Role of Michel Bauwens and the P2P Foundation in the Development of Peer Production Theory

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Discussion

George Dafermos:

"The antithesis between the immanent and the transcendent characteristics of peer production was, as we have seen, of decisive importance in the development of Oekonux’s theory. The same is true of Bauwens’ work, which, from a methodological point of view, also constitutes a dialectical synthesis of these antitheses. Thus, by following a similar (dialectical) method with Oekonux, he had already by the early 2000s come to the same conclusion that Just as serfdom arose within the slave-based mode of production of antiquity, and capitalism within dominant feudal structures, so does peer production arise and emerge within capitalism -but not without ‘transcendent’ aspects that hold an emancipatory promise and form the seed of a possible new mode of production that may emerge as the dominant logic of a new type of political economy (Bauwens 2009: 122-123; emphasis added).

It goes without saying that what, for Bauwens, as for Oekonux, creates the objective conditions for a paradigm shift is ‘the inevitable crisis of...capitalism,’ which could ‘lead to a potential system transition, making peer-to-peer production the dominant logic’ (Bauwens 2009: 137).

Of course, Bauwens was not the only thinker who shared that common ground with Oekonux. The same could be said of several other participants in the project. For instance, Johan Söderberg’s Hacking Capitalism: The Free and Open Source Software Movement (2008) is also based on a dialectical analysis of FOSS, which supports the view that its model of production carries seeds of a post-capitalist society. The reason why the case of Bauwens merits particular attention is because of his decisive effect on the development of the theory since the mid-2000s. (In fact, the only other theorist who can be said to have exerted such a catalytic influence on the literature is Benkler). So, paradoxically, although Oekonux has fallen into obscurity, its main thesis that peer production is the germ of a post-capitalist society has actually become widely known through Bauwens. In that sense, he is the most important continuator of the work of Oekonux. That said, Bauwens did not just assimilate and reiterate its theses. As we shall see, he fleshed out the implications of the Oekonuxian analysis and fully developed its conclusions, leaving thus his mark on it.


From the mid-2000s onwards, Bauwens’ work has been closely connected with the socalled Peer-to-Peer Foundation (P2PF).8 That was basically an online mailing list that he started in 2005 with the aim of sharing his reflections. However, it soon attracted a lot of sympathizers from around the world, thereby encouraging Bauwens to add a wiki (http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net) with a view to developing an open repository of knowledge related to peer production. His collaborative approach towards the development of the repository appealed to many researchers and activists, who formed, in a sense, a research group around him and the P2PF. As a result of this ‘mutation’ of the P2PF into a veritable think-tank, Bauwens acquired several key collaborators. Of them, no-one has played a more important role than Tallinn University of Technology Professor Vasilis Kostakis, who has been Bauwens’ main co-author since the early 2010s. In the context of his collaboration with Bauwens and the P2PF, in 2012 Kostakis founded the P2P Lab. Made up of his postgraduate and doctoral students from Tallinn, the P2P Lab has since been the research branch of the P2PF (Bauwens & Pantazis 2018).

Strengthened by that group of competent researchers, the P2PF evolved into a distinctive school of thought on the topic of peer production. And like all schools of thought, so the P2F is characterized by specific theses. As one would expect, its main thesis is that peer production has the ‘potential to succeed capitalism as the core value and organizational model of a post-capitalist society’ (Bauwens 2012). The analysis, though, through which Bauwens and his collaborators substantiate that thesis is equally emblematic. This is essentially an analysis of the transformative effect of distributed networks and peer production on the economy, which lays particular emphasis on the breaking-up of the capitalist class into factions with differentiated and even antagonistic interests. Having little to do with ideological differences of any kind, this split, as the P2PF theorists remark, is due to the fact that increasingly more capitalists adopt ‘strategies of adaptation’ to distributed networks, as a result of which they have ‘an objective interest in promoting the infrastructures of cooperation that make participation and peer production possible’ (Bauwens 2009: 135). That is the case with many software companies that utilize FOSS as an input to their own production process.

What is most important is that they do not only take from the FOSS community, but also contribute to it. As is standard practice for all professionals who incorporate ‘copylefted’ software in their products, these companies release their own products under free/opensource licenses, as well, enriching thereby the common pool of FOSS. A characteristic example is Google’s Android mobile operating system, which is based on Linux and is distributed under a dual free/open-source license. In addition to sharing their products with FOSS communities, some of these companies also provide employment for FOSS developers, reinforcing thereby their economic sustainability. In this way, Bauwens and his collaborators argue that these agents of capital practically become allies of peer producers. And so, a ‘generative relationship’ can develop between the two of them. Obviously, this is a point of great strategic importance, for it suggests that the scaling-up of peer production does not presuppose a head-on collision with the entire capitalist class. On the contrary, the conclusion that Bauwens and his collaborators draw from this analysis is that the construction of alliances with ‘generative entrepreneurs’ constitutes an indispensable part of the economic struggle of peer producers (Bauwens et al. 2019, Bauwens & Kostakis 2015, Kostakis & Bauwens 2014). In their view, in fact, only by creating a supportive network of such alliances, which will allow them to transform the correlation of forces in the matrix of the economy, will peer producers ever become the leading force in it.

That does not mean, however, that alliances are a panacea. On the contrary, Bauwens and his collaborators highlight several points of rupture with capital, upon which there can be no reconciliation. As we will see in more detail in section 3.2.4, one of the main points of rupture concerns the practices of ‘enclosure and commodification of the immaterial: knowledge, culture, DNA, airwaves, even ideas,’ which are characteristic of the modus operandi of the class of cognitive capitalists (Kostakis & Bauwens 2014: 20). Obviously, as Kostakis and Bauwens point out, it is impossible to reconcile the practices or the interests of peer producers with those of cognitive capitalists. Consequently, they are at loggerheads with each other. Another point of rupture with Capital has to do with the exploitation of user communities by the proprietary platforms of the so-called ‘sharing economy.’ The main problem in this case is that the activities of users produce value, which is appropriated exclusively by the platform owners and administrators. This ‘extraction of value’ from user communities, as Kostakis and Bauwens (2014: 23) write, creates a highly antagonistic relation ‘since the value creators are not rewarded’. Obviously then, in the context of that relation, there can be no space for the construction of alliances.

According to Bauwens et al. (2019: 35), the adversaries of peer producers are those agents of Capital that are bound up with ‘extractive’ business models, that is, those who ‘impoverish the natural and community resources they use.’ Against that kind of capitalists, the economic struggle of peer producers assumes a decidedly antagonistic form of confrontation. Characteristically, they have developed strategies (which we will discuss in section 3.2.3) in order to force free-riding capitalists to ‘reciprocate.’ Yet, the antagonistic character of the relation between peer producers and capital is nowhere more pronounced than in the case of their struggle against the platform capitalists of the so-called sharing economy. As we shall see in sections 3.2.6–3.2.7, the way in which peer producers antagonize these proprietary platforms is by organizing themselves into commons-oriented ‘platform cooperatives.’ From the perspective of Bauwens et al., this is a crucial strategy for their struggle: by setting up platform cooperatives for their livelihoods, peer producers break their bonds of dependence on the capitalist economy.

At the same time, they become cooperators and that unites them with the present-day Cooperative Movement. Thus, their ‘mutation’ into agents of the cooperative economy opens up the possibility for the construction of a strong alliance with the New Cooperative Movement, which, as the P2PF theorists argue, is bound to play a very important role in the struggle of peer producers for economic hegemony.

Summarizing the analysis of Bauwens and his collaborators in a few paragraphs would only be possible at the expense of downplaying many crucial details. As of the time of writing this Report, it is undoubtedly the most thorough analysis of the struggle of peer producers for economic hegemony. As such, it calls for an elaborate discussion. Prior to delving more deeply into the content of that analysis, however, we deemed it useful to underline some of its characteristics, which will allow us to better understand it. From what we have said so far, it must be obvious that an important aspect of this analysis lies in the distinction it makes between allies and enemies. In effect, what the analysis does is separate the friends from the foes. That is the main question for P2PF theorists: who is on the side of peer producers and who is against them? Hence, their analysis divides economic agents into two antagonistic camps. On the one side, there is the ‘ethical economy’ of peer producers along with commons-friendly ‘generative entrepreneurs.’ On the other side, there are only enemies. In that sense, the analysis of P2PF theorists is political par excellence.

However, the political character of the analysis of P2PF theorists does not consist solely in the distinction between allies and enemies. We should not forget that the theorists of peer production are simultaneously the chief proponents of the project of a postcapitalist society of the commons, whose institution presupposes the demise of the existing regime. Obviously, this project is their conscious choice and position. And like any project for a new society, this project, too, expresses a political stance and leads to a political action. Animated by that project, then, the analysis of P2PF theorists does not only aim to interpret the given historical reality. Rather, its ultimate goal is to transform it towards a specific direction. As Bauwens (2005) says, ‘the aim of peer to peer theory is to give a theoretical underpinning to the transformative practices of these movements [of commoners and peer producers]. It is an attempt to create a radical understanding that a new kind of society, based on the centrality of the Commons...is in the realm of human possibility.’ Of course, as he clarifies immediately afterwards, ‘a crucial element of such a peer to peer theory would be the development of tactics and strategy for such transformative practice’ (Bauwens 2005; emphasis added).

To put it another way, we should not forget that the struggle of peer producers is a struggle in which theorists are actively engaged. Their role in that struggle is not purely theoretical in the traditional sense of the term. In fact, the involvement of peer production theorists is more akin to that of an intellectual vanguard of the movement centered on ‘the development of tactics and strategy’ (Bauwens 2005). That is something we should keep at the back of our mind when we discuss their analysis of peer producers’ struggle for economic hegemony in the next section of the report. It is important to remember that for theorists such as Bauwens and his collaborators at the P2PF, the theory of peer production is not just a scientific analysis; it is also the ideology and the strategy uniting the commoners and giving a sense of direction to their struggles.

Having clarified that point, let us now look at the analysis of the digital commons theorists and how it substantiates their thesis that peer production has the ‘potential to succeed capitalism as the core value and organizational model of a post-capitalist society’ (Bauwens 2012)." (http://heteropolitics.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Digital-Commons.pdf)


Source

* Article: Digital Commons Cyber-commoners, peer producers and the project of a post-capitalist transition. By George Dafermos. HETEROPOLITICS: Refiguring the Common and the Political. European Research Council, ERC-COG-2016-724692, July 2020

URL = http://heteropolitics.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Digital-Commons.pdf