Commons Transition Strategies for Reform or Revolution

From P2P Foundation
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion

Vangelis Papadimitropoulos:

"These questions over possible pathways to transition are at the core of an important debate today. Stefan Meretz and Jacob Rigi have both criticized the reformist approach of Bauwens and Kostakis, each from a different angle.

Stefan Meretz (2014) claims that the introduction of the PPL deals only with the distribution of the surplus-value, leaving untouched the production of the commodity and the exchange logic itself. The PPL has nothing to do with “direct reciprocity” as it reproduces the commodity exchange of capitalism. In this way, PPL is trapped into a capitalist-like perspective. Open cooperativism is doomed to bend to the pressures of competition and take part in the process of exploitation. Meretz objects, therefore, to the commoditization of the Commons and argues in favor of an open-code, P2P production that would gradually replace capitalism without the support of an intermediate state. Meretz holds that even the GPL is not communist, because it is exclusion-ary. He calls, instead, for an unconditional, voluntary reciprocity based on open code.

Rigi (2014) agrees with most of Meretz’s criticism of Bauwens and Kostakis. He argues that the claim Bauwens and Kostakis make for keeping rent through the introduction of PPL is decep-tive. Bauwens and Kostakis justify the keeping of rent by arguing that the GPL allows the capital-ists to have a free ride on the Commons. The capitalists profit from the use of GPL by turning Commons use-value into proprietary exchange value. Thus, the PPL is necessary to secure the sustainability of the Commons by reversing a stream of income from capitalism to the Commons via the payment of a fee in exchange for the commercialization of the Commons knowledge. But Rigi thinks this is not true. He holds that software/knowledge/information, whether proprietary or free, has zero value. Capitalists thus cannot make extra profit by using free software. On the contrary, the GPL extracts Commons from capitalism. IBM, for example, transformed its propri-etary software into Commons to use Linux. Finally, Rigi claims that Bauwens and Kostakis’s project of open cooperativism perpetuates capitalism inasmuch as it adheres to the capitalist categories of the market, commodity, surplus-value, profit, and capital:

- But to the extent that capitalists are paying a fee to the cooperative for using knowledge this fee is a rent that is part of the surplus-value produced by the total social labor exploited by the total social capital. Hence, the cooperative exploits other workers by extracting surplus-value from them... To sum up the cooperative is implicated in the capitalist mechanism of exploitation either as an exploited or exploiting party in both the processes of the formation of values and that of the production of prices of the commodities they produce. (Rigi 2014: 395)

Rigi agrees with Meretz that GPL is exclusionary and dependent on the state. But despite its current deficiencies, he considers GPL as the first universal form of communism. “Communism is nothing but realization of individual potentials through voluntary participation in social pro-duction and making the product available to all members of society regardless of their contribu-tions” (Rigi 2014: 399). However, the GPL is not just a form of general reciprocity, because it inherently results in cooperation owing to its productive orientation. He perceives the Linux model of production, based on GPL, as the form of cooperation that subverts the capitalist divi-sion of labor both in space and time. He furthermore stresses that the GPL/Linux model can be applied to material production by means of digital copying and automation. GPL-oriented pro-duction can become the platform of a revolutionary social struggle of peer producing coopera-tives that will reduce their relations to the market to a minimum, while aiming toward a massive exodus from the city to the Commons. The transition from capitalism to the Commons requires the transformation of strategic means of production—namely, land and major instances of fixed capital—into Commons. Bauwens (2015) has responded to Meretz by arguing that it is precisely the sustainability of P2P production that the introduction of the PPL intends to guarantee. He furthermore points out that PPL does not demand equivalent exchange, but only a negotiated reciprocity, that is, a mini-mum reciprocity necessary to sustain the system. This sort of reciprocity is consistent with Marx’s ([1885] 1992) definition of communism. Finally, he holds that Meretz’s argument that P2P production will mature by its own means into an alternate system that will gradually substi-tute capitalism is a dangerous dream.

I agree with Bauwens’s response to Meretz, and I disagree with some parts of Rigi’s argument. First, Bauwens and Kostakis are introducing PPL with the aim to rent and not sell Commons knowledge. Thus, the PPL aims at the commercialization and not the privatization of Commons knowledge. Second, the fact that knowledge-information can be reproduced at nearly zero cost does not mean that it cannot produce added value. Not only do venture capital start-up funds and multinational corporations such as IBM reduce their costs by using free software—and therefore increase their profits—but they also profit enormously by extracting added value through new business models, services, infrastructures, finance, and so on. Instead of IBM paying ten pro-grammers to produce software, it pays significantly lower salaries to a community of peer pro-ducers to produce the same software with much better quality. Third, the argument that the Commons exploit their contributors by renting their surplus-value to capitalism is not true, given that the profit is redistributed within the Commons. Bauwens and Kostakis perceive the Commons in terms of the medieval guilds or the Enspiral project, in which they are externally trading their goods in the marketplace, while acting internally as solidarity systems that redistribute their income in new projects through a collaborative funding process. However, the flows of capital from ethical market entities into the Commons via the PPL can be considered a form of transvest-ment or expropriation of the working class’s surplus-value, returning back to the “source.” Besides, Rigi himself concurs with a minimum cooperation with the market given that we cannot avoid but coexist within capitalism—at least for the time being. The transference or transvest-ment of value (land, labor, capital) from capitalism to the Commons is unavoidable in any poten-tial scenario of a future transition to the Commons, either one that is reformist or state-driven or both. In any case, expropriated surplus-value returns to the “source.”We cannot at present—despite Meretz’s desire—pass from an economy of money to a utopia beyond money, commodity, scarcity, labor, and the state. On the contrary, the state can potentially facilitate the transition from capitalism to the Commons by various means: education, infrastruc-tures, the legal system, and so on. To create a more autonomous, just, and equal society, we need to transfer resources (money, infrastructures, human capital) from capitalism to the Commons, and this can happen either in a reformist (Bauwens and Kostakis), a radical (Meretz), or a revolution-ary (Rigi) way. All three approaches can be considered as different formats of Commons-based peer production depending on the conditions. At present, the reformist approach seems to me the most realistic. Therefore, I agree with Bauwens and Kostakis that the introduction of the PPL is vital for channeling a stream of income from the capital to the Commons. Any form of democratic financialization of the Commons is necessary for the Commons to reproduce and expand. But is this enough for the Commons to flourish and thrive? Is it only a matter of distribution?Castoriadis (1988), among others, observed that the basic structural contradiction of capital-ism, reproduced by the state itself, is the division between directors (managers) and executants (workers). Weber, however, argued for the inevitability of bureaucracy and the limited scope of collective self-management in contemporary societies (Kreiss, Finn, and Turner 2011). Yet, inter-net and free/open-source software today offer an immense potential for the creation of a partici- patory culture based on autonomy and cooperation. But, still, the Commons are in their infancy with the division between managers and executants penetrating them in multiple forms. Today, the Commons face many contradictions: elitism, aristocracy, monarchy, autocracy, lack of trans- parency and solidarity, exclusion, discrimination, racism, precarious volunteering and activism, the domination of self-interest and competition over solidarity and cooperation, the rational mas-tery of techno-economism (Papadimitropoulos 2016b), and the fear of the tyranny of the Commons over the heterogeneity of individuality.Bauwens (2014a) admits that P2P projects are said to be, most often, “benevolent dictator-ships,” controlled by a core of founders on the basis of their larger input into the constitution of the project. This model of course has nothing to do with communal shareholding and the example of the hunter eating last from his prey. Hierarchy results quite often in authoritarianism. What’s more, most of the so-called decentralized autonomous projects developed on the Blockchain infrastructure seem to be more libertarian than Commons.In support of the above comes a new study that shows that Wikipedia has turned into another conservative, corporate bureaucracy ruled by a leadership elite with privileged access to informa-tion and social networks (Heaberlin and DeDeo 2016). This clearly illustrates the gap between a technocratic elite and the members of a “community.” The oligarchy of the experts undermines the principles of equipotentiality and holoptism. The technological gap is co-substantial with an implicit techno-centrism (Morozov 2011) and techno-pragmatism, dangerously ignoring that technology is part of the social imaginary, which has much more complex dynamics than tech-nology itself. Society is a much more complex network of highly diverse imaginaries and power relations that cannot simply be reduced to an algorithmic design.For these reasons, an adequate education is of outmost importance for incorporating technology into society and vice versa. We need an educational care to accompany knowledge with the mission to reach out for the unprivileged (the poor, the unemployed, the workers, the illiterate) and support them substantially. We need information that is unbiased by mainstream media propaganda. We need to do away with the capitalist imaginary of individualism and utilitarianism that translates everything into calculated costs and benefits for a self-interested maximizer (individual, corpora-tion, or state). We need to create a new anthropological type that combines a minimum conception of the common good (the planet, the community/group) with an ethical pluralism translated into the P2P infrastructures that support the intercompatibility of multiple individual and collective imagi-naries (Papadimitropoulos 2016a). We need to transform power relations and income inequalities into the equipotential intercompatibilities of cultural diversity with the mission to unleash human creativity and establish a more autonomous society. Thus, P2P production could crystallize the free flux of difference and similarity floating in the magma of the imaginary significations of society. As Castoriadis argued long ago, there can be no exhaustive plan of social change, no well-described pathway to another society, and no recipe for revolution except for the equality of all in participat-ing in the creation of the “rules” governing society as a whole (Castoriadis 1988).To this end, transparency of information, distribution of value, solidarity, and bottom-up self-management are the core variables of individual and collective autonomy inasmuch as they per-mit a community or group to formulate its values in relation to the needs and skills of its members.

Transparency in terms of open accounting, open protocols, and open supply chains, as proposed by Bauwens, is the necessary condition for incorporating competition into an economy based on cooperation, trust, and autonomy. Cooperation is not to be forced in any way, but we still need to have free access to all information available to be truly autonomous in our judgments and choices. Transparency is the necessary condition of individual and collective autonomy.I agree with Bauwens that the key issue is the balance between efficiency and participation; we need not waste time in endless deliberations in search for a “final” consensus. It is essential, however, to abolish the distinction between directors and executants to wipe out the capitalist imaginary that penetrates the Commons in multiple forms. Following Castoriadis, I hold that freedom is the equality of all in participating in the formation of the law-ruling society. Freedom is the equality of autonomy for individuals thinking and acting within collectivities. Therefore, we should be aware of the danger of a reversed bureaucracy that could result either in the oligar-chy of a technocratic elite or in the tyranny of the Commons, both oppressing equally the hetero-geneity of individuality inherent in the cultural diversity of any collectivity." (https://www.academia.edu/37162289/Reflections_on_the_Contradictions_of_the_Commons?)

Source

* Article: Reflections on the Contradictions of the Commons. By Vangelis Papadimitropoulos. Review of Radical Political Economics, 2018, Vol. 50(2) 317–331

URL = https://www.academia.edu/37162289/Reflections_on_the_Contradictions_of_the_Commons?email_work_card=view-paper [1]