Peer-to-peer politics

[unixronin]

Recently, the P2P Foundation, founded by Michael Bauwens, was brought to my attention.  I think it makes for some interesting reading, and I think he's got something.

Links:

• Wiki and encyclopedia
• Blog
• Basic theory essay
• Interview with Michael Bauwens by Richard Poynder

Most people assume that anarchy implies chaos, but that assumption is incorrect; it does not imply chaos, merely a lack of any permanent institutionalized heirarchy.  In a *working* and fully realized anarchy, structure and organization arise more or less spontaneously at need, and disappear when their task is done (in contrast to, for example, all of communism's "transitional revolutionary committees" that somehow never got around to phasing themselves out).

I have the impression that this is a part of what Bauwens is saying.  I think he's right; philosophically, his goals and those of the free/open software movement are in alignment: spontaneous self-assembly of organization to better the lives of everyone through mutual cooperation, enlightened self-interest that's able to recognize and transcend opposing ideologies to further the common good, are not only compatible with but, most of the time¹, an integral part of the FOSS movement.  Just as the FOSS movement espouses peer-to-peer development of software tools and environments instead of the top-down corporate model, Bauwens is envisioning peer-to-peer development of social structures instead of the top-down big-politics model.  It might be reasonable to think of it as distributed small-l libertarianism.

[1]  It's not without its squabbles and conflicts, obviously.  But what is?

Comments

[smandal.livejournal.com]

* Aren't we fundamentally in an anarchy anyway?

* Once an organization gains the mandate of force, it becomes the de facto minarchy which might not want to go away.

I say we all move to individual deep space pods and communicate via FreeNet.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I don't think the technology is there yet. :)