NEW DRAFT MANIFESTO TEST ONLY

On "the P2P relational dynamic" as the premise of the next civilizational stage

Author: Michel Bauwens

The essay is an emanation of the Foundation for P2P Alternatives, 2005; it was written after several months of collaboration with Remi Sussan. This copy is based on Draft 2.014, of July 3 2005. In 2017, it was reformatted for the wiki, with a few small corrections.

http://www.networkcultures.org/weblog/archives/P2P_essay.pdf (pdf); http://noosphere.cc/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.P2pEvolution (wiki)

Table of Contents

0. Executive Summary — below 1. Introduction 1.A. What this essay is about 1.B. The use of a integral framework 1.C. The Sociology of Form 1.D. Some acknowledgments 2. P2P as the Technological Framework of Cognitive Capitalism 2.1.A. Defining P2P as the relational dynamic of distributed networks 2.1.B. The emergence of peer to peer as technological infrastructure 2.1.C. The construction of an alternative media infrastructure 2.1.D. P2P as a global platform for autonomous cooperation 2.2. Explaining the Emergence of P2P technology 2.3.A. Placing P2P in the context of the evolution of technology 2.3.B. P2P and Technological Determinism 3. P2P in the Economic Sphere 3.1.A. Peer production as a third mode of production and new commons-based property regime 3.1.B. The Communism of Capital, or, the cooperative nature of cognitive capitalism 3.1.C. The Hacker Ethic or ‘work as play’ 3.2 Explaining the Emergence of P2P Economics 3.2.A. Advantages of the free software/open sources production model 3.3 Placing the P2P Era in an evolutionary framework 3.3.A. The evolution of cooperation: from neutrality to synergetics 3.3.B. The Evolution of Collective Intelligence 3.3.C. Beyond Formalization, Institutionalization, Commodification 3.3.D. The Evolution of Temporality: towards an Integral Time 3.4 Placing P2P in an intersubjective typology 3.4.A. P2P, The Gift Economy and Communal Shareholding 3.4.B. P2P and the Market 3.4.C. P2P and the Commons 3.4.D. Who rules? Cognitive capitalists, the vectoral class, or netocrats? 3.4.E. The emergence of a netarchy 4. P2P in the Political Sphere 4.1.A. The Alterglobalisation Movement 4.1.B. The ‘Coordination’ format 4.1.C. New conceptions of social and political struggle 4.1.D. New lines of contention: Information Commons vs. New Enclosures 4.2.A. De-Monopolization of Power 4.2.B. Equality, Hierarchy, Freedom 4.3. Evolutionary Conceptions of Power and Hierarchy 5. The Discovery of P2P principles in the Cosmic Sphere 6. P2P in the Sphere of Culture and Self 6.1.A. A new articulation between the individual and the collective 6.1.B. Towards ‘contributory’ dialogues of civilizations and religions 6.1.C. Participative Spirituality and the Critique of Spiritual Authoritarianism 6.1.D. Partnering with nature and the cosmos 7. P2P and Social Change 7.1.A. Marginal trend or premise of new civilization? 7.1.B. P2P, Postmodernity, Cognitive Capitalism: within and beyond 7.1.C. Three scenarios of co-existence 7.1.D. Possible political strategies Appendix 1. Launch of The Foundation for P2P Alternatives Appendix 2: The P2P Meme Map Appendix 3: Reactions to the Essay: Kudo's BIBLIOGRAPHY

0. Executive Summary

Peer to Peer is mostly known to technologically-oriented people as P2P, the decentralized form of putting computers together for different kind of cooperative endeavours, such as filesharing and music distribution. But this is only a small example of what P2P is: it's in fact a template of human relationships, a "relational dynamic" which is springing up throughout the social fields. The aim of this essay is to describe and explain the emergence of this dynamic as it occurs, and to place it in an evolutionary framework of the evolution of modes of civilization. We emit the hypothesis that it both the necessary infrastructure of the current phase of 'cognitive capitalism', but at the same time, significantly transcends it thus pointing out the possibility of a new social formation that would be based on it in an even more intense manner. In chapter one, you will find an initial definition, an explanation of our methodology for research, and some acknowledgements. The structure of the chapters consists of 3 parts: a phenomenological description of the emergence of this social form in a particular field, an explanation of this emergence based on the relative advantages of the format, and a discussion of the succession of different phases in the evolution of this sphere.

After a first initial definition of the peer to peer format, we start describing the emergence of P2P as the dominant mode, or 'form', of our current technological infrastructure (chapter two), as an alternative information and communication infrastructure, and as a global platform for potentially autonomous cooperation on the basis of rapidly evolving forms of 'social software'. We then describe its emergence in the economic sphere (chapter three), as a 'third mode of production', neither profit-driven nor centrally planned, but as a decentralized cooperative way of producing software (free software and open source movements), and other immaterial products, based on the free cooperation of 'equipotential' participants. It uses copyright and intellectual propery rights to transcend the very limitations of property, because in free software, if you use it, you have to give at least the same rights to those who will use your modified version, and in open sources, you have to give them equal access to the source code.

Such commons-based peer production has other important innovations, such as it taking place without the intervention of any manufacturer whatsoever. In fact the growing importance of 'user innovation communities' (section 3.1.B), which are starting to surpass the role of corporate sponsored marketing and research divisions in their innovation capacities, show that this formula is poised for expansion even in the world of material production, provided the design phase is separated from the production phase. It is already producing major cultural and economic landmarks such as GNU/Linux, the Wikipedia encyclopedia, the Thinkcycle global cooperative research projects, and a Writeable Web/Participative Internet/Global Alternative Communications infrastructure that can be used by all, beyond the corporate stranglehold on mass media. Finally, CBPP exemplifies a new work culture (section 3.1.C), that overturns many aspects of the Protestant work ethic as described by Max Weber. It is based on new temporal conceptions as well. In chapter three, we also discuss the evolution of forms of cooperation (3.4.A), and of collective intelligence (3.4.B). It is also here that we are starting to address key analytical issues: what are the specific characteristics of the ideal-type of the P2P form (3.4.C), namely de-institutionalisation (beyond fixed organizational formats and fixed formal rules), de-monopolisation (avoid the emergence of collective individuals who monopolise power, such as nation-state and corporation), and de-commodification (i.e. production for use-value, not exchange value); Using the fourfold typology of intersubjective relations proposed by anthropologist Alan Page Fiske, we examine the differences between P2P and the bottom-up market, then demonstrate that the format cannot be explained by the gift economy model of equal sharing and 'exchange of similar values', but rather by a model of communal shareholding (section 3.4.D), i.e. the creation of a Commons based on free participation both regarding input, and output (free usage even by non-producers). Finally, we end this third chapter by an analysis of the contermporary class configuration: we pay attention to the current power structure of cognitive capitalism, with a discussion of the thesis of McKenzie Wark's Hacker's Manifesto (section 3.4.E.) but conclude that both the hypothesis of cognitive capitalism (accumulation of knowledge assets) and vectoralism (ownership of information vectors) are inadequate and that we have to posit the birth of a new capitalist class segment, the netarchists, based not on the control or ownership of information, but on the enabling and exploitation of the participatory networks themselves.

We then turn to its political manifestations, and describe how P2P is emerging as a new form of political organisation and sensibility, already exemplified in the workings of the alterglobalisation movement (section 4.1.A.) which is a network of networks that refuses the principle of 'representation', i.e. that someone else can represent your interests. In France, the recent social movements since 1995 were led by "Coordinations" exemplifying exactly this sort of practice (section 4.1.B). Thus the birth of new political conceptions such as those of 'absolute democracy' (Negri et al.) or 'extreme democracy' (Tom Attlee et al.). A new field of struggle arises (section 4.1.C), based on the defense and development of an Information Commons, against the corporate strategies who are trying to replace this 'free culture' (Lawrence Lessig) by a form of 'information feudalism' (described by Jeremy Rifkin in The Age of Access). We then examine the evolution of the monopolization of power (4.2.A.), the relations between the political ideals of freedom, equality, and hierarchy, and their practice in P2P (4.2.B), and place this discussion in the context of the general evolution of power and authority models (4.2.C)

Chapter 5 discusses the discovery of P2P principles at work in physics, and in particularly in the physics of organisation, as developed by network theory, and its concept of 'small worlds', and hierarchical vs. egalitarian networks. We discuss various subtopics such as the 'long tail in marketing', and the mathematical laws of networks as explained by David Reed.

In chapter 6, we turn our attention to the cultural sphere. We claim and explain that the various expressions of P2P are a sympton of a profound cultural shift in the spheres of epistemology (ways of knowing) and of ontology (ways of feeling and being), leading to a new articulation between the individual and the collective (6.1.A), representing a true epochal shift. We then look at the spiritual field and how this affects the dialogue of civilizations and religions away from euro- and other exclusionist views in culture and religions (6.1.B); as well as to a critique of spiritual authoritarianism and the emergence of cooperative inquiry groups and participatory spirituality conceptions (6.1.C), as theorized in particular by John Heron and Jorge Ferrer. The new ideas related to cosmology and metaphysics are explained in 6.1.D., centered aroud the demise of the subject-object paradigm in favour of partnership-based visions of our relationships with matter and nature.

What does it all mean in terms of social change? In chapter 7 we examine if all of the above is just a collection of perhaps unrelated marginal trends, or rather, the view we espouse, represents the birth of a new and coherent social formation (section 7.1.A). In section 7.1.B we examine how P2P relates to the current system of cognitive capitalism (economics) or 'post' or 'late modernity' (cultural sphere), concluding that it is both within and beyond. Three scenarios are described (7.1.C): peaceful and complementary co-existence, the emergence of a cooperative civilization, and the destruction of P2P in the context of information feudalism. All of this leads us to concluding remarks on possible political strategies (7.1.D) to defend and expand P2P models, and to the principles behind the launch of a Foundation for P2P Alternatives (chapter 8).

5. The Discovery of P2P principles in the Cosmic Sphere

Note the difference in the above chapter title. Here we are not speaking of emergence, but rather the recognition or discovery of principles within the natural world, which obey P2P principles. They were always and already there, but we have only recently learned to see them. Technology reflects, to a certain extent, humanity’s growing knowledge of the natural world. Technological artifacts and processes integrate and embed, within their protocols, this growing knowledge. And lately, we have learned to see the natural (physical, biological, cognitive) world quite differently from before. No longer are they seen as simple mechanisms, or hierarchies, but as networks. Thus, the fact that engineers, software architects, and social network managers are devising and implementing more and more P2P systems also reflects this new understanding. Studies of distributed intelligence in physical systems, of the swarming behavior of social insects, of the ‘wisdom of crowds’ and collective intelligence in the human field, show that in many situations participative distributed systems function more efficiently than command and control systems, which create bottlenecks. In natural systems, true centralized and hierarchic command and control systems seem rather rare.

Though there can be said to exist hierarchies in nature, such as a succession of progressively more enfolding systems, and many pyramidal systems of command and control in human society, the former are better called 'holarchies', as actual command and control systems are actually quite rare. More common is the existing of multiple agents, which through their interaction, create emergent coherent orders and behavior. The brain for example, has been shown to be a rather egalitarian network of neurons, and there is no evidence of a command centre. And there are of course multiple scientific fields where this is now shown to be the case. Network theory is therefore focused on the interrelationships of equipotent, and distributed agents, and how complex systems arise from them. Network theory is a form of systemic reductionism, which focuses on the interaction of agents, without looking much at their 'personal' characteristics, but is remarkably successful in explaining the behaviour of many systems. Thus, if historians are starting to look at the world in terms of flows, social science in general is increasingly looking at its objects of study in terms of social network analysis.

An important contribution is the work of Alexander R. Galloway, "Protocol", because he clearly makes the important distinction between 'decentralised' and 'distributed' networks. First we had centralized networks. In this format, all links between nodes must go through the centre, which has to authorize or enable them. Think about mainframe computers with dumb terminals, or the central switches in telephone systems. In a second phase, networks are decentralized, which means the centre is broken up in several subcentres. Here, linkages and actions between nodes must still pass through one of these subcentres. An example is the American airport system, organized around hubs such as Atlanta. To go from one regional city to another, you must pass through such a hub. In distributed networks, such as the network of interstate highways or the internet, this requirement no longer applies. Hubs, i.e. nodes that carry more links than others, may exist, but they are optional, and grow organically, they are not obligatory or designed beforehand. Abstract network theory, seeing hubs in both cases, may miss this important point. Peer to peer is the relational dynamic of distributed networks! A distributed network may or may not be a egalitarian network (see just below).

Nexus is a book by Duncan Watts, who summarises network theory investigations for the lay public, focusing on small world networks. These differ from totally random networks, where it takes many steps to go from one node to another, and are characterized by a relative 'low degree of separation'. Typically, human society is determined by no more than six degrees of separation: it never takes more intermediaries to contact any other person on the planet. Such networks come in two varieties: 1) aristocratic networks, where it is larger hubs and connectors who are responsible for linking the network together as a whole; and 2) egalitarian networks, where the nodes have largely a same number of links, but while the majority has strong links to a few surrounding links with whom they interact a lot, a minority has weak ties with faraway nodes, and it is they who are responsible for holding the network together, and rapidly moving information from one local or affinity group, to another different one. Each forms has its strength and weaknesses: aristocratic networks are very strong in resisting random attacks, but vulnerable when their connectors are attacked, while egalitarian networks are more vulnerable to random disruption.

One of the most interesting findings is the existence of a power law. A power law says that for any increase in the number of links per node (or specific characteristic per node, such as acreage per square kilometer for a river basin), the number of nodes having that characteristic will decline by a fixed factor. In economics this gives us the famous Pareto principle, i.e. 20% of the people having 80% of the wealth. But the power law is nearly everywhere, suggesting a natural form of concentration and even monopolization as almost inevitable. In fact, it seems that whenever we have many choices and many distributed agents making these choices, inequality of choice is created. This seems to be the natural result of any 'economy of attention'. But that is the point: such distribution is not forced, as in a oligopoly or monopoly, but arises naturally from the freedom of choice, and can be considered a 'fair' result, provided no coercion is used. Networks where such a power law operates are called 'scale-free', because at whatever scale, the same relation between variables (i.e. distribution pattern) applies.

In terms of a normative P2P ethos, it is important to note that it is not systematically favouring egalitarian networks. The internet and the web are both aristocratic networks; the blogosphere is characterized by a power law distribution. The key questions are:

1. is the network efficient;
2. does it enable participation;
3. is the emergence of an aristocratic structure non-coercive and eventually reversible.

In many cases, we have to admit that some form of centralization, is necessary and efficient. We all prefer one standard for our operating systems for example.

The power law can possibly be mitigated by the development of algorithms, that can highlight important information and connections from nodes that may not come up 'naturally', but this discipline is still in its infancy at the moment. But the power law is also counteracted by what some network economists have called the 'Long Tail'. This is the phenomena whereby minority groups are not excluded from the distribution of knowledge and exchange, but are on the contrary enable to organize micro-communities. In the business world, this is shown by how online stores like Amazon and eBay, by using affinity matching schemes, have resulted in the creation of many thousands of previously not existing mini-markets. Books, CD's and films which would be destroyed for lack of interest in the mass media system, now have a second and third lease of life, through the continued attention given to them by self-organising minority interests. This is an important guarantee for a vibrant cultural life, which does not destroy difference and cultural heterogeinity.

One of the keys to avoiding the power law may therefore be to keep sub-networks small. One of the recurring debates within cooperation studies indeed concers a discussion on the optimal size of online groups. Dunbar, an primatologist formerly at the University College of London, has posited a link between brain size and our maximum number of close social ties, a claim supported by many animal, especially primate, and anthropological studies. and observing that around 150 is the "mean group size" for humans, and this number has also been applied to online cooperation. But, extrapolating from group size and time spent grooming in primates, such a number would require an impractically large time of social grooming and in reality it is much less than predicted on the primate model. Thus, language developed to as a more effective method of maintaining the social fabric than literal grooming was.

This discussion is important because other researchers, such as Valdis Krebs, have shown that in smaller groups, the power law does not operate and that they function as egalitarian networks. The key therefore is to organize online collaboration in such a way so that it is divided in appropriate subgroups, and this seems pretty much the way software peer production teams seem to operate.

The shift in 'business models' characteristics of the new networks is explained by David Reed, who has summarized the different mathematical laws inherent in the value created by networks. First, we focus on the individuals. If a network has N-members and memberships grows, then one can see a linear growth in audience, i.e. N+1, N+2, etc., i.e. a proportional growth in value. This formula was already at play in broadcast media and in such an environment, 'content is king', and publisher vie for the attention of the users of the network. This explains the role of portal sites such as Yahoo, who re-intermediate the economy of attention that we discussed before. If we now focus on the 'interaction between individuals', we see that the network enables transactions, but that these grow by a 'square value'. This characteristic is called Metcalfe's Law. A network of 2 allows for 1 connection (back and forth buying and selling), a network of 3 allows for 3 connections, a network of 4 allows for 12 connections. This aspect of the network creates transactional platforms such as eBay. Finally, we focus on community. Networks have the ability to enable the formation of subgroups, they are 'Group Forming Networks'. But value growth here is 'exponential'. It is this characteristic that is called Reed's Law. Every affinity group creates and 'consumes' its own content, and it is here that the true peer to peer processes emerge, characterized by infinite content creation. The economy of attention becomes moot, because what is happening is not limited content competing for the same audience, but infinite content competing for infinite combinations of affinity groups.

The discovery of the theory of networks in the physical sphere, has therefore a corollary in seeing it in social life, and in particular, in the area of organizational life, including business. The finds its expression in the emerging discipline of social network analysis and cooperation studies generally, and in particular, in coordination theory, as pioneered by Thomas Malone.

6. P2P in the Sphere of Culture and Self

I am here tackling the remainder of the two quadrants relating to intersubjectivity and subjectivity, considered in their basic linkage: the individual vs. the collective.

6.1.A. A new articulation between the individual and the collective

One of the key insights of psychologist Clare Graves’ interpretation of human cultural evolution, is the idea of the changing balance, over time, between the two poles of the individual and the collective. In the popularization of his research by the Spiral Dynamics systems, they see the tribal era as characterized by collective harmony, but also as a culture of stagnation. Out of this harmony, strong individuals are born, heroes and conquerors, which will their people and others into the creation of larger entities. These leaders are considered divinities themselves and thus in certain senses are ‘beyond the law’, which they have themselves constituted through their conquest. It is against this ‘divine individualism’ that a religious reaction is born, very evident in the monotheistic religions, which stresses the existence of a transcendent divine order (rather than the immanent order of paganism), to which even the sovereign must obey. Thus a more communal/collective order is created. But again, this situation is overturned when a new individual ethos arises, which will be reflected in the growth of capitalism. It is based on individuals, and collective individuals, which think strategically in terms of their own interest. In the words of anthropologist Louis Dumont, we moved from a situation of wholism, in which the empirical individuals saw themselves foremost as part of a whole, towards individualism as an ideology, positing atomistic individuals, in need of socialization. They transferred their powers to collective individuals, such as the king, the people, the nation, which could act in their name, and created a sacrificial unity through the institutions of modernity. (In section 3.3.C., I have tried to show how peer to peer tries to avoid the creation of collective individuals, through the creation of objective algorithms which express the communal wisdom of a collective.)

This articulation, based on a autonomous self in a society which he himself creates through the social contract, has been changing in postmodernity. Simondon, a French philosopher of technology with an important posthumous following in the French-speaking world, has argued that what was typical for modernity was to 'extract the individual dimension' of every aspect of reality, of things/processes that are also always-already related. And what is needed to renew thought, he argued, was not to go back to premodern wholism, but to systematically build on the proposition that 'everything is related', while retaining the achievements of modern thought, i.e. the equally important centrality of individuality. Thus individuality then comes to be seen as constituted by relations, from relations.

This proposition, that the individual is now seen as always-already part of various social fields, as a singular composite being, no longer in need of socialization, but rather in need of individuation, seems to be one of the main achievements of what could be called 'postmodern thought'. Atomistic individualism is rejected in favour of the view of a relational self, a new balance between individual agency and collective communion. For a comprehensive view of the collective, it is now customary to distinguish

1. the totality of relations;
2. the field in which these relations operate, up to the macro-field of society itself, which establishes the 'protocol' of what is possible and not;
3. the object of the relationship ("object-oriented sociality"), i.e. the pre-formed ideal which inspires the common action.

That sociality is 'object-oriented' is an important antidote to flatland network theory, on which many failed social networking experiments are based, i.e. the idea that the field of relations is the onlyimportant dimension of reality, while forgetting human intentionality.

In conclusion, this turn to the collective that the emergence of peer to peer represents does not in any way present a loss of individuality, even of individualism. Rather it 'transcends and includes' individualism and collectism in a new unity, which I would like to call 'cooperative individualism'. The cooperativity is not necessarily intentional (i.e. the result of conscious altruism), but constitutive of our being, and the best applications of P2P, are based on this idea. Similar to Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand, the best designed collaborative systems take advantage of the self-interest of the users, turning it into collective benefit.

This recognition would help in distinguishing transformative P2P conceptions from regressive interpretations harking back to premodern communion. I find this distinction well expressed by Charlene Spretnak, cited by John Heron in a debate with the conception of an 'inclusional self' by Ted Lumley of Goodshare.org:

"The ecological/cosmological sense of uniqueness coupled with intersubjectivity and interbeing … One can accurately speak of the ‘autonomy’ of an individual only by incorporating a sense of the dynamic web of relationships that are constitutive for that being at a given moment."

In any case, the balance is again moving towards the collective. But if the new forms of collective recognize individuality and even individualism, they are not merely individualist in nature, meaning: they are not collective individuals, rather, the new collective expresses itself in the creation of the common. The collective is no longer the local ‘wholistic’ and ‘oppressive’ community, and it is no longer the contractually based society with its institutions, now also seen as oppressive. The new commons is not a unified and transcendent collective individual, but a collection of large number of singular projects, constituting a multitude.

This whole change in ontology and epistemology, in ways of feeling and being, in ways of knowing and apprehending the world, has been prefigured amongst social scientists and philosophers, including the hard sciences such as physics and biology. An important change has been the overthrow of the Cartesian subject-object split. No longer is the ‘individual self’ looking at the world as an object. Since postmodernity has established that the individual is composed and traversed by numerous social fields (of power, of the unconscious, class relations, gender, etc… , and since he/she has become aware of this, the subject is now seen (after his death as an ‘essence’ and a historical construct had been announced by Foucault), as a perpetual process of becoming (“subjectivation”). His knowing is now subjective–objective and truth-building has been transformed from objective and mono-perspectival to multiperspectival. This individual operates not in a dead space of objects, but in a network of flows. Space is dynamical, perpetually co-created by the actions of the individuals and in peer to peer processes, where the digital noosphere is an extraordinary medium for generating signals emanating from this dynamical space, the individuals in peer groups, which are thus not ‘transcendent’ collective individuals, are in a constant adaptive behavior. Thus peer to peer is global from the start, it is incorporated in its practice. It is an expression not of globalization, the worldwide system of domination, but of globality, the growing interconnected of human relationships.

Peer to peer is to be regarded as a new form of social exchange, creating its equivalent form of subjectivation, and itself reflecting the new forms of subjectivation. P2P, interpreted here as a positive and normative ethos that is implicit in the logic of its practice, though it rejects the ideology of individualism, does not in any way endanger the achievements of the modern individual, in terms of the desire and achievement of personal autonomy, authenticity, etc…. It is no transcendent power that demands sacrifice of self: in Negrian terms, it is fully immanent, participants are not given anything up, and unlike the contractual vision, which is fictitious in any case, the participation is entirely voluntary. Thus what it reflects is an expansion of ethics: the desire to create and share, to produce something useful. The individual who joins a P2P project, puts his being, unadulterated, in the service of the construction of a common resource. Implicit is not just a concern for the narrow group, not just intersubjective relations, but the whole social field surrounding it.

Imagine a successful meeting of minds: individual ideas are confronted, but also changed in the process, through the free association born of the encounter with other intelligences. Thus eventually a common idea emerges, that has integrated the differences, not subsumed them. The participants do not feel they have made concessions or compromises, but feel that the new common integration is based on their ideas. There has been no minority, which has succumbed to the majority. There has been no ‘representation’, or loss of difference. Such is the true process of peer to peer.

An important philosophical change has been the abandonment of the unifying universalism of the Enlightenment project. Universality was to be attained by striving to unity, by the transcendence of representation of political power. But this unity meant sacrifice of difference. Today, the new epistemological and ontological requirement that P2P reflects, is not abstract universalism, but the concrete universality of a commons which has not sacrificed difference. This is the truth that the new concept of multitude, developed by Toni Negri and inspired by Spinoza, expresses. P2P is not predicated on representation and unity, but of the full expression of difference.

6.1.B. Towards ‘contributory’ dialogues of civilizations and religions

One of the more global expressions of the peer to peer ethic, is the equipotency it creates between civilizations and religions. These have to be seen as unique responses, temporally and spatially defined, of specific sections of humanity, but directed towards similar challenges. Thus we arrive at the concept of ‘contributory worldviews’ or ‘contributory theologies’. Humanity as a whole, or more precisely, its individual members, have now access to the whole of human civilization as a common resource. Individuals, now being considered ‘composites’ made up of various influences, belongings and identities, in constant becoming, are embarked in a meaning-making process that is coupled to an expansion of awareness to the well-being of the planet as a whole, and of its concrete community of inhabitants. In order to become more cosmopolitan they will encounter the various answers given by other civilizations, but since they cannot fully comprehend a totally different historical experience, this is mediated through dialogue. And thus a process of global dialogue is created, not a synthesis or world religion, but a mosaic of millions of personal integrations that grows out of multiple dialogues. Rather than the concept of multiculturalism, which implies fixed social and cultural identities, peer to peer suggests cultural and spiritual hybridity, and which no two members of a community have the same composite understanding and way of thinking.

One of the recent examples that came to my attention are the annual SEED conferences in Albuquerque, New Mexico. They bring together, native elders, quantum physicists, philosophers, and linguists, none of them assuming superiority over one another, but collectively ‘building truth’ through their encounter.

P2P dialogues are not reprensentative dialogues, in which the participants represent their various religions, rather, they are encounters of composite and hybrid experiences, in which each full expresses his different understanding, building a spiritual commons.

6.1.C. Participative Spirituality and the Critique of Spiritual Authoritarianism

Traditional mystical and religious paths are exclusionary, based on strong divisions between the in and the out group. Internally, they reflect the social values and organizational models of the civilizations in which they were born. Thus they are premodern in authoritarian manner, patriarchal, sexist, subsuming the individual to the whole. Or, in their latter manifestations they are run as corporations and bureaucracies, reflecting the early emergence of capitalism as in the case of Protestantism, and in the case of the new age, operating explicitly as a spiritual marketplace reflecting the capitalist monetary ethos. When traditional religions of the East move to the West, they bring with them their authoritarian and feudal formats and mentalities. Epistemologically, in their spiritual methodologies, they are authoritarian as well, far from an open process, traditional paths start from the idea that there is one world, one truth, one divine order, and that some privileged individuals, saints, bishops, sages, gurus, have been privileged to know this truth, and that this can be taught to followers. The seventies and eighties have been characterized by the emergence of new religions and cults with a particularly authoritarian character, and by the appearance of a number of fallen gurus, characterized by abuses in terms of finance, sexuality, and power. If one decides to follow an experiental path, it is always the case that the experience is only validated if it follows the pregiven doctrine of the group in question.

It is clear that such a situation, such a spiritual offering is antithetical to the P2P ethos. Thus, in the emergence of a new participatory spirituality, two moments can be recognized, a critical one, focused on the critique of spiritual authoritarianism, and with books like those of June Campbell, J. Kripal, the Trimondi’s, the Kramer’s, and many others who have been advocating reform within the Churches and spiritual movements, and the more constructive approaches which aim to construct a new approach to spiritual inquiry altogether, those that explicitly integrate P2P practices in their mode of spiritual inquiry. The two pioneering authors who discuss ‘participative spirituality’ are Jorge Ferrer and John Heron.

Heron has given a good summary of the post-WWII evolution of spiritual culture and describes the current moment as follows:

• (a) The erosion of guru status as a result of sexual and financial abuse and bullying scandals among both Eastern and homegrown Western gurus and spiritual teachers.
• (b) The erosion of 'enlightenment' claims by the proliferation of the number of people, especially in the West, making the claim: the more people who make the claim, the more its narcissistic inflation stands revealed. For the 'enlightenment' claim is also an authority-claim to have followers, a recruiting drive; and the more claims that are made, the stronger the competition among claimants in the market-place for attention.
• (c) A growing awareness that spiritual authority is within and that to project it outward onto teacher, tradition or text is an early, adolescent phase of spiritual development in the one projecting, and counter-spiritual manipulative abuse in any guru/teacher who seeks to elicit, to appropriate and to sustain the projection.
• (d) The emergence of peer to peer spirituality, which democratizes charismatic, enlightened leadership, and realizes that it is a role which different persons assume at different times, either in the initiation of a peer group or in the

continuous unfolding of its process.

Ferrer’s book, Revisioning Transpersonal Psychology: Towards a Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality, not only is a strong critique of spiritual authoritarianism, which integrates poststructuralist arguments against absolute knowledge claims, but also a first description of an alternative view. In it, a spiritual practice operates as an open process in which spiritual knowledge is co-created, and thus cannot fully rely on old ‘maps’, which have to be considered as testimonies of earlier creations, not as absolute truths. Spirituality is understood in terms of the present relationship with the Cosmos (the concrete Totality), accessible to everyone here and now. Instead of the perennialist vision of many paths leading to the same truth, Ferrer advocates for an ‘ocean of emancipation’ with the many moving shores representing the different and ever-evolving approaches to spiritual co-creation. In an article on ‘Integral Transformative Practices’, Ferrer also records new practices that reflect this participatory turn, such as the ones pioneered by Albareda and Romero in Spain: open processes of self- and group discovery that are no longer cognicentric, but instead fully integral approaches that collaborative engage the instinctual, emotional, mental, and transmental domains as equal partners in the unfolding of spiritual life. J. Kripal, who is very appreciative of Jorge Ferrer's contribution, does conclude that one more lingering illusion about religion and mysticism should be abandoned: that it is somehow quintessentially 'moral' or 'ethical' and essentially emancipatory in character, a claim that he disputes.

New Zealand-based John Heron expounds, in the book “Sacred Science”, the specific peer to peer practice that he has created, called Cooperative Inquiry. In such a process, individuals agree on a methodology of inquiry, then compare their experiences, adapting their inquiry to their findings, etc… thus creating a collective intelligence, which is totally open and periodically renewed, experimenting both with the ‘transcendent’ practices of eastern nondual religions (transmental ‘witnessing’) as well as with the immanent grounding methods of the nature religions, thus creating a innovative dipolar approach which does not reject any practice, but attempts to integrate them. Peer circles (check the concept in a web search engine) have sprung up worldwide. My friend Remi Sussan stresses that the chaos magick groups on the internet, explicitly see themselves as self-created religions adopting open peer-based processes.

6.1.D. Partnering with nature and the cosmos

Throughout this essay, I have defined P2P as communal shareholding based on participation in a common resource (with the twist that in P2P it is we ourselves who are building that resource, which did not previously exist, i.e. the common is actually the 'object of our cooperation'), whereby other partners are considered as equipotent. We also mentioned the co-existence within P2P groups of both natural hierarchy, and egalitarian treatment. There are very good reasons to believe that we can and should extent this ethos to non-human forces, be they natural or cosmic, and if you have this kind of faith or experience, with spiritual forces as well. What follows is a speculative account of the philosophical and spiritual sources that could be used by our culture to recover such ethos.

Indeed in a sense, spiritually, the P2P or ‘participative ethos’ harks back to premodern animistic attitudes, which can also be found in Chinese Taoism for example. During the annual SEED conferences in Alququerque, New Mexico, Western astrophysicists and philosophers are undertaking a continued dialogue with native American elders, as one way to mutually enrich their epistemologies, with the explicit aim of recovering participative approaches. Jean Gebser, in his masterwork 'The Ever-present Origin', is probably the one that has best described the process of recovery of such participative worldview, starting with the artists of the beginning of the 20th century and continuing with the development of quantum physics, in recent times, calling it 'integral consciousness'.

Instead of considering nature in a Cartesian fashion as ‘dead matter’ or a collection of objects to be manipulated, we recognize that throughout nature there is a scale of consciousness or awareness, and that natural agents and collectives have their natural propensities, and that, giving up our need for domination (or rather 'transforming it') in the same way that we are able to practice in P2P processes, we ‘cooperate’, as partners, with such propensities, acting as midwives rather than dominators. French sociologists like Michel Maffesioli and Philippe Zafirian have analyzed a change in our culture, particularly in the new generations of young people, which go precisely in that direction, and it is of course specifically reflected in sections of green movement. Again, this is not a regression to an utopian and lost past, but a re-enactment of a potential, but this time, with fully differentiated individuals. While there is undoubtedly a new stress on 'wholism' in many contemporary thinkers, the stress is on interpretations of interdependence that do not return to pre-individual interpretations, but rather on showing on the individual is fully co-dependent on the whole.

An important question is: how do we recover such a tradition of thought and feeling-being, we who are the children of the Enlightenment? Here are some explorations of 'genealogies of thought' which could be used to recreate such participative ethos.

One of the possible paths is the recovery of the cosmobiological tradition of the Renaissance thinkers, who are close to us since they had one foot in the world of tradition and one in the world of modernity-inducing change. Loren Goldner uncovers, in a very interesting essay, this ‘third stream of cosmobiological thought’, which he says could be used to reconstruct a post-Enlightenment left. He contrasts it with the Aristotelianism of the Church, and with the ‘mechanistic’ ideas of the Enlightenment (creators of a dead universe and empty space that can be gazed at and manipulated by the autonomous ego). He traces the history of this third stream starts with the Renaissance starting with Bruno and Kepler, and later continued by Baader, Schelling, Oersted, Davy, Faraday, Goethe, W.R. Hamilton, Goerg Cantor, Joseph Needham. For them, the universe is brimming with life, sensuousness, and meaning, and cannot be approached as dead matter. Marx explicitely refers to this tradition, and was imbued by it through his filiation with German 'idealist' philosophy, but, according to Goldner, that has been forgotten by the two dominant streams of the left, i.e. social democracy and Stalinism, who take over the mechanistic Enlightenment tradition. Both Foucauldian postmodernism, and the defense of the Enlightenment tradition by Habermas, miss and obscure this vital link as well, says Goldner. In any case, this cosmobiological tradition is an 'alternative strand of modernity', which lost out but could perhaps be retrieved and redeveloped.

Other important genealogies to recreate a participatory worldview appropriate to our age have been undertaken by Skolimowsky and David Skrbina, in their 'ecophilosophy'. The focus here is on the concept of the 'participatory mind'.

Recently there have been important attempts to rephrase the participatory tradition by John Heron and Jorge Ferrer as well, arising from within the community of transpersonal psychology. The Nature Institute, inspired by Goethe and others, has been working on developing conceptions of qualitative science that fits this evolution as well. Toni Negri and others, are similarly trying to redeveloped a similar 'alternative modernity' based on the oeuvre of Spinoza, though the relationship with nature does not seem to be a prominent theme in his writings. Rather, they focus on developing a participative relationship with our machines.

In any case, there is a natural progression in scope, from P2P groups, to the global partnership-based dialogues between religions and civilizations, to the new partnership with natural and cosmic forces, that forms a continuum, and that is equally expressive of the deep changes in ontology and epistemology that P2P represents. I do not think it is possible to divorce the P2P ethos as it applies to people and humanity, from our wider relationship with nature, and therefore, it will be impossible to fully retain either the modernist objective gaze or postmodern-inspired nihilism. Instead, we have to reconstruct our worldviews and heal our 'split' with nature.

And at some point, we will start to realize that our very realities are 'always-already participative', that we are not separate from the world, that our being-in-the-world is subjective–objective. When this happens on a more massive scale, a new civilization will in effect have been borne.

7. P2P and Social Change

7.1.A. Marginal trend or premise of new civilization?

I hope to have convinced the reader of this essay that Peer to Peer is a fundamental trend, a new and emergent form of social exchange, of the same form, an ‘isomorphism’, that is occurring throughout the human lifeworld, in all areas of social and cultural life, where it operates under a set of similar characteristics. In other words, it has coherence.

How important is it, and what are its political implications? Can it really be said, as I claim, that it is the premise of a new civilizational order? I want to bring out a few historical analogies to illustrate my point.

The first concerns the historical development of capitalism. At some point in the Middle Ages, starting in the 11th to 13th C. period, cities start to appear again, and commerce takes up. A new class of people specialize in that commerce, and finding some aspects of medieval culture antithetic to their pursuits, start inventing new instruments to create trust across great distances: early forms of contracts, early banking systems etc. In turn, these new forms of social exchange create new processes of subjectivation, which not only influence the people involved, but in fact the whole culture at large, eventually leading to massive cultural changes such as the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the great social revolutions (English, French, American, etc.). In this scenario, though the emergent bourgeois class was not directly political, what it did, i.e. its primary business of conducting commerce, inevitably created a political and civilisational chain reaction. This class also had a resource, capital (money), which was greatly needed by the other leading sectors of the population, especially the feudal class and the kings. Even today, for capital, politics is a secondary effect, their enormous power is an effect of what they do in the economic sphere: trading currency and shares, international capital flows, investments of multinational companies, the results of a myriad of small decisions by economic regularity bodies such as the IMF, etc.

Today, I would argue, we witness a similar phenomena. A new class of knowledge workers, in its broad sense already the majority of the working population in the West, and poised to be in the same situation elsewhere in a few decades, are creating new practices and tools that enable them to do what they need to do, i.e. exchange knowledge. As they create these new tools, bringing into being a new format of social exchange, they enable new types of subjectivation, which in turn not only changes themselves, but the world around them. When Marx wrote his Manifesto, there were only 100,000 industrial workers, yet he saw that this new social model was the essence of the new society being born. Similarly, even if today only a few million knowledge workers consciously practice P2P, one can see the birth of a new model of a much larger social consequence. This new model is inherently more productive in creating the new immaterial use value, just as the merchants and capitalists were more effective in the material economy. Thus, they have something of value, i.e. knowledge and innovation, which is needed by the whole society, as even agricultural and industrial production can no longer proceed without their intervention. As this feedback loop is reinforcing itself, the political consequences are equally secondary. By creating new social forms, they, we, are doing politics, in the sense of creating new realities. This does not mean that civil society alone can create a full civilisational change, as, inevitably, political conflicts and new lines of contention arise, that will draw in the adepts of the new modes of being into the political world. We have already seen how it is to a great degree the legal and technical sabotage of the enemies of P2P, which have driven forward its development.

The great issue will be the reform of the state and the global governance system. But they come prepared, with highly efficient modes of organization and knowledge building.

Another analogy I like is the one exposed by Negri in Empire, where he refers to the Christians. The Roman Empire, in a structural course of decline, could not be reformed, but at the same time, within it, the Christians were creating new forms of consciousness and organization, which, when the imperial structure collapsed, was ready to merge with the invading Barbarians and created the new European civilization of the Middle Ages. There are no Barbarians today, only other rising capitalist blocks such as the East Asian one, but they are in the process of creating the very same social configuration, which has created P2P in the West, though it will take a little more time. Civilisational differences will not, in my opinion, preclude the development of cognitive capitalism and the emergence of P2P modes of social exchange.

Finally, let us put our findings in the context of some social scientists.

First, Marcel Mauss, and his notion of ‘total social fact’; second, to the notion of Cornelis Castoriadis, that societies are coherent wholes and systems, otherwise they would collapse, animated by a particular kind of ‘social spirit’ that is the result of our social imaginary. Democratic capitalism was prepared by such an imaginary, the result of the religious civil wars and the strong desire to go beyond the feudal adversarial model. But today, even as it is being globalized, its premises are dying at the same time they are being exacerbated. The emergence of P2P is therefore to be considered both as a total social fact, and as the birth of a new social imaginary. P2P is a revolt of the social imaginary about the total functionalization of our society, about its near-total and growing determination by instrumental reason and efficiency thinking, that is now even infecting our social and personal lives. It is a vivid protest, a longing for a different life, not solely dictated by calculation and the overriding concern for profit and productivity. It is not just protest against the intolerable facets of postmodern life, but always-already also a construction of alternatives. Not an utopia, but really existing social practice. And a practice founded on a still unconscious, but coherent set of principles, i.e. a new social imaginary. It is totally coherent, a total social fact.

Habermas has another important notion, which is the ‘principle of organization’ of society, and he distinguishes the primitive, traditional and liberal-capitalist principles of organization. He defines it as the innovations that become possible through ‘new levels of societal learning’. Such a level determines the the learning mechanism on which the development of productive forces depend, the range of variation for the interpretative systems that secure identity, amongst others key factors. It would seem clear that P2P is precisely such a new learning mechanism, described in most detail in the book by Pekka Himanen, as well as in the new rules I have identified in this essay. Thus in Habermassian terms, we would have to conclude that P2P is a fourth principle of organization, emerging at this stage, but which could become dominant at a later stage.

We’ll leave the latter open as a hypothesis, since history is an open process, and indeed different logics can co-exist. For example, in democratic capitalism, the two logics of democracy and capitalism are co-existing together, forming a coherent whole, even though its fabric is now in crisis.

My interpretation of P2P is related to the interpretation of Stephan Merten and the Oekonux group in Germany, but whereas they see the principles behind Free Software as indicative as a new mode of social exchange, I have broadened their area of application. Free Software is, in my interpretation, one of the forms of the P2P form of social exchange. While Free Software appears important, especially when taken together with the more liberal Open Source format, it is still more marginal than P2P. When we look at the same phenomena through the P2P lens, the social changes appear much more profound, much more important, than Free Software taking alone. We are much further ahead of the curve if we follow the P2P interpretation.

Nevertheless, when I talk, in such an optimistic and visionary fashion, about the emergence of P2P and it being the premise of a coming fundamental civilisational change, I can of course also see the terrible trends that are affecting our world: fossil energy depletion, global warming, increased inequality inside and between countries, the tearing apart of the social fabric, the increased psychic insecurity affecting the whole world population, the imposition of a permanent war regime that is dismantling civil rights and re-introducing the systematic use of torture and lifelong imprisonment without trial in the heart of the West, the great extinction affecting biodiversity …. All these things are happening, and disheartening, even though counter-trends from civil society are also sometimes hopeful. Certainly, it seems that the power structure of Empire, the new form of global sovereignty, is beyond reform, that it just routes around protest and democracy, making dissent marginal and inconsequential, even as 25 million people were protesting an illegimate war in one single day. Corporate media machines will devote days on end on the trial of a celebrity, but totally ignore massive literacy campaigns in Venezuela, and millions of people demonstrating will deserve just a few seconds of coverage. But historically, it is also when change ‘inside’ the system becomes impossible, that the greatest revolutions occur. The evening before the momentous events of May 68, the columnist Bernard Poirot-Delpech wrote in Le Monde: nothing ever changes, we are bored in this country ….

The question of timing is difficult to answer. Objectively, it could take centuries, if we take the historical examples of the transition from ancient slavery to feudalism, or from feudalism to capitalism. Similar to the current situation, both ancient slavery (in the form of the conatus system of production, which freed slaves but bound them to the land, as of the 2nd and 3rd century), and feudalism, had the germs of the new system already within them. However, the precipitation of climatic, economic, political crises affecting the current world system, as well as the general speeding up of cultural change processes, seem to point towards changes that could proceed on a much more faster scale. If I may allow myself a totally unscientific prediction, then I would say that a culmination of systemic crises, and the resulting reform of the global governance system, is about two to four decades away. But in another sense, such predictions are totally immaterial to the task at hand. We need P2P today, in order to make our lives more fulfilling, to realize our social imaginary in our own lifetime, and to develop the set of methodologies that will be needed, that are needed, to help solve the developing crisis. We do not have the luxury of waiting for a dawn to come. A good example of the maturity of the system for change is what happened in Argentina: when the economy totally collapsed, in a matter of months, the country’s population had built a series of P2P-based barter and alternative money systems (the largest in the world to date), and the significant movement of the Piqueteros arose, which, demanded and got from the state a major concession: that state money for the unemployed would not go to individuals, but the movement as a whole to invest in cooperative projects. It all depends on the dialectic between the crises and what the system still can offer. But if the system fails to provide the hope and the realisation of a decent life, such an event precipitates the building of alternatives that have many of the aspects of P2P that we described.

7.1.B. P2P, Postmodernity, Cognitive Capitalism: within and beyond

Peer to peer has clearly a dual nature. As we have showed, it is the very technological infrastructure of cognitive capitalism, the very organizational mode it needs to implement in its global teams. P2P exemplifies many of the flexible and fluid aspects characteristic of fluid modernity (or postmodernity): it disintegrates boundaries and binary oppositions, blurs the inside and the outside. Just as post- or late feudal society and its absolutist kings needed the bourgeoisie, late capitalist society cannot survive without knowledge workers and their P2P practices. It can be argued that the adoption of P2P processes is in fact essential for competitiveness: a strong foundation of P2P technologies, the use of free or open source software, processes for collective intelligence building, free and fluid cooperation, are now all necessary facets of the contemporary corporation. The old format of 'pyramidal intelligence', i.e. a hierarchy of command and control, in its old bureaucratic format, or even as 'management by objectives', based on the assumption of information scarcity, is increasingly counter-productive.

At the same time, it cannot cope with it very well, and often P2P is seen as a threat. The entertainment industry for example, wishes to destroy P2P technology. In general, corporations are in constant tension between the logic of self-unfolding peer groups and the profit-driven logic of the feudally-structured management-by-objectives system, and by the tension between the cooperative production of innovation and its private appropriation. The dot.com crisis of 2001 showed how difficult it is for the present system to convert the new use value into exchange value, and created an important rift between the affected knowledge workers and the financial capital, which had taken them on that ride. After the short-term flourishing of the hope for instant riches in the dotcom economy, many of them turned their energies to the social sphere, where internet-based innovation not only continued, but thrived even more, but now based on explicit P2P modes of cooperation.

Thus, while being part and parcel of the capitalist and postmodern logics, it also already points beyond it. From the point of view of capital, it annoys it, but it also needs it to thrive and survive itself. From the point of view of its practitioners, they like it above all else, they know it is more productive and creates more value, as well as meaning in their life and a dense interconnected social life, but at the same time, they have to make a living and feed their families. The not-for-profit nature of P2P is at the heart of this paradox.

This is the great difficulty, and is why its opponents will not fail to point out the so-called parasitical nature of P2P. P2P creates massive use-value, but no automatic exchange value, and thus, it cannot fund itself. It exists on the basis of the vast material wealth created by the presently existing system. Peer to peer practitioners generally thrive in the interstices of the system: programmers in between jobs, workers in bureaucratic organizations with time on their hand; students and recipients of social aid; private sector professionals during paid for sabbaticals, academics who integrate it into their research projects. However, in terms of open source software, this is increasingly seen as essential for technological infrastrucre, favoured by an increasing numbers of governments who want an open standard, and also by rivals to Microsoft, who see it as a means of decreasing their dependency. It is more and more seen as an efficient means of production, and therefore, increasingly funded by the private sphere.

Apart from being an objective trend in society, it is also becoming a subjective demand, because it reflects a desired mode of working and being. P2P becomes, as it is for this author, part of a positive P2P ethos.

Therefore, a P2P advocacy emerges, which turns the tables around, and it becomes a political and social movement. What is the main message of this emergent movement? I'll try to paraphrase the emerging message, which is being increasingly clearly formulated:

It says: "it is us knowledge workers who are creating the value in the monetary system; the present system privately appropriates the results of a vast co-operative network of value creation (as we argued in our section about the co-operative nature of cognitive capitalism). Most value is not created in the formal procedures of the enterprise, but despite it, because, despite impediments, we remain creative and cooperative, against all odds. We come to the job, no longer as workers just renting our bodies, but as total subjectivities, with all we have learned in our lives, through our myriad social interactions, and solve present problems through our personal social networks. It is not us knowledge workers living off on you, but you ‘vectoralists’ living off on us! We are the ones creating infinite use value, which you want to render scarce to transform it into tradable intellectual property, but you cannot do it without us. Even as we struggle to create a commons of information, in the meantime, while we lack the strength to totally transform the system, perhaps we will be strong enough to impose important transitory demands. Therefore, in your own interest, if you want innovation to continue, instead of ever larger number of us collapsing from stress-related diseases, you have to give us time and money. You cannot just use the information commons as an externality, you have to fund it. Establishing such a system, culminating in the instauration of a universal wage divorced from work, is in fact the very condition of your survival as an economic system, and at the same time, allows us to thrive as knowledge workers, by creating use value, meaning in our lives, time for learning and renewal, that we will bring back to your money-making enterprise."

The demand for a universal wage, increasingly debated, subject of academic research and government reports, and implemented for the first time in Brazil by President Lula, may well be the next great reform of the system, the wise course of action, awaiting its P2P “neo-Keynes”, a collective able to translate the needs of the cooperative ethos in a set of political and ethical measures. Paradoxically, through the strengthening of cooperation, it will also re-invigorate cognitive capitalism (much like the welfare system create mass consumers), allowing the two logics to co-exist, in cooperation, and in relative independence from one another, installing a true competition in solving world problems.

The world system undoubtedly needs a number of important reforms. Amongst those I can think of are:

1. the shift of the monopoly of violence from the nation-state, to an international cooperative body in charge of protecting human rights and avoid genocides and ethnic cleansings; it is no longer acceptable that any nation-state exerts illegitimate violence;
2. the setting up of regulatory bodies for the world economy, so that a through world society can emerge, in the sense of those proposed by George Soros, David Held and others;
3. changes in the nature of the system of capital in the sense described by Paul Hawken, David Korten, Hazel Henderson, i.e. a form of natural capitalism that can no longer appropriate the commons and externalize its environmental costs;
4. a new integral ‘international account’ systems no longer focused on the endless growth of material production, but on well-being indicators;
5. changes in the structures of corporations so that it no longer exclusively reflects the interests of the shareholders, but of all the stakeholders affected by its operations.

With historical hindsight, such a series of fundamental changes are only to be expected after major structural crises: they are probably still 20 to 50 years away.

7.1.C. Three scenarios of co-existence

In our earlier descriptive essay, we already described three possible scenarios concerning the entanglement of cognitive capitalism with P2P.

The first scenario is peaceful co-existence. There are a lot of historical precedents for that. In the Middle Ages and other agriculture-based systems, the system of authority ranking (feudalism), co-existed with the religious order, organized in a form of Communal Shareholding (the Church and the Sangha), which was the pillar of a redistributive gift economy. In South-East Asia, which accepts temporary spiritual engagement, people would move from one sector to the other. Similarly, we can envision a continuation of the present system, with knowledge workers making money in the private sector, but regularly escaping, as much as they possibly can, to participate in the edification of the Commons. In this scenario, the one we are currently living and that would be poised to continue substantially the same, the current version of capitalism would also remain mostly unchanged, though perhaps eventually to be regulated by bodies of global governance.

The second scenario is the dark one. Cognitive capitalism succeeds in partly incorporating, partly destroying the P2P ethos, and an era of information feudalism ensues, a netocratic oligarchy based on access to resources and networks, living on rent monopolies from intellectual property licenses, as has been described by Jeremy Rifkin in the "Age of Access", (and echoed by Jordan Pollack, John Perry Barlow and many others) and dis-appropriating any form of property from the consuming classes (the consumtariat, as Alexander Bard has coined them). It will co-exist with a total control society based on biometric identification, and will use highly advanced cognitive manipulation. But this scenario is predicated on the social defeat of the knowledge workers, and we are not there yet. In this scenario, access to information is predicated on the payment of restrictive licenses, which sharply reduce the freedoms and the creativity of the people who have access, while excluding many others from that access. Because of this loss of freedom, the loss also of the freedom to fully possess goods and to with them as we please, this scenario is often called one of 'information feudalism'.

The third scenario is, from the point of view of P2P advocates, the more hopeful one. After a deep structural crisis, the universal wage is implemented, and the P2P sphere can operate with increasing autonomy, creating more and more use value, slowly creating a cohesive system within the system, a 'GPL Society', as Stephan Merten would have it. At such moment, the new civilization is already born. It has to be stressed that P2P is not the same as a totally collectivized system, and that it can co-exist with markets and aspects of capitalism. But it does not need the current monopolistic system, it can reduce ‘market pricing mechanisms’ to their rightful place, as part of the human exchange system, not as its totality. In my opinion, we would have a core of pure P2P processes, surrounded by a gift economy based on shareable goods, a strong social economy run by non-profit companies, and a reformed market sector, where prices reflect more realistically the true cost of production, such as environmental externalities. This form of 'natural capitalism' has been described by Paul Hawken, David Korten, and Hazel Henderson. The main 'inspiring paradigm' would no longer be the competition paradigm based on win-lose scenarios, but the collaborative paradigm, where reformed corporations and other to-be-invented institutional and non-institutional forms, would find their purpose in creating added value to the commons, and would attract productive means to the degree they are perceived of doing so.

7.1.D. Possible political strategies

In the meantime, while the three scenarios are competing to come into being, and if we are sympathetic to the emergence of P2P and its ethos of cooperation: “What is to be done?”

A first step is to become aware of the isomorphism, the commonality, of peer to peer processes in the various fields. That people devising and using P2P sharing programs, start realizing that they are somehow doing the same thing than the alterglobalisation movement, and that both are related to the production of Linux, and to participative epistemologies. Thus what we must do first is building bridges of cooperation and understanding across the social fields. Amazingly, it has already started, as the last Porto Alegre forum showed an extraordinary enthusiastic reaction to the Open Source event, something that would have been unimaginable even a few years ago. I hope that my own essay plays a role in augmenting that awareness. We should also start to realize our basic commonality with earlier forms of the cooperative ethos: the communal shareholding of the tribal peoples, the solidarity movements of the workers, the environmental and other protectors of our physical commons. Following the analysis of McKenzie Wark we should say that both knowledge workers (the hacker class for MW), workers, and farmers as producing classes share a similar interest in achieving first, a fairer share of the distribution of the surplus (the reformist agenda), and second, achieving control of the means of production (the more radical agenda). Of course, this can no longer take the form of centralized state control, and awaits innovative social practices and demands. Creating the new social reality takes precedence over political demands, the latter having to be a consequence of the former. Today to resist is in the first place 'to create'.

Therefore, the second step is to "furiously" build the commons. When we develop Linux, it is there, cannot be destroyed, and by its very existence and use, builds another reality, based on another social logic, the P2P logic. Adopting a network sociality and building dense interconnections as we participate in knowledge creation and exchange is enormously politically significant. By feeding our immaterial and spiritual needs outside of the consumption system, we can stop the logic which is destroying our ecosphere. The present system may not like opposition, but even more does it fear indifference, because it can feed on the energy of strife, but starts dying when it is shunned. This is what is being expressed by Toni Negri's concept of Exodus, and what other call 'Desertion'. These commentators note that it was 'the refusal of work' in the seventies, with bluecollar workers showing increasing dissatisfaction with the Taylorist/Fordist system of work, that lead to the fundamental re-arrangement of work in the first place. In the past, the labour movement and other social movements mostly shared the same values, and it was mostly about a fairer share of the pie. But the new struggles are mostly about producing a new kind of pie, and producing it in a different way. Or perhaps an even more correct metaphor: it is about the right to produce altogether different kinds of pie.

Today, the new ethic says that 'to resist is in the first place to create'. The world we want is the world we are creating through our cooperative P2P ethos, it is visible in what we do today, not an utopian creation for the future. Building the commons has a crucial ingredient: the building of a dense alternative media network, for permanent and collective self-education in human culture, away from the mass-consumption model promoted by the corporate media.

Thus, if there is an 'offensive' strategy it would look like this: to build the commons, day after day, the process of creating of a society within society. In this context, the emergence of the internet and the web, is a tremendous step forward. Unlike in earlier social formations, knowledge workers and others now have access to an important “vector of information”, to a means for creating, producing, and distributing immaterial products that was not available in earlier ages. Part of the struggle to build the information commons is the struggle for the control of the code (achieving protocollary power) and the creation of a ‘friendly’ legal framework, continuing the efforts pioneered by Richard Stallman and the General Public License and Lawrence Lessig’s Copyleft and 'Creative Commons'.

The third step is the defensive strategy. When the commons is attacked, it needs to be defended. We are thinking of the struggle in the EU to avoid software patents, avoiding the installment of digital rights management encoded in the hardware; the struggle against biopiracy; against the privatization of water.

Above all else what we need is a society that allows the building of the commons, and it is therefore impotant to refuse measures that would foreclose this development. Hence the importance of the intellectual property regime, which needs to be reformed to avoid an ‘Enclosure of the Digital Commons’, and also, we have to develop an awareness of the intricacies of protocollary power. Since we have no idea about the time span needed for a fuller transition to a P2P civilization, what me must do in the meantime is to protect the seed, so that it can grow unimpeded, until such time as it is called for a greater role.

I would guess that an important part of the struggle for decent life for all, important to make space for the development of cooperative practices, will be the instauration of a universal living wage. So that no one dies from hunger, poverty and exclusion from the world of culture. So than an increasing number of us can start working on the creation of real use value, instead of catering to the artificial desires concocted by the global advertising system.

We also wish for the creation of democratic peer to peer processes so that they can contribute to solving some of the crucial issues facing the world. This is why the demands of the alterglobalisation movement are sometimes considered vague. It is because, in this complex world, we know that we do not have all the answers. But we also know, that through a community of peers, through open processes, answers and solutions can emerge, in a way that they cannot if private interests and domination structures are not transcended. Thus a reform of the global governance system is very important, so that every human being voice can be heard. Current global governance institutions, as they are organized today (IMF, World Bank, WTO), often impede the finding of solutions because they are instruments of domination, rather than at the service of the world population. It is thus not just a matter of an alternative political program, but of alternative processes to arrive at the best solutions. I do not personally believe, that change can come only from the autonomous processes of civil society, and that attention to the state form is important. Thus politically, peer to peer advocates are interested in the transformation of the nation-state, to new forms open to the processes of globality, to participatory processes, such as the ones practiced with P2P formats.

Peer to peer also demands self-transformation. As we said, P2P is predicated on abundance, on transcending the animal impulse based on win-lose games. But abundance is not just objective, i.e. also, and perhaps most importantly, subjective. This is why tribal economies considered themselves to live in abundance, and were egalitarian in nature. This is why happiness researchers show that it is not poverty that makes us unhappy, but inequality. Thus, the P2P ethos demands a conversion to a point of view, to a set of skills, which allow us to focus ourselves on fulfilling our immaterial and spiritual needs directly, and not through a perverted mechanism of consumption. As we focus on friendships, connections, love, knowledge exchange, the cooperative search for wisdom, the construction of common resources and use value, we direct our attention away from the artificial needs that are currently promoted, and this time we personally and collectively stop feeding the Beast that we have ourselves created.

Appendix 1. Launch of The Foundation for P2P Alternatives

We are now reaching the conclusion of our essay. If I have been successful the reader has a descriptive, explanatory, and historical view of its emergence and potential.

Of course my purpose is also political. I believe that a P2P-based civilization, or at least one that has much stronger elements of it compared with today, would be a better civilization, more apt to tackle the global challenges that we are facing. This is why I propose that this essay is not just part of a process of understanding, but that it can be a guide to an active participation in the transformation of our world, into something better, more participative, more free, more creative.

I therefore announce the creation of a Foundation for P2P Alternatives. It would be centered around the following conclusions, the support for which you can find in the essay:

• that technology reflects a change of consciousness towards participation, and in turn strengthens it
• that the networked format, expressed in the specific manner of peer to peer relations, is a new form of political organizing and subjectivity, and an alternative for the political/economic order, which though it does not offer solutions per se, points the way to a variety of dialogical and self-organising formats to device different processes for arriving at such solutions; it ushers in a era of ‘nonrepresentational democracy’, where an increasing number of people are able to manage their social and productive life through the use of a variety of networks and peer circles that it creates a new public domain, an information commons, which should be protected and extended, especially in the domain of common knowledge creation; and that this domain, where the cost of reproducing knowledge is near zero, requires fundamental changes in the intellectual property regime, as reflected by new forms such as the free software movement
• that the principles developed by the free software movement, in particular the General Public Licence, provides for models that could be used in other areas of social and productive life
• that it reconnects with the older traditions and attempts for a more cooperative social order, but this time obviates the need for authoritarianism and centralization; it has the potential of showing that the new egalitarian digital culture, is connected to the older

traditions of cooperation of the workers and peasants, and to the search for an engaged and meaningful life as expressed in one’s work, which becomes an expression of individual and collective creativity, rather than as a salaried means of survival

• that it offers youth a vision of renewal and hope, to create a world that is more in tune with their values; that it creates a new language and discourse in tune with the new historical phase of ‘cognitive capitalism’; P2P is a language which every ‘digital youngster’ can understand
• it combines subjectivity (new values), intersubjectivity (new relations), objectivity (an enabling technology) and interobjectivity (new forms of organization) that mutually strengthen each other in a positive feedback loop, and it is clearly on the offensive and growing, but lacking ‘political self-consciousness’.

The Foundation for P2P Alternatives would address the following issues:

• P2P currently exists in discrete separate movements and projects but these different movements are often unaware of the common P2P ethos that binds them

thus, there is a need for a common initiative, which 1) brings information together; 2) connects people and mutually informs them 3) strives for integrative insights coming from the many subfields; 4) can organize events for reflection and action; 5) can educate people about critical and creative tools for world-making

• the Foundation would be a matrix or womb which would inspire the creation and linking of other nodes active in the P2P field, organized around topics and common interests, locality, and any form of identity and organization which makes sense for the people involved
• the zero node website would have a website with directories, an electronic newsletter and blog, and a magazine.

Appendix 2: The P2P Meme Map

(read the table from the bottom up)

Compiled by Michel Bauwens, June 30, 2005

Level one represents the cultural shift in ways of being, feeling and knowing, as well as the new core value constellations that underpin the shift to a peer to peer civilization.

Level two represents the technological distributed computing infrastructure, the P2P media infrastructure which enables many-to-many communication, and the collaborative infrastructure which allows autonomous groups to cooperate on a global scale, outside the bounds of markets and hierarchies.

Level three represents the legal infrastructure. The General Public License (and Open Source initiatives), which creates and expands the P2P technological infrastructure as a public domain Commons; Creative Commons licenses achieve the same effect for content creation. Technological protocols such as TCP/IP insure the participative nature of new technologies, while P2P collectives set their own internally-generated frameworks of cooperation, within the broader framework of internet-based civility (netiquette). Taking together they create a common property regime of public goods outside the market and the state.

Level 4 represents new social practices that are thoroughly characterized by P2P principles (as distinguished from non-P2P formats enabled by P2P infrastructures). The first strand is represented by 'non-representational politics', politics which refuses representation, as exemplified by the alterglobalisation movement and Social Forums, the coordination format adopted by social movements. Peer production creates collective use value in the form of a Commons, and is exemplified by free software, knowledge collectives such as Wikipedia, collaborative publishing such as Indymedia. Participative spirituality represents a new way of relating to religions, the cosmos, and nature and its beings, refusing authoritarian truths and methods, sometimes practiced in the form of peer circles.

Level 5 are practices that are not full P2P themselves, but are enabled and strengthened by P2P infrastructures: examples are P2P marketplaces which do not create a commons and are run by for-profit enterprises, or who derive substantial value from user-created content ('netarchical' enterprises who enable and exploit participative networks); gift economies or sharing economies (the latter defined by Yochai Benkler), such as local exchange trading systems and local currencies;

1. Empire/cognitive capitalism rests on distributed networking but instrumentalises it for

domination

2. P2P-based marketplaces and Long Tail economics: eBay, Zopa, self-publishing;

supply and demand meat each other through the internet; creating millions of sustainable micro-markets

3. Netarchical value creation / for-profit enablement and exploitation of participative

networks: positive externalities of P2P create value for new type of businesses: Amazon customer evaluations, Google page ranking based on user linking; user-centric innovation; users create substantial content for the portals

4. Bottom of the pyramid development schemes (Prahalad); microcredit (collective credit

applications); citizen to citizen (edge to edge) development schemes (Jock Gill)

5. Gift and sharing economy practices are enabled by P2P infrastructures: open money

and local currency schemes, local exchange trading systems (LETS); carpooling becomes economical with distributed infrastructures; nonprofit organizations and social entrepreneurships are enabled. Lower transactional costs strengthen enable fairer trade and economics

Level 5: P2P-ENABLED PRACTICES

1.A. Non-representational politics: networked alterglobalism, coordination formats for social struggles, conceptual innovation of multitudes (Negri), creation as resistance (Benasayag), revolution without power (Holloway)

=> CREATION OF ABSOLUTE DEMOCRACY MODELS

1.B. Autonomous social and cultural practices: internet-based affinity groups, self-help and mutual support groups, non-expert dominated knowledge creation, validation, and exchange, filesharing; open science projects and open access to scientific publications

=> CREATION OF THE INFORMATION COMMONS

2. Peer production (also called, Commons-Based Peer Production CBPP): Free software and open source software (also called Free/Libre Open Source Software FLOSS): GNU/Linux; Knowledge collectives: Wikipedia, Collaborative Media: Indymedia

=> THIRD MODE OF PRODUCTION CREATES FOR-BENEFIT SECTOR

3. Participatory spirituality: non-representational dialogue of religion, contributory theology, cooperative inquiry practices (John Heron), plural mysticism (Jorge Ferrer), peer circles

=> PLURALISTIC CONTRIBUTORY SPIRITUALITY

NON-REPRESENTATIONAL POLITICS & AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL ORGANISATION //

PEER PRODUCTION // PARTICIPATORY SPIRITUALITY

Level 4: DIRECT P2P PRACTICES

1. New Common Property Regime: General Public License, Open Source Initiative, Creative Commons, Art libre License allow for creation that cannot be privately appropriated

2. Participative Technological Protocols: TCP/IP protocol for P2P communication, Writeable Web protocols allow self-publishing by everyone, Viral Communicator Meshwork protocols enable network building without infrastructures and backbones: Open Spectrum proposal would create Wireless Commons

3. Participative Social Protocols: netiquette, project constitutions, social accounting and reputation-based schemes create transparency, participation capture turns self-interest into common resources

NEW COMMON PROPERTY REGIME // PARTICIPATIVE TECHNOLOGICAL

PROTOCOLS // PARTICIPATIVE SOCIAL PROTOCOLS

Level 3: P2P LEGAL INFRASTRUCTURE

1.A. Distributed computing infrastructure (hardware): Internet, Grid Computing, Filesharing, Wireless Meshwork, Viral Communicators

1.B. Free Software / Open source software infrastructure: GNU/Linux, OS Desktop applications, OS content management software, OS communication tools

98

�2. Distributed media infrastructure: Blogging (Writeable Web), Podcasting (audio),

Webcasting (broadband audiovisual)

3. Distributed collaboration infrastructure: Wiki's, social software, groupware

DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING // DISTRIBUTED MEDIA // DISTRIBUTED

COLLOBARATION

Level two: P2P TECHNOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

1. New ways of feeling and being: participative cosmologies, the relational self,

cooperative individualism

2. New ways of knowing: connectivist learning, communal (not institutional) validation

of knowledge, transparency (not objectivity)

3. Primacy of Equality/freedom, the hacker ethic of self-unfolding 'passion-based' cooperation, abundance over scarcity, participation over exclusion, meritocratic servant leadership by example, coordination instead of command and control

4. Desire for P2P Civilisation to be defined by: 1) Absolute Democracy: participation of

all extended to all areas of social life, not just politics; a Pluralist Economy with a strong Commons sector along with a reformed market and state; a Participative Universe based on partnership with nature and its beings

P2P ONTOLOGY // P2P EPISTEMOLOGY // P2P AXIOLOGY

(New ways of feeling and being // New ways of knowing // New core value constellation and

aspirations)

Level one: P2P CULTURAL FOUNDATIONS AND VALUE FIELD

Appendix 3: Reactions to the Essay: Kudo's

A compilation of positive reactions on this essay and its expression of the P2P 'meme':

George Dafermos, at http://radio.weblogs.com/0117128/

"Michel Bauwens is the author of the most visionary piece on peer-to-peer I've ever read, published his much-awaited new essay on P2P, entitled P2P and Human Evolution: p2p as the premise of a new mode of civilization. As expected, his excellent and path-breaking treatise is all-encompassing, critically exploring P2P in all its possible manifestations and linkages, that is, with respect to its political, social, economic, spiritual, cultural, and technological implications. It is at the intersections of all these spheres and their interactions that P2P holds the potential to emerge as the basis of the new civilisation premised on self-realisation, autonomy, creation, eros, and sharing. It's either that or a return to barbarism, writes Bauwens. Read on and marvel at the mental syntheses that this essay invokes."

Peer to Peer weblog / Unmediated at http://p2p.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000653037158/

"Michel Bauwens has written a phenomenal essay entitled P2P and Human Evolution: Placing Peer to Peer Theory in an Integral Framework. It's long and much of it goes far over my head, but reads like a P2P manifesto” Bauwens even concludes by calling it a guide to an active participation in the transformation of our world, into something better, more participative, more free, more creative. Really quite fascinating."

Integral Foresight Institute, Chris Stewart

"What Michael Bauwens has achieved in a very short space fullfills the same function as the Communist Manifesto once did: a call for a worldwide movement for social and political change, firmly rooted in the objective and subjective changes of contempary society, and articulated as a practical and insightful model of human value and power relations that is ahead of its time. If we listen more carefully to Bauwens than we ever did Marx, however, it just might lead to a smooth evolution for humanity rather than revolution, or at worst, destruction. Bauwens has traced out real contours of hope for Western civilization. His presentation of a P2P perspective includes a clear theory of human power and value relations, a practical appreciation of its relationship to the current orthodoxy, and an inspiring vision for viable, sustainable, and desirable futures. Just as Bauwens notes the limited social acceptance of Marx at the time of his writing, it may well be that in years to come Bauwens’s articulate and deeply considered insights will not only be as profoundly influential and valuable but, crucially, a lot more workable."

P2P and Integral Theory – Generation Sit weblog

"I rarely encounter essays addressing Integral Theory in the context of emerging technology. But if there's one thing out there worth reading, this essay is one of them – P2P and Human Evolution: Placing Peer to Peer Theory in an Integral Framework (via IntegralWorld). This very long essay describes P2P in detail, covering the interior and exterior aspects, and its incompatibilities with Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory. There are a lot of heady stuff for me to digest in this essay. And I'm still not done reading it."

John Heron, Participatory Spirituality pioneer, author of Sacred Science

"What I appreciate is your clarity with regard to the following: your basic definition of p2p; the way you trace this definition, and any compromises and departures from it, within its many manifestations; and toward the end of your account, forms co-existence and of possible political strategies. All of this is very valuable food for thought and action. You make a most effective and persuasive case for the widespread significance of the p2p phenomenon, in diverse fields, and with due regard for the underlying epistemological shifts involved. This

100

�work is indeed a major achievement of scholarship, insight, moral vision and political imagination."

Victor Lewis-Hansom, by email:

"At first skim reading, I think that the spark you have created in our historical times, will be historically significant and remembered. Thank you for putting so much of yourself into your essay."

Yves Simon at http://www.social-computing.com/showitem.php?ID=137

"Michel Bauwens est un personnage connu du monde de la nouvelle économie. Il a rendu public une dernière mouture de son essai courant mars 2005 : P2P and Human Evolution : Peer to peer as the premise of a new mode of civilization Un article dans la revue belge Imagine Magazine présente les conclusions de cette étude. Michel Bauwens estime que les technologies peer to peer ne sont que les prémisses de la constitution d'une nouvelle civilisation de pairs qui doit bouleverser les modèles établis. Je cite ci-après qq passages remarquables de l'interview conduit par David Leloup :

"Il s’agit donc d’une grande transformation culturelle qui conduit à un paradigme participatif.

Le P2P est d’abord un concept descriptif. Il permet d’analyser des nouvelles formes d’organisation. Là où le concept de peer-to-peer devient encore plus puissant, c’est quand il passe du statut d’outil descriptif à une utilisation normative. Comment le monde changerait-il, comment ma vie et mon éthique changent-elles, quand je commence à exiger des relations de pairs dans la totalité de mes actes ? Le peer-to-peer acquiert alors une véritable puissance révolutionnaire. C’est par exemple ce que le mouvement féministe a voulu et en partie réalisé : un refus d’accepter encore plus longtemps l’inégalité avec les hommes. Il y a aujourd’hui un véritable exode vers les interstices du système : non seulement il y a les «downshifters» comme moi-même, mais également des pans entiers de la jeunesse qui refusent la féodalité intrinsèque de la structure des entreprises.

Le peer-to-peer est en effet la structure même du troisième capitalisme : le capitalisme cognitif, qui remplace le capitalisme industriel lui-même ayant remplacé le capitalisme marchand.

...liée à la notion de «noosphère» de Teilhard de Chardin, c’est-à-dire la sphère spécifiquement culturelle, humaine. Le peer-to-peer permet une interconnexion de tous les cerveaux au niveau planétaire, et permet donc une action globale afin de répondre aux énormes défis écologiques et autres. Avant l’avènement d’Internet, ce genre de coordination globale était exclusivement réservée aux grandes multinationales.

le P2P permet de créer un contre-pouvoir qui combine l’échange égalitaire et la création d’une nouvelle sphère cognitive commune – ce que Lawrence Lessig appelle les «Creative Commons».

Marc Dangeard in http://casailor.blogspot.com/2005/04/p2p-et-societe.html

101

�"Je viens de lire l'essai de Michel Bauwens sur le Peer-to-Peer, et c’est extremement interessant. Ca se lit vite, et ca en vaut l'effort: http://noosphere.cc/P2P2bi.htm La conclusion est qu’il y a dans l’avenement du peer to peer une vraie opportunite de changer le systeme dans lequel nous vivons.

En relation avec cette analyse sur l’evolution des modes de communication vers un modele peer to peer, et sur les modeles de societe qui peuvent en decouler, je suis convaincu que la facon dont on peut ameliorer les choses en matiere de business, d’enrichissement spirituel de l’individu au sein d’une entreprise, et de repartission des richesses en general est de passer par la creation d'entreprises qui seront construites sur des modeles nouveaux, ou les employes pourront participer activement et volontairement aux process et ou la distribution du revenu se fera de facon plus large, un peu sur le modele des stocks options qui sont distribuees aujourd'hui dans les start-ups de la Silicon Valley (mais avec un twist). Rien de radical, pas de revolution, plutot une evolution des modes de fonctionnement existants mais pour des resultats qui seront eux radicalement differents; l'entreprise de demain dont je parle dans un post precedent."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(under construction)

Abbate, Janet. Inventing the Internet. MIT Press, 1999.

Albert, Michael. Parecon. Verso, 2004

Arquila, John and David Ronfeldt. Eds. Networks and netwars. Rand Corporation, 2001

Barbrook, Richard. Media Freedom. Pluto, 1995

Bard, Alexander and Jan Soderqvist. Netocracy. Financial Times Prentice-Hall, 2002

Beck, Don and Christopher Cowan. Spiral Dynamics. Blackwell, 1996

Benasayag, Miguel. Du contre-pouvoir. La Decouverte, 2002

Boltanski, Luc and Eve Chiapello. Le Nouvel Esprit du Capitalisme. Gallimard, 1999

Braudel, Fernand. Wheels of Commerce. University of California Press, 1992

Campbell, June. Traveller in Space. Diane, 1996

Castoriadis, Cornelius. L'institution Imaginaire de la societe. Seuil, 1975

Chomski, Noam and Edward S. Herman. Manufacturing Consent. Pantheon, 2002

Coulter, Arthur. Synergetics. Prentice-Hall Trade, 1976

Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. Capitalisme et Schizophrenie. Tome 2: Milles Plateaux. Ed. De Minuit, 1980.

Dumont, Louis. Homo Hierarchicus: the caste system and its implications. University of Chicago Press, 1981

Elias, Norbert. La dynamique de l'occident. Calman-Levy, 1975

Feenberg, Andrew. 1) Critical Theory of Technology. Oxford University Press, 1991; – 2) Questioning Technology. Routledge, 1999

Ferrer, Jorge N. Revisioning Transpersonal Theory: A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality. SUNY, 2001

Fiske, Alan Page. Structures of Social Life. Free Press, 1993

Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge. Harvester Press, 1980.

Heron, John. Sacred Science. PCCS Books, 1998

Galloway, Alexander. Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization MIT Press, 2004

Gorz, Andre. L'Immateriel. Galilee, 2003

Haskell, Edward. Full Circle. Gordon and Breach, 1972

Himanen, Pekka. The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. Random House, 2002

Inglehart, Ronald. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press, 1989

Jackall, Robert. Moral Mazes. Oxford University Press, 1989.

Kane, Pat. The Play Ethic: A Manifesto for a Different Way of Living. Macmillan, 2003

Kramer, Joel and Diane Alstad. The Guru Papers. Frog, 1993

Lazzarato, Maurizio. Les Revolutions du Capitalisme.Les Empecheurs de Penser en Rond, 2004

Lessig, Lawrence. 1) The Future of Ideas. Vintage, 2002; 2) Free Culture. Penguin, 2004

McLuhan, M. Understanding media: the extensions of Man. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1994

Mumford, Lewis. Technics and Civilisation. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1934

Negri, Toni and Michael Hardt. Empire. Harvard University Press, 2001

Raymond, Eric. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. O’Reilly, 2001

Rifkin, Jeremy. The Age of Access. J.P. Tarcher, 2001

Ross, Andrew. No-Collar. The Humane Workplace and its Hidden Cost. Basic Books, 2001.

Sagot-Duvauroux, Jean-Louis. Pour la Gratuite. Desclee-De Brouwer, 1995

Sahlins, Marshall D. Stone Age Economics. Aldine, 1972

Schumpeter, Joseph. Essays on Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles, and the Evolution of Capitalism. Transaction Publishers, 1997

Skolimowski, Henryk. The Participatory Mind. Penguin, 1995

Skrbina, David. Panpsychism in the West. MIT Press, 2005

Stallman, Richard. Free Software, Free Society. Free Software Foundation, 2002

Stewart, John. Evolution’s Arrow. Chapman Press, 2000

Tuomi, Ilkka. Networks of Innovation. Oxford Press, 2003

Vercelonne, Carlo, dir. Sommes-nous sorti du capitalisme industriel? La Dispute, 2003

Vibert, Stephane. Louis Dumont: holisme et modernite. Michalon, 2004

von Hippel, Eric. The Democratization of Innovation. MIT Press, 2004

Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Essential Wallerstein. New Press, 2000

Wark, McKenzie. A Hacker Manifesto. Harvard University Press, 2004

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Routledge, 2001

Weber, Steve. The Success of Open Source. Harvard University Press, 2004

Wilber, Ken. A Theory of Everything. Shambhala, 2001

Zafirian, Philippe. A quoi sert le travail. La Dispute, 2003

to add and check:

Gunderson and Holling, Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature.