Permalink
Browse files

Introducción, párrafo 1

  • Loading branch information...
fauno authored and mauriciopasquier committed Aug 31, 2013
1 parent 256229d commit 4e2b2ed55199c9daf805a5cf446958ba2c21444b
Showing with 85 additions and 63 deletions.
  1. +85 −63 _queue/parodia_de_los_comunes.markdown
@@ -78,72 +78,94 @@ institucionales y normativos".

## Introducción

It has been claimed that an increasing number of people are now able to
manage their political, social, and productive lives through a variety
of interdependent networks enabled by the Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) (Castells 2000, 2003; Benkler 2006; Bauwens 2005; Perez
2002). However, authors, such as Webster (2002a, 2002b), have argued
against the idea of an “information society”. They emphasise the
continuities of the current age with former capitalist-oriented social
and economic arrangements (Schiller 1981, 1984, 1996; Webster 2002a,
2002b). Kumar (1995, 154) maintains that the information explosion
“has not produced a radical shift in the way industrial societies
are organized” to conclude that “the imperatives of profit, power
and control seem as predominant now as they have ever been in the
history of capitalist industrialism”. In addition, Berry (2008, 369)
postulates that scholars such as Benkler (2006) fail to recognise the
extent to which network forms of production “will be co-opted into
mainstream 'industrial' ways of production”. Through several cases of
successful networked-based, collaborative projects such as free software
or Wikipedia, we see the emergence of new ‘‘technological-economic
feasibility spaces’’ for social practice (Benkler 2006, 31). These
feasibility spaces include different social and economic arrangements,
in contrast to what Kumar and Webster claim, where profit, power,
and control do not seem as predominant as they have been in the
history of modern capitalism. Benkler (2006) has argued that from this
new communicational environment a new social productive model, i.e.,
Commons-based peer production, is emerging different from the industrial
one. Peer production, exemplified by various free software (GNU, the Linux
kernel, KDE) and free content (Wikipedia) projects, makes information
sharing more important than the value of proprietary strategies and
allows for large-scale information production efforts (Benkler 2006). In this context, peer production could
be considered an early seed form stage of a new mode of production
It has been claimed that an increasing number of people are now able
to manage their political, social, and productive lives through
a variety of interdependent networks enabled by the Information
and Communication Technologies (ICT) (Castells 2000, 2003; Benkler
2006; Bauwens 2005; Perez 2002). However, authors, such as Webster
(2002a, 2002b), have argued against the idea of an “information
society”. They emphasise the continuities of the current age with
former capitalist-oriented social and economic arrangements (Schiller
1981, 1984, 1996; Webster 2002a, 2002b). Kumar (1995, 154) maintains
that the information explosion “has not produced a radical shift in
the way industrial societies are organized” to conclude that “the
imperatives of profit, power and control seem as predominant now as
they have ever been in the history of capitalist industrialism”. In
addition, Berry (2008, 369) postulates that scholars such as Benkler
(2006) fail to recognise the extent to which network forms of production
“will be co-opted into mainstream 'industrial' ways of production”.

Se ha dicho que un número creciente de personas son ahora capaces de
administrar sus vidas políticas, sociales y productivas a través de una
variedad de redes interdependientes habilitadas por las Tecnologías de
la Información y la Comunicación (TICs) [@castells-2000; @castells-2003;
@benkler-2006; @bauwens-2005; @perez-2002]. Sin embargo, autores como
Webster [-@webster-2002a; -@webster-2002b] se oponen a la idea de una
"sociedad de la información". Enfatizan en cambio la continuidad de la
era actual con antiguos arreglos socioeconómicos capitalistas
[@schiller-1981; @schiller-1984; @schiller-1996; @webster-2002a;
@webster-2002b]. Kumar [-@kumar-1995, pp. 154] sostiene que la
explosión de la información "no ha producido un cambio radical en la
forma en que se organizan las sociedades industriales" para concluir que
"los imperativos del lucro, el poder y el control parecen tan
predominantes ahora como lo han sido durante toda la historia del
industrialismo capitalista". Además, Berry [-@berry-2008, pp. 369]
postula que académicos como Benkler [-@benkler-2006] fallan en reconocer
la extensión en que las formas de producción en red "serán cooptadas en
las formas de producción 'industrial' hegemónicas".

Through several cases of successful networked-based, collaborative
projects such as free software or Wikipedia, we see the emergence of
new ‘‘technological-economic feasibility spaces’’ for social practice
(Benkler 2006, 31). These feasibility spaces include different social
and economic arrangements, in contrast to what Kumar and Webster claim,
where profit, power, and control do not seem as predominant as they
have been in the history of modern capitalism. Benkler (2006) has
argued that from this new communicational environment a new social
productive model, i.e., Commons-based peer production, is emerging
different from the industrial one. Peer production, exemplified by
various free software (GNU, the Linux kernel, KDE) and free content
(Wikipedia) projects, makes information sharing more important than the
value of proprietary strategies and allows for large-scale information
production efforts (Benkler 2006). In this context, peer production
could be considered an early seed form stage of a new mode of production
enabled through Internet-based coordination where decisions arise from
the free engagement and cooperation of the people. They coalesce to
create common value without recourse to monetary compensation as key
motivating factor (Bauwens 2005; Orsi 2009; Kostakis 2013). Our take is
that peer production is a social advancement within capitalism but with
various post-capitalistic aspects, in need of protection, enforcement,
stimulation and connection with progressive social movements around
Commons-oriented policy platforms. As “Commons” we understand the
cultural and natural resources, which are held in common (not owned
privately) and remain accessible to all members of a society (see Ostrom
1990; Hardt and Negri 2011; Bollier 2009). In this essay, our point of
departure is the digital Commons (knowledge, software, design) since peer
production was first noticed in the information sphere of production. We
consider the “Commons” a third sector alongside the market and the
state, which conceptualises the deep affinities amongst several forms
of collaboration and helps validate their distinctive social dynamics
as significant forces in economic and cultural production (Bollier in
Laisne et al. 2010). The term “peer production” or “peer-to-peer
production” originates from the innovative nature of peer-to-peer (P2P)
networking architecture that enabled the advent of the Internet. The
introduction of P2P architecture in the social relations of production and
exchange of goods and services is based on the idea that every networked
community, just like every networked node, becomes a “server” to
satisfy the needs of other communities, as well as a “client” to
satisfy its own. Peer production operates on a non-competitive, synergetic
basis leading to an optimal distribution of resources (Benkler 2006;
Bauwens 2005, 2009). The traditional market approach with its pricing
mechanism has mostly been unable to achieve such optimal allocations due
to productive information asymmetry whereas peer production maximises
the access to information. Contrary to the traditional economic thought,
in peer production we become witnesses of consumer/producer dichotomy's
motivating factor (Bauwens 2005; Orsi 2009; Kostakis 2013). Our take
is that peer production is a social advancement within capitalism
but with various post-capitalistic aspects, in need of protection,
enforcement, stimulation and connection with progressive social
movements around Commons-oriented policy platforms. As “Commons” we
understand the cultural and natural resources, which are held in
common (not owned privately) and remain accessible to all members of
a society (see Ostrom 1990; Hardt and Negri 2011; Bollier 2009). In
this essay, our point of departure is the digital Commons (knowledge,
software, design) since peer production was first noticed in the
information sphere of production. We consider the “Commons” a third
sector alongside the market and the state, which conceptualises the
deep affinities amongst several forms of collaboration and helps
validate their distinctive social dynamics as significant forces in
economic and cultural production (Bollier in Laisne et al. 2010). The
term “peer production” or “peer-to-peer production” originates from
the innovative nature of peer-to-peer (P2P) networking architecture
that enabled the advent of the Internet. The introduction of P2P
architecture in the social relations of production and exchange of
goods and services is based on the idea that every networked community,
just like every networked node, becomes a “server” to satisfy the needs
of other communities, as well as a “client” to satisfy its own. Peer
production operates on a non-competitive, synergetic basis leading
to an optimal distribution of resources (Benkler 2006; Bauwens 2005,
2009). The traditional market approach with its pricing mechanism
has mostly been unable to achieve such optimal allocations due to
productive information asymmetry whereas peer production maximises the
access to information. Contrary to the traditional economic thought, in
peer production we become witnesses of consumer/producer dichotomy's
collapse towards a new understanding in the form of the “multitude”
(Hardt and Negri 2001), “prosumers” (Toffler and Toffler 2006),
“produsers” (Bruns 2008), or “user-innovation communities” (von
Hippel 2005). Further, it has been shown (Benkler 2002, 2006; Bauwens
2005) how peer production, given certain resources, optimally exploits the
“produsers” (Bruns 2008), or “user-innovation communities” (von Hippel
2005). Further, it has been shown (Benkler 2002, 2006; Bauwens 2005)
how peer production, given certain resources, optimally exploits the
skills and abilities of the producers involving participatory ownership
structures, participatory learning and decision-making (Fuchs 2013).
Whereas the firm binds by contract only a fraction of capabilities,
@@ -165,8 +187,8 @@ we discuss how the emancipatory promise of the (digital) Commons and of
peer production can evolve into a parody bringing to the fore the case
of free software. To tackle the threat of the Commons' full absorption
as well as of the underpinning peer-to-peer relations into the dominant
mode of production, we conclude by arguing in favour of a certain working
agenda for Commons-based communities.
mode of production, we conclude by arguing in favour of a certain
working agenda for Commons-based communities.

1. From the Tragedy to the Parody of the Commons Benkler (2006)
postulates his assumptions about the conditions for the development of

0 comments on commit 4e2b2ed

Please sign in to comment.