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

Hi StefanMz and all!

Thanks for your very interesting reply. It clarified a couple of
things in my mind. Some minor comments and questions below.

Last week (11 days ago) Stefan Meretz wrote:
> On 2010-06-21 11:33, Stefan Merten wrote:
>> 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).

Thanks for the example! I saw the relationship only from in the
direction from the user to the producer - and never in the direction
From the producer to the user. And indeed the perspective of the
producers is *really* different in the two modes!

> 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.

To explore this further: What is the difference between the M$
knowledge base and the Ubuntu bug tracking facilities, forums, etc.?
Well, there is certainly a difference in the presentation and the
inclusiveness - the M$ knowledge base being very exclusive to M$. But
is this it? Are there any other indicators of the different
relationship?

>> 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.

If you mean state in the sense of a stable institution which also
holds the power to enforce laws then I agree that such an institution
is needed for laws. May be an institution like this is needed for a
peer production based society as well, but I think this is really
difficult to say. If at all it certainly will look differently.

>> 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.

I can agree with this very well. Indeed I think because in a peer
production based society the antagonist forces will be greatly reduced
because of less abstract / alienated facilities an institution like
the state will be much less necessary.

>> > 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.

Another point I got now. Thanks for the explanation!

>> 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.

Probably what I mean by "political" is what you mean by
"communication". So I think we are really on the same page :-) .

>> 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.

Fully agreed. I'd call this a political process under the conditions
of peer production.


						Grüße

						Stefan

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

iQCVAwUBTDrktwnTZgC3zSk5AQJaDAP9EM2D5Q5Dvf6/l316aFs2pCFgo+7Iwb9K
9EQcl6B0UXpxpbVvCT3ZFKsXmb7mXL9PmSCG66wGbqn4Fguw4abnlmAgyqaf3JBV
8nLMTmv8DjM3mmPpIe3QHWPU0FT3zDM1RajZhXcAL76lv5xlyk7NJWi++YQ1oIWc
NG+lqKk0PoA=
=ERt8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----