|
|
| (15 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Category:Commons]]
| |
|
| |
|
| From Papadimitropoulos Vangelis
| |
|
| |
|
| | ==The Rules of the P2P Foundation Wiki== |
|
| |
|
| =On the Contradictions of the Commons=
| | Please note that our wiki needs integrity in its naming conventions and internal structure. These rules have been used for 10 years, are specific to our wiki, and are not those of the Wikipedia: |
|
| |
|
| There is no denial that the information technology infrastructure has immense potential to sustain a commons economy in terms echoing what Marx had envisaged as the free cooperation of autonomous producers, and what Castoriadis later on termed as the project of individual and collective autonomy (Papadimitropoulos 2016). However, both multistakeholder cooperatives and the commons (global and local) suffer from inherent contradictions, which reflect and reproduce to some extent the contradictions of capitalism per se.
| | ==Method== |
|
| |
|
| Multistakeholder cooperatives or worker owned enterprises tend to adopt in the long run capitalist practices so as to remain competitive and survive. Consequently, they reproduce the same inequalities capitalism produces. For example, competitive pressure drove the Mondragon cooperative to close Fagor, an appliance manufacturer with 3,400 workers, and to hire Polish workers with lower wages. In addition, despite the remarkable 6.5:1 executive-to-worker income ratio – just a fraction of the 350:1 in the US ‒, there is considerable democratic gap with regard to participation in decision making, since the latter remains still largely in the interests of executives and low-level management – not workers (Kasmir 1996). It should also be mentioned that over 90 % of co-ops are consumer co-ops, meaning that the main owners are not workers themselves. Even in worker-owned cooperatives, workers are often not co-op members. Therefore, many co-ops are co-ops in name only. They are basically market entities that have adopted capitalist practices, since their main interest is to get a higher selling price or lower buying price in the market (Gindin 2016; Scholz 2016). This is the reason why Bauwens argues that co-ops should be oriented toward achieving the common good by taking into consideration the interests of all groups affected by the social project in question (Bauwens 2014a). In other words, multistakeholder cooperatives would rather turn into the commons.
| | Our method is called 'opportunistic updating', this means that most of the time, our entries are not 'researcher' but take material from the flow of knowledge and information that comes through us through the internet, and we iteratively improve articles. |
|
| |
|
| But the commons themselves suffer from their own contradictions. One major problem is that the basic structural
| | Our method is pluralistic, so we juxtapose various perspectives, we are a 'perspectopedia' and do not strive for neutrality and objectivity, as the Wikipedia claims to do. |
| contradiction of traditional capitalism, which is the extraction of the surplus value of the worker by the capitalist, transforms in cognitive capitalism into the appropriation of the use value of commons peer-to-peer production by capital itself, as it happens in the case of start-ups and multinational corporations like IBM, Facebook, Google, etc. As Bauwens and Kostakis put it, the more communist the peer-to-peer production of open software and hardware, the more capitalist the practice (Bauwens and Kostakis 2014). This way, commons peer-to-peer production falls prey to a predatory capitalism that double exploits time and labour. Not only are workers exploited by capitalists within the capitalist production, but also volunteers are exploited by capitalists within the commons peer-to-peer production. Not only are volunteers not getting paid by contributing to the commons, but also their very contribution to the commons can be subject to appropriation by the capital. So a basic problem is how to reverse this process and channel a stream of income from the capital to the commons; how to guarantee a source of income for people who work on the commons; in other words, how to turn voluntarism into creative paid labour.
| |
|
| |
|
| This problem is magnified inasmuch as capitalism has acquired and fortified in the last centuries − in many cases by force − an immense variety of property rights that expand nowadays in Asia, Africa and Europe by a neoliberal neocolonialism. Therefore, not only does not capitalism shrink, but it expands around the globe. So how could a reclamation of the Commons be feasible under those conditions? To be more precise, how could already fortified property rights transform into non-exclusive common rights? If one reject the argument of the old-school left for the re-appropriation of the commons through the central power of the state, one plausible answer would be the production of new commons with the aid of new technologies (3D printers, new communication technologies, the Internet of Things, etc, Rifkin 2014) that would attract both capital and consumers, creating thus a cultural shift from capitalism to the commons. This shift would be incorporated in the model of open co-operativism between a partner state, ethical market entities and the commons. Yet capitalism is far more organized, equipped and skilled in developing new technologies and new products. Capital perceives fast the hypercompetitive nature of peer-to-peer production and invests in it. This is clearly evident in the case of Blockchain technology in which banks and corporations have already invested and started building applications on it. Therefore, Kostakis is right to argue that we should not ignore a scenario of the parody of the commons.
| | We use the names and concepts, as they are used by concrete p2p movements and commons movements, in their practice and own namings, and we observe and reproduce these with quotes taken from their own material. |
|
| |
|
| Commons rely heavily on capitalism in several respects – finance, organisation, infrastructures, management, marketing, skills and so on – to the extent that the marxian argument that cooperatives could not survive the competition of capitalism in the long term seems to be confirmed anew. Given the main obstacle of competitiveness, the pivotal question remains the same: how can we channel a stream of income from the capital to the commons? The answer Bauwens and Kostakis provide is twofold: only a back and forth movement of expansion and “enclosure” of the commons seems as the only counter-weight to the current expansion of neoliberalism. And for this global anti-power of the commons to develop, only the commercialisation of the commons on the basis of an open co-operativism described above seems to provide with a viable solution. To put it differently, only a coalition of the public and the private sector with the aim of reformulating the commons and redistributing the surplus value accordingly can obliterate capitalism in the long term. But isn’t this a capitalist solution? Do not the commons become this way an entrepreneur reproducing anew the contradictions of capitalism? Do not these contradictions reproduce themselves within the commons resulting in the inequalities of the commons?
| | All our material should be sourced; if you write something yourself, you should sign it. Always use quotes for external material. Avoid copying wholesale articles without permission, use citations under the fair use doctrine. Don't delete the material if the original source disappears, and keep the original source URL even if it disappears. |
|
| |
|
| The questions above reflect actually the argument of Stefan Meretz who claims that the introduction of the Peer Production Licence deals only with the distribution of the surplus value leaving untouched the production of the commodity and the exchange logic itself. Meretz thus objects to the commercialisation of the commons by arguing in favor of an open code peer-to-peer production that would gradually make capitalism disappear (Meretz 2014). Bauwens, on the other hand, argues that it is precisely the reproduction of the peer-to-peer production that the introduction of the Peer Production License intends to guarantee. He furthermore points out that PPL does not demand equivalent exchange, but only a negotiated reciprocity echoing what anthropologists call “general reciprocity”, that is, a minimum reciprocity necessary to sustain the system. This sort of reciprocity is both consistent with Marx’s definition of communism and Fiske’s definition of the communal shareholding. Finally, he holds that Meretz argument that peer-to-peer production will mature by its own means into an alternate system that will gradually substitute capitalism is a dangerous dream (Bauwens 2015).
| | ==Naming Conventions for Titles== |
|
| |
|
| I agree with Bauwens that the introduction of the Peer Production License is vital for channeling a stream of income from the capital to the commons. Any form of democratic financialisation of the commons is necessary for the commons to reproduce and expand. But is it enough for the commons to flourish and thrive? Is it only a matter of distribution? Of course it’s not. The asymmetrical power of the capitalist market in relation to the commons − regarding resources, skills, infrastructures, communication media, etc. − reflects within the commons in several respects. Bauwens argues that peer-to-peer projects are said to be, most often, “benevolent dictatorships”, controlled by a core of founders on the basis of their larger input into the constitution of the project (Bauwens 2014a). This model of course has nothing to do with communal shareholding and the example of the hunter eating last from his prey. What’s more, most of the so-called decentralized autonomous projects developed on the Blockchain infrastructure seem to be libertarian rather than Commons.
| | * Don't start with an article. |
| | * Use all caps for names, nouns, and verbs, but not for articles ('the' , 'an'). |
| | * No double titles, just a single phrase (i.e. title:subtitle is a no-no). |
| | * Filenames have to be clearly descriptive, this means occasionally we change the titles of books and articles when they have no clearly independent meaning; but the book title is in the entry itself and therefore still fully searchable. |
| | * Videos and Audio Podcasts take a different naming convention, i.e. Name on Topic, for example: "[[Yochai Benkler on Peer Production]]". Make sure all video and audio titles make sense. |
| | * People entries take Firstname Lastname format. |
|
| |
|
| 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 information and social networks (Headerlin and DeDeo, 2016). This clearly illustrates the gap between a technocratic elite and the members of a “community”, which reproduces the oligarchy of the experts, undermining thus the principles of the equipotentiality and holoptism. The technological gap is co-substantial with an implicit techno-centrism (Morozof 2011) and techno-pragmatism, dangerously ignoring that technology is part of the social imaginary, which has much more complex dynamics than technology itself. Society is a much more complex network of highly diverse imaginaries that cannot be simply reduced to a “scientific” logic. This is why an adequate education is of outmost importance for incorporating technology into society and not vice versa. We need an educational care to encompass knowledge with the mission to reach out for the unprivileged ones: the poor, the unemployed, the workers, the illiterate, and support them substantially. We need to avoid the reproduction of an economism that translates value into terms of costs and benefits, reproducing thus the inequalities of capitalism. We need, therefore, to “trickle down” knowledge, value and management; to “turn upside down” the system and unleash the human creativity oppressed by the capitalist bureaucracy with the aim to establish a freer, more diverse and just society.
| | ==Careful use of Section Tags== |
|
| |
|
| For this reason, I claim that the principles of transparency, distribution of value and bottom-up self-management are of outmost importance for the success of any commons. I agree with Bauwens that the key issue is the balance between efficiency and participation; we need not waste time into endless deliberations in search for a “final” consensus. It is essential, however, to abolish the distinction between directors and executants in order to wipe out the capitalist imaginary that penetrates the commons in several respects. Transparency is the basis for both trust and autonomy. Following Castoriadis, 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. Yet, we should be aware of the danger of a reversed bureaucracy that could result either in the oligarchy of a technocratic elite or in the tyranny of the commons, oppressing in both cases the heterogeneity of individuality inherent in the cultural diversity of any commons. We need instead to transform inequalities into the equipotential inter-compatibilities of multicultural diversity, circulating value according to the needs and the capacities of everyone.
| | We do not use free tags, but section names. The wiki is organized in 3 columns on the main page: the middle column shows the subject-oriented sections, the right column shows the format-oriented pages. |
|
| |
|
| | Each section tag gets a subject tag, a format tag, and if possible, a geographic tag. Don't use tags randomly, use the popular tags that already exist so that they can form well-documented section pages; only introduce a new tag if you intend to use it regularly; we don't want an inflation of unused tags. |
|
| |
|
| == REFERENCES ==
| | Here is a list of the format tags we use: Articles, Bios, Books, Courses, Conferences, Maps, Movements, Places, Podcasts, Webcasts. |
|
| |
|
| * Bauwens, Michel. 2014a. The Rise of Multistakeholder Cooperatives. Shareable. Retrieved May 16, 2016. http://www.shareable.net/blog/michel-bauwens-on-the-rise-of-multi-stakeholder-cooperatives.
| | ==Kinds of Pages== |
|
| |
|
| * Bauwens, Michel, and Kostakis Vasilis. 2014. From the Communism of the Capital to the Capital for the Commons: Towards an Open Cooperativism. TripleC 12(1): 356-361.
| | We have normal pages, and [[Special:Categories|category pages]]. |
|
| |
|
| * Bauwens, Michel. 2015. Critique of the Peer Production License. P2P Foundation Net. Retrieved May 16, 2016, http://p2pfoundation.net/Critique_of_the_Peer_Production_License
| | Category pages are the pages automatically created if you use category tags. The category pages are an introduction to the topic of the section, offering a selection of introductory material, and following by the full encyclopedia of articles using that tag. |
|
| |
|
| * Healderlin Bradi, and Dedeo, Simon. 2016. The Evolution of Wikipedia’s Norm Network. Future Internet 8(2), 14.
| | ==Subdivisions Used in our normal pages== |
|
| |
|
| * Gindin, Sam. 2016. Chasing Utopia. Jacobinmag. Retrieved May 16, 2016. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/03/workers-control-coops-wright-wolff-alperovitz. | | These subsection pages take one or two 'equal signs' (=) before and after the subsection, and one additional = sign for each deeper subdivision. |
| | Using one and two "=" signs have different advantages and disadvantages: |
| | * One = headings are designed for page headings, and therefore no space is automatically added before it. To get round this, put at least two blank lines, followed by a horizontal rule (four '-' characters together <nowiki>----</nowiki> on their own on an otherwise blank line) |
| | * Two == headings are designed for major sections, and have automatic space added before them. Only leave one blank line before these. |
| | * One = headings are good to use in pages which could otherwise have been given as separate pages |
| | * Two == headings are good for normal pages |
| | * The one = and two == headings have a horizontal rule underneath the words, but lower level subheadings do not. |
| | * Think of the readability of the overall page, and change if necessary. Too many horizontal rules can look very ugly and reads less easily. |
|
| |
|
| * Kasmir, Sharryn. 1996. The Myth of Mondragon. State University of New York Press.
| |
|
| |
|
| * Meretz, Stefan. 2014. Socialist Licenses? A Rejoinder to Michel Bauwens and Vasilis Kostakis. TripleC. 12(1), 362-365.
| | The pages start with a '''one line summary in bold''', following by the main URL |
|
| |
|
| * Morozof, Evgeny. 2011. The Net Delusion. The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. Public Affairs. New York.
| | Section names commonly used are, used in this order if possible: |
|
| |
|
| * Papadimitropoulos, Vangelis. 2016. Socialisme ou Barbarie: From Castoriadis’ Project of Individual and Collective Autonomy to the Collaborative Commons. TripleC, 14(1): 265-278. | | * Definition |
| | * Description |
| | * Abstract, Review, Excerpt(s): for articles and books |
| | * Characteristics, Typology, if available and needed |
| | * Discussion |
| | * More Information |
|
| |
|
| * Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, and The Eclipse of Capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
| | But, of course, use your common sense if these really don't work. |
| | |
| * Scholz, Trevor. 2016. Platform Cooperativism. Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy. Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, New York.
| |
The Rules of the P2P Foundation Wiki
Please note that our wiki needs integrity in its naming conventions and internal structure. These rules have been used for 10 years, are specific to our wiki, and are not those of the Wikipedia:
Method
Our method is called 'opportunistic updating', this means that most of the time, our entries are not 'researcher' but take material from the flow of knowledge and information that comes through us through the internet, and we iteratively improve articles.
Our method is pluralistic, so we juxtapose various perspectives, we are a 'perspectopedia' and do not strive for neutrality and objectivity, as the Wikipedia claims to do.
We use the names and concepts, as they are used by concrete p2p movements and commons movements, in their practice and own namings, and we observe and reproduce these with quotes taken from their own material.
All our material should be sourced; if you write something yourself, you should sign it. Always use quotes for external material. Avoid copying wholesale articles without permission, use citations under the fair use doctrine. Don't delete the material if the original source disappears, and keep the original source URL even if it disappears.
Naming Conventions for Titles
- Don't start with an article.
- Use all caps for names, nouns, and verbs, but not for articles ('the' , 'an').
- No double titles, just a single phrase (i.e. title:subtitle is a no-no).
- Filenames have to be clearly descriptive, this means occasionally we change the titles of books and articles when they have no clearly independent meaning; but the book title is in the entry itself and therefore still fully searchable.
- Videos and Audio Podcasts take a different naming convention, i.e. Name on Topic, for example: "Yochai Benkler on Peer Production". Make sure all video and audio titles make sense.
- People entries take Firstname Lastname format.
Careful use of Section Tags
We do not use free tags, but section names. The wiki is organized in 3 columns on the main page: the middle column shows the subject-oriented sections, the right column shows the format-oriented pages.
Each section tag gets a subject tag, a format tag, and if possible, a geographic tag. Don't use tags randomly, use the popular tags that already exist so that they can form well-documented section pages; only introduce a new tag if you intend to use it regularly; we don't want an inflation of unused tags.
Here is a list of the format tags we use: Articles, Bios, Books, Courses, Conferences, Maps, Movements, Places, Podcasts, Webcasts.
Kinds of Pages
We have normal pages, and category pages.
Category pages are the pages automatically created if you use category tags. The category pages are an introduction to the topic of the section, offering a selection of introductory material, and following by the full encyclopedia of articles using that tag.
Subdivisions Used in our normal pages
These subsection pages take one or two 'equal signs' (=) before and after the subsection, and one additional = sign for each deeper subdivision.
Using one and two "=" signs have different advantages and disadvantages:
- One = headings are designed for page headings, and therefore no space is automatically added before it. To get round this, put at least two blank lines, followed by a horizontal rule (four '-' characters together ---- on their own on an otherwise blank line)
- Two == headings are designed for major sections, and have automatic space added before them. Only leave one blank line before these.
- One = headings are good to use in pages which could otherwise have been given as separate pages
- Two == headings are good for normal pages
- The one = and two == headings have a horizontal rule underneath the words, but lower level subheadings do not.
- Think of the readability of the overall page, and change if necessary. Too many horizontal rules can look very ugly and reads less easily.
The pages start with a one line summary in bold, following by the main URL
Section names commonly used are, used in this order if possible:
- Definition
- Description
- Abstract, Review, Excerpt(s): for articles and books
- Characteristics, Typology, if available and needed
- Discussion
- More Information
But, of course, use your common sense if these really don't work.