https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-hypothesis-of-netarchical-capitalism/2006/01/10 Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:50:35 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.5.15 https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-hypothesis-of-netarchical-capitalism/2006/01/10/comment-page-1#comment-200 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:45:52 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.com/?p=19#comment-200 […] In my own writings on netarchical capitalism, I distinguish between netarchical capitalism as a class, enabling and profiting from participatory platforms; as a practice, involving minipreneurs, but also as an ideology, which favors participation but only within the framework of capitalism. Netarchists in my mind are those who favour P2P, but for whom the horizon of possibility lies exclusively within the capitalist marketplace. Yesterday’s entry on Prosper.com was a case in point. Another expression of this ideology is the fast-growing ‘bottom-of-the-pyramid‘ movement. […]

]]> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-hypothesis-of-netarchical-capitalism/2006/01/10/comment-page-1#comment-165 Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:03:20 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.com/?p=19#comment-165 […] Michel Bauwens: Should I temper my initial enthusiasm for FON. Before FON, it seemed that the wireless community movement was only evolving very slowly, that the idea of bottom-up networks was catching on too slowly. It seemed to me that FON did things right in creating enthusiasm for the approach, enlisting luminaries from the blog world, etc.. The recent U.S. deal transpires that behind FON is not so much a social movement, but a business entreprise. My reaction is: is that necessarily a bad thing. FON is part of this new breed of netarchical capitalists, creating Antigoras, that wants to both enable and profit from participatory platforms. It seems to me that in this stage of the technosocial evolution of P2P networks, it is still an advantageous thing to combine the passion of P2P-oriented individuals and social movements, with the skills and means of certain business organizations. They usually due what pure social movements, such as the original free software movement, fail to do, i.e. the handholding of novices. Without FON, I would not even contemplate, as a non-techie, to do something about wireless networks, but with the simple recommendations of FON, you can think of starting something up that will immediately fit in a worldwide standard. Read this critique by Glenn Fleishmann of WiFi Net News: […]

]]> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-hypothesis-of-netarchical-capitalism/2006/01/10/comment-page-1#comment-33 Tue, 07 Feb 2006 03:56:16 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.com/?p=19#comment-33 […] I have discussed my own take on this in the introductory essay on the Political Economy of Peer Production, and in blog entries such as the one on netarchical capitalism, and related ones such as the following: […]

]]> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-hypothesis-of-netarchical-capitalism/2006/01/10/comment-page-1#comment-13 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:01:32 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.com/?p=19#comment-13 […] Our entry on netarchical capitalism, has been picked by a roundup of the blogosphere’s dialogue on Jaron Lanier’s original essay. […]

]]> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-hypothesis-of-netarchical-capitalism/2006/01/10/comment-page-1#comment-7 Fri, 20 Jan 2006 02:28:51 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.com/?p=19#comment-7 […] Speaking of markets, Lanier’s essay prompted Michel Bauwens of P2P Foundation to outline his intriguing “Hypothesis of Netarchical Capitalism”: Knowledge and other workers using participatory platforms will generally use both the commons and the market, the latter in order to make a living, and forms of distributed capitalism, which lessen their dependence on the larger firms and the salary dependence, may appeal to them. Such workers do have access to their own information machines, but need platforms to connect. Obviously they are drawn to the participatory platforms devised by these new types of companies, even feeling an allegiance to them. At the same time, the relationship is uneasy since these firms will generally try to evolve towards monopolistic practices, or at least, towards short-term for-profit strategies and tactics which may not be in their interests. Knowledge workers and other forces creating the P2P commons can take a variety of roles in the economy, and in present circumstances clearly need a market, but which they are trying to mold to their own interest. Thus the new forms of distributed capitalism are needed and supported because it lessens the dependence on classic firms and monopolies. The trend fulfills a desire for ‘autonomy within the market,’ and allows for various forms of ‘consumer aggregation’ that were hitherto difficult to achieve. […]

]]>