for‐profit forces that are building and enabling these new platforms of participation represent a new subclass, the “netarchical” (Bauwens, 2009) or “vectoral” (Wark, 2004) class. These new capitalists prosper from the enablement and exploitation of participatory networks. In addition to the examples above, see also Amazon that built itself around user reviews, eBay that lives on a platform of worldwide distributed auctions, and Google that builds on user‐generated content.
More broadly, netarchical capitalism is a brand of capital that embraces peer production. It is the force behind the immanence of peer production. Opposed to it, though linked to it in a temporary alliance, are the forces of commoning, those that put their faith in the transcendence of commons‐based peer production, in a reform of the political economy beyond the domination of the market.
Indeed, peer production has transcendent aspects that go beyond the limitations set by the for‐profit‐maximization economy. Historically, though forces of higher productivity may be temporarily embedded in the old productive system, they ultimately lead to deep upheavals and reconstitutions of the political economy. The emergence of capitalist modes within the feudal system is a case in point.
Peer production can become the vehicle of new configurations of production and exchange, no longer dominated by capital and state. This is the “transcendent” aspect of peer production as it creates a new overall system that can subsume the other forms (Bauwens, 2009). One scenario is that capital and state subsume the commons under their direction and domination, leading to a new type of “commons‐centric” capitalism. In a second scenario, the commons, its communities, and institutions become dominant and, thus, may adapt state and market forms to their interests.
At a time when the very success of the capitalist mode of production endangers the biosphere and causes increasing psychic (and physical) damage to the population, the emergence of such an alternative is particularly appealing, and corresponds to the new cultural needs of large numbers of the population. It stands as a permanent alternative to the status quo, and the expression of the rising of a new social force: the knowledge workers.
6 Instead of Conclusions: Towards a P2P Theory
The aim of P2P theory is, therefore, to give a theoretical underpinning to the transformative practices of peer production. It aims to understand how a new kind of society, based on the centrality of the commons and within a reformed market and state, is possible. Such a theory has to explain not only the dynamics of peer production, but also their fit with other inter‐subjective dynamics. For example, how peer production molds reciprocity modes, market modes, and hierarchy modes; on what ontological, epistemological, and axiological transformations this evolution is resting; and what a possible peer production ethos can be. A crucial element of such a P2P theory would be the development of tactics and strategy for such a transformative practice.
A transformative practice has to acknowledge and address systemic social unfairness and environmental degradation. Yet peer production does not solve many of these problems, especially those involving race and gender. Nor does it directly address the hidden environmental and social costs of digital technologies, which are energy‐intensive throughout their life‐cycle. Moreover, low‐wage laborers (often including children) work under inhumane circumstances so that ever more people in the advanced economies have access to cheap digital technologies. However, P2P theory and practices discuss and introduce new paradigmatic ways of value creation that have the potential to be more radically inclusive and sustainable.
Acknowledgments
Vasilis Kostakis acknowledges financial support from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No 802512).
References
1 Bauwens, M. (2005). The political economy of peer production. Ctheory Journal. www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499
2 Bauwens, M. (2009). Class and capital in peer production. Capital & Class, 33(1), 121–141.
3 Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., & Pazaitis, A. (2019). Peer to peer: The commons manifesto. London: Westminster University Press.
4 Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., Troncoso, S., & Utratel, A. (2017). Commons transition and peer‐to‐peer: A primer. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute.
5 Bauwens, M., & Onzia, Y. (2017). Commons Transitie Plan voor de Stad Gent. In Opdracht van de Stad Gent. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ybyj5qd4
6 Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase’s penguin, or Linux and the nature of the firm. Yale Law Journal, 112(3), 369–446.
7 Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8 Bonaccorsi, A., Giannangeli, S., & Rossi, C. (2006). Entry strategies under competing standards: Hybrid business models in the open source software industry. Management Science, 52(7), 1085–1098.
9 Casilli, A. (2017). Digital labor studies go global: Toward a digital decolonial turn. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3934–3954.
10 Corradetti, C. (2017). Constructivism in cosmopolitan law: Kant’s right to visit. Global Constitutionalism, 6(3), 412–441.
11 Crumley, C. L. (1979). Three locational models: An epistemological assessment for anthropology and archaeology. In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory (pp. 141–173). New York, NY: Academic Press.
12 Crumley, C. L. (2015). Heterachy. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1–15). New York, NY: Wiley.
13 Dahlander, L., & Magnussonn, M. (2008). How do firms make use of open source communities?. Long Range Planning, 41(6), 629–649.
14 Elliott, M. (2006). Stigmergic collaboration: The evolution of group work. M/C Journal: A Journal of Media and Culture, 9(2). http://journal.media‐culture.org.au/0605/03‐elliott.php
15 Galloway, A. (2004). Protocol: How control exists after decentralization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16 Giotitsas, C. (2019). Open source agriculture: Grassroots technology in the digital era. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
17 Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon Books.
18 Freeman, J. (1970). The tyranny of structurelessness. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 17, 151–165.
19 Kelly, M. (2012). Owning our future: The emerging ownership revolution – journeys to a generative economy. Oakland, CA: Berrett‐Koehler Publishers.
20 Kostakis, V. (2010). Identifying and understanding the problems of Wikipedia’s peer governance. First Monday, 15(3). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2613/2479
21 Kostakis, V., & Bauwens, M. (2019). How to create a thriving global commons economy? The Next System Project. Retrieved from https://thenextsystem.org/learn/stories/how‐create‐thriving‐global‐commons‐economy
