Re: [ox-en] Review of peerconomy book

Hi Christian and all!

14 months (425 days) ago Christian Siefkes wrote:
> Stefan Merten wrote:
>> Last week (11 days ago) Christian Siefkes wrote:
>>> I won't respond to where your analysis goes wrong, since I have other
>>> things to do and this has all been discussed before.
>> 
>> Thanks for your ignorance. You really make me feel sorry for spending
>> so much effort in trying to debug your work. May be I should have done
>> like you and dismiss your whole stuff from the start. However, to me
>> that is not the way to move forward.
> 
> sadly, I, like anybody else, have only limited time on my hands. This is not
> the first time we've discussed my ideas. You've criticized them before, and
> I've responded before, and in your review you didn't come up with any new
> points (as far as I could notice). So we can either turn in circles and lead
> the same discussions again and again, or we can conclude that we've found an
> issue were we can't reach agreement on and leave it at that.
> 
> Anyway, let's try it one more time...

Now this is really long ago ;-) . I'll full quote because of that.

I'm grateful that you replied and I'll comment on a few points because
I think it helps clarifying what we are discussing here. And no, I
don't think we go in circles. At least I learned a few things during
writing this mail :-) .

>> I'll quote one randomly picked piece from my "Disguises" section and
>> step by step ask you where I missed the important difference. If I'm
>> so wrong then it is probably easy to point at it.
>> 
>>   However, there is a sharp distinction between the contributions
>>   which are done in the division of labor model of capitalism and in
>>   peer production projects. In peer production projects the doubly
>>   Free contributors contribute because it is Selbstentfaltung to them.
>>   They don't need any compensation for this because they are not
>>   loosing anything - in the contrary.
>> 
>> I guess you'll agree with me until here.
> 
> Hm, I rarely use the "Selbstentfaltung" concept because it sounds too
> vague for me.

Well, as a theoretical concept it is well-founded - I think you
attended one of StefanMz's introductions into Critical Psychology and
know this. However, I agree that it is not always easy to map concrete
phenomenons to Selbstentfaltung.

My short definition of Selbstentfaltung is "enjoying task and/or
project". May be you could add "and/or product". And may be you could
add "enjoy yourself". StefanMz?

> When we look at motivational studies of why people participate
> in free projects (a German-only overview can be found at
> http://www.freie-gesellschaft.de/wiki/Motivation#Motivation_in_Freien_Projekten
> ), we find a variety of reasons:

Let's see what according to this short definition is Selbstentfaltung.

> - People produce goods they like to have ("scratching an itch")

== enjoying product == Selbstentfaltung (extended version)

> - People do something they enjoy doing

== enjoying task == Selbstentfaltung

> - People want to give something back to the community or support the
> community goals ("software should be free")

This aspect really makes me think whether I'd call it Selbstentfaltung
or not. According to the definition above it's not because this
motivation relates to the community instead of
task/project/product/yourself. But if I remember StefanMz's
theoretical foundation where the relationship of Selbstentfaltung to
the society as a whole plays a role this would also be
Selbstentfaltung.

> - People want to learn something or expand their skills

== enjoying task / yourself == Selbstentfaltung (extended version)

> - People want to increase their reputation (this last reason seems to be
> rare, in spite of what Raymond thought)

This is clearly not Selbstentfaltung because it is directed at an goal
external to task/project/product/yourself. It is aimed at your
(abstract) market value instead.

> So when you mean by "no compensation" that they don't get money in return,
> than you're right,

I mean by compensation that they have a loss or even accept pain that
must be compensated for. If people Selbstentfalt they neither loose
anything not do they suffer - so no compensation is necessary. If
people labor for abstract reasons then they loose something - the time
during which they labor - or they even suffer from labor conditions.

Some time ago Franz pointed out that by some liberal concepts wages
are seen as a compensation for labor pain. That is what I'm talking
about.

> but when you mean that they don't get anything in return,
> than you're wrong -- they can get the goods they have produced, enjoyment,
> new/improved skills, reputation, or a mixture of these. (In case of "giving
> back to the community", things work the other way around: people feel that
> they have already got something worthwhile, and now they want to give back.)

Well, everything what humans do is rational - at least for them in
some sense. Otherwise they would not act at all. I think that this is
a fundamental psychological axiom which needs not be discussed.

What we are dealing with here is the question what kind of rationality
is employed:

* Pure individual rationality

  That is the realm where self-realization but also hedonism lives.
  The rationality ends in the individual.

* Selbstentfaltung rationality

  That is the realm I'm most concerned with. It is the realm where
  individual need and want meet societal need and want.

* Abstract/alienated rationality

  That is the realm where wages and markets live. Your goal is neither
  directly connected to your action not is it connected to society as
  a whole.

  I'd think that religion can also employ abstract rationality (after
  death you may enter heaven if you behave so and so). I'd even say
  that a religion can also create a real abstraction structurally
  equal to what you outline below.

  In capitalism the abstract/alienated rationality is build in a way
  by which individual actions are bound back to society by some
  invisible hand. That is the case for every exchange based system and
  that is its strength.

As you said you don't use the concept of Selbstentfaltung. Thus the
middle rationality doesn't exist for you. What is left then in fact
reminds me much of the classical liberal concept of "humans being the
wolves of humans".

Selbstentfaltung, however, is a concept which merges an individual
benefit with societal aspects. IMHO peer production as a mode of
production is interesting *exactly* because it does this on a big
scale: It employs a new rationality to run a big society. Today this
is possible for the first time in history.

>>   In capitalism on the other hand
>>   contributors are structurally coerced to contribute because they are
>>   payed for their contributions and money is what they need for a
>>   living. 
>> 
>> I guess you'll agree with that, too.
> 
> People are forced to earn money in order to live, yes.
> 
>>   This is exactly the point where concrete work differs from
>>   abstract labor and abstract labor becomes subject of exchange. This
>>   is an important source of alienation in capitalism and as such the
>>   reason for a lot of problems.
>> 
>> I could imagine that you agree with that but I'm not sure. If not I'd
>> like to know where you disagree.
> 
> Hm, here you seem to misunderstand Marx' theory. "Concrete work/labor" and
> "abstract labor" aren't two different _kinds_ of labor, they are just two
> different _aspects_ of labor. _All_ labor/work is concrete in so far as it
> produces some concrete use value; when we ignore the specific use value
> produced and just consider labor as "expenditure of human labor power",
> what's left is "abstract human labor" (cf. Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_labour_and_concrete_labour ). In
> capitalism this abstraction from specific use value is very important since
> it forms the basis of _exchange value_ (or just _value_): the value of a
> commodity depends on the amount of abstract human labor that's necessary to
> produce it. The abstraction therefore is a "real abstraction": it takes
> place in the real world, not just in our minds.

I agree with you: Abstract labor is an aspect which needs to be based
on concrete work. Concrete work on the other hand is a basis of every
human society. It describes the exchange ("Stoffwechsel") with nature.

> While it is clear that _all_ work, in any society, is always "concrete
> useful labor (or work)", it's a matter of debate whether it makes sense to
> speak of "abstract human labor" in regard to non-capitalist modes of
> production, where production is not based on (exchange) value and where the
> "real abstraction" doesn't take place. I'm inclined (but with no strong
> feelings one way or the other) to think that we can always speak of
> "abstract human labor", but that we should carefully distinguish whether
> this abstraction takes place in the real world ("real abstraction", as in
> capitalism) or whether it takes place in our minds only (as when we regard
> the work of somebody writing free software or a Wikipedia article as
> abstract "expenditure of human labor power", disregarding the concrete use
> value they're producing -- since they aren't producing any exchange value,
> this abstraction takes place in our mind only, it doesn't have an effect on
> the real world).

I'm not fully happy with this concept of "real abstraction". I think
every abstraction we can think of is somehow reflected in reality - be
it by thinking about it. But the real abstraction we are interested
here are interesting because they dominate the shape of a society.

I think there can be other sources of abstraction which lead to "real
abstraction" in this sense. I could imagine that religion in
pre-capitalist societies could have played this role.

> Now, the real abstraction in capitalism is an automatic process, it happens
> "behind the back of the producers" as a result of price negotiation between
> market participants. On the other hand, abstraction in the peer economy, as
> I describe it, is the result of a conscious decision of people.

That is a point we certainly disagree. You somehow seem to think that
in capitalism people don't make conscious decisions. Of course they do
- be it when they buy a product or be it when they sign an employment
contract. I can not see the slightest difference in the form of
decisions between capitalism and your model.

The point is that if you install a system based on abstract exchange
then you end up with all the features of abstract exchange. You can't
have the strength of abstract exchange coercing people to do societal
needed things without the weaknesses - namely the abstraction.

> A decision
> that they make in order to deal with a problem that they'll doubtlessly have
> to face, namely: how to distribute tasks that don't distribute themselves
> automatically, i.e. that nobody wants to do out of pure "Selbstentfaltung".

I agree that this is a decision needs to be made. My point is that if
we talk of peer production it may not be structurally end up in the
abstract/alienated kind of motivation I described above.

> I mention in my book that other solutions to this problem are possible --
> you don't like this solution: that's fine, so go on and propose better ones.
> My book was meant to start a discussion on these issues, so any alternative
> proposals for dealing with this problem are welcome.

You succeeded in firing up this discussion :-) .

>>   Now Christian deals with the problem that there might be tasks in a
>>   peer production project which are for some reason not done out of
>>   Selbstentfaltung.
>> 
>> That's the basic idea of your book - right? If all tasks would be
>> handled by Selbstentfaltung then nobody would be required to
>> contribute to get a product. We would have ampleness instead and we do
>> not need ca. 70% of the things you are discussing in your book.
> 
> My approach is a problem-driven one: if people will be faced with this
> problem, they'll have to deal with it, and I discuss a possible way of
> dealing with it. If the problem never arises, so much the better--in this
> case, that part of my book would be unnecessary, which would still leave
> about 30% that would be useful. However, I don't think that a transition to
> a post-capitalist society will be possible without dealing with this
> problem. A society where all demands are satisfied through Selbstentfaltung
> may be possible, but I doubt that such a society could grow immediately out
> of capitalism.

I agree with you that this problem needs to be addressed.

Well, at the moment this problem is addressed by a co-existence of
capitalism and peer production. This is at least a status quo for
which I do not see a necessary end until peer production can take over
completely. So for me there is no strong reason to suggest a model at
all.

But *if* such a model is suggested it needs to be true to peer
production and by all means need to avoid the kind of
abstract/alienated motivation I described above.

>>   The simple answer he finds is: Coerce others so
>>   they contribute by doing these tasks. Instead of paying them with
>>   money Christian suggests exchanging products of the project for the
>>   abstract labor done by a coerced contributor.
>> 
>> That is probably the point where you will say that I'm missing an
>> important difference. However, I can not see it. I'll try to pin down
>> the pattern I recognize.
>> 
>> If I want to acquire some product in your system I can not simply take
>> it - as in existing peer production projects. Instead I am required to
>> contribute something - right? This something is work I need to do
>> though I do not want to do that work because of my Selbstentfaltung -
>> right? I'd call this work abstract labor because of the lack of
>> Selbstentfaltung.
> 
> In so far as current peer production tends to go, my solution is the same as
> of current peer production processes: you can take anything, without having
> to give anything back, as long as you don't take it _away_ from others. That
> means that you can freely take information and anything else that can be
> copied freely. Current peer production tends to end here.

Taking away is probably also not what you mean. If I take a book/pizza
you don't need any longer then I take it away but there is no problem.

I think you point is better spelled out that there are limitations in
the means of production resulting in limited products.

> The problem that arises next is how to organizing taking when taking does
> mean taking away: say if I want to take a bicycle, but somebody else wants
> to take it too -- if there's only one bicycle, and if one of us would take
> it, she would take it away from the other (she would deny her the
> possibility of taking it).

I once used to put it in a very similar way: Free Software which is
not yet produced is limited. StefanMz gave me the idea that this is a
too limited perspective on a societal level: If we need that software
then we'll simply produce it. Though this doesn't solve the immediate
problem over time it is obviously a solution.

> My problem to this solution is basically:
> "arrange production, through social agreements, so as to avoid that taking
> becomes taking away -- i.e. arrange production so as to ensure that there is
> one bicycle (etc.) for everyone who needs one." People thus enter a joint
> agreement to help each other produce what each of them needs.

I agree that your solution can be seen as such and approach and that
is basically what I said recently_.

.. _recently: http://www.oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg05911.html

The problem with your solution IMHO is that you employ not a conscious
societal organization of that problem but rather establish a market
where the invisible hand rules and people need to function according
to abstract/alienated motivations.

> Realizing this common goal requires effort, and the agreement must therefore
> find a mode for distributing this effort--my proposal here is either to
> distribute effort evenly among participants (flatrate model), or to
> distribute it roughly proportionally to the effort it takes to satisfy
> everyone's wishes ("the more you want, the more you have to give"), plus
> some further details and possible modifications. The decision to regard
> effort as "abstract human labor", disregarding the specific useful goods it
> produces (except that they must of course be useful, i.e. somebody must want
> them), is therefore the result of an social agreement, it does not happen
> "behind the back of the producers."

The anti-human aspect is of course the "the more you want, the more
you have to give". It is not by chance that in your book first of all
you have to reintroduce social security by exactly the same means as
are used in capitalism and for the same reasons.

You bind the satisfiable need of someone to her labor power. Why?

A model aligned with Selbstentfaltung would need to bind the
satisfiable need of someone to her *need* of course. That would
certainly need a real conscious model of societal organization because
need is even harder to measure than abstract labor.

> The important thing, I believe, is that people enter a joint agreement to
> help each other produce what they need--the details of the agreement (how to
> distribute effort etc.) will be a matter of experimentation. Feel free to
> propose better solutions for these details, if you know any.

I don't have a model but I gave a criterion which a model must
fulfill.

> But please stop ignoring the difference between freely copyable and other
> things: if you take a copy of Linux, nobody else loses a thing, but if you
> take the last bicycle, other people lose the possibility to take it. That's
> a difference that must be dealt with, merely wishing it away won't help you.

I'm not wishing it away. As explained above I'm most of all not so
concerned with this problem because we have a working mode
(co-existence of capitalism and peer production) for which I don't see
an immediate need to replace it.

>> If I want to acquire some product in capitalism I also can not simply
>> take it. Instead I am required to pay for it. The payment is usually
>> done by money, but money ultimately results from abstract labor. So
>> money is just an intermediary which does not change the basic
>> principle that I need to do abstract labor to acquire a certain
>> product.
>> 
>> So I can really not see the difference. As a result if you say that in
>> capitalism there is structural coercion then it is the same in your
>> system. The coercion lies in the fact that I can not simply take what
>> I need but am required to do abstract labor for it.
> 
> I don't think the problem in capitalism is that you don't get everything for
> free.

Well, at the very least capitalism would not exist if you would get
everything for free...

> On a deep level, the problem that you have to work in order to consume
> even exists in any society, since only goods that have been produced can be
> consumed.

Yes. Work is a basic condition for a human society.

> Thus work (production) is always a necessary precondition for
> consumption--maybe not for you personally, but definitely for society as a
> whole. (Of course, the people doing it may perceive this work not as
> necessity, but as Selbstentfaltung, as something they're doing voluntarily
> and with pleasure--that's the best outcome a mode of production can hope to
> achieve. But it can only be an outcome, not a precondition for a mode of
> production. Otherwise needs which, for whatever reasons, cannot be satisfied
> by pure Selbstentfaltung would simply be neglected, and that wouldn't be a
> good thing.)

Yes. The following paragraph is very important and I have a lot to
comment. Thus I'll quote it fully once and then break it up with my
comments afterwards.

  > The problem in capitalism is that production only takes place if there is
  > _profit._ The goal of all capitalist production is to make profit, i.e. to
  > turn money into more money. So, in order to get the things you need, you
  > cannot just "work a little"--no, you have to convince some capitalist that
  > they need you, i.e. that employing you allows them to make more profit than
  > they would make otherwise. Your mere willingness to work is entirely
  > unimportant--you must be useful for some capitalist, too. But capitalists
  > only need a limited number of personnel, much less than there are people on
  > Earth, so that's the big hurdle which most people fail to overcome (when
  > speaking on a global scale).

> The problem in capitalism is that production only takes place if there is
> _profit._

Yes.

> The goal of all capitalist production is to make profit, i.e. to
> turn money into more money.

Or: To turn abstract labor into more abstract labor.

Here we are back to abstract/alienated motivations. One reason for
this need for profit is the want of capitalists for income without
effort. *This* want, however, is also universal in the very moment you
have abstract exchange: You can reduce your own effort spending by
that income. If capitalists exist they will always function according
to this principle.

> So, in order to get the things you need, you
> cannot just "work a little"--no, you have to convince some capitalist that
> they need you, i.e. that employing you allows them to make more profit than
> they would make otherwise.

In former times it was common knowledge that capitalists are the
owners of the means of production. In your model, however, the
projects are the owners of the means of production. Thus they are the
capitalists in your model. They have the same incentives as a
capitalist always has. One of them I described above - making more
profit - but also incentives like that they avoid ruining their means
of production.

> Your mere willingness to work is entirely
> unimportant--you must be useful for some capitalist, too.

Effectively in your model people will be in the very same situation:
In order to acquire a product they need to find someone who is willing
to employ them - just as a capitalist worker. And this someone is
driven by the very same incentives as a capitalist. No difference.

Or can you force a project to accept your labor?

> But capitalists
> only need a limited number of personnel, much less than there are people on
> Earth, so that's the big hurdle which most people fail to overcome (when
> speaking on a global scale).

That is the case in specific states of capitalism. There were times
for instance in Germany where there were full employment.

In fact you also see things with a worker perspective only. In reality
it is simply not the case that all capitalists can acquire all the
personnel they need. I know what I'm talking about because I have
witnessed situations where my company looked for qualified personnel
and over years was not able to find it on the market. That of course
will also apply to your model.

Now back to the normal flow.

> The second aspect of this problem is that, as a worker, you don't sell the
> results of your labor, you sell your _labor power_ (workers, or would-be
> workers, are people who don't have anything to sell than their labor
> power--most people haven't). The deal by selling your labor power is: you
> get paid the value of your labor power (what else?), and the value of your
> labor power is what you need in order to survive (according to your local
> community standard of living); in return, you have to give your full labor
> power (according to the local standard for the length of they work day/week,
> say, 8 hours a day/40 hours a week). If the production of the goods you need
> for your standard of living takes 20 hours a week, you still have to work 40
> hours--the other 20 hours are the "surplus"--they go to the capitalist,
> become their profit and are, in fact, the only reason why they employed you
> in the first place.

Yes.

> In the peer economy, you don't need to be useful for a capitalist, since you
> can join, without any preconditions, the general agreement to help each
> other produce what they need.

May be on an abstract level - but this is the same as being available
for the labor market. Expressing your pure willingness as little
guarantees you the acceptance of a project as in capitalism.

> And since work is simply divided up, there is
> no surplus--

Since the owners of the means of production have to employ you there
will be surplus of course.

> if producing your standard of living takes 20 hours a week, you
> work 20 hours (assuming a proportional model), if you want a higher
> standard, you have to work a bit more, say 25 hours, etc. (In fact, your
> workload would probably be even lower, since in capitalism there is much
> duplication of work and overload work which would be unnecessary in a peer
> economy.) The general agreement to help each other produce what they want
> and to divide the necessary work among those that can contribute means that
> everybody who can has to work a little, but nobody has to work very much.

That is exactly the same as in capitalism. In reality the exchange
value of your labor will influence this as much as in capitalism.

> (And if you can't contribute at all, then you don't have to. That's how I
> describe it, at least, and I believe that rule to be very important, since
> the goal of dividing up the labor is to allow everyone to get what they want
> with the least possible effort, not to exclude anybody.)

The "can't" in fact means: You are forced to usually and only if you
have goods reasons then you don't need to. That is probably a common
denominator for such models of coercion though.

> That's the difference between capitalism and the peer economy.

Sorry, but no.

> For many
> people in our society, it would mean the difference between life and death,
> or at least between having to live in misery or being able to live a good
> life. And for almost everybody else it, it's the difference between having
> to work very much (and often with the fear of losing that precious, if
> unloved job and the advantages it entails) and having to work much less (and
> without fear of dropping out). And that's not even speaking of the fact that
> in the peer economy you're part of a equal community of co-producers with a
> common goal (produce for everyone what that like to have), while in
> capitalism you must subjugate to the command of some boss whose goal (making
> profit) has nothing to do with you...

I think this is really wishful thinking. Largely the same mechanisms
apply to your model as to capitalism so the outcome will be the same.


						Grüße

						Stefan
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]