Last month
I was in London where I attempted a lecture by Michel Bauwens on peer-to-peer
dynamics. I wrote an article in Dutch for ‘De Wereld Morgen’, the main online
newspaper of ‘civil journalists’ (but it has a professional editorial board and
the project is financially supported by the trade unions). Fortunaletly, there
is a edited version of the lecture on vimeo.
P2P and the Commons as the new paradigm from David Nixon on Vimeo.
After the lecture, I contacted Michel for an interview that I want to publish here in the hope to start a constructive discussion on P2P and Marxism.
1. We all know examples of P2P in
the immaterial field: Linux, Wikipedia, Arduino. Can you give some examples of
P2P in the ‘real’, material world, i.e. in the field of production?
Arduino is
already an example touching on material production since the collaboratively
designed motherboards are already produced and sold on the market by companies
using the Arduino trademark. An example I really like is the Nutrient Dense
Project, a collaborative research network of farmers and citizen scientists
that directly use nutrient research in their own immediate production. One of
the most exciting areas is probably that of so-called open source cars, like
the Rallye Motor and the Darpa-funded XC2V marine assault vehicle, the latter
which is based on an input of more than 30,000 designs. The StreetScooter, an
electric car based on a corporate design commons with over 50 companies
participating is perhaps most exciting, since the orders have already rolled in
and the car should be driving in German cities by 2013. In the p2pfoundation
wiki section on Product Hacking (http://p2pfoundation.net/Product_Hacking), we've annotated nearly 300 open
hardware projects but they are just the tip of the iceberg. It helps to
distinguish the design phase, where crowd sourcing and collaboration are not
qualitatively different from software collaboration, from the phase of
'making', which would require an infrastructure for open and distributed
manufacturing which is only marginally available. But in the field of making we
have exciting developments towards shared material infrastructures such as
co-working and hacker spaces, product-service systems for car sharing and many
other services, and the miniaturization of production via 3D Printing and Fab
Labs, all of which also have open source versions and aspects.
2. You compare the transition from
capitalism to P2P with the transition from slavery to feudalism, or with
feudalism to capitalism. In both cases there was a mutual change from the top
and the bottom. In London you only dwelled on the first one: slaves leaving the
system and slave owners turning slaves into serves who were better off than
before, but what about the transition from feudalism to capitalism? There was
the birth of a new class and the transformation from noblemen to capitalists,
but you can hardly say that workers were better off than before. So where is
the positive change from the bottom?
A transition
from one form of unequal class society to another is always problematic for the
value producing classes at the bottom. One can argue that serfhood is an
inherently better position than slavery but it was still exploitation and
dominance, and many serfs had been free farmers before. The situation with
capitalism is not that different, though there was, and is, a lot of hardship,
the formal rights of workers are certainly an improvement, and at least for the
western working class, there has been for a long while, substantial material
improvement. But overall, the systems transitioned because the old system was no
longer sustainable and the new one was overall more efficient in creating
material riches. It all depends on the social contract and the relative
strength of the forces at play. Strong labour movements have tremendously
improved the situation of working people, and the situation in the Middle Ages
between the 10th and the 13th century was also one of improving living
standards. So the record is always mixed and the people themselves usually have
a pretty clear picture of what needs to be improved. For example, what worker
would want to a return to serfhood as a social condition? Since I have
difficulties in imagining a classless society myself, I see peer producers in
conflict with netarchical capital about their social condition, rights, and
material livelihoods, until the moment that peer producers become the core
social layer, and the commons the locus of core value creation. This is not a
scientific scenario with a certain and unavoidable ending but rather a
description of the field of tension in which peer production develops.
3. To continue this analogy: do
you see a new class arising under capitalism, or a sort of ‘enlightened
capitalists’ turning to open source (as described in Wikinomics)?
Increasingly
the commons is and will be the core of value creation, but value is still
essentially captured by market economy, and netarchical capital is the fraction
of capital which understands that change and want to profit from it. This means
they have both to enable and empower social production, but also subject it to
their own control, so that they can capture the value that is generated. The
first part forces them to a certain type of strategic behaviour that fosters
sharing, while the second requirement forces them to maintain a general context
of continued dominance. This is in essence the new social tension of the
emerging p2p age, between communities of peer producers and the platform
owners. The key for peer producers is to gain control of their own livelihoods
and social reproduction, and in my view this can best be done by creating their
own cooperative/corporate vehicles, which I call, following Neil Stephenson in
the Diamond Age and the lasindias.net suggestions, "Phyllis",
i.e. community-supportive entities that allow commoners to sustain their work
in the commons, and to substract it from the mainstream economy of
profit-maximization.
4. Can you see a parallel between
P2P and the cooperative movement born in the eighteenth century (utopian
socialism), or with the hippies and the communes in the sixties?
The communal
impulse is one of the permanent aspects of humanity, which ebbs and flows
according to social conditions, and I think we are witnessing a revival of this
impulse. However, there is a big difference, cooperative forms of organization
can now work around open design commons and become hyper-innovative, and can
obtain economies of scope to outcooperate shareholder-based multinations.
Cooperatives and intentional communities are therefore no longer 'dwarfish
forms' but actually the vanguard of the new p2p production system. If you
combine shared open innovation commons (instead of privatized intellectual
property which holds back innovation), with these new product-maximizing and
commons-maximizing entities, you can obtain a quantum leap in productivity.
This is why netarchical capitalists invest in platforms, and this is why the
alternative ethical economy needs to do the same, and if they do, they could
replace the for-profit corporation at the heart of our economy.
5. If you say that we need to
prepare an alternative to capitalism, is the P2P-movement not a sort of
‘escapism’?
Infinite growth
is not possible in a finite environment, and we are now reaching the limits of
growth. This means that capitalism is increasingly unable to grow its way
out of its problems and that the share of the 1% can only grow through
dispossion, and this is what we are now witness in Europe, with Greece an
advance example of what is in store for the working populations. So it is not a
matter of escapism, the old system is dying and will be replaced, but it could
be replaced by something worse, it could regress like in the early centuries
after the fall of the Roman Empire, or it could reorganize itself to a higher
level of achievement and complexity, which is what the p2p approach indicates.
6. You describe #Occupy as an
example of peer producing political commons. In what way is this different from
historical ‘anarchist’ or ‘communist’ movements like the Paris Commune,
Barcelona 1937, or perhaps even the Russian Revolution?
If you observe
an occupation, you see a community that is producing its politics autonomously,
not following hierarchical or authoritarian political movements with a
pre-ordained program; you see for-benefit institutions in charge of the
provisioning of the occupiers (food, healthcare), and the creation of an
ethical economy around it (such as Occupy's Street Vendor Project). This is
prefigurative of a new form of society in which the commons is at the core of
value creation; these commons' are maintained by non-profit institutions, and
the livelihoods are guaranteed through an ethical economy. Of course there are
historical precedents, but what is new is the extraordinary organisational,
mobilization and co-learning potential of their networks. Occupy works as an
open API with modules, such as 'protest camping', 'general assemblies', which
can be used as templates and modified by all, without the need for central
leadership. We can now have global coordination and mutual alignment of a
multitude of small-group dynamics, and this requires a new type of leadership. The
realization of historical moment of Peak Hierarchy, the moment in which
distributed networks asymmetrically challenge vertical institutions in a way
they could not do before, forces social movements to look for new ways of
governance... but these are not given, and have to be discovered
experimentally, and of course, there will be valuable lessons to learn
from predecessor movements!
8. In order for P2P to
really blossom, we need to get rid of intellectual property rights, copyrights,
patents, etc. How do you think we can achieve this?
I'm personally
not a pure abolitionist, because I believe a lot of artists and creators
believe in the necessity of author's rights, so I think we can do number
things. Bring back protection to reasonable amounts of time, no more than the
original 14 years of protection, or less, the Pirate Party proposes a five-year
limit. Next is to offer choice to creators, by popularising choice-based
licenses such as the Creative Commons. But the priority is to find new ways to
fund creation ... this can be done through collective licensing and other forms
of public funding, promoting and sustaining open business models, and
ultimately, through a basic income, which recognizes that, every citizen is a
value contributor and creator. These goals can be achieved partly through
the social innovation that results from peer production communities, who
are intensively experiment with open business models, and partly through
stronger social and political movements, such as the free culture movement, the
Pirate Parties, and other expressions of the new sharing culture.
9. It seems to me that P2P is
creating a sort of ‘whole new world’, but without any references or links to
the present political system. If Occupy represents an alternative was to engage
in politics, what is the link between peer politics and bourgeois democracy and
political parties?
That is a very
difficult question and results from a paradox. One is the increasing social
awareness that our present democracy is a facade, and that the state has been
taken over by a predatory financial faction, while classic politicians see no
other way out than to succumb to their blackmail. But the other side is that
people's freedoms and rights and private and social income is increasingly
under pressure, which leads to political and social mobilization as well as
effective policy engagement. The first aspect leads to continuous democratic
innovation from the new p2p culture, think about the peer governance mechanisms
in peer production communities; new inventions such as dynamic voting, and
while these mechanisms operate outside the mainstream, they are also embedded
in the new forms of value creation, new p2p social institutions, and therefore,
poised to grow. The second aspect leads to new political and social forces that
work within the present system, such as the emerging Pirate Party. In Brazil, I
heard that the vibrant Eixo do Foro cultural movement, which has a functioning
counter-economy around music, is also politicising and engaging with local
politics. The second leads to what I call diagonal politics, i.e. mutual
adaptation between emerging p2p forces and practices, and the old institutional
realities. To the degree that this is ineffective, it pushes from the solution
coming from the first aspect, i.e. prepares for a more radical and
revolutionary re-ordering of our institutions. Tellingly, a Swedish pirate
party member once wrote that the Pirate Party is the last chance to avoid
revolution. To the degree that the present system refuses adaptation, to that
degree they heighten the need and push for more radical transformations.
10. How do you estimate the
impact of P2P on the labour movement? Doesn’t it also undermine the
bureaucratic structures of workers organisations?
I'm in touch
with young labour and union activist who are strong believers in networked
labour movements and we also see how the Occupy movement has already
radicalized the U.S. labour movement. But ultimately, the old institutional and
hierarchical structure of the unions, as well as their increasing inability to
protect social achievements within the present regressive system, must also
lead to a profound renewal of the labour movement. In a way, the p2p movement
is actually an expression of the new dominant layer of cognitive workers, who
in the West are the mainstay of productive labour. P2P is their culture and
what needs to happen to do productive and useful work. In that sense, the P2P
movement is the new labour movement of the 21st century, with the Indignados
and Occupy as the first expression of that new labour but also civic,
sensibility.
11. You claim that P2P makes a new,
‘higher’ form of society possible. Before, that was not the case because the
technology did not exist. Marxists make this claim already for more than 150
years. Do you think they were wrong then, perhaps correct today, or it P2P
something ‘completely different’?
I consider
Marxism, and the other forms of socialism and anarchism, ultimately as an
expression of a dichotomy within the industrial capitalist system, and
proposing other logics to manage the industrial model. But P2P is the
expression of the evolving class and social dynamics under cognitive
capitalism. And while the former was essentially anti-capitalist, and could not
really point to a new hyperproductive model of organising production (socialism
was a hypothesis, and its real life examples inevitably disappointed,
there was no emergent socialism within capitalism and only 'state capitalism'
outside of it), what is different for the p2p movement is that it can point out
to already existing models that are outcooperating and outcompeting classic
capitalist models, i.e. it is already post-capitalist. Marx was right about
capitalism, but wrong about socialism and I believe the politically driven
model of social change, when not based on an existing prior new productive
model, was ill-conceived. The P2P movement is therefore poised to realize what
the 19th and 20th century social movements couldn't, because the
hyperproductive alternative was not available to them. The politics of P2P flow
from an already existing social practice, that is a really key difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment