected. P2P is dependent on the market and the market is dependent on P2P.” To the bitter end, however, Bauwens seems set on removing the market from as much of the system as possible

Response: Not removing the market ‘as much as possible’, but letting it operate freely wherever it’s most appropriate; favoring truly free markets over monopolistic anti-markets; not letting the ‘market’ destroying the biosphere, nor letting it create extreme social inequality; regulating it when necessary. The author misses my point, i.e. that there are at least 3 modes of production, state planning, market, non-reciprocal peer production, that each has its place, but that, as we move to an increasing dominance of immaterial production, where peer production is highly efficient, and this is what Benkler has demonstrated through is careful cost-benefit analysis.

Ben N. It is important to note that while Benkler places democratization on a pedestal and sees peer-to-peer production as an avenue to improving democratization in society, Benkler does not promise a utopia in the way that Bauwens refers to it. There may be a better world, but it is certainly not a planned utopia.

Response: I disavow any sense of a ‘planned utopia’. Ben N. probably refers to the fact that I see non-reciprocal peer production becoming a meta-system, while Benkler does not do so, but that doesn’t qualify anything as a ‘utopia’ (though I do favor ‘concrete utopias’, i.e. the replication where possible of proven experiments). P2P theory proceeds from an analysis of the present. It notes that P2P social practices are emerging throughout the social field, and that they are highly efficient for certain reasons in specific circumstances. So, it aims to start as an empirical social theory; the next step is to acknowledge that because it is based on the free engagement of equipotential individuals, it is more congruent with certain human values, and therefore merits to be supported; and finally, because of the second, ethical, conclusion, it proceeds to think about tactics and strategies. It does not promise any utopia, neither now nor in the future. And of course, it is the opposite of planned. As a third mode of production and governance, it is equally removed from central planning (though it is co-dependent on the state), as it is from the market (again: on which it is co-dependent, but that doesn’t mean it is co-identical)

Ben N: Benkler’s insistence of separating of market systems from peer-to-peer systems represents the most significant failure of these two writers that is discovered in their dialogue. Neither Benkler nor Bauwens adequately stress the importance of market forces in the new peer-to-peer system, nor do the writers address the fact that the entire infrastructure on which a new peer-to-peer system would work – computers, network servers, wires, etc. – would need to be developed in a market-based economy. The companies in the economy would seemingly have the control over the system that Benkler and Bauwens explicitly condemn and would potentially stand in the way of a peer-to-peer development shift.

Response: After reading such a misreading of both Benkler and myself, both of whom explicitly acknowledge the role of the market, one can only conclude that Ben N. has read our works with explicitly ideological lenses, one must surmise from the libertarian free market variety. This is why he fails to see that his own conclusion, is in fact what we both have been saying. Ben N. seems to have read our works as a bull in front of a red rag, getting enervated because the holy word of market is not used in every paragraph. In his conclusion, he therefore repeats our own conclusions, that while it is rooted in the market system (though I would phrase that differently, stressing the co-dependency of both), it is also standing on its own …

Ben N. indeed concludes:

”More than anything, a dialogue between the two pieces suggests the need for a comprehensive and moderated philosophy for the future of peer-to-peer production that recognizes its strong roots in a free trade system while standing on its own as an entirely new economic mode.”