| |
| 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 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.) |
| | (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. |
>
> | (2) An external factor results 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 specifically and less present overall in the internet society.
Sustainability |
|
<
< | In the past experiments in shared property and communal production 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 is credited with generating a communalism which left the world with prized furniture and innovations such as the flat broom and the circular saw. The Kibbutz movement which started in the early 1900's when, arguably, sole proprietors could not have survived as agriculturalists in what is now modern day Israel. It has had more success and morphed with the times and though nowadays doesn't resemble its earlier incarnations it continues. 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. The Shaker 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. The internal characteristics of communalism production is important and the Shaker case lends credence to the idea that both a charismatic leader, a strict creed, and responsiveness to the outside environment are important for such communal efforts to succeed. |
>
> | In the past experiments in shared property and communal production have occurred in specific geographic 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 is credited with generating a communalism which left the world with prized furniture and innovations such as the flat broom and the circular saw. The Kibbutz movement which started in the early 1900's when, arguably, sole proprietors could not have survived as agriculturalists in what is now modern day Israel. It has had more success and morphed with the times and though nowadays doesn't resemble its earlier incarnations it continues. |
| | Crowding Out
The crowding out argument is one easily leveled at modern social production processes. Here the argument goes that even though the kibbutz has survived for the most part it has done so by acceding to capitalist processes – members have been assigned shares which they can trade or bequeath just like any other property; Shaker production methods have not been adopted by non shaker groups as they are just less competitive. Traditional English common land, though it still exists has gradually been enclosed and replaced by ownership of parcels by individuals. The argument is that it is only a matter of time before these methods become part of history as they are simply less efficient than individualistic processes. |
|
>
> | Despite the failure of the Shaker movmeent and the morphing of the kibbutz movement 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. The Shakers' lack of sustainability was not a result of productive failure but rather because of the celibacy requirement, and a change in government regulation that stopped adoption of children by religious groups. In many ways the Shaker case lends just credence to the idea that both a charismatic leader, a strict creed, and responsiveness to the outside environment have been important for such communal efforts to succeed in the past. The Kibbutz case can be read similarly. |
| | Sustainability and crowding out of digital social production |
|
<
< | The above examples show that it is possible that social production can be efficacious and sustainable and as external conditions change these can result in an ebb and flow in growth of such a type of production. What is not accounted for in these examples is the edge case where the productive output of such activity is given away (or in the case of software produced under the GPL compulsorily shared) to even those not involved in its production. Moreover, in none of these examples is the marginal cost of such a gift is effectively zero. These two new norms associated with a community structure that is, in its population and complexity, of a different scale, and geographic range than previous experiments virtually eliminates the likelihood that the community will be unable to innovate in response to outside pressures or changes in the availability of personnel. Moreover, by preventing the subsequent enclosure of the property created, as the digital sharing licenses do, much as Shakers didn't patent their inventions results in a community creed that is premised on the generous nature of contributors and their willingness to share their energies (notwithstanding a desire that they may personally profit in other ways.) |
>
> | What is not accounted for in these examples is the case where the productive output of such activity is given away (or in the case of software produced under the GPL compulsorily shared) with even those not involved in its production. Moreover, in none of these examples is the marginal cost of such a gift is effectively zero. These two new norms associated with a community structure that is, in its population and complexity, of a different scale, and geographic range than previous experiments virtually eliminates the likelihood that the community will be unable to innovate in response to outside pressures or internal changes in the availability of personnel. Moreover, by preventing the subsequent enclosure of the property created, as digital sharing licenses do, much as Shakers didn't patent their inventions, suggests perhaps that digital sharing communities are similarly premised on the generous nature of contributors and perhaps as a result self-select participants that raise efficiency. |
| | Can't we see social production in the economic sphere as an extension of social production in other spaces? |
|
<
< | These norms, though they are in defense of a mode of production, are perhaps more easily compared to the modes of production of folk art or possibly architecture. Folk art prized not for its originality but produced as a cultural artifact to be shared is not something that succeeds through enclosure. Public physical architecture maybe an even closer analogue - an architect can come up with a form or concept but ultimately the working space could not operate, or come into being if it wasn't for the engagement of many actors, often without a property centered economic motive, alongside people who decide to use it. |
>
> | Perhaps these norms of sharing, though they are in defense of a mode of production, are perhaps more easily compared to folk art or possibly architecture. Folk art prized not for its originality but produced as a cultural artifact to be shared is not something that succeeds through enclosure. Public physical architecture maybe an even closer analogue - an architect can come up with a form or concept but ultimately the working space could not operate, or come into being are gain importance as a result of the acceptance of many actors who are not paid - citizens who contribute to processes that approve the building, those who walk through it when it is built and use it on a day to day basis. |
| | |
|
<
< | Considering the production of physical architecture it is perhaps not so surprising that the networks of peer producers are developing the software architecture of the next century using modes of organization that owe more to the public private partnerships, community engagement processes and participation required in developing a lived space. I wonder if in the fields digital peer production norms can occur they won’t be crowding out the 20th century mode of production via the joint stock company.
The losers might not be the free software movement (a movement where either everyone is a salesperson or no-one is since there is nothing to be “sold”) but rather those defenders of the enclosed digital spaces. History suggests to me that those aspects which have resulted in failure are not present in the digital network and moreover, there are better analogies to be drawn – Where open social production works it wins and may win totally. |
>
> | Considering the production of physical architecture it is perhaps not so surprising that the networks of peer producers are developing the software architecture of the next century using modes of organization that owe more to the public private partnerships, community engagement processes and participation required in the development of a lived space since software is digital architecture. I wonder if in the fields communal production norms might crowd out the traditional 20th century mode of production - the joint stock company. History suggests that those aspects which have resulted in failure of communal production experiments are not present in the digital network and moreover, there are other analogies which suggest its success. |
| | -- TomGlaisyer - 10 December 2008 |