Test2: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
P2P as Intersubjective Process:
Matthew Heskin :
Definition
 
In this essay, the author will define “peer to peer” in
“Competition does not support sharing. Competition suggests that there is scarcity and supports a scarcity mindset.
relational terms, i.e. as any system which allows
 
agents to freely and permissionlessly interact with
History has already proven that the “pie” is not a fixed size. Our “know how” changes the size of the pie even in the face of rapid population growth.
each other. Peer pro
We like to look at the world as one big house. We have a deal of chores that need to be done. If this was your home would you get all your kids to compete with each other or would you get them all to work together? Would you want them to share the best way of getting things done with their siblings or would you like them to keep their “know how” to themselves?
duction is then any process
 
whereby people can freely aggregate around the
Buckminster Fuller identified and showed us that the world is going through a process called ephemeralization. This is the process of “doing more and more, with less and less”. He also created the counter intuitive statement “sharing is having more”.
creation of common value. The interpretations
 
below are from the author only, but are based on a
If you agree that ephemeralization is happening then sharing of our “know how” will create “more” as it rapidly supports the doing more with less.
continuous dialogue with the research community
 
through the P2P Foundation ecology o
It is a common misconception that competition creates innovation. Thinking and doing creates innovation, not competition. The question is does competition create optimal thinking and doing? Competition is an extrinsic motivator. People will only do so much for extrinsic reasons; they will do anything and everything for intrinsic reasons.
f resources.
 
The R
If there were a sliding scale between competition and cooperation we would see that humanity is very close (maybe 95%) to the cooperation end of the scale. If you think of all that is required for you to have your breakfast, you will see that 99.999% of the work is performed by others (Your toaster, breakfast cereal, electricity, light bulbs etc.) If you were to try and make your $50 Kmart toaster from scratch, without cooperation, it would be your life’s work and I doubt it would be up to scratch.
elational
 
G
Pushing that slider that last 5% is going to have a bigger impact on humanity and the planet than the previous 95%. Why is this? This is because the previous 95% occurred somewhat unconsciously and the last 5% is going to require conscious action. A holistic view of the world and the issues we face will be required by the global citizenry. Removal of sovereign fences, country divisions, transformation of educational theory and economics are all part of this final 5%. It is also going to require not only an acceptance of cultural and religious difference but a deep sense of gratitude for all diversity (both human and non-human).
rammar of
 
P
It seems to us that competition is no longer the healthy option for our abundant world. When Buckminster Fuller showed us that “sharing is having more” he saw the earth as a whole with no boundaries and no divisions......... “
eer
(https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sharing-having-morewhy-compete-matthew-heskin)
P
roduction
Helpful in analysing the type of relationality that
emerges in p2p systems is the Relational Typology
developed by the anthropologist Alan Page Fiske
1
.
Below, I will attempt to match the four
relational
logics as described by Fiske, with my own observ
a-
tions.
Paraphrasing and shortening a longer quote from
Fiske, here are the four modes of intersubjectivity
that he recognizes, and which he claims, in his book
'Structures of Social Life',
2
are pr
esent in all cultures
and at all times (though some may appear later
than others in the development of social forms):
1
Fiske, Alan P.: Human Sociality.
2
Fiske
, Alan P: Structures of Social Life.
Communal Sharing (CS) is a relationship in
which people treat some dyad or group as
equivalent and undifferentiated with respect
to the so
cial domain in question. (Example:
people using a commons.)
In Authority Ranking (AR) people have
asymmetric positions in a linear hierarchy in
which subordinates defer, respect, and
(perhaps) obey, while superiors take
precedence and take pastoral respons
ibility
for subordinates. (Example: military
hierarchies.)
In Equality Matching (EM) relationships
people keep track of the balance or
difference among participants and know
what would be required to restore balance.
(Example: turn
-
taking.)
Market Pricing
relationships are oriented to
socially meaningful ratios or rates such as
prices, wages, interest, rents, tithes, or
cost
-
benefit analyses (Example: property
that can be bought, sold, or treated as
investment capital).
3
Though Fiske does not make such inf
erence himself,
it is possible to posit a historical succession of
modes of dominance. In such a hypothesis, it could
be argued that early tribal society starts with a
dominance of Communal Shareholding, augmented
with Equally Matching as soon as tribal so
ciety
becomes more complex, the subject of the well
-
known work of Marcel Mauss on the gift economy
4
.
With the birth of class society comes the dominance
of Authority Ranking, while Market Pricing becomes
the dominant modality only under capitalism. The
P2P
Foundation's main hypothesis is that there is a
social evolution towards Communal Shareholding
but this is outside of the scope of this paper.
It is important to state that all the different intersu
b-
jective modalties co
-
exist at any given time, but that
t
hey are generally influenced by the dominant
mode. An interesting take on the co
-
existence of
various modalities under capitalism is the work of
the neo
-
institutional school.
5
The crucial debate is
3
Fiske,
Alan
P: Human sociality.
4
Mauss
, M: The Gift: forms and functions of exchange in
archaic societies.
5
For example, Colin Crouch writes:
“ ... a firm embedded in
community within a market economy is not engaged in a
subsistence economy, but reaches out through its community
IRIE
International Review of Information Ethics
Vol.
15 (09/2011)
Michel Bauwens:
Understanding Peer to Peer as a Relational Dynamics
43
whether Communal Shareholding, now existing
within the bro
ader institutional framework of the
capitalist economy, can only be subsumed to the
dominance of Market Pricing, or whether it can
become an autonomous and eventually even a
dominant mode, which can eventually subsume
Market Pricing at some future point in
time.
My own views on the possible subsumption of
Market Pricing under a regime of Communal Shar
e-
holding are expressed in the founding essay of the
P2P Foundation.
6
A critical perspective on the incorporation of Co
m-
munal Shareholding under capitalism is o
ffered in
the work of Christian Fuchs.
For example, Fuchs writes that:
"
Wikinomics
shows how mass collaboration and
digital gifts can be subsumed under capitalist
logic. The difference between my own approach
and the authors’ is that the latter welcomes this
development, whereas I consider it from a neo
-
Marxist perspective as the extens
ion and intens
i-
fication of alienation and exploitation , yet I re
c-
ognize that, at the same time, it bears certain
potentials for alternative developments.”
7
This complex debate about the 'immanent' (within
the system) vs. transcendent (beyond the system)
aspects of Communal Shareholding and commons
-
based peer production provides a crucial context for
any hypothesis about the present and future i
m-
portance of Communal Shareholding within the
relational mix. One of the aims of the first part of
the essay is t
o allow the readers to make a more
informed judgment about this issue by looking in
some more detail into the relational mix.
The Ethics
A
ssociated with P2P
8
Each of the above intersubjective dynamics has its
own relational ethics. In Communal Shareholdin
g,
to a marke
t.“
Crouch, Colin:
Capi
talist Diversity and Change:
Recombinant Governance and Institutional Entrepreneurs.
121
6
Bauwens, Michel: The Political Economy of Peer Production.
7
Fuchs, Christian: Wikinomics. See in particular his concept of
the Gift Commodity Internet Economy, at
http://p2pfoundation.net/Gift_Commodity_Internet_Economy
,
retrieved July 25, 2011.
8
Himanen, P. The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Info
r-
mation Age.
the individual is both receiving and gifting with a
community and he/she is judged by the level of
contributions to the common project, as well as
assistance to the maintenance and social reprodu
c-
tion of the project as a whole. In Authority Ranking,
a k
ey value is obedience and respect for authority as
the 'giver' of benefits, on which the individual is
dependent and the individual must ideally be seen
as showing loyalty. Market Pricing favours 'neutral'
human relationships, but nevertheless, values both
personal and impersonal trustworthiness. The key
value of Equality Matching is the capacity for rec
i-
procity.
Is it possible to posit any ethical hierarchy of prefe
r-
ence in these different modalities
—
a question also
asked by Benkler and Nissenbaum
9
and by
Julian
Fox
10
? Among the more popular answers to this
question are the ‘Emergent, Cyclical, Levels of
Existence’ point of view of Clare W. Graves
11
, and its
popularisation in the system of Spiral Dynamics
12
.
Such a hierarchical and preferential ordering of
di
fferent ethical modalities would be consistent from
an increasing flow of literature interpreting the
history of nature and human civilisation as one
marked by increased levels of cooperation (Bar
-
Yam
13
; Stewart
14
) as well as with those proposing a
neurologi
cal (Olson
15
; de Waal
16
) or cultural
-
evolutionary basis (Henrich
17
).
Here is the argument and hypothesis that we use to
justify the preferential attention to peer to peer
dynamics:
Authority Ranking is a win
-
lose exchange,
since the lower in the hierarchy, th
e less
you receive in the interaction with someone
higher up. Inequality is the highest in the
AR mode. However, it is assumed to operate
9
Benkler, Yochai. and Niss
enbaum, Helen: Commons
-
based
Peer Production and Virtue.
10
Fox, Julian: Virtue.
11
General documentation at
http://www.clarewgraves.com/
;
retrieved July 25, 2011
12
General documentation at
http://www.clarewgraves.com/
;
Retrieved July 25, 2011
13
Bar
-
Yam, Y. Complexity Rising.
14
Stewart, John.: The Future Evolution of Consciousness.
15
Olson, Gary: We Empathize, Therefore We Are.
16
de Waal. The Age of Empathy.
17
Henrich, Natalie and Joseph: Why Humans Cooperate.
IRIE
International Review of Information Ethics
Vol.
15 (09/2011)
Michel Bauwens:
Understanding Peer to Peer
as a Relational Dynamics
44
for the greater good, as hierarchy is
spiritually justified.
18
In the Market Pricing Mode, there is at least
in theory
a win
-
win model, since the
exchange is presumed to be one of equal
value. However, individuals engaged in MP
do not take into account the wider
community, exchanges are impersonal, and
at least under capitalism, are assumed to be
motivated by self
-
interest
In the Equality Matching mode, there is a
stronger reciprocity, as well as generally
speaking a motivation that takes into
account the wider community, in the
context of a culture based on widespread
reciprocity. Self
-
interest is not culturally
assumed.
Furthermore, it is based on an
ethic of giving, actually a competition of
givers, in which prestige is obtained through
the gift.
In the Communal Shareholding mode, the
individual gives to a whole, and indirectly
receives from the whole; independently of
t
he motivation of the individual, which may
be
selfish, the 'commons' itself makes this a
win
-
win
-
win mode of reciprocity, since the
commons is assumed to be of universal
benefit (the third win) in a direct way. It
could be argued that giving without the
ex
pectation of a clear and direct return, is
ethically superior to the three other
modalities. CS, as expressed in the
emerging digital commons based on peer
production, is a mode that aligns individual
and collective purpose towards mutual
alignment. See th
e contribution on the latter
by Atlee
19
and Zubizaretta
20
.
I conclude from the above that while there may not
be a universally agreed way to hierarchize the ethics
of the various modes, there is an argument that can
be made for the free engagement around com
mon
value, to be of a high ethical value, and that the CS
18
A good explanation of such spiritual justifications is provided
by the 'primordial debt' theories, summarized at
http://p2pfoundation.net/
Primordial_Debt_Theory
. The e
x-
cerpts are from the draft manuscript of a forthcoming book
by David Graeber: Debt, The First 5,000 Years.
19
Atlee, Tom: Strategic synergy between individual and
collective.
20
Zubizarreta, Rosa: Primary vs
Secondary Individual
-
Group
Mentality.
mode is therefore worthy to be at least considered
as a preferable variant of human action.
P2P as P
rimarily
D
efined by
Communal Shareholding
What dynamic is at play in peer production?
Nick Dyer
-
Whiteford's definition of the cycle of
accumulation in peer production
21
is useful here (he
calls it the Circulation of the Common by analogy
with the Circulation of Capital). He distinguishes an
input phase necessitating freely given contributions
through
open and free raw material; participatory
governance which is the result of free association;
and a commons
-
oriented output which guarantees
the continuation of the process by constituting open
and free raw material to be used in next iterations.
The domin
ant process active in peer production is
undoubtedly what Fiske describes as Communal
Shareholding. Indeed, many of the licenses used by
the production of open knowledge, free software,
and shared design (i.e. the three main forms of peer
production), such
as the GNU General Public L
i-
cense, ensure that anybody who respects the l
i-
cense can contribute knowledge, code and design to
the common project. On the input side, an individual
that contributes to such a common project, does not
exchange with a particula
r other person, does not
work in a command and control hierarchy, but adds
his/her contribution to the whole. Because of the
obligations imposed by the sharing license, once the
code is released, it can be used freely by other
users, even those who did not
contribute to the
project. This would certainly be the case in projects
that are entirely run by volunteer contributors.
However, in reality, the situation is a bit more
complicated.
Let's look on the input side.
Contributors may be paid employees of a
co
rporation, in an Authority Ranking (AR)
relationship with their corporate hierarchy,
who may be giving them directives
concerning their contributions
Contributors may be freelancers, who have
sold their work, and are therefore in a
Market Pricing (MP) rela
tionship with their
clients.
21
Dyer
-
Witheford Nick: The Circulation of the Common.
IRIE
International Review of Information Ethics
Vol.
15 (09/2011)
Michel Bauwens:
Understanding Peer to Peer as a Relational Dynamics
45
Some contributors may have an obligation
to other participants in the community, and
see their contribution in a Equality Matching
(EM) context towards them. Indeed, within
the core group of contributors, i.e. the
people who kn
ow each other and who judge
each other partially through their
contributions, interpersonal relations market
by Equality Matching dynamics are
important. For example, within the P2P
Foundation's own experience of building a
knowledge commons, the fact of a
ssisting
people often creates some type of ethical
obligation to return the favour by some
other contribution.
The essential freedom to contribute may be
tempered by AR dynamics; for example, in
Linux, maintainers control the acceptance of
patches to the o
fficial version of Linux; in
Debian, there is a process of socialization
into the community, led by the more
experienced developers already active in the
community.
However, this hybridity does not in fact violate the
core logic of Communal Shareholding, a
s the license
does ensure that the contributions by both waged
employees and freelancers are still added to the
common code base and are available for general
usage. Similarly neither the AR nor the EM aspects
of the hybrid participatory peer governance pr
o-
cesses undoe the constituted commons.
On the output side, it is true that corporations can
sell the software itself (which in theory, could also
be freely copied, but perhaps without all the added
services and guarantees added by open source
companies). C
ompanies generally sell services that
enhance the common code base, and further insure
its workability in the enterprise. More often, the
associated corporations sell goods and services on
top of the commons. The greatest dangers to the
commons would be th
e enclosure and privatisation
of commonly produced material. However, such
total enclosure would also kill future value creation
by the commons.
There is real tension here between the rules and
norms of the community, motivated by a defense of
the common p
roduction, and the desire of corpor
a-
tions to enclose and capture value. However, in the
context of free software, full enclosures and privat
i-
sation's of previous code commons are quite rare;
rather, corporations create added layers of privately
produced an
d protected software, which may in
time make simple usage of the 'pure' commons
version of the code base problematic. But such
moves are always contested and fought by free
software communities.
Despite these contradictions and tensions, from the
point of
view of the common resource and its parti
c-
ipants, it can be said that all contributions, even by
people in an AR relationship within their emplo
y-
ment, are seen as voluntary and freely shared, as
enforced by the license rules. I could say that the
commoner
s 'are agnostic' on how precisely common
code has been added.
In conclusion, I would argue that the core value
creation takes place in the commons, i.e. by adding
to the common knowledge/code/design base, but
that both use and exchange value can be enhance
d
(but also 'exploited') by market
-
oriented products
and services.

Latest revision as of 16:24, 3 January 2016

Matthew Heskin :

“Competition does not support sharing. Competition suggests that there is scarcity and supports a scarcity mindset.

History has already proven that the “pie” is not a fixed size. Our “know how” changes the size of the pie even in the face of rapid population growth. We like to look at the world as one big house. We have a deal of chores that need to be done. If this was your home would you get all your kids to compete with each other or would you get them all to work together? Would you want them to share the best way of getting things done with their siblings or would you like them to keep their “know how” to themselves?

Buckminster Fuller identified and showed us that the world is going through a process called ephemeralization. This is the process of “doing more and more, with less and less”. He also created the counter intuitive statement “sharing is having more”.

If you agree that ephemeralization is happening then sharing of our “know how” will create “more” as it rapidly supports the doing more with less.

It is a common misconception that competition creates innovation. Thinking and doing creates innovation, not competition. The question is does competition create optimal thinking and doing? Competition is an extrinsic motivator. People will only do so much for extrinsic reasons; they will do anything and everything for intrinsic reasons.

If there were a sliding scale between competition and cooperation we would see that humanity is very close (maybe 95%) to the cooperation end of the scale. If you think of all that is required for you to have your breakfast, you will see that 99.999% of the work is performed by others (Your toaster, breakfast cereal, electricity, light bulbs etc.) If you were to try and make your $50 Kmart toaster from scratch, without cooperation, it would be your life’s work and I doubt it would be up to scratch.

Pushing that slider that last 5% is going to have a bigger impact on humanity and the planet than the previous 95%. Why is this? This is because the previous 95% occurred somewhat unconsciously and the last 5% is going to require conscious action. A holistic view of the world and the issues we face will be required by the global citizenry. Removal of sovereign fences, country divisions, transformation of educational theory and economics are all part of this final 5%. It is also going to require not only an acceptance of cultural and religious difference but a deep sense of gratitude for all diversity (both human and non-human).

It seems to us that competition is no longer the healthy option for our abundant world. When Buckminster Fuller showed us that “sharing is having more” he saw the earth as a whole with no boundaries and no divisions......... “ (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sharing-having-morewhy-compete-matthew-heskin)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Test2&oldid=96025"