Interessant: Drei aufeinander folgende und sich aufeinander beziehende Debattenbeiträge um „sozialistische“ Lizenzen und ebensolches Eigentum in triple-c, einer online-Theorie-Zeitschrift:
From the Communism of Capital to Capital for the Commons: Towards an Open Co-operativism
Michel Bauwens, Vasilis Kostakis
Abstract: Two prominent social progressive movements are faced with a
few contradictions and a paradox. On the one side, we have a
re-emergence of the co-operative movement and worker-owned enterprises
which suffer from certain structural weaknesses. On the other, we have
an emergent field of open and Commons-oriented peer production
initiatives which create common pools of knowledge for the whole of
humanity, but are dominated by start-ups and large multinational
enterprises using the same Commons. Thus we have a paradox: the more
communist the sharing license used in the peer production of free
software or open hardware, the more capitalist the practice. To tackle
this paradox and the aforementioned contradictions, we tentatively
suggest a new convergence that would combine both Commons-oriented open
peer production models with common ownership and governance models, such
as those of the co-operatives and the solidarity economic models.
Socialist Licenses? A Rejoinder to Michel Bauwens and Vasilis Kostakis
Stefan Meretz
Abstract: This article is a critical reflection on Michael Bauwens and
Vasilis Kostakis paper From the Communism of Capital to Capital for
the Commons: Towards an Open Co-operativism
The Coming Revolution of Peer Production and Revolutionary Cooperatives. A Response to Michel Bauwens, Vasilis Kostakis and Stefan Meretz
Jakob Rigi
Abstract: This article agrees with Meretz (2014) that the peer producing
cooperatives which are proposed by Bauwens & Kostakis (2014) will
become parts and parcels of the capitalist economy. Further, it argues
that the so called Peer Production Licenses (PPL), originally designed
by Dmitry Kleiner (2010), which is the basis of their proposal is a rent
seeking instrument. Contra Bauwens & Kostakis, it argues that, from
the perspectives of both reform and revolution, GPL is profoundly
anti-capitalist. The article critiques Meretz`s understanding of
exchange and reciprocity, on the one hand, and his underestimation of
GPL`s communist aspect, on the other. On the positive side, the article,
explicating the communist nature of GPL-oriented peer production,
speculates about the general contours of a society where peer production
is the dominant mode of production. The technological basis of this
society, the article suggests, will be digital copying and automation.
Spatially, it will be based on localities that transcend the current
division between the city and country, synthesising agriculture with
industrial, affective and symbolic production. The rise of a globally
unified revolutionary social struggle which adopts peer production as
its platform is indispensible for the transformation of capitalism into
such a society. A global network of revolutionary peer producing
cooperatives which break with market and reduce their relations to it to
an absolutely unavoidable necessary minimum can be a significant
component of this social struggle. The building of these revolutionary
cooperatives requires a massive exodus from the city to the country.