Talk:User Ownership

Hi Patrick,

just curious as to why you are using Produc, Own and other such shorthands? Are you planning to add info to those entries? and why not use the full word?

Michel--Mbauwens 02:49, 22 July 2007 (PDT)

Dreams of objective (provable) discourse

Hey Michel,

I'll clean this stuff up if it bugs you, but let me tell you what drives me to do this:

I have some ideas about how wikis could aid communication through Plain Link - which is autolink without markup even for single word and multi-word titles.

This idea builds http://EcoComics.org is, but is written in Emacs Lisp, where it needs to be something like PHP, Perl or Python. The 'Source' of each page is *identical* to the rendered text.

For example, if someone wrote:

Society requires profit and profit requires scarcity therefore society requires scarcity.

All of the important word roots would automatically link to their definitions.

If the author doesn't like the definition for a term he would take that battle to that page or choose the correct term (what he meant compared to what the community has already defined).

I think this approach would help us understand each other in a way that we can begin constructing Proofs.

About the imperfect word roots such as "scarc" which appear:

• http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Special:Search?search=scarce
• http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Special:Search?search=scarcity

Or "produc" would cover produce, product, products, production, productivity, etc. and link automatically.

Empty links

Hi Patrick,

I know you are not alone in your love empty links, I had a similar discussion with Matt Dilley. His argument was that it encourages others to create more articles. Because we work with a small community however, our links stay empty.

I understand your desire, but since neither automatic software nor such an active community exists, in my view, it only creates frustration for users. I keep clicking on links without finding any material, I personally find that frustating.

Personally, I would prefer that you forego them until you plan to fill them with content.

Michel--Mbauwens 21:17, 22 July 2007 (PDT)

Dmytri Kleiner's comments and critique

Aug 2:

here are some comments on Patrick Anderson's User Ownership as described http://p2pfoundation.net/User_Ownership.

Dmytri Kleiner wrote: > Producers are sometimes Owners, sometimes hired Workers, and sometimes > Users.

This is correct, the essential characteristic of commons-based production is that all participants are Owners, Workers and Users, which is why the term peers is a good one.

> If you mean "Workers" then you create the Mode that Marx dreamt of, and > which might be temporarily slightly better than what we experience now.

Not sure why Marx is invoked here since the class distinction of "Worker" was neither originated in nor unique to his work.

> If you mean Users, then you create the Mode that Richard Stallman > invented through the GNU General Public License, and is slated to be > generalized into the physical sphere through the GNU General Public Law.

Not sure what is meant here, I have never heard of the "GNU General Public Law" nor of any initiative involving Stallman or the FSF that is slated to generalize anything into the physical sphere.

> As an example, when you pay for the costs of copying an apple, which > would you say is better: > > 1. An arbitrary, non-working group of Owners control the care (they may > spray the orchard with dangerous chemicals) of those Sources, and can > charge a price above cost to Profit limited only by other competing Owners.

This is a very shallow understanding of price theory, the "owners" can of course charge no more than the marginal utility of whatever rent-capturing assets they have plus the reproduction cost of all inputs, including labour.

> 2. Marxism - where the Owners are the Workers that plant, water, > maintain and harvest the fruit. They control the Sources similarly to > the Owners in #1, but at least they can pay themselves a higher Wage. > The consumer still has little control, is not allowed to do any of the > work himself, and is still at the mercy of those who Own.

This is nonsense, Marxism in now way prohibits consumers from being workers. Nor is the idea that Workers must own there means of production

an idea that originated in or is unique to Marxism.

The point is rather that consumers must also be workers, or else they are exploiting workers.

Marxism, with it's credo "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" is actually very much focused on the needs of consumers.

It is always surprising to me how people that have plainly never studied Marx insist on disputing with a straw man they name in his honour.

As far as the price theory, it is not so much that the workers can pay themselves a higher wage that is import, but rather that the workers can charge a lower price, as there is no rent-extraction by owners, thus the purchasing power of the worker's wage is greater.

> 3. The perfect Mode where the collective Owners are the Consumers > themselves. They can make the copies themselves (tend their portion of > the orchard in the manner they see fit - and within the constraint of > realistic divisibility), or they may hire others to work for them, but > either way we (the users/consumers) are in complete control. Such a mode > also causes Price to be the same as Cost, as Profit has no meaning when > the consumer Owns the Sources - or in other words, if the Consumer did > pay profit it, he would be paying himself.

This is, in fact, excluding the "hiring others" part, an awkwardly stated version of Marx's concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and "Production for Use" instead of "Production for Exchange" or commodity production.