Schlagwort: possession

Transformation und Eigentum

[This is the German translation of the original english article]

Auf der Oekonux-Mailingliste gibt es eine interessante Debatte über das Verhältnis von Privateigentum und gesellschaftlicher Veränderung, insbesondere wenn es um die commons-basierte Produktion stofflicher Güter geht. Raoul Victor aus Frankreich schrieb:

Die ursprüngliche Frage war, wie mit der Eigentumstransformation umzugehen ist, wenn sie die materiellen Produktionsmittel betrifft. Ich bestand auf der Tatsache, dass dies zu dem einem oder anderen Zeitpunkt (wahrscheinlich noch viele Jahre hin) zu einer allgemeinen sozialen Konfrontation mit dem Kapitalismus führt, wobei die „Arbeiter der Welt“ die Hauptrolle spielen werden und die Keime der Peer-Produktionspraxen — hauptsächlich im Bereich frei reproduzierbarer Güter — dann eine wichtige Rolle bei der Evolution ihres Bewusstseins gespielt haben werden. Aufgrund der Natur des Kapitalismus ist diese Konfrontation unvermeidlich.

Das ist meine Antwort:

(mehr …)

Transformation and ownership

Fourier transform (cc-by-nc:[Es gibt eine deutsche Übersetzung dieses Artikels]

On the Oekonux-Mailinglist there is an interesting debate about the relationship between private ownership and societal change, especially when it comes to commons based production of physical goods. Raoul Victor from France wrote:

The original question is how to deal with the ownership transformation when it concerns material means of production. I insisted on the fact that, at one moment or another (probably many years ahead), this will lead to a general social confrontation with capitalism, where „the workers of the world“ will play a major role, the germs of peer production practices, mainly in the freely reproducible goods domain, having played an important role in the evolution of their consciousness. This confrontation is inevitable because of the nature of capitalism itself.

This is my answer:

(mehr …)

Material peer production—Part 3: Commons and Possession

Book Cover[Diesen Artikel gibt es noch nicht auf Deutsch. Wenn du dazu beitragen willst, das zu ändert, beteilige dich bitte an der Übersetzungs-Werkstatt.]

Previous part: Free Cooperation.

Peer production is based on commons and possession, not on property. As long as you use something (by yourself), there is no obvious difference between possession and property. The difference only becomes visible when you stop using it: your property still remains your property, allowing you to sell it to someone else (in return for money or some other equivalent). But possession is bound to usage—if you no longer need something, you cease possessing it and somebody else can start possessing it.

One issue where this becomes relevant is the question of long-term vs. short-term usage. When projects expect people to make contributions in order to get the things they want, there are cases where the length of usage should be taken into account. Otherwise, people who want to use something for a limited period of time would be put at a serious disadvantage, since they would have to contribute just as much as if they wanted to use it “forever.” When the expected “lifespan” of a good exceeds the expected time of usage by any given person, it might thus be appropriate to tie the required contributions to the length of usage, sharing the overall effort between all who use it over time. For example, a project or local association organizing housing for its members might prefer to require contributions for living in a house or apartment for a certain amount of time (instead of for living there forever), thus spreading the effort necessary for building and maintaining houses among all the people who live there over time.

The difference between property and possession is also relevant for the problem of resource allocation. In an economy where everything is based on commons and possession instead of property, it would not make sense to treat natural resources as property—to rely on buying and selling to allocate them. In fact, it would not even be possible: if nothing apart from resources is sold, how should those who lack them be able to buy them?

(mehr …)