Commons Management Agreement

There's a lack of analysis for Cultural Commons: Persuading people to 'consume' common art rather than private art is not something which Copyfair enters into any discussions of yet. Copyfair isn't really addressing material commons - yet. The Cultural Heritage 'angle' is particularly applicable to 'art' as common goods... Buying a tea set with the faces of some TV chefs who's brand is enclosed (sometimes by public license demanding entities etc) cannot yet be offset against a choice to buy a tea set with the faces of local independent chefs, or chefs who's faces are part of a common heritage and 'stock' of value - for public good. (Notably, with micro-payments, blockchain etc, the public/common/private distinctions are not binary either - it's quite possible to make partial definitions of goods and services). The current problem (in relation to a Commons Management Agreements) for arts and culture, is that where 'publicly funded arts' exist, they are so selective in what they choose to treat as 'common' that they become effectively, state sponsored enclosures.... I'm not sure I've really succeeded in explaining why 'CultureBanking' is necessary (if I'm right that it is) but shall keep trying... this article provides some good analysis I think (not had time to study in detail): http://www.klamer.nl/research-project/art-as-a-common-good/ - Am writing an interpretative article for my old art schools alumni mag to try to get into a useful discussion and tease out a bit more... Still not sure what the 'common networks'/P2P etc actually make of 'material AND knowledge based cultural commons' - particularly where they are, as they often are, inseparable...? Thoughts as ever most welcome

thanks for your viewpoint,

yes, open source communities may force their value system and governance on major corporations, but they are still operating extractively in the market and dominating most of the open source software markets that matter (Loomio being an exception)

The copyfair is addressed for material production and for people for whom it matters that the ecosystem is not dominated by such corporations but by generative entities,

The Linux Foundation may be generative, but IBM and Apple and Microsoft are not, independent of their use of open source softwares,

Michel

major corporations, but they are still operating extractively in the market and dominating most of the open source software markets that matter

How are we defining "software markets" here? Numbers of users? Share of revenue? Corporations and their user and profit figures are very visible, while decentralized replacements are much harder to aggregate data on. Again, are there studies on this you could link me to? Anecdotally, many people I know make a sufficient or event generous fulltime living supporting commercial users of free code software, many of them in serial freelancing (eg things like Gun.io), one-person companies, or small shops.

I suspect you'll find that the markets the tech corporations dominate are actually the the "cloud" hosting markets, and the device markets; Microsoft with Windows on desktops / laptops, Apple and Google on handhelds, Microsoft and Sony on game consoles, Amazon on e-readers. Hardware, data centres, and network access, can't be replicated as needed like digital goods can, so it's much harder to apply open source flattening to these products.

The Linux Foundation may be generative, but IBM and Apple and Microsoft are not, independent of their use of open source softwares,

I agree, but that's not a problem cause by copyleft licensing a I see it, but by the lack of replacement organizing models at the financial layer of the economic stack. News models like platform cooperatives and micro-patronage already shaking things up, as are Initial Coin Offerings, which have apparently already replaced venture capitalists as the main financial fuel for tech startups.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-30/next-step-cryptos-evolution-consolidation

Thanks Mike @mikeh8 for the linguistic thoughts. I think I am understanding what you are saying, positively. I agree that it can be helpful to be careful in several directions in the words we choose. English is perhaps less prone than most to blatant nationalistic tendencies, but there are European countries where various forms of linguistic purity have been tried, so perhaps it's not all one way. If it were purely a class thing, then perhaps we could strive to side with the commoner and not the elite. Maybe that's what you're saying. I suspect that sometimes it is more than a class thing, or deeper, or more subtle.

I would personally take the line of being very tolerant of whatever words people choose, and if I think it is needed, offer equivalents if there are people who are likely not to understand the form given. Or, indeed, as you have done, to explain the connotations of different vocabulary choice to those who are less likely to recognise them.

One of the things I learned from being a school teacher, and then practice (as and when I remember, which is not always by any means!) as a member of European projects, is to choose vocabulary that is more likely to be understood. Some of the trickiest things to look out for in my experience with non-native speakers are English idioms that do not translate literally. With children it's obviously the more abstruse or academic words.

These days, we can also do as I have done, and include a link to an explanation of an unfamiliar word. I don't reckon that "entredonneur" is going to make it into the dictionaries, however. In the end, I agree with you that using "generative" and "extractive" is helpful, though those terms don't have easy noun forms. I've put a note on the P2PF Wiki entry.

I agree @asimong about the basic need to choose vocabulary that is more likely to be understood - across language communities. Does anyone know how this extractive/generative distinction is made in Barcelona Spanish, Bologna Italian or Brazilian Portuguese?

Regarding noun forms - for example, an equivalent of 'entrepreneur' . . . it could be a little clumsy sometimes but I suspect we could get by using the adjective as I did earlier, attached to specific kinds of actors or settings: extractive acts, extractive corporations, extractive processes, extractive aims, etc. Perhaps this results in precision rather than awkwardness? Concreteness rather than abstraction?

Not everybody will want to talk about such matters, as is happening here! :nerd: But concrete use of language is of general benefit?

"Is there anything 'entredonneurial' can do, that can’t be done well by 'extractive/generative'?" - I think so, yes: What appeals to me about the term 'entredoneur' is that it stands as a distinction to a word which is already in international and widespread usage... That's its value, I'd argue... but I'd agree it would be useful to hear how other languages are making these distinctions. 'Generative' and 'extractive' are, I also agree, clearer in some ways but the word we have for referencing acts of 'wealth creation' and 'venturism', is 'entrepreneur'. IMO, a word which points out the apparent 'taking' and 'giving' dichotomy (it isn't I know) is valuable even if for that reason alone. Perhaps what we need is one unifying word for 'business development' or some-such? Since there's no other easy noun form for ''taking from in between' - the concept has widest application by referencing the word in widest usage: The idea that the same impetus, social action or intervention might involve 'giving', is, I think, quite important. It also references reciprocity, which is missing in the terms 'generative' and 'extractive' - and is also key to commons-oriented types of social and economic contracts. So, the antonym is important here - for balance and as a gateway to being able to think differently about 'enterprise' ... it's didactic. In 'trade' terms, it also reminds us that neither giving nor receiving can exist in isolation - as the sole term 'entrepreneur' mistakenly suggests... Entrepreneurs exist only to become Entredoneurs and vice versa. I think 'extraction' and 'generation' are more set up to be 'good guy/bad guy', like Corbyn's reference to 'wealth extractors' and 'wealth creators'; one good, one bad: You wouldn't want both - but you do want 'givers' and 'receivers'.... you can't have 'either/or'.

So, 'Entredoneur': 1. References common parlance so has common power. 2. References reciprocity, whereas generation doesn't require extraction. 3. ..is a semantically different term to 'extractor': Entrepre/do/neurialsm are both generative terms: You can 'give' or 'take' to create value which needn't be privately enclosed. 'Extraction' though, is the opposite of value creation and involves 'taking' not 'receiving'....

I've not read Marjorie Kelly, so don't know precisely what she intends extractive/generative to cover. I note that in P2PF usage there's a significant environmental content in this terminology. I presumed something like this, informed by my broadly Marxian frame on value . . .

'Generative' may refer to all creation of value by any kind of process, which is to say use value: the actual historical humanly useable (value-able) content of any product of labour. Whereas 'extractive' may refer to a process of:
- extraction of surplus value, which amounts to 'stealing' of value from the commons of human valuing (social valuing), to be accumulated and redeployed as 'selfish, blind' capital; and
- unending extraction of material and energy from the planet, a historic programme that now must be ceased.

Admittedly, 'generative' says nothing directly about just what it is that actual humans actually do value. There's a tacit moral position implied in using 'use value' in this way. Historically, many use values have been destructive of the environment, it's not only capitalist-extractive production that has done harm but also, for example, ordinary ignorance or greed. Thus I don't think that extractive/generative = Orwellian Extractive - Bad, Generative - Good, in a kind of Corbyn/Momentum-speak, as @liammurphy suggests. It's more like: extractive = environmentally and humanely unjustifiable, generative = environmentally and humanly considerate and without-harm?

I guess I'd say that what Liam thinks of as 'good-entrepreneurial', I'd think of as a kind of 'generative' practice (generating use value by creatively 'taking' something from culture and reworking it and returning it to the commons in accordance with the values of the commons). While 'extractive' means taking something out of the commons, completely out of the circulation of commons-valuing and -using and -regulating, and appropriating it for individual gain and power which actively abuses the commons value.

Would someone like to comment on Marjorie Kelly's terms, who's read her work?

BTW we're well off topic here? Does anyone mind?

So different words, different circumstance, all of which in the end denote purpose. That is what we need to convey . . . . . what is our purpose?. Generative is the purpose, achieved by being an entredonneur, running a not for profit business. I don't think any of this is immediately accessible to most folk, even if they care. I want people to know that my motives are not what they might assume.

How about 'I'm a post capitalist businessman?. That asks more questions than it answers & should at least get peoples attention. Ultimately post capitalism is the vision that we wish to convey. . . . . isn't it?. If so simply using the term regularly can only help.

I'm may get it put on my next business card.

Simon writes: 'I want people to know that my motives are not what they might assume.’ Sounds like a good starting point to me!

And a business card reading ‘I’m a post capitalist businessman’ should start a few conversations! Maybe you could have Marjorie Kelly’s five-way table of differences on the back of the card? (Half-serious)

This quote by Anna Lappe is on my current business card

“Every time you spend money, you're casting a vote for the kind of world you want.”