Социальные одноранговые процессы

Social peer-to-peer processes are interactions among humans with a peer-to-peer dynamic. Peer-to-peer (P2P) is a term that originated from the popular concept of the P2P distributed computer application architecture which partitions tasks or workloads between peers. This application structure was popularized by file sharing systems like Napster, the first of its kind in the late 1990s.

The concept has inspired new structures and philosophies in many areas of human interaction. P2P human dynamic affords a critical look at current authoritarian and centralized social structures. Peer-to-peer is also a political and social program for those who believe that in many cases, peer-to-peer modes are a preferable option.

Definition

P2P is a specific form of relational dynamic, based on the assumed equipotency of its participants, organized through the free cooperation of equals in view of the performance of a common task, for the creation of a common good, with forms of decision making and autonomy that are widely distributed throughout the network.

There are several fundamental aspects of social P2P processes:

• peer production - A form of collaborative production that is open to participation, or operates on the to the widest possible number (as defined by Yochai Benkler, in his essay Coase's Penguin); and is even permissionless in extreme cases. It does not produce commodities, does not use the price mechanism or corporate hierarchy to determine the allocation of resources. It must, therefore, be distinguished from both the capitalist market (though it can be linked and embedded in the broader market) and from production through state and corporate planning.
• peer governance - Processes are governed by the participants themselves, not by corporate hierarchy or by external forces such as market allocation. It differs from traditional linear hierarchies
• peer property - assets, infrastructure and processes are not exclusive, though recognize individual authorship (ex. the GNU General Public License or the Creative Commons license for digital assets, nondominium for infrastructure and material assets, see also the Ricardian contract and self-owned resources). It differs from both traditional private property and state-based collective public property; it is rather the common property of its producers and users and the whole of humankind. Unlike private property, peer property is inclusive rather than exclusive — its nature is to share ownership as widely, rather than as narrowly, as possible, or to eliminate ownership all together (ex. self-ownership as implemented using blockchain technology).

Characteristics

Many of the characteristics of P2P processes emerged in the open source movement.

P2P processes are not structureless but are characterized by dynamic and changing structures that adapt themselves to phase changes. We can describe this by invoking self organization. Stigmergy is also cited by some practitioners in P2P as their principal mode of coordination, as an alternative to planning (see more on the Open value network model).

Its rules are not derived from authority, as in hierarchical systems. It does not deny ‘authority’, but only fixed forced hierarchy, and therefore accepts forms of influence that based on expertise, initiation of the project, etc. P2P may be the first true meritocracy.

P2P eliminates most, if not all, barriers to entry. It is assumed that ‘anybody’ can contribute and does not use formal rules in advance to determine its participating agents. The threshold for participation is kept as low as possible, to being permissionless at the extreme, for example in mining for the Bitcoin network or in opening a wallet and perform transactions on the same network. Participants are expected to self-select the module that corresponds best to their expertise. Equipotency means that it is the immediate practice of collaboration which determines the expertise and level of participation. Validation of knowledge, acceptance of processes, are determined by the collective through the use of digital rules which are, in some cases, embedded in the project's basic protocol.

Communication is not top-down and based on strictly defined reporting rules, but feedback is systemic, integrated into the protocol of the collaborative system. Techniques of 'participation capture' and other social accounting make automatic collaboration the default scheme of the project. Personal identity becomes partly generated by the contribution to the common project. P2P characteristics have been studied by Howard Rheingold et al.'s Cooperation Project.

The organizational topology in P2P is a network, not a linear or 'pyramidal' hierarchy (though it may have transient elements of it); it is 'distributed' or 'decentralized'; intelligence is not located at any center, but everywhere within the system.

P2P processes start from the premise that ‘we don't know where the needed resource will be located’. Thus, most processes are crowdsourced.

Collaboration must be free, not forced, and not based on an exchange (i.e. time vs money).

These P2P interactions are geared to produce something, enabling the widest possible participation.

Whereas participants in hierarchical systems are subject to the panoptism of the select few who control the vast majority, in P2P systems, participants have access to holoptism, the ability for any participant to see the whole.

These are a number of characteristics that we can use to describe P2P systems ‘in general’, and in particular as it emerges in the human lifeworld.

In the economy

Capitalism

There are two important aspects to the emergence of P2P in the economic sphere. On the one hand, as a format for peer production processes, it is emerging as a 'third mode of production' based on the cooperation of autonomous agents. Indeed, if the first mode of production was laissez-faire based capitalism, and the second mode was the model of a centrally-planned economy, then the third mode does not use market and pricing mechanisms, or managerial commands, but instead uses social relations and socially-defined goals, motivations and incentives.

As a new mode of production, peer production is still largely dependent on the mainstream economy to reproduce itself. Recently, with the advent of web 3.0 and Web3 we are seeing breakthroughs in developing its own incentive mechanisms, using various coins and tokens, showing promising signs of bootstrapping itself as an independent and self-sufficient mode of production. As the influence of P2P grows larger, hybrid models have started to emerge. At play are coaptation attempts from institutions that subscribe to both, socialism and capitalism ideologies. For example, initiatives like The Network State, which coming out of the Silicon Valley, are the adaptation of Platform capitalism (itself an adaptation of Capitalism to new capabilities introduced by Web 2.0) to newer capabilities introduced by Web3. On the other side of the spectrum we find the Coordi-Nation as an adaptation from Platform Cooperative, as proposed by Primavera De Filippi and others.

The market and capitalism are also dependent on P2P. Capitalism has become a system relying on distributed networks, in particular on the P2P infrastructure in computing and communication.

Moreover, practices that have been developed within P2P networks have been adopted by private and public institutions, to the extent that capitalism has become highly reliant on cooperative teamwork. See for example agile development and extreme manufacturing, influenced by open source development. Other examples of partial implementations of P2P practices by for-profit enterprises are various forms of crowdsourcing or user-generated data or content. For instance, Amazon built itself around user reviews,, while eBay lives on a platform of worldwide distributed auctions, and Google is constituted by user-generated content.

One hybrid business model is that businesses use the P2P infrastructure (the Internet for example, or even their computing cloud which may run on Linux, an operating system issued from peer production), and create a surplus value through services, which can be packaged for exchange value.

Another hybrid model is the creation of two-sided markets. One form of this was improperly called the "sharing economy", also termed "access economy" or "peer exchange economy.". More properly speaking, this is better described as a "micro-services economy", instantiated by businesses like Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb, which are proprietary platforms that mediate coordination among people who can engage in transactions. This new practice is also called Platform Capitalism, or the adaptation of Capitalism to the new possibilities introduced by web 2.0, in which the firm doesn't own the means of production and doesn't even engage in production, but coordinates a network of producers and consumers. In this context peer production is contained within a private domain (a proprietary platform for coordination) and subject to with will of whose who control the platform. The Platform Coop arrangement also exists, where the platform that insures the coordination among producers and consumers is owned by a cooperative with a more democratic governance. The P2P movement proposes fully decentralized alternatives of these type of economic coordination systems, where the platform is in the hands of participants, like in the Bitcoin network.

In politics

Governance

Governments of countries are composed of a specialized and privileged body of individuals, who monopolize political decision-making. Their function is to enforce existing laws, legislate new ones, and arbitrate conflicts via their monopoly on violence. Legislation can be open to the general citizenry through open source governance, allowing policy development to benefit from the collected wisdom of the people as a whole.

Michel Bauwens has stated, that current society is not a peer group with an a priori consensus, but rather a decentralized structure of competing groups and representative democracy, and as such it cannot be replaced entirely by peer governance. In a recent Substack post Michel Bauwens reiterates his idea of the Magisteria of the Commons

My own concept of Magisteria of the Commons is quite similar. My argument is that we have a commons gap in our global institutional order. We have inter-national governmental cooperation, we have trans-national financial flows, but we do not have transnational civic institutions that are able to project the web of life and the dwindling resource base of the planet. I strongly suspect these Magisteria will evolve various forms of multi-stakeholder governance, but with participation of the productive citizens directly. This is emphatically not an iteration of the World Economic Forum model.

Open source movements

Many new movements are taking on P2P organizational formats, such as the alter-globalization movement and the "Occupy" movement (i.e. Occupy Wall Street). The movements see itself as a network of networks that combines players from a wide variety of fields and opinion, who, despite the fact that they do not see eye to eye in all things, manage to unite around a common platform of action around certain key events.

They are able to mobilize vast numbers of people from every continent, without having at their disposal any of the traditional news media, such as television, radio or newspapers. Rather, they rely almost exclusively on the P2P technologies described above. Thus, Internet media are used for communication and learning on a continuous basis, prior to the mobilizations, and also during the mobilizations.

Independent Internet media platforms such as Indymedia, as well as the skillful use of mobile phones, are used for real-time response management, undertaken by small groups that use buddy-list technologies, and sometimes open-source programs that have been explicitly designed for political activism such as TextMob.

Many reports have appeared, including those described in Howard Rheingold's Smart Mobs, about the political significance of SMS in organizing successful protests and ‘democratic revolutions’. The network model allows for a more fluid organization that does not fix any group in a permanent adversarial position. Various temporary coalitions are created on an ad hoc basis depending on the issues.

Notable contributors

The following is a list of individuals who have made contributions to the peer-to-peer paradigm.

Business and economics

• Eric Von Hippel, author of Democratizing Innovation, on user innovation communities
• Pekka Himanen, for his examination of the new work culture in 'Hacker Ethics'
• Peter Drucker author of Concept of the Corporation for term 'federal decentralization'
• Michel Bauwens, co-founder and primary activist of the P2P Foundation.
• Elinor Ostrom, for her work on Common Pool Resources (CPR).
• Rachel Botsman for co-writing 'What's Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption' (see Collaborative consumption)

Culture

• Lawrence Lessig, created the Creative Commons licenses and is an advocate of Free Culture against the encroachments of excessive intellectual property restrictions
• Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder
• Dan Gillmor for his advocacy of citizen-based journalism
• Mark Pesce, for his campaign around the issue for an alternative information and communications infrastructure
• Howard Rheingold, for his books on the emerging sociality in the online world, such as Virtual Communities and Smart Mobs

Philosophy and spirituality

• John Heron, founder of cooperative inquiry techniques in the field of spirituality
• Jorge Ferrer, author of Revisioning Transpersonal Psychology, an extended review of the development of participatory spirituality
• Henryk Skolimowski, author of The Participatory Mind
• David Skrbina, author of a history of the participatory worldview
• Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, for their early anticipation of the 'rhizomatic' future

Politics

• McKenzie Wark, author of a class analysis of the information age, and her hypothesis of the vectoralist class (owners of the vectors of information) in her book A Hacker Manifesto [2004]
• Toni Negri and Michael Hardt, for their analysis of the Multitudes in Empire and Multitude
• John Holloway, author of Change the World Without Taking Power
• David Bollier, Commons advocate
• Alexander R. Galloway, for his unveiling of the importance of protocol as a form of power, in his book Protocol [2003]
• Eben Moglen, founder of the Software Freedom Law Center

Science

• Yochai Benkler, study of Commons-based peer production

Technologies

• Vint Cerf - 'father' of the internet
• Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software movement
• Eric Raymond, founder of the Open Source initiative
• Irene Greif, for her definition of an operational semantics for the actor model in 1975
• Robin Chase for work on Buzzcar
• Juliana Rotich for work on Ushahidi

See also

• Anarchist economics
• Collaborative e-democracy
• Commons-based peer production
• Distributed economies
• Distributism
• Leaderless resistance
• Network economy
• Occupy movement
• Open-source governance
• Participatory Guarantee Systems
• Peer education
• Peer mentoring
• Peer support
• Peer-to-peer
• Peer-to-peer banking
• Peer-to-peer carsharing
• Peer-to-peer lending
• Peer production
• Production for use
• Sharing economy
• Open design
• Heterarchy

References

• Abbate, Janet. Inventing the Internet. MIT Press, 1999 (describes the underlying P2P ethos of the internet's founding fathers)
• Aigrain, Philippe. Cause Commune. L'information entre bien commun et propriete. Fayard, 2005 (on the new Commons and associated social movements)
• Bauwens, M., 2005, Peer to Peer and Human Evolution
• Ferrer, Jorge N. Revisioning Transpersonal Theory: A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality. SUNY, 2001 (outlines the new paradigm of participatory spirituality)
• Galloway, Alexander. Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization. MIT Press, 2004 (power as embedded in the digital protocols governing networked systems)
• Gilmor, Dan. We the Media. O'Reilly, 2004 (on participatory journalism)
• Gunderson, Lance H. and C.S. Holling. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature. Island Press, 2001 (on networked and P2P physical and social laws)
• Heron, John. Sacred Science. PCCS Books, 1998 (defines relational spirituality and the methodology called Cooperative Inquiry)
• Himanen, Pekka. The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. Random House, 2002 (on the 'P2P' work culture exemplified by the hackers but spreading in the general economy)
• Lasica, J.D. Darknet: Hollywood's War against the Digital Generation. John Wiley & Sons, 2005 (cultural and political consequences of P2P filesharing)
• Malone, Thomas. The Future of Work. How the New Order of Business Will Shape Your Organization, Your Management Style, and Your Life. Harvard Business School Press, 2004 (coordination theory and decentralisation in the corporate enterprise)
• Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990 (how to manage the physical commons)
• Raymond, Eric. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. O’Reilly, 2001 (the gift economy culture of the free software and open source movements)
• Sagot-Duvauroux, Jean-Louis. Pour la Gratuite. Desclee-De Brouwer, 1995 (the gratuity of common goods as indicative of civilizational progress)
• Stallman, Richard. Free Software, Free Society. Free Software Foundation, 2002 (the ethos of the Free Software movement)
• Tuomi, Ilkka. Networks of Innovation. Oxford Press, 2003 (networked forms of innovation)
• von Hippel, Eric. The Democratization of Innovation. MIT Press, 2004 (examines participatory innovation starting from the users/consumers themselves)
• Weber, Steve. The Success of Open Source. Harvard University Press, 2004 (studies Open Source and peer production)

Further reading

• Johnson, Steven (2012), Future perfect: the case for progress in a networked age, New York: Riverhead Books, OL 25372378M
• How to Reap the Benefits of the “Digital Revolution”? Modularity and the Commons. 2019. By Vasilis Kostakis, published in Halduskultuur: The Estonian Journal of Administrative Culture and Digital Governance, Vol 20(1):4–19.