Re: [ox-en] Commons in a taxonomy of goods

Hi Stefan and all!

On 2010-06-21 11:33, Stefan Merten wrote:
> I'd like to make some comments with the goal of improving and
> completing this and posing a few questions.

Thanks for commenting! I'll just reply to points which need further 
debate from my pov.

> > The production of goods requires resources. Though sometimes
> > nothing is produced, already existing resources are used and
> > maintained. In this case the resource itself is the good, which is
> > considered to be preserved—for instance a lake.
> 
> A nice idea to capture sustainability!

This is important, because in international debates the aspect that 
goods are a result of a productive activity, the fact that they are 
produced, is often neglected or underestimated. This has to do with the 
tendency of the "traditional" commons discourse to take natural goods 
for granted (like a lake: "it is already there").

> > A good becomes a _commodity_ , if it is produced in a general way
> > for the exchange (selling) on markets. Exchanging has to occur
> > because, in capitalism, production is a private activity and each
> > producer produce separated from the others and all are ruled by
> > competition and profit searching.
> 
> I'd not limit this to capitalism but every social form which is based
> on abstract exchange.

You are right, there are other societies producing commodities which are 
exchanged, but only in capitalism this mode is dominant.

> > A good maintains the form of _subsistence_ , if it is not produced
> > in a general way for others, but only for personal use or benefit
> > of personally known others (family, friends etc.). Here, exchange
> > does not occur or only for exceptional cases, but the good is
> > relayed, taken, and given—following any immediately agreed social
> > rule. A transition form to commodity is barter, the direct
> > non-money mediated exchange of goods.
> 
> As a result all those alternative projects like self-governed
> companies are in the category of subsistence - where they are not
> subject of market. In fact an idea which explains my long-standing
> feelings in this regard very well.

Some projects simply do a subsistence production, but many more or less 
alternative projects also produce in order to sell products on markets, 
because they need the result as a source of financing. Here, all 
criteria of commodity production apply.

> > A good becomes a _commons_ , if it is generally produced or
> > maintained for others. The good is not exchanged and the usage is
> > generally bound to fixed socially agreed rules. It is produced or
> > maintained for general others insofar as it neither has be
> > personal-determined others (like with subsistence) nor exclusively
> > abstract others with no further relationship to them (like with
> > commodity), but concrete communities agreeing on rules of usage
> > and maintenance of the commons.
> 
> I'm not completely happy with the relationship thing. What is the
> relationship between me as an Ubuntu user to the Ubuntu community? In
> which way is it different from me as a Windows user [1]_ to M$?
> 
> .. [1] I'm sorry for this coming out but I'm forced to be a Windows
>        user at times by my job :-( . And believe me: I hate it! [2]_
> 
> .. [2] Ok, I'm not representative here because my relationship is
>        really emotionally different ;-) . But there are others who
>        have less emotions in this regard. What about their
>        relationship?
> 
> Contrary to you I'd say the relationship of a user of a commons good
> is the same as the relationship to a commodity - minus the exchange
> relationship of course. In both cases the use and the flow of the
> goods are subject to societal regulation and though the regulation is
> different the relationship is the same.

You are right, because free software is an open access good. However, 
the fact of being available by open access (under a free license) is the 
outcome of "concrete communities agreeing on rules of usage and 
maintenance of the commons". Here we are at the tipping point, where 
"concrete" in the sense of "special" turns into "general" in the sense 
of "like me". This "concrete general" is not the same like "abstract". 
You may remember the discussions about the difference between "abstract 
general" (abstrakt Allgemeines) and "concrete general" (konkret 
Allgemeines).

More practically: For M$ the individual is only relevant as a buyer 
(license payer), which is completly an abstract relationship. For free 
software each individual is a relevant concrete user of the software, in 
a general sense. This is part of the selbstentfaltung, because I need 
the others to reach my goal (as they need me).

Clearly this is somewhat broken due to the fact, that isolated 
individuals can treat proprietary and free software in the same way, 
because they only know it that way. They will only get an impression 
that there is something different, if they get in touch with the 
community (e.g. if they seek for help). The Ubuntu community is a very 
good example.

> > Legal form
> > 
> > The legal form shows the possible juridical codes which a good can
> > be subjected to: *private property* , *collective property* , and
> > *free* *good* . Legal arrangements are necessary under the
> > conditions of societal mediation of partial interests, they form a
> > regulating framework of social interaction. As soon as general
> > interests are part of the way of (re-)production itself, legal
> > forms can step back in favor of concrete socially agreed rules as
> > it is the case within the commons.
> 
> I'd not make this distinction. To me legal forms are only a
> crystallized form of concrete socially agreed rules.

Well, the crystallation process usually took a long time and needs the 
state. Commons rules are beyond state.

> That in (modern) commons we see mostly the non-legal form of rules to
> me is a result of the germ form state they are in. I can imagine very
> well, that if peer production took over the now non-legal forms are
> transformed to legal code.

Ok, we will see. I expect a less importance of legal code if commons-
based production extends, because many aspects can be regulated below 
the level of an abstract law. This is the strengh of the commons.

> > _Private property_ is a legal form, which defines the act of
> > disposal of an owner over a thing with exclusive control over the
> > property. The property abstracts from the constitution of the
> > thing as well as from the concrete possession. Private property
> > can be merchandise, can be sold or commercialized.
> > 
> > _Collective property_ is collectively owned private property or
> > private property for collective purposes. Among them, there are
> > common property and public (state) property. All designations of
> > private property are basically valid here. There are various forms
> > of collective property, for instance stock corporation, house
> > owner community, nationally-owned enterprise.
> > 
> > _Free goods_ (also: Res nullius, Terra nullius or no man’s land)
> > are legally or socially unregulated goods under free access. The
> > often cited „Tragedy of Commons“ is a tragedy of no man’s land,
> > which is overly used or destroyed due to missing rules of usage.
> > Such no man’s lands do exist yet today, e.g. in high-sea or
> > deep-sea.
> 
> So where would you locate peer products here? Collective property? Or
> even private property?

Both, depending on the product and the producers being part of the 
production process. But this doesn't matter very much, because peer 
products and means of production are treated as possession.

> Unless they are in the public domain they are
> certainly not free goods - or?

Right. Sometimes "free good" and "open access" is mixed. The first 
is an unregulated good while the latter comes with an explicit rule, 
that it can be used by all people if they agree to some conditions (of 
a license or whatever).

> > The „freedom“ of plundering and exploitation, which commonly occurs
> > under the regime of separated private production of goods as
> > commodities, does find its limitation at the freedom of others to
> > use the resource.
> 
> I'd like to emphasize that plundering and exploitation make sense
> mainly when the results of plundering and exploitation can be used in
> an alienated way. If you can't sell tropical wood on a world market
> there is simply no reason for plundering tropical jungle for it. In
> other words: The separate private production - as is the case in peer
> production as well - is not the main reason why plundering occurs.

Peer production is not separate private production of goods as 
commodities (including the necessity to sell them), but societal 
production of goods. The fact that the peer projects today are more or 
less separated from each other is due to their germ form status, it is 
not a genuine feature like with commodity production. For commodity 
production the societal mediation is done using markets (buying and 
selling), for peer production the societal mediation is done via 
communication. If you look at free software which has left the germ form 
and reached the expansion step (following the five step model), then you 
can observe what societal mediation by communication can mean. This is 
currently not the case for material pp projects.

> > Especially by preventing random plundering of a used-up
> > resource, the needs of general others who currently do not use the
> > resource, are included. The community being connected very closely
> > to the resource is only appointed to produce and reproduce the
> > resource in a way that is generally useful.
> 
> By "appointed" and "generally useful" you are assuming that their is
> an institution outside the community which controls the community.
> Can you tell us more about this?

No, I don't assume an institution controlling anything. I only assume 
the mode of selbstentfaltung. The "general usefullness" results from 
that, because my selbstenfaltung can only be reached if others can  
reach it too. However, this must be not confused with an image of 
harmony per se. On the contrary, finding out what is best for me and 
others needs conflicts and conflict resolution. The main point is, that 
these conflict are not driven by alien goals (like making products being 
goods to sell them on markets etc.), but by each ones needs.

From such conflict resolution processes may result some rules which 
could be fixed (written down or whatever). Coming back to the point of 
law discussed above, these rules apply only to those peer projects which 
they are coming from. Then they maintain their concrete character. All 
rules put into general laws on the societal level could act as alien 
restriction for a concrete project, because general law could not 
reflect special situations. This is the reason why I expect a huge 
reduction of laws in a commons-based peer production society.

> I'd also like to emphasize that it is a political decision to use
> resources in this way or another. Although the environmentalist
> fraction doesn't like it: You can politically decide to use up
> mineral oil before switching to another form of energy. There is
> nothing wrong with such decisions if they are made decently - which
> nowadays is certainly not the case for mineral oil. May be this
> thought gives hints for my question above?

I am not sure what do you mean by "political". If this is something 
which does not comes up from the concrete practices, but from an 
autonomous "political process" like any alien representation, then this 
is not useful. However, there may be some global problems which have to 
be decided globally. But something like a voting should only be the last 
option if others do not work (see below).

> In fact I'm still fascinated of the idea of Greenpeace being the
> ozone hole maintainer brought forward by StefanMz many, many years
> ago. How does this idea fit into the equation?

That fits perfectly in the equation. The idea behind is that a highly 
skilled groups of people can produce far better solutions than any 
"political decision" or "voting". A precondition is -- like for the 
whole peer production society -- selbstentfaltung of the participants 
and openess for participation excluding all alien goals.

If you create a global project based on selbstentfaltung for the 
transition from fossil based energy production to regenerative energy 
production, then such a highly skilled group will make the right 
proposal -- I am sure. And I assume that such proposal will include to 
use-up fossil energy to reach that absolutely necessary transition, 
because I see no other way. But I may be wrong. However, under 
conditions of capitalist global economy I am very pessimistic, because 
all progress in reducing energy consumption is over-compensated by 
expansion of capitalist production (called the Jevons Paradox, although 
it is not a paradox, but result of the immanent coercive expansion 
tendency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox ) .

> > Within the commons, production and reproduction can hardly be
> > separated. The production serves their reproduction at the same
> > time.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by the distinction in this regard. I'd
> understand reproduction as a production where the result improves or
> maintains the (common) infrastructure whereas production is for
> non-infrastructure like consumption.

There are two meanings of reproduction: reproduction of the productive 
fundament like machines and infrastructure and reproduction of the 
individuals. You are addressing the first, I meant the latter. Both are 
important, and I expect concerning both that the dictinctions will 
disappear.

> In a commoditiy based society this distinction makes sense because
> the reproduction is not per se productive while production is. In a
> peer production based society I don't see this distinction making
> any sense.

Agreed. 

Ciao,
Stefan


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