[fyeg_gen-l] article - Part 2 : Peer-to-Peer Governance, Democracy And Economic Vision: P2P As A Way Of Living

Dante-Gabryell Monson dante.monson at gmail.com
Mon Oct 29 10:45:53 CET 2007


Peer-to-Peer Governance, Democracy And Economic Vision:
<http://www.masternewmedia.org/information_access/p2p-peer-to-peer-economy/peer--to-peer-governance-production-property-part-2-Michel-Bauwens-20071020.htm>P2P
As A Way Of Living
<http://www.masternewmedia.org/information_access/p2p-peer-to-peer-economy/peer--to-peer-governance-production-property-part-2-Michel-Bauwens-20071020.htm>-
Part 2<http://www.masternewmedia.org/information_access/p2p-peer-to-peer-economy/peer--to-peer-governance-production-property-part-2-Michel-Bauwens-20071020.htm>October
27, 2007

Summary :

*- Intro by Robin Good

*- The Political Implications of the Peer to Peer Revolution – Part 2*
by Michel Bauwens :*

5.) P2P Theory as the Emancipatory Possibility of the Age

6.) Peer Governance and Democracy
7.) Towards a Partner State Approach8.) A Renewed Progressive Policy
Centered Around the Sustenance of the Commons

9.) Conclusion: What Needs To Be Done?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*"Our current political
economy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy>is based on a
fundamental mistake. It is based on the assumption that
natural resources are unlimited, and that it is an endless sink.*

[image: p2p-cooperation-id5561121_size480.jpg]
Photo credit: Maxim
Malevich<http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=profile&l=MaleWitch>

*This false assumption creates artificial
scarcity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity>for potentially
abundant <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_%28economics%29> cultural
resources. *

*This combination of quasi-abundance and quasi-scarcity destroys the
biosphere <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere> and hampers the expansion
of social innovation and a free culture.
In a P2P-based society<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/02/20/p2pbased_economy_the_political_power.htm>,
this situation is reversed: the limits of natural resources are recognized,
and the abundance of immaterial resources becomes the core operating
principle. The vision of P2P
theory<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/category/p2p-theory/>is the
following:
*

   1. *the core intellectual, cultural and spiritual value will be
   produced through non-reciprocal peer
production<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_production>
   ;*
   2. *it is surrounded by a reformed, peer-inspired, sphere of material
   exchange;*
   3. *it is globally managed by a peer-inspired and reformed state and
   governance system.*

*Because of these characteristics, peer to peer can be said to be the core
logic of the successor civilization, and is a answer and solution to the
structural crisis of contemporary
capitalism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism>
."*

*In this second part of* P2P as a Way of Living (first part
here<http://www.masternewmedia.org/information_access/p2p-peer-to-peer-economy/peer--to-peer-governance-production-property-part-1-Michel-Bauwens-20071020.htm>),
peer-to-peer planetary evangelist Michel Bauwens looks at the political and
economic foundations of peer-to-peer governance and democracy concepts of
peer governance, production and property, analyzing their traits and
characteristics.

By deeply questioning the false assumptions on which our present economic
and political systems are based one can easily see how critical a change
would be if governments were to become partners rather than controllers and
enslavers, and if peer communities were provided with the economic means to
support their social cooperation efforts.

Again, adoption of alternative monetary systems, taking away some of the
extraordinary controls that private organizations have taken over the issue
of money and providing the basic resources for all individuals according to
their natural vocations and passions rather toward than being enslaved by
economic and production mechanisms that alienate them, is the future for
which I am here for.

As I wrote before, let me re-iterate: "*Peer to peer governance, if
supported by new socio-economic regulations, including a universal subsidy
to all, could be the means by which individuals would be able to govern
themselves while engaging in the pursuit of their best interests and
passions.*"
*Intro by Robin Good*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Political Implications of the Peer to Peer Revolution – Part 2

*by Michel Bauwens*



5. P2P Theory as the Emancipatory Possibility of the Age

[image: economy-id586770_size220.jpg]
Photo credit: Kostantin
Inozemtev<http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=profile&l=Kosta_Ino>

Indeed, because an infinite growth system is a logic and physical
impossibility with a limited natural environment, the current world system
is facing a structural crisis for its extensive growth. Currently consuming
'two planets', it would need four planets if China and India would obtain
equity with the current Western levels of
consumption<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_%28economics%29>.
Because of the ecological and resource crisis that this causes, the system
is ultimately limited in its extensive expansion.

However, its dream for intensive development in the immaterial sphere is
equally blocked, since the sphere of abundance and direct social production
of value through peer production, creates an exponential growth in use
value, but only say a linear growth in the market opportunities in its
margins <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism>.

*The current world system is facing a similar crisis to that of the*
slave-based
Roman Empire <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire>, which could no
longer grow extensively (at some point the cost of expansion is greater than
the benefits of added productivity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity>),
but could not grow intensively either, since that would demand autonomy for
the slaves. Hence, the feudal
system<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_system>emerged, which
refocused on the local, where it could become much more
productive and grow 'intensively'. Serfs, which were tied to the land but
now had families, a fixed part of their produce, and a much lighter taxation
load, were substantially more productive than slaves. The lords took a
substantially lesser part of the surplus. Today, extensive growth is
ultimately blocked, but intensive growth in the immaterial sphere requires a
substantial reconfiguration which largely transcends the current system
logic.

Similarly, the current structural crisis causes a reconfiguration of the two
main classes (just as the slave owners had to become feudal lords, and the
slaves had to become serfs).

At present, we see the emergence of a netarchical class of capital owners,
who are renouncing their dependence on the present regime of immaterial
accumulation through intellectual
property<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property>,
in favour of a role as enablers of social participation through proprietary
platforms, which cleverly combine open and closed elements so as to ensure a
measure of control and profit, while knowledge workers are reconfiguring
from a class that was dissociated from the means of production, to one that
is no longer dissociated from its means of production, as their brains and
the networks are now their socialized means of
production<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production>.
(However, they are still largely dissociated from autonomous means of
monetization.) It would be fair to say that currently, peer production
communities are collectively sustainable, but not individually, leading to a
crisis of value and widespread precarity amongst knowledge workers.

The solution would in my opinion point in the following direction:

   1. *the private sector
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector>*recognizes its
increasing dependence on the positive
   externalizations <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalization> of
   social cooperation, and together with the public authorities, agrees to a
   new historical compromise in the form of a basic income; this allows the
   sphere of cooperation to thrive even more, creating market benefits
   2. *the sphere of the market* is dissociated from infinite-growth
   capitalism (how this can be done would require a separate article, but the
   key would be a macro <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroeconomic>-monetary
   reform such as those proposed by Bernard
Lietaer<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lietaer>,
   associated with a new regime that extends the production of money from
   private banks to the social field, through open money
systems<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_system>
   )
   3. *the sphere of peer production* creates appropriate 'wealth
   acknowledgment systems' to recognize those that sustain its existence, and
   systems exist which can translate that reputational wealth in income.



6. Peer Governance and Democracy

[image: government_id240641_size250.jpg]
Photo credit: Jarno
Gonzalez<http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=profile&l=jarnogz>

As peer to peer technical and social infrastructures such as sociable media
and self-directed teams are emerging to become an important if not dominant
format for the changes induced by cognitive
capitalism<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/category/cognitive-capitalism/>,
the peer to peer relational dynamic will increasingly have political
effects.

As a reminder, the p2p relational dynamic arises wherever there are
distributed networks, i.e. networks where
agents<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_agent>are free to
undertake actions and relationships, and where there is an
absence of overt coercion so that governance modes are emerging from the
bottom-up. It creates processes such as peer production, the common
production of value; peer
governance<http://www.masternewmedia.org/information_access/p2p-peer-to-peer-economy/peer--to-peer-governance-production-property-part-1-Michel-Bauwens-20071020.htm>,
i.e. the self-governance of such projects; and peer property, the
auto-immune system which prevents the private appropriation of the common.

*It is important to distinguish* the peer governance of a multitude of small
but coordinated global groups, which choose non-representational processes
in which participants co-decide on the projects, from representative
democracy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy>. The
latter is a decentralized form of power-sharing based on
elections<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections>and representatives.
Since society is not a peer group with an a priori
consensus, but rather a decentralized structure of competing groups,
representative democracy cannot be replaced by peer governance.

However, both modes will influence and accommodate to each other. Peer
projects which evolve beyond a certain scale and start facing issues of
decisions about scarce <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity> resources,
will probably adapt some representational mechanisms. Representative and
bureaucratic decision-making can and will in some places be replaced by
global governance networks which may be self-governed to a large extent, but
in any case, it will and should incorporate more and more
multistakeholder<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory>models,
which strives to include as participants in decision-making, all
groups that could be affected by such actions. This group-based partnership
model is different, but related in spirit, to the individual-based peer
governance, because they share an ethos
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos>of participation.



7. Towards a Partner State Approach

[image: partner_id2406681_size255.jpg]

Photo credit: Juri
Arcurs<http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=profile&l=logos>

Partner state policy is an approach in which the state enables and empowers
user communities to create value themselves, and which also focuses on the
elimination of obstacles.

*The fundamental change in approach is the following.*

In the modern view, individuals were seen as atomized. They were believed to
be in need of a social contract that delegated authority to a
sovereign<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign>in order to create
society, and in need of socialization by institutions
that addressed them as an undifferentiated mass. In the new view however,
individuals are always-already connected with their peers, and looking at
institutions in such a peer-informed way.
Institutions<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions>therefore, will
have to evolve to become support
ecologies <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologies>, devising ways to create
infrastructures of support.

The politicians become interpreters and experts, which can guide the issues
emerging out of civil society based networks into the institutional realm.

The state <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State> becomes a at least neutral
(or better yet: commons-favorable) arbiter, i.e. the meta-regulator of the
three realms, and retreats from the binary state/privatisation dilemma to
the triarchical choice for an optimal mix between:

   1. *government regulation, *
   2. *private market freedom, and*
   3. *autonomous civil society projects.*

A partner state recognizes that the law of asymmetric
competition<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/how-the-law-of-asymmetric-competition-should-affect-innovation-policy/2007/08/10>dictates
that it has to support social innovation to it utmost ability.

An example I recently encountered was the work of the municipality of
Brest<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brest%2C_France>,
in French Brittany. There, the "Local Democracy" section of the city, under
the leadership of Michel Briand <http://www.a-brest.net/auteur2.html>, makes
available online infrastructures, training modules, and physical
infrastructure for sharing (cameras, sound equipment, etc…), so that local
individuals and groups, can create cultural and social projects on their
own. For example, the Territoires Sonores
project<http://www.a-brest.net/auteur2.html?recherche=Territoires+Sonores&page=recherche&lang=fr>allows
for the creation by the public of audio and video files to enrich
custom trails, which is therefore neither produced by a private company, nor
by the city itself. In other words, the public authority in this case
enables and empowers the direct social production of value.

The peer to peer
dynamic<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/03/06/p2p_economics_a_design_vision.htm>,
and the thinking and experimentation it inspires, does not just present a
third form for the production of social value, it also produces also new
forms of institutionalization and regulation, which could be fruitfully
explored and/or applied.
Indeed, from civil society emerges a new institutionalization, the
commons<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good>,
which is a distinct new form of regulation and property.

*Unlike private property*, *which is*
exclusionary<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule>,
and unlike state property, in which the collective 'expropriates' the
individual; by contrast in the form of the commons, the individual retains
his sovereignty, but has voluntarily shared it.

Only the commons-based property approach recognizes knowledge's propensity
to flow everywhere, while the proprietary property regime requires a radical
fight against that natural propensity. This makes it likely that the
commons-format will be adopted as the more competitive solution.

In terms of the institutionalization of these new forms of common
property, Peter
Barnes <http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2QIFHX7ZVDS1N>, in his
important book Capitalism
3.0<http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-3-0-Reclaiming-Commons-Currents/dp/1576753611>,
explains how national parks and environmental commons (such as a proposed
Skytrust), could be run by trusts, who have the obligation to retain all
(natural) capital intact, and through a one man/one vote/one they would be
in charge of preserving common natural resources. This could become an
accepted alternative to both
nationalization<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization>and
deregulation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation>/privatization<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization>
.

I would surmise that in a successor civilization, where the peer-to-peer
logic is the core logic of value creation, the commons is the central
institution that drives the meta-system, and the market is a peer-informed
sub-system that deals with the production of rival physical products, along
with a pluralist economy that is augmented with a variety of
reciprocity-based schemes.



8. A Renewed Progressive Policy Centered Around the Sustenance of the
Commons

[image: sustain_commons_235-o.jpg]
Photo credit: BoingBoing<http://www.boingboing.net/images/creative-commies.gif>

What does it mean for the emancipatory traditions that emerged from the
industrial era?

I believe it could have 2 positive effects:

   1. *a dissociation of the automatic link* with bureaucratic government
   modalities (which does not mean that it is not appropriate in certain
   circumstances); proposals can be formulated which directly support the
   development of the Commons
   2. *a dissociation from its alternative*: deregulation/privatization;
   support for the Commons and peer production means that there is an
   alternative from both
neoliberal<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal>privatization, and
the
   Blairite <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blairite> introduction of
   private logics in the public sphere.

The progressive movements can thereby become informational rather than a
modality of industrial
society<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_society>.


Instead of defending the industrial status quo, it becomes again an
offensive force (say: striving for an equity-based information society),
more closely allied with the open/free, participatory, commons-oriented
forces and movements.

*These three social movements have arisen* because of the need for an
efficient social reproduction of peer production and the commons.

   - *Open and free movements* want to insure that there is raw material
   for free cultural production and appropriation, and fight against the
   monopoly rents accorded to capital, as it now restricts innovation. They
   work on the input side of the equation.
   - *Participatory movements* want to ensure that anybody can use his
   specific combination of skills to contribute to common projects, and work on
   lowering the technical, social and political thresholds; finally,
   - *the Commons movement* works on preserving the common from private
   appropriation, so that its social reproduction is insured, and the
   circulation of the common can go on unimpeded, as it is the Commons which in
   turn creates new layers of open and free raw material.

These various movement come in the usual three flavours:

   1. *transgressive movements*, such as young and old
filesharers<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesharing>,
   which show that the legal regime has to be changed
   2. *constructive movements*, which create a framework for new types of
   social relationships, such as the Creative Commons
movement<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons>,
   the free software
movement<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement>,
   etc…
   3. *reformist or radical attempts to change* the institutional regime
   and adapt it to the new realities

I personally believe that these movements will not create new political
parties <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties>, but that these
networks of networks will indeed look for political liaison.

While peer-to-peer is a regime that combines equality and liberty and
therefore potentially combines elements from various sides of the political
spectrum, I believe the left is particularly apt to forge an alliance with
the new desires and demands of these movements.

There is also a connection with the environmental movement. While the
culturally-oriented movements fight against the artificial scarcities
induced by the restrictive regimes of copyright
law<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law>and patent
law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_law>, the environmental movement
fights against the artificial abundance created by unrestricted market
logics. The removal of pseudo-abundance and pseudo-scarcity are exactly what
needs to happen to make our human civilization sustainable at this stage. As
has been stressed by Richard
Stallman<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman>and others, the
copyright and patent regimes are explicitly intended to
inhibit the free cooperation and cultural flow between creative humans, and
are just as pernicious to the further development of humanity as the
biospheric destruction.

*There is therefore a huge potential* for such a renewed movement for human
emancipation to become aligned with the values of a new generation of youth,
and achieve the long-term advantage that the Republicans had achieved since
the 80s.




9. Conclusion: What Needs To Be Done?

[image: to-do-list_id851586_size210.jpg]
Photo credit: Nicemonkey<http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=profile&l=Nicemonkey>

Let's recall some of our points, and see how the movement against artificial
scarcity and for sustainability intersect.

*We live in a political economy that has it exactly backwards.* We believe
that our natural world is infinite, and therefore that we can have an
economic system based on infinite growth. But since the material world is
finite, it is based on pseudo-abundance.

And then we believe that we should introduce artificial scarcities in the
world of immaterial production, impeding the free flow of culture and social
innovation, which is based on free cooperation, by creating the obstacle of
permissions and intellectual property rents protected by the state.

*What we need instead is a political economy based on* a true notion of
scarcity in the material realm, and a realization of abundance in the
immaterial realm.

*Complex innovation needs creative and autonomous workers* that are not
impeded in their ability to share and learn from each other.

In the world of immaterial production, of software, text and design, the costs
of reproduction <http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/REPRODUCTIONCOST> are
marginal and therefore we see emerging in it non-reciprocal peer production,
where people voluntary engage in the direct creation of use value, profiting
from the resulting commons in a general way, but without specific
reciprocity.

In the world of material production, where we have scarcity, and costs have
to be recouped, such non-reciprocity is not possible, and therefore we need
modes of neutral exchange such as the markets, or other modes of
reciprocity.

In the sphere of immaterial production, humanity is learning the laws of
abundance, because non-rival goods
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalrous>win in value through sharing.

*In this world*, we are evolving towards non-proprietary licenses,
participatory modes of production, and commons-oriented property forms.
Positive forms of affinity based retribalization are emerging. But in the
world of scarce material goods, a series of scarcity crises are brewing,
global warming being just one of them, that is creating the emergence of
negative forms of competitive tribalization.

The logic of abundance has the potential of leading us to a reorganization
of our world to a level of higher complexity, moved principally by the peer
to peer logic.

The logic of scarcity has the potential of leading us to generalized wars
for resources, to a descent to a lower form of complexity, a new dark age as
was the case after the disintegration of the Roman
Empire<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire>
.

*So the challenge is* to use the emergent logic of abundance, and inject it
into the world of scarcity.



*Is that a realistic possibility?*

In the immaterial world of abundance, sharing is non-problematic, and the
further emergence and expansion of non-reciprocal modes of production will
be very likely. "*Together we know everything*", is a rather achievable
ideal.

In the material world of scarcity, abundance is translated into three key
concepts that can change human consciousness and therefore economic
practices. The notion of '*together we have everything*' seems not quite
achievable, we therefore need transitional concepts.



*1) The first concept is the distribution of everything.*

This means that instead of abundance, we have a slicing up of physical
resources and the physical means of production, so that individuals can
freely engage and act. This means an economy that moves towards a vision of
peer-informed market modes such as fair trade (a market mechanism subjected
to peer arbitrage of producers and consumers seen as partners), social
entrepreneurship (using profit for conscious social progress).

Objective tendencies towards miniaturization of the physical means of
production makes this a distinct possibility: desktop manufacturing enables
individual designers; rapid manufacturing and tooling are diminishing the
advantages of scale of industrial production, and so do personal
fabricators. Social lending creates a distribution of financial capital; and
the direct social production of money through software is not far away from
being realized in various parts of the world (see the work of Bernard
Lietaer); If indeed scarcity will create more expensive energy and raw
material, a re-localisation of production is likely, and peer-informed modes
of production will be enabled to a much greater extent.



*2) The second concept is sustainability.*

Since an infinite growth system cannot last indefinitely, we need to move to
new market concepts as described by the throught schools of natural
capitalism (David Korten <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Korten>, Paul
Hawken <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hawken>, Hazel
Henderson<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Henderson>),
capitalism 3.0<http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-3-0-Reclaiming-Commons-Currents/dp/1576753611>(Peter
Barnes <http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2QIFHX7ZVDS1N>' proposal to
use trust as property forms because they impose the preservation of
capital), cradle to cradle design and production processes so that no waste
is generated. We need to move to a steady-state economy (Herman
Daly<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Daly>),
which is not necessarily static, but where greater output from nature, is
dependent on our ability to regenerate the same resources.



*3) The third concept is that of sufficiency or 'plenty'.*

Abundance has not just an objective side, it has a subjective side as well.
In the material economy, infinite growth needs to be replaced by
sufficiency, a realization that status and human happiness can no longer be
dependent on infinite material accumulation and overconsumption, but will
become dependent on immaterial accumulation and growth. Having enough so
that we can pursue meaning and status through our identity as creative and
collaborative individuals, recognized in our various peer communities.

Only a rich experience economy can avoid a culture of frustration and
sacrifice, and the repressions and unhappiness that such could entail. This
experience economy however, will not just be created by commercial
franchises <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchising>, but there will also
be the direct social production of cultural value. Businesses and peer
communities, enabled and empowered by a partner state, will have to create a
rich tapestry of immaterial value, and the thicker the surrounding
immaterial value of being, the lighter our attachment to mere having will
be.



End Of Part 2

Here you'll find Part
1<http://www.masternewmedia.org/information_access/p2p-peer-to-peer-economy/peer--to-peer-governance-production-property-part-1-Michel-Bauwens-20071020.htm>
.



Originally written by Michel
Bauwens<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Bauwens>and first
published by Master
New Media <http://www.masternewmedia.org/> as "Peer-to-Peer Governance,
Production And Property: P2P As A Way Of Living - Part
2<http://www.masternewmedia.org/information_access/p2p-peer-to-peer-economy/peer--to-peer-governance-production-property-part-2-Michel-Bauwens-20071027.htm>
"




*About the autor*

[image: bauwens.jpg]

Michel Bauwens (1958) is a Belgian integral
philosopher<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_theory>and
Peer-to-Peer theorist. He has worked as an internet consultant,
information analyst for the United States Information
Agency<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Information_Agency>,
information manager for British Petroleum
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP>(where he created one of the first
virtual information centers), and is
former editor-in-chief of the first European digital convergence magazine,
the Dutch language
Wave<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wave_%28journal%29&action=edit>.
With Frank Theys<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Theys&action=edit>,
he is the co-creator of a 3 hour documentary *TechnoCalyps*, an examination
of the 'metaphysics of technology'. He taught and edited two French language
anthologies on the Anthropology of Digital Society.

Although a student of Ken Wilber <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber>'s
integral theory for many years, he has recently become critical of aspects
of the Wilber-Beck <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Beck> movement, and is
a powerful voice for a non-authoritarian peer-to-peer based integral
society.

Michel is the author of a number of on-line essays, including a seminal
thesis Peer to Peer and Human
Evolution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_to_Peer_and_Human_Evolution>,
and is editor of P2P News <http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p>

He now lives in Chiang Mai, Thailand<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Mai>,
where he created the Foundation for P2P
Alternatives<http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Main_Page>and
maintains
a blog <http://blog.p2pfoundation.com/>.

He has taught courses on the anthropology of digital society to postgraduate
students at ICHEC/St. Louis in Brussels, Belgium and related courses at Payap
University<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Payap_University&action=edit>and
Chiang
Mai University <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Mai_University> in
Thailand.




*Michel Bauwens -
Reference: P2P Foundation <http://p2pfoundation.net/>*





posted by *Robin Good* on *Saturday, October 27* 2007
updated on *Saturday, October 27* 2007








Readers' Comments
Click here to post a
comment!<http://www.masternewmedia.org/comments/comment.php?entry_id=8047#post>






 Related Articles



October 20, 2007
Peer-to-Peer Governance, Production And Property: P2P As A Way Of Living -
Part 1<http://www.masternewmedia.org/information_access/p2p-peer-to-peer-economy/peer--to-peer-governance-production-property-part-1-Michel-Bauwens-20071020.htm>


<http://www.masternewmedia.org/information_access/p2p-peer-to-peer-economy/peer--to-peer-governance-production-property-part-1-Michel-Bauwens-20071020.htm>
Markets
may be changing from a logic of pure capitalism (making commodities for
exchange, so as to increase capital), to logics where the logic of exchange
is subsumed to the logic of partnership. Photo credit: Maxim Malevich There
is now a thriving field of social cooperation, which... read
more<http://www.masternewmedia.org/information_access/p2p-peer-to-peer-economy/peer--to-peer-governance-production-property-part-1-Michel-Bauwens-20071020.htm>



September 29, 2006
Network Collaboration: Peer To Peer As A New Way Of Living - Video Interview
with Michel Bauwens<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm>


<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm>
Network
Collaboration is redefining the way we communicate, publish, do business and
build collective knowledge, and it has been made possible with the advent of
free or affordable peer to peer technologies. Peer to peer, as a term, has
often been associated with online file sharing networks,... read
more<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm>



March 6, 2006
P2P Economics: A Design Vision For A Commons-Based Distributed
Marketplace<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/03/06/p2p_economics_a_design_vision.htm>


<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/03/06/p2p_economics_a_design_vision.htm>
Michel
Bauwens concludes his major essay on P2P economics by looking at the
opportunities that would lead the economics of peer to peer to become
increasingly important forces in the emerging new rich marketplaces created
by information surplus, distributed technology, and by those instances where
the... read more<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/03/06/p2p_economics_a_design_vision.htm>



February 27, 2006
P2P Economic Potential As An Alternative Production
Approach<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/02/27/p2p_economic_potential_as_an.htm>


<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/02/27/p2p_economic_potential_as_an.htm>
Michel
Bauwens takes us further in this explorative journey into better
understanding the true nature, characteristics and potential value of
peer-to-peer (P2P). Photo credit: Neil Gould In this essay (part II of three
- part I ) he explores P2P as an alternative production modality, and gives
useful... read more<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/02/27/p2p_economic_potential_as_an.htm>



February 20, 2006
P2P-Based Economy: The Political Power Of Peer-To-Peer
Networks<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/02/20/p2pbased_economy_the_political_power.htm>


<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/02/20/p2pbased_economy_the_political_power.htm>
Not
since Marx identified the manufacturing plants of Manchester as the
blueprint for the new capitalist society has there been a deeper
transformation of the fundamentals of our social life. Photo credit: Joseph
Zlomek As political, economic, and social systems transform themselves into
distributed networks, a new... read
more<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/02/20/p2pbased_economy_the_political_power.htm>



October 28, 2005
P2P Future Driven By Open-Source And Social
Forces<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2005/10/28/p2p_future_driven_by_opensource.htm>


<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2005/10/28/p2p_future_driven_by_opensource.htm>
It's
been six months since the Supreme Court ruling, during which time Kazaa was
kablammed Down Under and the music biz became more aggressive with cease and
desist letters to major P2P developers. So where is P2P heading? ... Nowhere
new. Let's look at the leading candidates. Photo... read
more<http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2005/10/28/p2p_future_driven_by_opensource.htm>











 Recommended Books


From P2P to Web Services and Grids: Peers in a Client/Server
World<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1852338695%3ftag=masternewmedi%26link_code=xm2%26camp=2025%26dev-t=D291Y9X6FSA21J>
*Ian J. Taylor, Andrew Harrison*
*Amazon Price:* $55.21



Peer-to-Peer : Harnessing the Power of Disruptive
Technologies<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/059600110X%3ftag=masternewmedi%26link_code=xm2%26camp=2025%26dev-t=D291Y9X6FSA21J>
*Andy Oram*
*Amazon Price:* $19.77



P2P: How Peer-to-Peer Technology Is Revolutionizing the Way We Do
Business<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0793148782%3ftag=masternewmedi%26link_code=xm2%26camp=2025%26dev-t=D291Y9X6FSA21J>
*Hassan M. Fattah, Hassan M. Fattan*
*Amazon Price:*



Peer-to-Peer: Building Secure, Scalable, and Manageable
Networks<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0072192844%3ftag=masternewmedi%26link_code=xm2%26camp=2025%26dev-t=D291Y9X6FSA21J>
*Dana Moore, John Hebeler*
*Amazon Price:* $37.59



Discovering P2P<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0782140181%3ftag=masternewmedi%26link_code=xm2%26camp=2025%26dev-t=D291Y9X6FSA21J>
*Michael Miller*
*Amazon Price:* $39.99



Peer-to-Peer Systems and Applications (Lecture Notes in Computer
Science)<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/354029192X%3ftag=masternewmedi%26link_code=xm2%26camp=2025%26dev-t=D291Y9X6FSA21J>
*Ralf Steinmetz, Klaus Wehrle*
*Amazon Price:* $34.19


 Search this site for more with [image: Google] <http://www.google.com/>









Understanding comes from exploration

Home <http://www.masternewmedia.org/index.html> |
Subscribe<http://www.masternewmedia.org/mastermindexplorer.htm>| RSS
Feeds<http://www.masternewmedia.org/2003/09/03/robin_good_rss_newsfeeds.htm>|
Site
map <http://www.masternewmedia.org/vistapoints.htm> |
Syndicate<http://www.masternewmedia.org/syndicate.htm>
Consulting<http://www.masternewmedia.org/reports/webconferencing/pickmybrain.htm>|
Publications <http://www.masternewmedia.org/publications.htm>
About <http://www.masternewmedia.org/about.htm> |
Privacy<http://www.masternewmedia.org/privacy.htm>|
Contact <http://www.masternewmedia.org/contact.htm>


[image: Creative Commons
License]<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0>
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
License<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0>
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listi.jpberlin.de/pipermail/fyeg_gen-l/attachments/20071029/2ae178ce/attachment.html>


More information about the fyeg_gen-l mailing list