perhaps we can have a skype conversation about this ; please write me at michelsub2004 in gmail and we can arrange it from there ?

I can connect you with people who have struggled with the same issue and found various solutions.

I have assembled material on agri-land commons via http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Agrifood

Michel

Interesting read! I am grateful for you and Mr. Kostakis for providing such an insightful paper.

I’m a bit fresh on the licensing subject, but careful reading got me through its basic tenets.
I am wondering though, whether you argument would hold for any (economic) sector in which p2p and co-operatives can be found (which, presumably, are not bound to sectoral limitations, and are therefore ubiquitous)? I have a strong belief that your message is most directly targeted at intangibe commodities such as information, knowledge, culture, … that drive the application and development of tangible resources (land, minerals, … or more generally: natural resources). Directly related to that is my incessant questioning of how such modes of production establish a sense of ‘sufficiency’ (in order to remain within earth’s boundaries). In essence, it’s a question of access, boundaries, and social relations. But I digress…

I am involved in a Flemish co-operative that acquires agricultural land in order to sublet it to organic farmers (www.delandgenoten.be). In doing so, through its co-operative functioning, it opens up the management of land to the broader public, effectively creating a ‘land commons’. The value it creates is, as we see it, property of the broader society as well. Food security, careful and sustainable land management, food sovereignty, … In that sense, the ‘products the co-operative helps generate, it’s value’, remain outside of the market sphere and they can be viewed as ‘commons’ to the shareholders of the co-operative.

I was wondering (many things, but for the sake of maintaining some kind of focus in this case, I was predominantly concerned as to) how I can position that co-operative in your discussion/frame of thought, and whether our functioning can be seen as effectively creating a commons with regard to land management and food production. Would you care to comment?

Have a nice day!

Matthias Bussels

Yes it’s only binding if you’re a downstream user. You can relicense your own work however you like (except exclusively).

This is no impediment to capital, which by definition has the resources to buy the rights back up the derivation chain. And indeed NC is often used to advertise work that can be used commercially under a separate license.

NC content can circulate freely on commercial networks and be reproduced and produced at commercial printing/recording/etc. facilities using commercially produced and/or owned hardware on commercially produced media as long as an individual is using those services or facilities.

Again, this is no impediment to capital. It is however an impediment to individuals making a living. The PPL makes a good show of addressing this, and like the UK Tories I think that co-operatives are a spiffing way of unloading risk onto society, but under the PPL their products can still be corporately exploited without any return of value from that use and with that use going against the spirit of the license rather than furthering its aims.

I do agree with this fta:

“as the cooperative model becomes more and more hyper-productive and is able to create sustainable abundance in material goods, the two logics would merge”

but I don’t feel a copyright license is an effective means for a shotgun wedding between the two. At all.

In addition to watching the corporate poaching of the intellectual commons, I’ve observed that the number of open source participants far outnumber actual contributors. In addition there are entirely too many copy-cat projects and the attendant duplication of effort, not the mention some of the same silly “I got there first” fussing that happens among publishing academics and perishing academics alike.

There’s little that can be done about that of course. But it would help to demand far more skin in the game from everyone concerned:some type of embedded (and possibly rolling) capital call* that comes with any level of participation in a P2P program, Project, System or Structure.

*provided that the geo-spatial, socio-spatial and info-spatial variables are aligned meaningfully enough to generate a single contractual function such a “capital call” need not be purely financial. Such a call could take the form of a call on labor, participation in an event, organization of a event or allocation of productive capacity etc.

I will deal with the text by Michel Bauwens:

From the Communism of Capital to a Capital for the Commons
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/from-the-communism-of-capital-to-a-capital-for-the-commons/2014/03/22

It’s not about licenses. GPL, AGPL. PPL or all these strange blossoms. Knowledge is always world heritage. We do not need licenses. And we also do not accept licenses. I am talking about the basics. They ultimately determine what we do and how we think.

Capital accumulation and monetary system

Michel Bauwens is a supporter of the market-fetishism and speculative monetary system. Therefore, the capital accumulation is at the center of his thinking. He sees the future of the cooperative economy secured when it builds its own accumulation sphere. He uses terms such as profits, benefits and accumulation as positive goals for cooperative economies naturally. He places himself in competition with the actors of the capitalist systems.

The basis for him is of course the same. He himself is not a part of the creative and productive people. We can do much writing and speaking. The paper is patient. Microphones as well.

Karl Marx has given us an important sentence: “Being determines consciousness” (Das Sein bestimmt das Bewusstsein). If we never knew practical work, then we do not know what has to be done. Then we worry about the accumulation of capital, private or cooperative, we will focus our attention on the market and the money system. A speculative value figure.

Then we have nothing else in our lives. In order to change this, we have to push back the empty rhetoric and turn our attention to the real issues. Berthold Brecht wrote in a song: “The chatter does not fill our bellies. It brings forth no food.” (Das Geschwätz macht uns nicht satt. Es bringt kein Essen her).

Models of the economy

For me there are two economic models that are associated with the poles of egoism or communism.

a) the egoistic, capitalist model
It rests on two pillars with uni-directional connection
– The capital, fixed or variable. The elites.
– The work. The slaves.

b) The Communist, Community model
It rests on three pillars with bi-directional connection
– The nature, our base
– Our work, our time
– Our relations, our cooperation

In the model b) appears no money. It also does not exist in the economy. It exists only in the distribution system. This is immediately understandable for people who live in reality. For people who exist in virtual spaces, it is difficult.

The only component that we bring in in the economic sphere is our time. This applies both to our preparations and our practical activity. The nature gives us the energy that our body needs. Freely. Free of charge. In abundance. If we do not destroy it.

We always have time. It is our life. For this we need no bank and no state or otherwise any illusionary construction. And we do not need any accumulation. Time is always available to us. We can make good use of it or waste it. We decide for ourselves.

a view from a distance

The question of whether IBM or HP or Cisco and many others use our ideas is not interesting for us. We are interested only for how we produce what we need. Or think we need it. The responsibility lies with ourselves.

It is up to us to deal with nonsense. Disposable plastic packaging. Burning of natural resources. Parasitic existences in offices, administrative, military and other rubbish.

We can however also apply reason and rationality. Then we immediately see that 90% of that, with what people are concerned today in the industrial centers is absolute nonsense.

With free regards, Willi Uebelherr
Quetzaltenango, Guatemala
[email protected]