Dear Dmytri,
Thanks for your valuable and thoughtful contribution to this debate. Here are some of my responses, which hopefully clarifies both the distinctions and convergence in our respective thinking about social change.
First of all, the ‘confusion’ bit. I’m basically using the intersubjective typology of Alan Page Fiske, explained in his book, Structures of Social Life.
Next to discussing Authority Ranking and Market Pricing, he carefully distinguishes Equality Matching from Communal Shareholding. In the first mode, there’s a tit for tat exchange, a clear expectation of return. Giving creates a moral debt with the receiver, who imperatively wants to restore the ‘equality’ level in the relationship. There is clearly ‘exchange’. It was the dominant mode of the tribal times, the so-called gift economy.
Communal Shareholding is different. In CS, the resource is regarded as common, each freely gives according to his abilities and desire, and there is no concern as to the use of the resource by particular people, who are free to do so according to their need and desire.
Peer production, as evidenced in free software project and knowledge-producing projects, is such a latter dynamic. That doesn’t mean there is no exchange, of course there is, as humans are by no means pure altruists, but the exchange is ‘general’, rather than tit for tat. I’m not sure what Benkler says about this, but participants, by adding their own marginal contribution, get the whole benefit of the group project in exchange; on a individual basis, they get knowledge, relations, and reputation, but a large part of the process of passionate production is the kind of altruism whereby it is the giving that is the receiving. For laypersons, I often use the dynamic of the family as an example, where the raising of children, in its best and most disinterested moments, is precisely such a dynamic. You do not expect a direct return from your children, but rejoice from their own growth and realization.
Please note that this is rather precisely the difference between socialism and communism as noted by Marx. In the first, there is a definite relation between input/engagement, and the return that accrues to the worker; and the latter, where there is no longer such relation.
Because of the particular qualities of technology-enabled immaterial production, peer production has become the most logical and productive way to produce such goods.
And to return back to the original phrasing of confusing. Many analyst are indeed confusing EM and CS, by calling the internet a gift economy. It is a wrong characterization of what is essentially a non-reciprocal process.
The value of Benkler and Lessig is to have described and analyzed this dynamic. But, as Kleiner points out, they are basically liberals, who see this dynamic as an integral part of a larger capitalist market based economy, and it/they won’t challenge it. Kleiner is right that immaterial peer production ‘by itself’, does not change the distribution of wealth, and Benkler and Lessig do no seem to mind this; I think both Kleiner and myself find this rather important.
Nevertheless, I contend that peer production is indeed immanent within the current meta-system, but that it, at the same time, significantly transcends it as a post-capitalist mode. It can be partly monetized and integrated, but only partly, there is still that transcendent part, which represents a historically significant opportunity for systemic change. Key is to both expand peer production, and to combine it with non-capitalist cooperative production modes. In the meantime, it (we) co-exist with the world as it is, and the expansion of passionate peer production is still a fundamentally positive thing, and Benkler and Lessig are allies in the expansion of it, with a lot more power and influence, and potential for good, that either Kleiner or myself.
Peer production is based on either the abundance of resources, what Kleiner calls the absence of reproduction costs, or on the distribution of such resources. This is why it has enormous potential to expand significantly into physical production. To the degree that we can ‘distribute’ more resources, it will expand. But that, I think we agree, is the difficult and tricky part, which has political and power-related dimensions.
But again, there is a fundamental difference between operating in the CS-mode of abundance, and operating with scarcity. When there is scarcity, there must be a concern with finitude, and there will be ‘precise’ rather than generalized exchange. So indeed, there is a crucial difference between non-directly-remunerated peer production of immaterial goods, and those forms where input is related to income, and where the products are then ‘exchanged’. Not all cooperative production is non-reciprocal peer production. The thing is we need both. We need to expand CS modes, and we need to expand cooperative production. So Kleiner’s physical interpretation of commons-based peer production is in my view probably cooperative production, where there is a crucial difference between collectivist modes, i.e. public property which belongs to no one in particular and is therefore also expropriatory from an individual point of view, and common property, where it still belongs to the individual (as in the GPL and CC licenses). I tend to favour the latter, but essentially, we have to let people in a pluralist economy free to choose.
In conclusion, where as I focus on non-reciprocal peer production, and want to defend its non-reciprocal nature, by stressing the absence of direct linkage with income; Kleiner focuses on cooperative production, where such linking is crucial. This is complementary. Indeed, part of the use value created by peer production, can be monetized by derivative services (derivative, because you can’t sell the commons and it is the derived immaterially-based capital which you are offering), and for these derivative services, cooperative production modes are needed, which can be cooperatives, open capital modes, venture communism. I agree that such non-capitalist institutions are better than for-profit modes, and have already written about the expropriation processes (third enclosures), of the newly-fanged netarchical capitalist enterprises (the Web 2.0 companies), who both enable and exploit participation, and thereby indeed, capture surplus value to the detriment of the producers themselves.
Will there be some point in the future where we can consider the physical world to be infinite, because we either have learned to moderate or transform our desires, or have found a technical solution to our energy needs? Will a change in consciousness and attitude, and a change in property modes that artificially create scarcity, allow such non-reciprocal commonism to be dominant in even physical production? I’m doubtful and hesitant about this, and think that a pluralist economy is probably better than some kind of ‘totalitarian’ or all-encompassing unique mode. But instead of having the answer, let’s just have a process, whereby humanity can sort out this question freely.
Now the charge of ‘hitting the wall and seeing what sticks’. There are several arguments to consider. First, is there anyone who can claim to ‘know the answer’. I think the complexity of the current political economy precludes that. There is no outside vanguard that knows it all. Instead, I think the correct viewpoint is: let’s look at what social movements are doing worldwide, and lets see how these diverse movements can reinforce each other, so that both non-reciprocal and cooperative production can advance. I believe that a significant core of observers and social change agents, have reached the cognitive/ethical point, where they are moving from a stress on deconstructive criticism, to reconstructive integration. So the formula of the P2P foundation is to “research, document, and promote� peer to peer alternatives. Essentially first seeing and observing what people are doing. Observing this, we move to the ethical and practical conclusion that peer to peer is better in many areas, and therefore we aim to promote it and develop a praxis and strategy to do this. Rather than start top-down from an utopian point of view of what is better and ‘should exist’, we start bottom-up from the existing pluralism of alternatives, and continuously try to interconnect, create dialogue, learn from each other, and strengthen each other. This might be confusing or frustrating to those who want definite and clear answers, but I think it is the only open and partipative avenue open to us in the current conjuncture.
And what I see is a vibrant and worldwide experimentation with non-capitalist or post-capitalist modes. Let’s clear right away the other confusion between the market, where people exchange goods according to some fixed criteria, and capitalism, which is geared on endless accumulation, considers social and natural input as an infinite externality, and as a infinite sink for output; and is predicated on the expropriation of producers in favor of (de)centralized (but not distributed) proprietors. So we can have a ‘pluralist economy’, with a core of non-reciprocal production of immaterial goods, with thriving gift economies, and reformed markets. I believe that the proponents of ‘natural capitalism’ (David Korten, Paul Hawken, Hazel Henderson), of ‘living economies’, of trust-based common property systems like Working Assets entpreneur Peter Barnes, are allies in the quest for reformed markets.This is where Kleiner and I probably agree that approaches such as Gesell are fundamental. Another part of the answer is non-scarcity based monetary reform as advocated by Bernard Lietaer et al.
Within this context, I disagree that the basic income is a neoliberal answer; there are different formats of basic income proposals, only some of which are neoliberal, and the emancipatory ones see it as sufficiently substantial; this would fundamentally change the power relationship in society, and while not destroying capitalism per se, would make peer production a lot larger and more sustainable, and it would also assist cooperative production and Kleiner’s proposed Venture Communism. Of course peer production is already sustainable, but only on the collective level, what we need is to make it equally sustainable on the individual level. But pure non-reciprocal peer production is not adequate for the whole of society, though it can be significantly expanded to physical expansion. What the basic income would enable, is for individuals to periodically leave the exchange-based modes (cooperative or capitalist production for the market), for periodic participation in the non-reciprocal modes, much as people in feudal societies could enter the Church or the Sangha, whereby society supported one quarter of its population for non-material pursuits.. Peer production can be strengthened by various additions (such as a core of paid workers), but there is a definite crowding-out phenomenom between competing logics: if you systematically tie production and income, you are in either cooperative or capitalist production.
What we need is to think how to reach the tipping point whereby the subsystem can become the metasystem, at which point the market can be de-capitalized (i.e. we can get rid of the destructive accumulation part). We cannot do this by decree, but we can observe and combine and integrate the alternatives, until such time as the latter reaches the tipping point where it is potentially stronger than the former. The basic income movement, the complementary currency movements, the LETS practices, the fair trade movement, the open/free movements, the movements for participation, the commons-oriented movements, these are not just disjointed movements, but allies that should listen to each other.
My observation of history as a continuous combination of various intersubjective mode, but always with a core domination of one mode, brings me to this hypothesis of a pluralist economy with a core of peer production, whereby the other layers will be peer-informed (fair trade, multistakeholder governance, etc.. are peer-informed modes).
In the end though, there is a large and thriving commons movement, and what Kleiner and myself are attempting, is to put our research at the service of such a movement. Our respective contributions are best served I believe, by seeing them as complementary: while the P2P Foundation is focusing on non-reciprocal peer production, Kleiner is focusing on cooperative production. A full strategy for change needs both. Differences may also be a function of personality-type, preferring to see the glass half-full, my approach, or half-empty.
Well, I cannot comment on a point-by-point basis here. Also, I don’t see this as a debate. I see it as a plurality of possible ideas. There are so many people experimenting in this area, and trying many different ad-mixtures of conceptualizations, and existing and new infrastrucutures and social norms/social contracts.
However, I would like to propose that, in fact all peer production is really a reciprocal exchange of either tangible, or intangible value of some type.
Even when someone volunteers, or when someone altruistically gives, or shares, they are reciprocated with some type of value. That value may be highly intangible. But, I believe that it is there. But, as Michel points out above, in Communal Shareholding, the reciprocation is not implied (there is no tangible “debt” owed). I think in Communal Shareholding, the reciprocation is actually built-in. Because, the community that sustains the Communally held resource would probably not allow everyone to take, and no one to give. But, CS works because people do give. I think that people give BECAUSE they WANT Communal Shareholding to work.
Actually, Clare W Graves’s Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence theory has layed out some possible “values” that are reciprocated. For instance, perhaps someone gives altruistically because they feel they will be rewarded in “heaven”? Or, perhaps they share for the same reason?
So, there are emerging ways to create metrics to understand these intangible exchanges. This is something that I am working on with http://www.communitywiki.org/odd/SocialSynergy/OpenValueNetwork and I invite others to participate in developing these concepts.
Also, Kleiner wrote: “…those that do have physical capital will always capture the entire marginal productivity of the information-commons. ”
Yet, peer producers can also be Peer Investors, or Peer Funders. So, I am also working on creating and laying the ground work for people to be able to accomplish this. See: http://www.communitywiki.org/odd/SocialSynergy/PeerInvest and http://barcamp.org/BarCampBank
I don’t want to dismiss Michel’s vision of Post-Capitalist evolution. Though, I think that we’ll get to Post-Capitalist by devolving the power of the mechanisms that people used to sustain hierachical corporate/capitalist/beureaucratic societies during the industrial era. I think that what is emerging cannot be fully understood through the lenses of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, or other -isms, and their accompanying economic theories.
I think that what is emerging is something different. A system of networks, lateral connections (see: http://necsi.org/projects/yaneer/Civilization.html) and devolving power to every “node” in the network.
So, new peer production networks can employ solutions that are derived from strucutures that traditionally were recognized as capitalistic or socialistic solutions to the distribution of tangible and intangible value. The network is based upon devolving power as much as possible to all nodes in the network, increasing intput and output value to all network nodes, and creating ways of reinforcing trust and relationships, and sustaining a commons of resources among the network.
Hello Sam, while I will be responding to Michel comments at length, I just wanted to provide a quick response to your comment, you wrote:
“Also, Kleiner wrote: “…those that do have physical capital will always
capture the entire marginal productivity of the information-commons. �
Yet, peer producers can also be Peer Investors, or Peer Funders. So,
I am also working on creating and laying the ground work for people
to be able to accomplish this.”
What you are suggesting is exactly the point that I am making. The arguement I am presenting is that not only can peer producers be peer investors and peer funders, but they must. For if they are not, then the entire exchange value they create will be appropriated by Property owners. And not only must they, but they must also invest and fund in an equity promoting, rather than privilge promoting way, especialy important is that not only information-capital but phyisical capital is also accumulated within the commons and available for peer-production.
The model that I am working on for peer production and investment is called Venture Communism, and Michel has added a page on the wiki for it, which has a link to the archive of drafts on the Transitioner website.
http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Venture_Commune
I will take a look at the links you have provided.
Dmytri, thanks for your response.
I think we agree on the need for Peer funding. But, I think we disagree on desired outcomes.
Although, I will state that I am happy to live in a world where Venture Communism exists, and I am happy to cooperate with venture communes, I don’t see being part of a venture commune as a desireable future for myself.
For instance (quoting from the P2P Venture Commune wiki page): “A Share In The Venture Commune Can Only Be Acquired By Contributions Of Labour, and Not Property.”
Increasingly, we see that “labor” is automated, by machines and computers, which are usually “property”. So, Venture Communes are limited to only to those areas of human endeavor where actual human labor is required. Plus, in the venture commune, who controls how “labor” is measured? Who decides what a unit of “labor” is?
I understand that during the industrial era, that a focus on people controlling their own “labor” was very important. However, now, a focus on people controlling and sharing their own knowledge/information is arguably far more important.
The resources that people use to design and build on their shared knowledge bases are not always human labor-based. And in the future, the resources increasingly will not be human labor-based. They will be machine based. Often, the required input to acheive desired outputs is a combination of human and machine work. So, human labor can be pooled into a commons if desired by the people pooling it together. And, it can be valued and measured, but it will not be the only resource required for physical production of modern technology, nor is it the only resource required for production and distribution of almost anything anymore. What is also required are machines of many kinds. And, these machines are often made in part, or wholly by other machines. How do you measure the labor input of a machine, made by several other machines, made by several other humans with aid of machines.
What if I want to join a venture commune, but instead of contributing labor, i want to contribute a machine that does a job that used to be done by manual labor. What if I made this machine with the aid of several smaller fabrication machines, in such a fashion that my labor input was very small in comparison to the total labor output that we will see from the machine that I made throughout it’s lifetime? Would my contribution of machine be seen as contributed “property”, and thus disqualified as a contribution?
My idea is to allow people to invest money, property, or any other resource they see fit, and to co-create their own rules for how that wealth is distributed among them.
Hello Sam,
In the “industrial era,” as now people have material needs for food and shelter, and these are not satisfied by information. The fact that the production process is increasingly capital intensive, in no way changes the fact that labour is the only real source of exchange value, as unlike land or capital, labour is the only productive input that needs to be compelled by exchange to bring its product to market.
Your future of machine-based abundance does not hold much hope for people who do not own property, who will command now greater share than they have now of capital yield.
Your entire point of view is sorely lacking any understanding on the nature of cause of poverty and inequality, neither of which are a product of scarcity or a lack of capital yield, but of unequal acess to the means of production.
As for your questions about “contibuting” a machine to a venture commune. If the commune needed or wanted the machine, they would buy it from you, but this would not grant you any membership in the commune.
In what way is your idea “to allow people to invest money, property, or any other resource they see fit” different from current Capitalist practices that have generated so much inequality, violence and poverty?
Cheers.
Dmytri,
If this is your reaction to what I wrote, then it looks like I\\\’ve failed to communicate effectively what I am talking about. Also, upon re-reading what we both wrote, I think I misunderstood the focus of the Venture Commune idea.
I now see that we are actually talking about two different solutions to two generally different local conditions.
The ideas that I am developing are focused on the local area that I am in, which is The United States (Michigan, actually, a part of the United States called \\\”The Rust Belt.\\\” An area that used to provide an abundance of work in manufacturing, but now has the lowest employment in the entire US). My PeerInvest and OpenValueNetwork ideas are centered around devolving power and knowledge to people who are not in a condition of extreme proverty. The people with whom I am co-creating the frameworks that I talk about are people who are gainfully employed, but just disatisfied with the conditions of working for American (or American and/or western-type) governments and corporations. I think that we would find that venture communes would not appeal to many of these people (it may appeal to some, but they would be a small amount of the majority, I would guess).
Some of the big differences between what I am talking about with PeerInvest and OpenValueNtework , and the monopolistic corporate \\\”capitalism\\\” that we experience here in America right now are:
-A for-profit cooperative is the idea that I am proposing for PeerInvest (equally owned by all Cooperative members).
-\\\”devolved power\\\”: putting the decision making, design, and over all control in the hands of many instead of a few who monopolize control. At least some fo the violence that you speak of comes from people struggling over, and trying to grab at this concentrated power. Like a game of \\\”king of the hill\\\”.
-transparency/trust metrics/peer review: I think this is self explanatory. Do we have this in our current capitalist system? No, we do not. And that is a large reason why people get away with being liars, thieves, and crooks.
-Ways to measure the value of exchanges beyond money. Ways to aggregate and understand and share data about indexes beyond money.
-Access to open knowledge: creating a commons of knowledge, science, culture, design etc, opens up the building blocks that people need to craete their own means of production.
However, this is a set of ideas aimed at a different set of life conditions than what I think you are looking at with venture communes. If I think about the venture commune model in the context of people stricken with extreme poverty, it makes much more sense to me. It seems like a plausible way to solve basic problems for people who\\\’s conditions of existence taxes large amounts of labor out of them.
And, the extreme poverty problems, or life conditions that you are looking at are huge. One in six people, or roughly a little over a billion living in extreme poverty in the world right now. That is a lot. I can see, in the case of people in these conditions, how a social structure like venture communes could help them begin to build infrastructure, and give them a systematic way to collectively build access to the means of production.
As far as I can tell, the structure of the venture commune idea is close to being what we call a \\\”Cooperative\\\” in the US. In the US, there are \\\”for profit\\\” and \\\”non profit\\\” Cooperatives. Venture commune seems to have elements of both, as far as I can tell.
So, I now think that I understand the focus of venture communes, I don\\\’t dismiss them as a viable and applicable way to address poverty for a very large amoutntof people in the world.
Also, I think that some of the things that I talk about with OpenValueNetworks and PeerInvest ideas can compliment the venture commune concept.
Access to Open Knowledge, Open Design, Open Futures, Open Data,and Open Business models, are all part of the “means of production.” I think that as people create and develop infrastructure in a collective way, that they can share knowledge and best practices, and data about tangible and intangible values of many types of local, regional, and global conditions. I think that people can use all of this open information and knowledge to collectively inform their decision making, and to figure out how to multiply value among the networks of people who connect themselves in the ways that we are talking about.
One last thing here. I still do not understand, under the http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Venture_Commune model, who decides what labor pledges, or labor is worth, or how labor is measured, or what stops people from figuring out ways to cheat the system. Who controls the system?
Sam, thanks for your comments and questions, Venture Communism is very much a work in progress, and I do not suggest that I have all of the answers to your concerns, I would be happy to discuss this more, but do not find the comments section here to be the most confortable place for lengthy responses. Please contact me if you like, you can find my contact information here: http://www.sgsa.org.uk/DmytriKleiner
Or even better, please suggest an email or usenet based forum where we can continue the discussion.
Regards,
Dmytri.