Peer2Politics

Can we sustain a low-growth or no-growth economy indefinitely without changing dominant ownership designs? That seems unlikely. Probably impossible. How, then, do we make the turn? How can we design economic architectures that are self-organized not around profit maximization, but around serving the needs of life? *

Dmytri Kleiner has written a Marxist critique of both the limitations of the General Public Licene and the Creative Commons license (forMute Magazine), which ends with a proposal for a new type of Copyfarleft license which would disallow commercial usage, but only by private firms.

This November-December COOK Report explores the free network movement literally across continents and hemispheres – from agrarian villages nestled among the foothills of the Pyrenees to urban inner-city neighborhoods in America’s Heartland. As a follow on to the March April 2013 exploration of guifi.net and Isaac Wilder’s Kansas City work, it looks at these networks as part of a global movement – one where the builders are collaborating on a national and international level. These builders work together and share their tools and code. Nothing proprietary here. They don’t seek wealth. They do seek to do for the communities in which they live what, “free market” based capitalism has failed to do. They are a bright hope for a future that, if one is not a part of the ruling elite, looks increasingly dim.

today there are over 19,000 companies that collectively employ over 25 million workers that fit under a broad definition of employee ownership. That figure comprises nearly 16 percent of the American workforce. A related statistic from the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey reports that about 18 percent of those who work for companies in this country own stock in their companies.

“The issue and question for me though is: Is the current system reformable? It appears not to be or at least in relation to the dominant parts. Therefore the arguments for ecological reconstruction that Gar Alperovitz has been advancing seems to me to be the viable and practical way forward. Critical to any solution is a model for change that enables monopoly and enclosure to be overcome and to do so steadily and inexcorably without descending into civil war.

Beyond the theoretical and historical arguments about the effects of enclosure on real property lie the question of how well those arguments translate to the world of the intangible and intellectual. It is that question which this chapter raises. Christopher May, A Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights: The New Enclosures? (London: Routledge, 2000) offers a similar analogy—as do several other articles cited in the text. The key differences obviously lie in the features of intellectual property identified in the earlier chapters—its nonrivalrousness and nonexcludability—and on the ways in which a commons of cultural, scientific, and technical information has been central to the operation of both liberal democracy and capitalist economy. I owe the latter point particularly to Richard Nelson, whose work on the economics of innovation amply repays further study: Richard Nelson, Technology, Institutions, and Economic Growth (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005)." 

“Organizations can’t ignite systems change alone. They will always be hindered by their own programmatic myopia, constrained by their internal innovation cycles, isolated by their own geographic limitations, restrained by their ever-present funding limitations, and hampered by their capacity to manage rapid growth. If we could free existing solutions from these constraints, would we continue to see more new innovations or would we start to see greater replication of established, effective models?

During the last years, people all over the world have witnessed the destruction of their livelihoods while at the same time a few people became richer and richer.

Too many smart people are trying to come up with too many new solutions; fostering plagiarism of successful models is the fastest track to systems change.

“Homes and Hands is a great video that illustrates the different ways that community land trusts operate in the U.S.”

The peer production license is an example of the Copyfarleft type of license, in which only other commoners, cooperatives and nonprofits can share and re-use the material, but not commercial entities intent on making profit through the commons without explicit reciprocity

"At the close of the twentieth century, corporate capitalism extended its reach over the globe. While its defenders argue that globalization is the only way forward for modern, democratic societies, the spread of this system is failing to meet even the most basic needs of billions of individuals around the world. Moreover, the entrenchment of this free market system is undermining the foundations of healthy societies, caring communities, and personal well-being.

“Inclusive capitalism may not sell well with professors and pundits, but it appears to have some genuine appeal at the grass roots with “Main Street” business owners and across a surprisingly wide spectrum of political opinion. There are actually indications that these ideas can unite or at minimum enforce a practical truce among ideologically disparate people.

“All commodities have to be understood as having a use value and exchange value. If I have a steak the use value is that I can eat it and the exchange value is how much I had to pay for it.

In this age of marauding markets, it almost seems quaint to ask, “Who owns culture?”  We know the answer.  When push comes to shove, the owners of copyright, trademarks and patents own everything.  We may think that the music, images and stories of our culture belong to us, but as a matter of law, in the 165+ countries that have signed the Berne Convention, our designated role is....to buy (and not use someone else's "property.")   

This is a guest post by Gary Swart, the CEO of oDesk, an online marketplace for hiring virtual workers.  Today’s millennials don’t like to own anything—besides businesses, that is.

Here are some of the terms of the old vocabulary: public goods and private goods, for-profit and non-profit organizations, public agencies and NGOs, capital and social markets, government, markets, and civil society, the commons and the private.

Co-op Power is a regional network of local communities creating a multi-class, multi-racial movement for a sustainable and just energy future. Members receive numerous benefits including discounts on solar hot water systems.

Book: Property Outlaws: How Squatters, Pirates and Protesters Improve the Law of Ownership. By Sonia Katyal and Eduardo Penalver. Yale University Press, 2010