| | |
|
TomGlaisyerPaper2SocialProduction 5 - 22 Dec 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Social Production: Here to stay or just a passing fad? | |
<
< | The authoring of The Wealth of Networks by Yochai Benkler has placed questions of social production front and center – Whether it is likely that a new incarnation of a liberal society through the network that is enabled by the internet is now considered a serious question. Skeptics of Benkler might argue that once a kibbutznik always a kibbutznik; and that perhaps Benkler, once the treasurer of kibbutz, is just harking back to his past when he writes that peer production can succeed anew in the networked internet society.
However sympathetically one might view his claims, and I have significant sympathy for them, I still wonder whether the model of peer production is sustainable and whether it be crowded out? (In my earlier paper I examined why the particular properties of peer production under GPL license might work whereas in this paper I consider social production from a broader perspective.) | >
> | The authoring of The Wealth of Networks by Yochai Benkler has placed questions of social production front and center - Whether it is likely that an internet enabled incarnation of a liberal society is possible is now considered a serious question. Skeptics of Benkler might argue that once a kibbutznik always a kibbutznik; and that perhaps Benkler, once the treasurer of kibbutz, is just harking back to his past when he writes that social production can succeed anew in the networked internet society. However sympathetically one might view his claims, and I have significant sympathy for them, I still wonder whether the model of peer production is sustainable and whether it will be crowded out? (In my earlier paper I examined why it appears to be working in the production of free software whereas in this paper I consider social production from a broader perspective.) | | | A reasonable critique of social production ideas are that prior experiences shows they have not been continued in the long run. Here the arguments fall into two groups | |
>
> | | | | (1) Properties internal to such systems make them unsustainable by design and ultimately result in failure. | |
>
> | | | | (2) An external factor resulted in their decay and consequent crowding out.
| |
<
< | I will deal with the arguments in sequence and subsequently argue that communal approaches based on the emerging network society around the internet suggest that the problems with social production in the past are not present when considering digital property and less present overall. | >
> | I will deal with the arguments in sequence and subsequently argue that communal approaches based on the emerging network society around the internet suggest that the problems with social production in the past are not present when considering digital property specifically and less present overall in the internet society.
Sustainability
In the past experiments in shared property have occurred in geographically distinct locations. Two good examples of these efforts are the Shaker and Kibbutz movements. Even today, where there are few Shakers, the early leadership of Ann Lee generated a communalism which left the world with prized furniture and innovations such as the flat broom and the circular saw. This case suggests that though internal properties are important communal production can be innovative and productive. The Shakers' lack of sustainability was less a result of productive failure but rather with the celibacy requirement, and changes in government regulation which stopped adoption of children by religious groups. all of these points lending credence to the idea that both a charismatic leader as well as a strict creed, and responsiveness to the outside environment is needed for such communal efforts to succeed. | | | | |
<
< | Lack of unsustainability | >
> | The Kibbutz movement which started later, in the early 1900's, and has had more success and morphed with the times though nowadays it doesn't resemble its earlier incarnations. In common with the Shaker communities the kibbutzim were founded on communal principles though not out of choice but necessity at a time when, arguably, sole proprietors could not have survived as agriculturalists in what is now modern day Israel. Moreover, its survival in the modern day and the Kibbutz's role in the direction and development of Israel is widely recognized. | | | | |
<
< | In the past experiments in shared property have occurred in geographically distinct locations. Two good examples of these efforts are the Shaker and Kibbutz movements. Even today, where there are few Shakers, their communalism left the world with prized furniture and with innovations such as the flat broom and the circular saw. This case proves that such movements can be innovative and productive. Their sustainability was less a result of productive failure but rather with the celibacy requirement, and changes in government regulation which stopped adoption of children by religious groups. That said, their expansion in the United States seemingly ended soon after the death of Ann Lee lending credence to the idea that both a charismatic leader as well as a strict creed is needed for such communal efforts to succeed.
The Kibbutz movement started later, in the early 1900’s has had more success and morphed with the times, though nowadays doesn't resemble its earlier incarnations. Similarly, the kibbutzim were founded on communal principles, though not out of choice but necessity at a time when, arguably, sole proprietors could not have survived as agriculturalists in what is now modern day Israel. Moreover, its survival in the modern day and the Kibbutz's role in the direction and development of Israel is widely recognized. | | | Both of these examples suggest that communal ownership structures can have both efficacy and survive through generations, though only if leadership can pass from generation and with norms which provide for generative redevelopment or innovation of the communal concept.
Crowding Out |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |