Comments on: Phronesis and the Internet: the Process Revolution

By: proof is in the pudding at ehb

proof is in the pudding at ehb — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:41:18 +0000

[...] So, I did this for my paper on the process revolutuion and I have thereby experience this fact directly.Â Zack Clarck has “forked” my paper, changing various terms I used to describe concepts, changing the flavor of the paper by making it less neutral and more strongly worded, and adding new ideas as well.Â The power of this occurrence is tremendous.Â The old model would have been to find a journal to publish the idea in, and collect money on the sale, and sue for copyright infringement because of lost sales, blah, blah, blah. [...]

By: francois

francois — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:57:29 +0000

oops, somehow I submitted the comment.
Was going to say I have yet to read this book but critics are clear. Lessig’s point about being serious about this issue without having read that book is taken.
And it’s Yale pal of yours that wrote it…

By: francois

francois — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:55:05 +0000

I just discovered a book that might just be about this process revolution you are talking about: The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets And Freedom, see http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php/Main_Page.
It’s available as a PDF.
I still h

By: Administrator

Administrator — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:20:17 +0000

Marry Anne, great comments. With respect to "commonism winning out over ownerism," of course you are right. In our current "capitalist" world there are plenty of cases where Capital (the means of production) is owned in common by various different mechanisms. The question is: which is the underlying default assumption? A question that is answered very definitively in capitalism re Captial toward the individual (natural or corporate). Also note that even now we are very interested in re-considering ownership patterns for other economic factors, for example with Land in the community land trust movement.

By: Mary Anne Davis

Mary Anne Davis — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:47:53 +0000

Hi Eric- Thanks for the heads up on this. A few quick, first glance observations -
“Economic revolutions occur when aspects of production are sufficiently amplified by cognitive technologies that new economic patterns of production come into being.”
This statement recognizes the need to articulate the “stories” behind making. This includes marketing, a communication device.
“…the data plus the patterns and processes that use that data to organize production.”
This seems to me, especially today (literally, July 12th), that software, like Excel, can rapidify processes which make cost vs. pricing a rational practice which can create the viability of a business transaction. This access is available to anyone who owns Excel or a like spreadsheet software app.
The 3rd proposition is less conclusive. It articulates the way things have been.
The last 2 propositions are more diffficult for me to comment on here- i agree with most of what you have outlinedd here, although further discussion on the transformation of “ownerism” to “commonism” is much in need. As in all things, a balance is necessary. i have toyed with the phrase “social capitalism” for years. A balance between who owns an idea or resource, the capitol extracted from that idea/resource based on fairly recognizing the essential collaboration invloved in all ventures, this is the point in the conversation we are rapidly apprroaching or may be in.
I would argue in your conjecture that commonism winning out over ownerism may be a bit one sided. Some level of ownerism is essential, today, for inspiration and motivation to be factors in production. A rational approach to acknowledgeing shared commons is essential, but I do feel an original concept serves the originator, at least for a time. A simple approach is to phisically produce an object, based on skill, own that and sell it. Shared knowledge and abstract resources are more difficult to codify.