[ox-en] Re: Christian Siefkes * Peer Production Everywhere

Hi list!

1 minutes ago Stefan Merten wrote:
> Below is the documentation from Christian's talk. The images are on
> the website.

Here are some comments. I leave those things out which I replied to in
other instances already.

> Traits of Peer Production
> -------------------------
> 
> *(3) Peer production is based on commons and possession (not on
> property).* *Commons* such as free software and open knowledge play an
> important role as input or output (or both) of peer projects.
> 
> Where things are not commons, they matter as *possession* (something that
> can be *used*), not as *property* (something that can be *sold*).

The "not commons" is probably meant as "commons".

This concept binds special rules to things because of their role in
society: If they are commons they must not be sold. This is not
uncommon - for instance holy things have special usage rules attached
as well.

In peer production these rules are probably governed by the licenses
attached to the products. However, in peer production it is often
impossible to sell the products anyway. If this isn't the case you
need a power system which enforces this.

> (2) Commons can become possession, but not property
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> - Without property, there is *no profit.*

Well, there is no profit in the sense of exchange value - i.e. no
surplus exchange value. But there certainly is surplus use value. This
is also a type of additional benefit which may be used similarly to
classical profit. I think it is a good question on how this
bene-profit is governed well. Or are there reasons which make a
governance superfluous? Or is it impossible because it needs a
comparison mechanism like we have with exchange value?

> Typical Principles of Such a Society?
> -------------------------------------
> 
> *(3) Everyone can take commons into possession, as long as they don't take
> them away from others.*
> 
> - Just like today: *everybody can freely take* free software and free
>   content without having to give anything back, since by taking them you
>   don't take them *away* from others.
> 
> - Works for everything that can be *copied at practically zero cost.*

I.e. the (re)production costs are marginal / largely part of the
common infrastructure.

> What Difference Would It Make?
> ------------------------------
> 
> - *Demand-driven* instead of *profit-driven* production: production
>   takes place to fulfill people's *needs and desires,* *not* to *turn
>   money into more money.*

It's still not clear why production to turn some productive assets
into more bene-profit is prevented.

> - The *means of production* are *commons,* shared by all. *Nobody* is
>   excluded from access to the means of production and thus *forced to sell
>   their labor power.*

Oops - I think this is different from the book where projects were the
owners of the means of production.

Still I think this model has also drawbacks. This reminds me too much
of everybody owns everything which usually is a bad idea. Such a model
would call for a major power who own everything - which reminds me
very much of the so-called real socialist states where the state owned
the means of production.


In general I like these slides much more than Christian's book :-) .


						Grüße

						Stefan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBS2MxEAnTZgC3zSk5AQKLLQP/UXOHgPA2263JK0o9Bqp6YQv90iOF72z3
t/akDg3DvdGfxXy58UVUW7EryCfMX0Bz8E0vrxJWCj9qvRSv3X3lJgX3I0oaTvnO
BUsNSYY7Awy76MRfL43vZ7WCEAuninnUe+UXnXQ7ffUjSOXOCkSL/oPWvQ5TD9zC
VTN8ckZnm48=
=v1us
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----