The current crisis of capitalism has provoked protests, revolts
and revolutions in major parts of the planet that include 3 billions
of inhabitants. Even the mainstream Time Magazine made “The
Protester” the person of the year. The caption on Time’s cover
reads: From the Arab Spring To Athens, from Occupy Wall Street to
Moscow. China, Chile, Spain, England, Italy, India, Israel, Iran and
France, among many other places, can be added to Time’s hotbeds of
recent social protests.
The protest movements have put alternatives to capitalism on the
historical agenda (Hardt and Negri, 2011). This article argues that a
section of knowledge workers have already created a new mode of
production termed Peer to Peer Production (P2P) which is a viable
alternative to capitalism. Although still in its emerging phase and
dominated by capitalism, P2P clearly displays the main contours of an
egalitarian society. The very fact that sections of P2P activists and
ICT workers are also actively involved in the current protests may
work as a good catalyst in connecting P2P to these movements.
In P2P production, producers collectively produce goods through
voluntary participation in a de-centered, network-based production
system. Volunteers choose the tasks they perform; the amount of time
they spend on collective production; the place and time of their
productive activity. In term of distribution, anyone in the world can
use the products for free according to their own needs, regardless of
their contribution (Benkler, 2006). This mode of production is very
similar to what Marx (1978 a, 1978b) described as advanced communism.
Therefore, it has also been called cyber communism (Kleiner, 2010;
Barbrook, 2007; Moglen, 2003).
P2P and Marx’s advanced phase of communism
As the history of the contemporary P2P mode of production has
already been written (Söderberg, 2008; Raymond, 200; Weber, 2004) I
pause here only briefly on two defining moments of this history,
namely the invention of the GPL (General Public License) and Free
Software (FS) by Richard Stallman in 1984 and the invention of the
system of online voluntary collective cooperation by Linus Torvalds
in 1991.
Stallman created the Free Software Foundation by releasing a code
under a license he termed the General Public License (GPL). The GPL
guaranteed four freedoms: running the program for any purpose;
studying and customizing the program; redistributing copies either
for free or for a reasonable price; and changing and improving the
program. Stallman included the so called “copyleft” clause in the
GPL. According to this clause any code that would include a component
that was derived from a GPL licensed code must be also released
entirely under a GPL license. Copyleft is a dialectical negation of
copyright, because it simultaneously preserves and abolishes
copyright (Stallman, 2002).
The significance of the GPL lies in the fact that it formulated
for the first time in the history of humanity an all-inclusive global
property right. Commons have existed since the inception of humanity
in various forms and among various civilizations (Marx, 1965;
Polanyi, 1992; Ostrom, 1990). But all of them, except commons of
knowledge, have always been territorialized, belonging to particular
communities, tribes, or states. Hence, as a rule, outsiders were
excluded. The GPL created a globally de-territorialized, almost
all-inclusive commons. It only excluded those users who would refuse
to release their own products under the GPL license. The GPL has been
modified in the formof Open Source Software (OSS) in order to
accommodate commercial interests. This new protocol only obliges
users to release under a GPL license those components of their
products which are derived from GPL-licensed products. The owner can
keep other components as a private property. Whether OSS is a
corruption of GPL or facilitates the expansion of P2P is a matter of
debate between Stallman and his followers, on the one side, and the
proponents of OSS, on the other (Raymond, 2001, Weber, 2004).
For the purpose of this article I concentrate only on GPL, because
it represents the gist of the new global and universal commons of
knowledge. Most forms of knowledge have been universal commons.
Merton (1979) argued that science requires a communist form of
production and distribution. Although there had been exceptions to
this rule (shamans, magician, priests and artisans, among others,
tried to keep their knowledge secret or transfer it only to select
individuals), it was capitalism and its concomitant regimes of
copyrights and patents that systematically fenced forms of knowledge
that could yield profit (Boyle, 1996). As knowledge became a major
factor of informational capitalism a draconian copyright regime grew
dramatically (Lessig, 2005 ). The GPL/GNU pioneered a
juridical-productive strategy for producing global commons of
knowledge and protecting them against the invasion by capitalism. In
this sense, Stallman’s initiative was a major milestone in the
struggle of knowledge workers against informational capitalism
(Söderberg, 2008).
It was, however, Linus Torvalds who took this local development to
the global level by making full use of the distributive potential of
the Internet. The production of Linux was truly a revolution in the
organization of cooperation among a large number of producers. Marx
argued that any scientific knowledge was a product of collective work
(Marx, 1981: 199 ), as each scientist built upon the achievements of
previous ones. But this collective aspect of science was not a result
of conscious and simultaneous cooperation among scientists but of
contingent transfer of knowledge along a time and space axis.
Torvald’s invention, by using the Internet, transcended barriers of
time and space. Therefore, it made simultaneous, conscious,
voluntary, coordinated and global cooperation among a large number of
producers possible. The combination of GPL license with the Linux
mode of cooperation represents the gist of the P2P mode of
production, which coincides with the general principles of advanced
form of communism, described by Marx.
1) There will be no equivalence, between each individual’s
contribution to social production and their share from the total
social products. They will contribute according to their ability and
will use products according to their needs. Money as the quantitative
measure of value will disappear (Marx, 1978b). Money does not play
any role in internal P2P system, though it still constitutes its
external context and inserts pressure on it.
2) In Marx’s advanced communism the division of labor, and with
it the state and market vanish (Marx, 1978 a, b). In P2P the division
of labor is replaced by the distribution of labor (Weber, 2004) and
the logics of state and market are questioned (see below).
3) Advanced communism, Marx (1978a) envisaged, would transcend
alienation not only by abolishing the logic of quantitative
equivalence in the realm of exchange between individual and society,
and among individuals, and the division of labor, but also by
allowing and enabling individuals to use socially produced means of
production to materialize their own creative powers. My ethnographic
findings show that creativity and peer recognition are among the
strongest motivations of P2P producers (see also Weber, 2004).
Söderberg (2008) shows how P2P creativity transcend alienation.
At this point we can raise the following questions:
1-Is P2P really a new historical mode of production, or just an
appendage to the capitalist mode of production?
2-What is its relation to the capitalist mode of production?
3-To what extent can P2P be applied to material production?
4-What are the possibilities that it will replace or displace the
capitalist mode of production altogether?
P2P as a new historical mode of production
Let us sketch briefly Marx’s concept of mode of production
(Marx, 1978c). Production is a process in which humans produce
pre-designed goods. These goods can be material, such as bread;
services such as care and education; or information and knowledge,
such as software. The forces of production consist of humans, their
knowledge and skills, the instruments they use, the material they act
upon, and other material conditions of the production, such as
energy, buildings, etc. Relations of production are “definite”
and “indispensable” relations among humans which correspond to
the material stage of productive forces. Property relations are legal
expressions of the relations of production. A mode of production is
the totality of forces of production and relations of production
together.
The P2P production productive forces correspond to what Manuel
Castells (2010/1996:70-72) defines as the Information Technological
Paradigm (ITP). The all-encompassing ITP emphasises informal
networking, flexibility, and is characterised by the fact that
technology acts on information, information acts on technology, as
well as by the integration of various technologies such as
micro-electronics, telecommunications, opto-electronics and computers
in a larger system. It is important to emphasise that knowledge
workers themselves are an important component, or the most important
components, of ITP productive forces.
The centrality of information / knowledge and the network
structure contradict, inherently, capitalist relations of production.
The network logic requires that knowledge produced in each node of a
globally integrated network should flow freely and horizontally in
all directions to all other nodes. Knowledge is a non-rival good, it
can be reproduced at no extra cost. It is also universal in that the
same item of knowledge can, simultaneously, be used by everyone on
this planet.
Yet capitalism prevents the free flow of knowledge in all
directions in the net. It is true that the capitalist mode of
production, adapting itself to ITP, has become global, and has
increasingly adopted a network form. However, the sum of all
potential links in the net exceeds dramatically the sum of links of
the global networks of capital. Hence, the potential of the net, as a
paradigmatic productive force of our time, exceeds the capitalist
mode of production (Hardt and Negri, 2000).
The same is true of knowledge-information, another paradigmatic
productive force of our era. Knowledge is universal and non-rival.
Capital carves for itself a selected subnet of the total net: the
global network of accumulation of capital. The flow of
knowledge-capital is fenced within this selected subnet. Even within
this subnet the flow of knowledge is not free. First, in the
competition between different multinationals, significant forms of
knowledge have become increasingly secret and are kept jealously only
within the reach of a small number of designers and engineers of
particular enterprises. Second, commoditized knowledge can move from
one node to another node only if exchanged for money. In other words
the commodity form itself is a form of fencing.
The ITP also contradicts profoundly the capitalist organization of
production. The net is an open-ended network in which every node can
connect to any other node immediately and horizontally.
This implies that units of production can become
de-territorialized global open-ended associated networks of direct
producers where they cooperate with each other horizontally –
though the mediation of a coordinating authority might be necessary –
and produce various goods. This is nothing but social organization of
cognitive P2P. Linux which has been the inaugurating model for P2P is
indeed a practical instance of such a cooperative network. Wikipedia
is another example. This model can be applied to any form of
cognitive production and to a great extent to material production
through automation (see also Bauwens, 2011).
Radical Break with Capitalism
While practically and empirically the P2P mode of production is
still under the sway of capitalism and to a great extent dependent on
it (buying computers and other materials and services from it and
using its infrastructure), its logic radically contradicts that of
capital. I described briefly above major aspects of P2P that accord
to Marx’s understanding of communism. All these aspects contradict
the logic of capital. Here I will show how the logic of P2P
profoundly contradicts the capitalist division of labour, because
division of labour is the key component of any mode of production.
Let me emphasize that in P2P we have a distribution of labour and not
a division of labour (Weber, 2004). The P2P modes of cooperation and
the distribution of products make micro (within separate production
units) and macro (among different units) capitalist divisions of
labor superfluous.
P2P and the Micro Capitalist Division of Labor
On the level of the enterprise, capitalist management imposes the
technical division of labor on workers. Capitalists (or their
managers) bring the workers together under the same roof and place
them in particular positions on the line of the division of labor and
manage them. Cooperation among workers is a product of capital (Marx,
1976). The invention of machines perfected the technical division of
labor, leading to Taylorism in which capital, using scientific
methods, established a full despotism over labor (Braverman, 1974).
The scholars of post-Fordism argue that post-Fordism has transcended
Taylorism by enhancing workers’ skills and involving them in
decision making (Amin, 1994). Similar claims have also been made
about so-called Japanization (Kaplinsky, 1988). Such claims are at
best controversial (Castells, 2010/1996). Many argue that Taylorism
is still the dominant form of the organization of the labor process
(Tomaney, 1994; Huws, 2003). Regardless of the validity of the
Post-Fordist hypothesis, we can safely say that labour is still
compartmentalized in closed spaces and is managed despotically by
representatives of capital. While small select group of workers may
enjoy partial autonomy the total labor processes is centralized by
managers who integrate the work of separate workers into a total
cooperative work process. Andre Gorz (1999: chapter 2), a proponent
of the Post-Fordist hypothesis, says that Post-Fordism has replaced
the Taylorist impersonal and mechanized despotism with new forms of
personal enslavement. Individual producers do not choose their tasks,
or the pace, time and place of their work. In other words the work
process is micro-territorialized both spatially and temporally. In
this sense the contrast with P2P cooperation cannot be stronger. In
P2P cooperation the work processes are globally de-territorialized,
in terms of both time and space.
The increasingly complex growth of hierarchical micro-divisions of
labor which had been a major factor behind the growth of the
productivity of industrial labor has become a barrier to the
productivity of cognitive labor. Brook (1975) showed that in a
centralized organization the increase of the number of engineers who
work on a particular software problem decreases the efficiency by
creating unnecessary complexities at an exponential rate. Raymond
(2001) demonstrated that this was not true of de-centered networked
cooperation of P2P. Here, the increase in the number of workers
increases efficiency and improves the product. This hypothesis can be
true of all forms of cognitive production.
The network-based online voluntary cooperation subverts the
top-down logic of the capitalist management which is also the logic
of the capitalist state. However, there is one form of “centralized”
control in P2P. The development of each project is ultimately
controlled by the individual(s) who launch it on the net. At
crossroads, they have the final say, though there is a space for
extensive discussions. However, if others are not happy with
decisions taken by leadership, they have the right to take the entire
project and develop it in the direction they please. Whether this
form of “centralization” is an impact of the external capitalist
environment, or inherent to P2P production, needs to be examined
critically (O’Neil, 2009).
P2P and Macro capitalist Division of Labor
In the macro capitalist division different units of production are
not connected with each other immediately but through the mediation
market. Workers exchange their labor for wages and the products of
their labor become commodities owned by capitalists and sold in the
market. It is only in this way that the labors of immediate producers
of various units and branches of production are connected to each
other, becoming parts of the total social labor of society. Each unit
of production becomes a component of the total capitalist macro
division of labor to the extent it produces commodities which are
sold (Marx 1978). P2P’s products are principally universal commons.
Although the GPL allows the sale of products, as a matter of
common sense, no one pays for a product which is available for free.
The commercial use of P2P’s products does not make them commodities
because the user does not pay for them and therefore they do not
enter the costs of his own commodity. From this follows that the
total labor which is globally spent today on different forms of P2P
is outside the capitalist social division of labor and circumscribes
it. In the current stage the P2P is also circumscribed by the
commodity form as major parts of the means of production are
commodities and the contributors to P2P must earn money. A fully
fledged P2P society is not compatible with money and commodity. The
commodity form inherently circumscribes the freedoms that are
guaranteed in the GPL (this point can also be reached by using Marx`s
theory of value; however, it requires a lengthy argument that I have
no space to develop here).
To sum up, the ITP productive forces combined with the de-centered
network-based form of cooperation, the absence of wage labor,
voluntary contribution, and the commons form of products constitute
the main features of the P2P mode of production. Although the P2P
mode of production is still an emerging phenomenon, its logic is
clearly different from that of capitalism and has been created as a
response to the requirements of the new productive forces. Therefore,
its historical significance, urgency and novelty can hardly be
exaggerated. The capitalist mode of production is a barrier to the
realization of the potentialities of knowledge in the era of
Internet. It limits human creativity and the development of knowledge
workers in general. Therefore, it is no coincidence that a section of
knowledge workers have rebelled against capitalist relations of
production by lunching P2P. As Söderberg (2008) argues this is a
form of class struggle.
The relation of the P2P mode of production to
capitalism
The new social production consists of islands in the sea of the
capitalist mode of production. The relation between the two, as
pointed to above, is one of mutual dependence and antagonism. The
social production depends on capitalism for acquiring some of the
means of production and wages of its contributors, whilst capitalism
on the other hand uses the commons of social production for free.
Marxists distinguish between the mode of production and the social
formation. The social formation is an integrated
socio-economic-ideological/cultural system. It may consist of more
than one modes of production. However, one mode of production
dominates the others and its imperatives define the overall
characteristics of the social formation. In this sense we can speak
of feudal and capitalist social formations as distinct from feudal
and capitalist modes of production. Although the dominant mode of
production dominates other modes of production, it cannot erase their
specific logics. The continuous tension and dependency between the
dominant mode of production and subordinated ones make social
formations dynamic, uneven, and complex phenomena.
The capitalist social formation has gone through three partially
overlapping phases: the emerging, the dominant and the declining
ones. In the emerging phase (1850-1950) the capitalist mode of
production dominated the feudal, domestic and other pre- capitalist
modes of production worldwide, extracting labor and value from them
(Mandel, 1972: chapter 2 ). In the second phase (1950-1980) the
capitalist mode of production eroded the pre-capitalist mode of
productions profoundly, and replaced them with the capitalist mode of
production. Capitalism expanded both intensively, penetrating new
domains of productive activity such as services, and extensively,
conquering the whole globe. The third phase (1980- onwards) is
characterized by the emergence of the ITP paradigm and the social
mode of production within the capitalist social formation. This
period has been described in terms such as “Network Society”
(Castells, 2010/1997 ), “Empire” (Hardt and Negri, 2000), etc.
Although the P2P mode of production is still under the sway of the
capitalist mode of production, its standing vis-à-vis capitalism is
different from that of pre-capitalist modes of productions. While in
the two first phases capitalism represented the new productive
forces, in the third phase P2P is the new and emerging mode of
production and capitalism is the declining one. If P2P dominates
capitalism we will have the emerging phase of P2P social formation. I
do not want to give the impression that the victory of P2P over
capitalism is either a smooth evolutionary process or inevitable. It
is fully contingent upon the orientations and consequences of the
current social struggle, particularly the struggle of P2P
communities. As I will deal with this issue in the final section, the
following section explores whether the current social production can
be generalized to material production.
Can material production and distribution be
organized through the P2P mode of production?
Today the social mode of production (P2P) has been extended beyond
software, covering other spheres of the production of symbols and
signs (see P2P Foundation website). Bauwens (2011) shows that P2P is
gaining grounds in design and manufacturing. Adrian Bowyer (2006) and
his collaborators launched an open source project for the production
of a three-dimensional printer in 2005 which now reproduces itself.
Indeed, the P2P mode of production can be extended to most branches
of material production. Automation will be a pillar of this
transformation, though automation is not a necessary pre-condition
for material P2P. In a fully automated production, the P2P production
of cognitive factor (research and development, design and software)
will bring material production under the sway of P2P. Capitalistic
automation leads to loss of jobs and the degradation of work.
Automation will not need to have these impacts in P2P social
formation. Employment has no meaning and the automation will offer a
lot of free time to humanity. This time can be devoted to the
collective production of knowledge, education and care.
As strategic material resources are limited and unevenly scattered
around the globe, a fair global distribution of such resources will
become a major challenge for a global P2P society. The natural limit
to raw material will also place a limit on material wealth and will
require rules of distribution. But the criterion for distribution in
the global community and within each local community cannot be the
contribution of labor by individuals and communities, because
cognitive work is globally collective, has no exchange value and does
not produce exchange value. Only the needs of communities and
individuals defined democratically among and within communities can
be the criterion for distribution. I cannot speculate about rules of
a P2P global distribution of raw material but it seems reasonable to
assume that if the knowledge factor of production will become the
free commons of all humanity, then strategic natural resources must
follow suit. The ecological movement has already conceived the earth
and the atmosphere as global commons (Rabinowitz, 2010 ). The common
ownership and use of nature, particularly land, by the whole of
humanity will be the ultimate challenge for the P2P society and by
same token for humanity as a whole. Hence, the protection of nature
will become the major priority of a global P2P society.
What are the possibilities for establishing a P2P
Society: The role of struggle
Capitalism is in a deep crisis and there is a global
anti-capitalist movement. Moreover, the technological base for
establishing a fully fledged P2P society already exists and a
considerable number of savvy knowledge workers enthusiastically try
to expand P2P. Yet, there is no guarantee that P2P will automatically
prevail over capitalism. Tim Wu (2010) argues that the state and
corporate empires will fight tooth and nail to bring IT technologies
under their own control, as they did with radio technology. But the
success of state and capital in preventing P2P from becoming the
dominant mode of production is not guaranteed beforehand. Things can
go either way depending on the consequence of social struggles. The
P2P movement, if supported by all other social movements of the
multitude, may prevail. Social struggle will also determine what type
of P2P society we will have.
What then are the possible scenarios for P2P production to become
the dominant mode of production? Will it grow parallel with
capitalism until it overtakes it? Or, will its path of development be
much more complicated, marked by ebbs and flows, and temporary
setbacks? Will a social revolution that expropriates strategic means
of production from capitalists be a prerequisite for P2P production
to become the dominant mode of production? What will be the role of
social struggle and human consciousness in advancing P2P production?
The answer to these questions needs a collective effort of many.
Here, suffice to mention that “the idea of communism” is becoming
appealing again. However it is not enough, though really necessary,
to say that “another communism is possible” (Harvey, 2010:259)
but to imagine the general contours of communist production. Herein
lies the historical and political significance of P2P production. It
represents, though in embryonic form, a model for communist
production and distribution. The success of this mode of production
will definitely depend on the attendant social struggle. What then
are the strengths and weaknesses of the P2P production social
movement? Its strength is that it is a productive practice.
Its weakness, as Söderberg (2008) argues, is that most of the
participants in the P2P production lack an explicit anti-capitalist
consciousness, let alone a communist consciousness. As already
mentioned, there are some, such as Moglen (2003), Barbrook (2007) and
Kleiner (2010) who define the movement as a communist one. However,
the majority’s involvement in production is motivated by personal
reasons, such as doing something exciting and creative, and improving
their own skills. However participants are aware of, and value the
fact, that they are producing commons. In spite of the lack of an
outright communist vision, my ethnographic observations show that
participants have developed and cherish progressive beliefs, such as
valuing cooperation, preference for creativity and happiness to money
and careerism, concerns for ecology, preference for public interests
to egoistic interests, antipathy towards consumerism, and care for
poor people and the third world. For instance technological activists
have helped Iranian, Tunisian, Egyptian and Syrian activists to
organize net-based public spheres.
P2P communities also develop progressive and humanistic moral
attitudes. The members of communities do not appreciate bragging,
self-promotion, dishonesty and calculative manipulation. On the whole
while recognizing individuals and crediting their contributions the
common interest in maintaining and developing productive P2P
communities were strong. No doubt the formation of a solid
collectivist and progressive culture which grows organically around
P2P production and other social movements will be essential for the
formation of a communist society. Despite the significance of this
progressive culture-in-making, it cannot remedy the lack of a clear
programmatic communist vision and sustained theoretical critique of
capitalism among the participants.
The lack of a clear collectivist vision combined with the dominant
capitalist environment makes P2P production vulnerable to invasion by
capitalism. Many projects that had been started as P2P production
were diverted into capitalist enterprises. Under this condition the
propagation of a clear communist vision among the participants of P2P
production will be indispensable for the advancement of the new mode
of production. No doubt there is a self-conscious communist section
among the producers in P2P production. This communist section must
carry out an uncompromising theoretical and critical theoretical
struggle within the P2P production movement. However, this struggle
should be conducted in friendly terms and avoid sectarianism.
Communists should not position themselves against non-communist
participants in the P2P movement. Actually, as Barbrook (2007)
argues, all contributors to P2P production are involved in a
communist material practice, regardless of their attitudes to
communism. The task of communists is to describe and theorize this
practice and critique capitalism from the vantage of this practice.
P2P production itself has already developed an outstanding procedure
for the advancement of a critical debate among its participants.
Everyone’s contribution to production is reviewed, evaluated and
credited by others openly and publicly on the net. This procedure can
also be used (and is used to some extent) in political, theoretical
and ideological debates within P2P communities.
In addition to the lack of class consciousness among P2P
producers, and perhaps as a result of this, the absence of sustained
connections/alliances between P2P producers and other progressive
social movements is another weakness of the P2P movement. This is
also a weakness of other social movements. The alliance between a
self-conscious P2P movement and other social movements, with
anti-systemic potentials and goals, will strengthen both sides. P2P
production will receive support in its struggle against the
increasingly draconian copyright regime which has been imposed in the
last 30 years. P2P production, on the other hand, supplies other
social movement with models for a more just, democratic and
ecological alternative of cooperation in production, public sphere,
and self-governance; and the realization of individual freedom and
creativity. The very fact the Occupy Wall Street was initiated by
Adbusters and Anonymous, and that its de-centered/network form of
organization, alongside that of Indignados, is very similar to that
of P2P, is indeed very promising.
There is at least a section among P2P producers who clearly relate
their practice to the broader issues of justice, freedom, common
goods and democracy. They also participate in other social movements.
The academic and the activist left, on the other hand, have not yet
grasped the historical novelty and significance of P2P production.
They usually downplay the significance of P2P production as the hobby
of some yuppies, or as an epiphenomenon on the fringes of the
capitalist mode of production. Others downplay its significance by
suggesting that tomatoes or cucumbers cannot be produced through P2P
production. They ignore the fact that technology and life sciences,
particularly micro-biology, including DNA sequencing, which are
becoming increasingly important for agriculture, can be produced
through P2P cooperation. Yet another argument, making a post-colonial
gesture, suggests that computers, IT and 3DPs are the exclusive
luxury of the privileged. Although this is true to some extent, it
should not be treated as a static fact. Subaltern groups fight to
appropriate IT technology for their own purposes. The Zapatistas used
the Internet to mobilize global support for their movement. Recently,
Chinese migrant workers, Green movement activists in Iran, and
activists in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria have used the Internet to
circulate the news of their protests. Laptops and mobile phones,
acquiring the functions of computers, are becoming cheaper, and hence
affordable for many, though not for everyone, in the Global South.
The same is true of 3D printers. The left needs to recognize the
struggle over knowledge as the new major terrain of social struggle
and give its due significance to P2P production in this context.
A major protest movement has swept the globe in 2011. What if
these protest movements put the appropriation of major means of
production and their re-organization in a P2P cooperation system on
their agenda?
Jakob Rigi is based at the Central European University,
Budapest.
Works cited
Amin, A. (1994) (ed.) Post-Fordism, Oxford: Blackwell.
Barbrook, R. (2007) ‘Cybercommunism: How the Americans Are
Superseding Capitalism in Cyberspace’.
http://www.imaginaryfutures.net/2007/18by-richard-barbrook/.
Bauwens, M (2011) ‘Open Design and Manufacturing’ WE_Magazine.
Benkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production
Transforms Market and Freedom, New Haven: Yale UP.
Boyle, J. (1996) Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the
Construction of Information Society, Cambridge Mass: Harvard UP.
Bowyer, A. (2006) ‘The Self-replicating Rapid Prototyper –
Manufacturing for the Masses’. http://reprap.org/wiki.Philopsphy
Page. Dowloaded. 2/26. 2011
Braverman, H. (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: Degradation of
Work in the Twentieth Century, New York: Monthly Review Press.
Brook, F. (1975) The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software
Engineering, Reading, Mass: Addison-Weley.
Castells, M. (2010/1996) The Rise of the Network Society, Oxford:
Wiley – Blackwell.
Gorz, A. (1999) Reclaiming Work, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Hardt, M., and Negri, A. (2011) ‘What to Expect in 2011′.
Adbusters.
Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000) Empire, Cambridge Mass: Harvard UP.
Harvy, D. (2010) The Enigma of Capital, London: Profile Books.
Huws, U. (2003) The Making of Cybertariat: Virtual Work in the
Real World, New York: Monthly Review Press.
Kaplinsky, R. (1988) ‘Restructuring Capitalist Labour Process’.
Cambridge Journal of Economic,12: 541-70.
Kleiner, D. (2010) Telekommunist Manifesto, Amsterdam: Institute
of Network Cultures.
Lessig, L. (2005) Free Culture: The Nature and Future of
Creativity, Penguin Books.
Mandel, L. (1970) Late Capitalism, London: Verso.
Marx, K. (1965) Pre/Capitalist Economic Formations, New York:
International Publication.
Marx, K. (1978a) ‘Enstranged Labour’ in Tucker, R.C. (ed.)
Marx and Engels Reader, New York: Norton and Company.
Marx, K. (1978b) ‘Critique of Gotha Programme’ in Tucker, R.C.
(ed.) Marx and Engels Reader, New York: Norton and Company.
Marx, K. (1978c) ‘Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of
Political Economy’ in Tucker, R.C. (ed.) Marx and Engels Reader,
New York: Norton and Company.
Marx, K. (1976) Capital Vol. I, Penguin Books.
Marx, K. (1978) Capital Vol .II, Penguin Books.
Marx, K. (1981) Capital Vol. III, Penguin Books.
Merton, K. (1979) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and
Empirical Investigations, Chicago UP.
Merton, K. (1996) On Social Structure and Science, Chicago:
Chicago UP.
Moglen, E. (2003) dtCommunist Manifesto
http://www.emoglen.law.columbia.ed/my_pubs/dcm.html.
O’Neil, M. (2009) Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online
Tribe: London: Pluto Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990) Govening the Commons: The Evolution of
Institutions for Collective Action,
Raymond, E. (2001) The Cthedral and the Bazaar:Musing on Linux and
Open Source bt anAccidental Revolutionary, Sebastopol: O’Reilly.
Rigi, J. (2011) ‘Peer to Peer Production and Advanced Communism:
The Alternative to Capitalism’ Unpublished ms.
Rabinowitz, D. (2010) ‘Ostrom, the commons, and the anthropology
of “earthlings” and their atmosphere’Focaal: Journal of Global
and Historical Anthropology, 57:104-108.
Soderberg, J (2008) Hacking Capitalism: The Free and Oen Source
Software Movement, New York: Routledge.
Stallman, R. (2002) Free Software, Free Society, Boston: GNU
Press.
Tamney, J. (1994) ‘A New Paradigm of Work Organization and
Technilogy’ in Amim, A. (ed.) Post-Fordism, Oxford: Blackwell.
Weber, S. (2004) The Success of Open Source, Cambridge Mass:
Harvard UP.
Wu, T. (2010) The Master of Switch: The Rise and Fall of
Information Enterprises, New York: Knof.
Anna says: