P2P-4POD - Part 2

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Continuation of the essay by Erik Douglas Peer to Peer and the Four Pillars of Democracy, which discusses the inter-relationship between peer governance and representative democracy.


The Text

III. P2P Assumptions and Values:

1. Is a State Necessary at all?


I assume a minimal model of the state here, but it is not self-evident whether any kind of state at all is necessary for the P2P paradigm to function, calling into question any endorsement whatsoever. For example, Kevin Carsons (P2P 147: 10/10/06) advocates eruditely for a species of greenish, decentralized, libertarian anarchism premised on the dynamics of mutualism. While I am not convinced of the viability of purely stateless societies, at least not when composed of the sort of individuals who predominantly populate the planet today, I will not argue the issue here at length. However, I would briefly interject two points in response to Carsons’s article:

i. It is true that, historically, sub-societies of especially disenfranchised “workers” have managed to provide many of the services and functions usually touted as grounds for the existence of a state, but they typically have introduced implicate political structures into their volunteering ranks in the process. Furthermore, although the effect of the state on such societies is largely negative (e.g., they are “left with only a fraction of their labor-product”), this may in fact help to establish a degree of identity and community, which should not be underestimated in its motivational significance.

ii. There is a danger in distinguishing between so-called stateless societies and those with governments without paying proper attention to the naturalistic fallacy of conflating categories. A naturalist or anthropological perspective finds structures in all societies that are at the least analogous to political orders, however diffuse. There are then normative arguments for different degrees of formal structure to be supernaturally superimposed on the natural order. These are two kinds of things, and it is important to note how we employ the one in support of the other as well as to be clear about which category characterizes our discourse; in one extreme, all the world is anarchy already, and in another, none of it can ever be.

So, does the P2P society logically endorse the existence of a state? While I do not sense the verdict is in on this, I suspect that the range of possibilities that are widely endorsed tend to reinforce models of the state emphasizing less over more political concentration of power, infrastructure and authority. So, I assume a minimalist model of the state for the purposes here.


2. Non-violence and the State:


Dale Carrico (P2P 147: 10/10/06) contends the origin of the state lies in the need to control the violence which necessarily results from the plurality of the society and its inevitably uneven distribution of wealth. Following the logic of Max Weber’s influential essay, “Politics as a Vocation,” the state thus achieves a moral monopoly on violence in the interests of the society. Carrico goes on to point out the problematic that has resulted historically, namely, that frequently the state ceases to serve the general interests of the society, but rather only those of an elite class of individuals.

I concur with Carrico’s analysis, but I take issue with Weber’s conclusion. In fact, it is not the *state* that should acquire such a monopoly, but rather the *law* - and there is a subtle but important distinction between the two. The state is composed both formally of the law and materially of some or all individuals belonging to the society, whereas the law in itself is radically impersonal, ideal and symbolic, and the closest in can come to embodiment is in such a document as a constitution. The origin of the *law* lies very much in the anthropological dawn of our civilization as the supernatural antidote to naturally occurring violence, its primary purpose in fact (cf. Catherine Burton's article reproduced in P2P 147: 10/10/06). In this respect, state sanctioned violence results from a perversion of its function as a servant of the law, not creator or even arbiter of the law per se. Thus, societies which are able to restrain the state from such megalomaniacal misappropriations of function will prosper in a manner consistent and resonant with a P2P principled community – and one way this may be explicitly encouraged is through the avocation of a constitution guaranteeing fundamental rights and outlining an alternative to violent interaction.


3. Equivocality, Individuals and Status:


The value identified here is that of a basic political equality of participants in a society, but a simultaneous recognition that not all individuals are identical or equally capable. Clay Shirky (P2P 147: 10/10/06) reasonably contends against social orders premised on a distinction of class endowing some individuals (“experts”) more political clout than others. The context of his discussion pertains to the Wikipedia and its derivative projects, and in particular refuting the logic of proposals to alter the current model of openness in favour of one that is more technocratic in flavour. What is, however, of particular interest is his proposal rather to augment and supplement current open, egalitarian structures with more exclusive structures reflecting certain kinds of expertise, which may then play a more pedagogic than authoritarian role. Thus I draw from this the value that all participants should be regarded as equally politically entitled irregardless of their qualifications otherwise (or in 4PoD speak, to which “organizations” they belong), but that such equivalence need not extend to, for example, the composition of advisory groups within a state. One of several locations where such advisory groups may be of particular relevance and value in a P2P friendly government is the judiciary.


4. Interdependence and the Ecological Paradigm:


There seems to be at least an implicit sympathy within the P2P movement for more ecological attitudes about the nature of society as part of the society of nature, both outwardly or explicitly in our apparent environmental values, but also implicitly or inwardly with respect to the way we deem human communities to operate best. Catherine Burton's article reproduced in P2P 147: 10/10/06 characterizes and personalizes our species as only now approaching a state of maturation, the final of four stages of cultural evolution, which reminds one of “Third Wave” and “information revolution” memes. The picture she draws is elegant, and while I loosely concur with her on the whole, I find that she is perhaps a little too quick to interpret the anthropological evidence (e.g., amongst early Neolithic agricultural societies “authority also resided in the major religious teachings and the power of the church.” – this is perhaps anachronistic, ambiguous and not so well-established; nor is the manner in which nomadic peoples first made the transition to agrarian economies, which may have been commensurate with the introduction of slavery.) However, her interpretation of the industrial society as highly mechanistic, egoistic and separate from the natural order does ring truer. Some doubt lingers over her precise characterization of our current fourth stage of development, but I do recognize its roundness and appeal. Yet, I would also note that there is still a rather profound divide between mind and matter that has not at all been resolved by Einstein’s physics nor by the introduction of ecological theory – what we are at root is something far more mysterious and remarkable than these still rather crude theoretical manifolds intimate. And by way of this, I would warn always against views that describe us as approaching an end result, whether it is “maturity” or an “End of History.” Nevertheless, I draw from this article a distinct ecological resonance with P2P philosophy.


5. Functional vs. Innate Self-interest of Individuals and Organizations:


Whether the Hobbesian thesis of cooperative self-interest defines our motivations completely or even primarily is not so well-established anymore, though most P2P thinkers still treat it as a significant factor (myself included). However, what is perhaps clearer is that organizations or individuals acting in certain official capacities, as defined by their associated functions or teleology, do indeed behave accordingly. Thus, once an individual dons the hat of the capitalist entrepreneur, it is only natural that they will act according to the logic of Adam Smith. Similarly, as noted in Mother Jones (and noted in P2P 147: 10/10/06), the company Google – an organization whose function and telos is entirely founded on such principles – when “faced with doing the right thing or doing what is in its best interests, Google has almost always chosen expediency.” Is this a surprise? Is it even a surprise that a company which disclaims against acts of “evil” might not only lie, but even derive its motivations for making such a disclaimer solely from its explicitly mandated functions as a company which must maximize its sales in the interests of its shareholders? Thus, while the ultimate nature of human motivation is not obvious, I do draw from this matter the principle that, by and large, when individuals are placed into a particular structure defined by certain functions and norms, they will behave according to this institutional clothing they then wear.


6. P2P Typology: a Collection of Values


The P2P Typology lists several categories of structures around which to organize communities with various functions. In particular, for what I term “organizations,” which exist as part of a larger society or ecology, there is an emphasis on models that only involve leaders and incorporate hierarchies temporarily on a case by case basis as pragmatically needed.

The formal models endorsed include: Chaordic Organizations - Characteristics , Consensus , Consent vs. Consensus , Coordination Format , Council Ceremony , Harmonization Governance , Heterarchy , Holacracy , Horizontal Accountability , Leaderless Organizations , Open Organization , Sociocracy.

In addition, certain limited legal frameworks are introduced as legitimate P2P structures, suggesting – at least prima facie – that some basic legal framework generally should be endorsed. Similarly, certain species of copyrights and models of ownership/use privilege are also noted, namely the Creative Commons and General Public License (BTW – one might consider adding the Free Art License as developed by the Libre Society to the collection). In any case, the relevant values in the next section derive from these models.

In addition, certain models are advocated for the larger political society in particular: Citizen Dialogue and Deliberation , Commons , Community Assets , Coordination Format , Council Ceremony , Delegative Democracy , Deliberative Democracy , Deliberative Development , Democracy 2.1 , Disaggregated Democracy , Extreme Democracy , Gaian Democracies , Global Microstructures , Global Villages , Glocalized Networks , Inclusive Democracy , Mega-communities , Participatory Democracy Networks.


7. Notes on a P2P Approach to the State:


Michel Bauwens (14/10/2006) makes several remarks about a P2P approach to the state and comment accordingly below:

a. “The state has existed since the dawn of civilization and the class society, and is inevitable in a condition of inequality and plurality.”

This corroborates position 1.


b. “The democratic state is not only an expression of the interest of the ruling strata, but reflects the balance of forces that have imposed democracy and social welfare (and the amount of integration of the interests of the popular majorities reflect the ebb and flow of the interests of the latter; neoliberalism has deeply changed that balance to the detriment of the larger population, and neoconservatism would do it even more.)”


This begs the definition of a “democratic state” – an issue I am attempting to address directly in this article. It would be fairer, to my mind, rather to refer to such as “liberal democracy” in this regard.

c. “If the state exists and is inevitable for a long time to come, it might as well be used to support the majority of the population rather than be an instrument of corporate welfare; however such usage must be subsidiary to the possibilities of autonomous and distributed functioning of civil society, to which the state can play the role of enabler; rather than be an agent of corporate welfare and privilege; the state must be at least a neutral arbiter between the market and civil society related commons; and preferable must be the supporter of the latter.”


Thus, we endorse the state for pragmatic reasons if not on normative grounds. However, the state qua centralized authority should not have primacy over more decentralized, autonomous organizations. In its active capacity, the state should act only as an enabler, promoter and facilitator for these other organizations. In general, the state should play a passive role of peace keeper and judicious arbiter of conflict between these respective parts of the society.

In this last, Bauwens advocates for a leftist interpretation of the states passive role in that it should tend to side with the civil society and related commons, but he remains open to a centrist “neutral” kind of law.

d. “The centralized modes of operation that have been historically been associated with the state, and especially with the alternative Soviet model, are most of the time no longer appropriate for the running of public affairs; decentralization and distribution of state functions must be attempted, and these are not to be confounded with market-based privatization. Alternative commons-based models, such as the trust-based management of public resources, must be attempted.”

Strongly endorses non-capitalist forms of decentralized state functions.


e. “The sphere of autonomous production, participation and self-government must be extended, in line with the possibilities inherent in the peer production and peer governance model. Such autonomous governance can exist everywhere where more egalitarian distributed network models, based on a priori consensus of common goals, have proven to be viable.”

Thus, the polis should be constructed so that it supports more distributed P2P economic models of production and consumption.


f. “As society is not a distributed network based on such a priori consensus, but a decentralized play of competing groups with varying interests and convictions, it is unlikely that the representative model can be completely superseded; but the current format of representative democracy is in a deep crisis, and has become beholden to corporate interests; so it must be profoundly reformed and augmented by multiple forms of peer-informed, partnership-based multi-stakeholder governance; and exist within a sphere that is dominated by peer governance of an increasingly autonomous civil society.”


So, representative democracy is problematic but perhaps not yet redundant, thus suggesting various mixed participatory models of the polis."


IV. P2P x 4PoD ?

The previous section reviewed several sources of P2P principles. Now the question I address is whether and how the 4PoD framework might be used then to synthesize one or more P2P resonant state democracies. The methodology I employ here is qualitative (and rather more artistic than scientific): I distill the values and norms derived in and from the previous section and reintroduce them into the 4PoD categories. Some values and norms do not lend themselves to placement within these categories; in particular, there are those which are meta-categorical (i.e., the purposes and functions of a state whatsoever) as well as those which are pragmatic, concerned with economic issues (as opposed to the polis), or frame the nature of the state within a larger super-societal framework, such as the environment or biosphere. Note also that some values appear in more than one category.


T. Telos/ Purpose/ Function of the State:

0. The purposes of the state must be clearly shared [by all citizens]

1. To provided an alternative social order to those which exacerbate violence.

2. Passively to act as a judicious arbiter for resolving conflicts between the parts of the society, both individuals and organizations.

3. To remain compatible with and complementary to both the human spirit and the biosphere.

4. To integrate the Polis, the Economy and Nature in the society, emphasizing a society that is ecologically interdependent.

5. Actively to promote, facilitate and enable individual citizens and collective organizations to pursue their ends, thereby liberating and amplifying ingenuity, initiative, judgment and responsibility.

6. In particular and especially, actively to promote non-capitalist, decentralized semi-autonomous and autonomous agencies to undertake many of the functions normally associated with the state as is practicable.

7. To support and foster a society of local, self-sustaining communities that are globally connected (global villages).

8. To be durable in purpose and principle, but malleable in form and function.

9. To remain as small as is practicable.


A. Formal Structure/ Law:


0. The principles and purposes of the state must be clearly shared [by all citizens].

1. To be durable in purpose and principle, but malleable in form and function (e.g., sometimes, less is more) – thus, minimalist in character.

2. Fundamental equality of citizens/individuals entrenched in a constitution.

3. Supplemented by meritocratic distinctions of status for advisory roles (e.g., a “legal” class to act as facilitators for the judiciary).

3. Restorative Justice over Punitive Justice

4. Equitably distribute power, rights, responsibility and rewards.

5. Severe limitations on the legitimate application of violence.

6. Restrain and appropriately embed command and control methods.

7. Governance by Consent.

8. Holacracy/Sociocracy: Double linking, Circle Organization, Dynamic Steering, etc.

9. Formal laws consistent and resonant with the values, purposes and principles found throughout the schemas.


B. Actual Structure/ Body Politic:


0. To be durable in purpose and principle, but malleable in form and function.

1. Should be dynamic in significant part, learning, adapting, changing and innovating in “ever expanding cycles” according to principles of self-organization and self-governance in whole and in part as much as is practicable.

2. Integrating the Polis, the Economy and Nature, encouraging harmonious combinations of cooperation and competition, constructively utilizing and harmonizing conflict and paradox as well as fostering diversity and complexity.

3. Remain compatible with and complementary to the human spirit and the biosphere.

4. Technophilic - Progressive perspective on science and technology.

5. Emphasis on diversity/difference over unity


C. Community: Communication, Congregation, Collaboration, Civics :


1. The purposes of the state must be clearly shared [by all citizens] in collective information commons, introducing unity to the society through common purpose and its formal exposition further distributed through glocalizing networks.

2. Emphasize commons property and community assets.

3. Emphasize citizen dialogue, deliberation and participation.

4. Emphasize and facilitate structures that encourage and support civic participation.

5. Individual Responsibility: empowerment and emphasis on the individual.


D. Demos: Constituent – Organization – State Power Relationship (Bottom-up):


0. Powered from the periphery

1. Open, voluntary, accessible, participatory governance with horizontal accountability.

2. Emphasizing leaderless, non-representational, delegative and participatory structures, such as coordinations.

3. Integrative elections/ elections by consent

4. Deliberative/ Discursive structures including deliberative development and decisions by integrative emergence

5. Consent driven decision-making

6. Consensus driven decision-making (process and goal)

7. Harmonization/ Council Ceremonies/ etc.

8. Holacracy, heterarchy & responsible autonomies over Hierarchical models: emphasis on local and decentralized control over centralized authority.

9. Centered on global villages: local, self-sustaining communities that are globally connected.


E. Economy and Environment: the Economy – Polis – Nature Triad


1. Integration of the Polis, Economy and Nature emphasizing an ecologically interdependent society, thus remaining compatible with and complementary to the human spirit and the biosphere.

2. Emphasis on economies which are sustainable, Gaia – centered, local and not premised on the growth of capital.

3. Emphasis in economy on commons property and community assets.

4. Emphasize global villages (local, self-sustaining, globally connected communities) as the fundamental collective unit of the economy and the polis.


Naturally, the above schema is neither complete nor even perfectly consistent, but it does provide a point of departure, or perhaps a sketch for such a beginning, to undertake the architecture of one or more explicit models of a P2P state. Already, certain features recommend themselves for special note: e.g., the state should in its essential parts remain relatively small, for it is premised on a dynamic society. The formal structures and laws that it does contain should frequently be of a kind that does not over-determine the details of the organizations which will drive both economy and much of the functioning polis; rather, they will themselves prescribe loose principles for the autonomous and semi-autonomous groups which will actually undertake the work in question. Moreover, by taking a turn away from orthodox capitalist structures, but not adopting traditional socialist forms (specially Leninist), we find ourselves exploring a “third way” that is curiously resonant with the Zeitgeist.

One of several questions left unanswered is whether, then, a unified executive branch of government is desirable whatsoever. The cost-benefit analysis in light of these values leaves the matter unresolved. Perhaps a new form of a plurality of executive organ(s) might be imagined, which might remain faithfully flexible, limited in scope, temporary, dynamic and adaptable to changing circumstance (though we might wish to bear in mind lessons learned in the Roman Republic). And do we support an active legislature composed of regional delegates whose tenure can be recalled at all times through popular referendum? Similar questions about the judiciary, as well as further political organs to manage a range of stately functions. Finally, many of the P2P values introduced derive their veracity from contexts that are much smaller in scale than that of most modern states. Do the suggested structures translate with scale? Do people in their millions behave like they do in the hundreds? These are some of the aspects to these questions we need to address.


V. Realizing a P2P Polis:


Without a clear vision of an ideal polis, one can still take steps towards a better world. Indeed, as Sam Rose/ Paul Hartzog (P2P 147: 10/10/06) both note, unless the P2P engage in the battle for the polis, there may not come a “tipping point” where the larger society dramatically alters in its cultural, social, economic and other respects. My own efforts to achieve a polis more available to change include support of many groups, including the EFF and other free-media advocacy groups. In addition, I am actively engaged with the green parties of several locations I call home (I have many nations) – to speak more than platitudes about the green party(ies) would require another article, but they are commonly founded and bonded through “Ten Key Values” that are surprisingly resonant with principles endorsed here. In my capacity as a green party activist, I find more and more that I am introducing structures and programming code into their institutions that bear a striking resemblance to those appearing here.

Finally, I would add that, strangely, there is a shortage of long term theoretical thinking about how to orchestrate the polis – in the green party, but also everywhere. Indeed, it is a little as if the majority of enterprising intellectuals have resigned themselves to a hopeful anarchy premised on anything but the explicitly political, as if all such ideas were passé throwbacks to a pre-postmodern era. In this respect, I am undertaking the creation of a new kind of think tank dedicated to the realization of a genuinely democratic polis, one which I hope in time will serve humanity by reminding it of a few worthwhile ideas we once had. And it should go without saying that, integral to the project, everyone is invited…


More Information

The first part of the article is at Peer to Peer and the Four Pillars of Democracy