P2P Foundation

Wiki Main PageInternational Blog [EN]Greek Language [GR]Dutch Language Blog [BE-NL]Mailing List

Navigation

Recent changesRandom pageHelpDonations

Tools

What links hereRelated changesSpecial pagesPrintable versionPermanent linkBrowse properties

Log in / create accountNetarchical CapitalismNetarchical capitalism is a hypothesis about the emergence of a new segment of the capitalistclass (the owners of nancial or other capital), which is no longer dependent on the ownership ofintellectual property rights (hypothesis of cognitive capitalism), nor on the control of the mediavectors (hypothesis of MacKenz ie Wark in his book The Hacker's Manifesto), but rather on thedevelopment and control of participatory platforms.

C o nt e nt sC o nt e nt s [hide] 1 Description2 Discussion

2.1 Bauwens & Kostakis book2.2 Mark Pesce on Sharing vs. Profits2.3 Mark Deuz e2.4 Trebor Scholz 's critique of value capture by proprietary platforms2.5 The market domination strategies of the netarchical platforms

3 Key Books to Read4 More Information

DescriptionHere's an extensive citation from the manuscript on P2P T heory (see the Foundational Essay):Michel Bauwens, section 3.5:Above I have summarized the key theses about the new class con>guration. In this section I o@er my owntake on the matter, s ince I am convinced that both main interpretations miss something important, that thepeer to peer era is creating a new type of capitalists, which are not based on the accumulation of knowledgeassets or vectors of information, but on the enablement and exploitation of the networks of participatoryculture. T he invention of service-based business strategies based on the use of collective-produced opensource code may be considered a subset of this development.Recall the following: the thesis of Cognitive Capitalism says that we have entered a new phase of capitalismbased on the accumulation of knowledge assets, rather than the capital involved in physical productiontools. T he vectoralist thesis says that a new class has arisen which controls the vectors of information, i.e.the means through which information and creative products have to pass, for them to realize their exchangevalue. T hey both describe the processes of the last 40 years, say the post-1968 period, which saw a furiouscompetition through knowledge-based competition and for the acquisition of knowledge assets, which ledto the extraordinary weakening of the scientific and technical commons. And they do this rather well.But in my opinion, both these hypotheses fail to account for the newest of the new, i.e. to take into accountthe emergence of peer to peer as social format. What is happening?In terms of knowledge creation, a vast new information commons is being created, which is increasingly outof the control of cognitive capitalism. And the new information infrastructure, cannot be said to belong inany real sense to the vectoralist class.T herefore, my hypothesis is that a new capitalist class is emerging, which I propose to call the netarchists(since netocracy is already taken by Alexander Bard, and I reject his interpretation, see above). T hese arethe forces which both enable and exploit the participatory networks aris ing in the peer to peer era.Examples abound:1) Red Hat: it makes a living through associated services around open source and free software which, andthis is crucial, it doesnt own, and doesnt need to own. We now have not only the spectacle of >rmsdivesting their physical capital (the famous example of Alcatel divesting itself from any and allmanufacturing, Nike not producing any shoe itself), but also of their intellectual capital, witness the recentgift of IBM of many patents to the open source patents commons or the strategy of SUN Microsystems[i].2) Amazon: yes, it does sell books, but its force comes from being the intermediary between the publishers

Read View sourcePage Discussion Share this View historySearch

and the consumers of books. But crucially, it success comes from enabling knowledge exchange betweenthese customers. Without it, Amazon wouldnt quite be Amazon. Its the key to its success and valuationotherwise it would just be another bookseller.3 ) Google: yes, it does own the search algorithms and the vast machinery of distributed computers. BUT,just as crucially, its value lies in the vast content created by users on the internet. Without it, Google wouldbe nothing substantial, just another >rm selling search engines to corporations. And the ranking algorithm iscrucially dependent on the links towards document, i.e. the collective wisdom of internet users4 ) EBay: it sells nothing, it just enables, and exploits, the myriad interactions between users creatingmarkets.5) Skype mobilizes the processing resources of the computers of its participating clients6) Yahoo: gets its value for being a portal and intermediarySo we can clearly see that for these >rms, accumulating knowledge assets is not crucial, owning patents isnot crucial, though, driven by the pro>t motive and the desire to obtain monopolies, they use it as asecondary strategy. You could argue that they are vectors in the sense of Wark, but they do not have amonopoly on it, as in the mass media age. Rather they are acceptable intermediaries for the actors of theparticipatory culture. T hey exploit the economy of attention of the networks, even as they enable it. T hey arecrucially dependent on the trust of the user communities. Yet, as private for-pro>t companies they try to rigthe game, but they can only get away with so much, because, if they loose the trust, users would leave indroves, as we have seen in the extraordinary volatility of the search engine market before Googlesdominance. Such companies reKect a deeper change into the general practices of business, which isincreasingly being re-organized around participatory customer cultures see section 3.1.B about thecooperative nature of cognitive capitalism, where this shift is already discussed.Knowledge and other workers using participatory platforms will generally use both the commons and themarket, the latter in order to make a living, and forms of distributed capitalism, which lessen theirdependence on the larger >rms and the salary dependence, may appeal to them. Such workers do haveaccess to their own information machines, but need platforms to connect. Obviously they are drawn to theparticipatory platforms devised by these new types of companies, even feeling an allegiance to them. At thesame time ,the relationship is uneasy since these >rms will generally try to evolve towards monopolisticpractices, or at least, towards short-term for-pro>t strategies and tactics which may not be in theirinterests. Knowledge workers and other forces creating the P2P commons can take a variety of roles in theeconomy, and in present circumstances clearly need a market, but which they are trying to mold to their owninterest. T hus the new forms of distributed capitalism are needed and supported because it lessens thedependence on classic >rms and monopolies. T he trend ful>lls a desire for autonomy within the market,and allows for various forms of consumer aggregation that were hitherto diNcult to achieve[ii]. Similarly,many of the new netarchical leaders are vocal in their general support for participation[iii].In section >ve, where we examine the physical laws operating in networks, and following the summary ofDavid Reed, we see how the linear value growth of individual membership creates a economy of attentionwhere portals and new intermediaries emerge; how the square value growth of interactions creates thetransactional web and the associated platforms; and how the exponential growth of the Group-Forming-Networks quality of networks creates in>nite autonomous content for ever-shifting in>nite aNnity groups,thereby transcending the economy of attention characteristics in s igni>cant ways. (Ebay pro>ts from thethree properties: as an intermediary to content (i.e. what is available where), from the transactions amongstits members, and from their ability to form auction groups themselves.)My conclusion is that the emergence of P2P begets a new capitalist sub-class, which accommodates itselfwith the networks, places itself at crucial nodes and proposes itself as voluntary hubs, rather than living o@knowledge assets. In this sense, vectoralists, even as they ascend to the heights of power throughrestrictive copyright legislation, have already reached the zenith of their power, and they will eventually bereplaced by new formats of capitalist exploitation, which accommodate themselves in much more intelligentways to the peer to peer realities. T he fact that large infrastructural companies such as eBay and Google geta lot of attention should not blind us to the fact that this also is a bottom-up process that enables for amuch wider spread of entrepreneurship, sometimes called minipreneurs. For such minipreneurs, a wholeinfrastructure is in the process of being set up. A >rst layer of websites and services allows for thedistribution and eventually sale of digital material, i.e. publishing of text through self-publishing (lulu.com,booksurge), of self-produced music (PureVolume.com), and digital art (Deviant Art.com). It is also possibleto create and sell self-made physical products such as designs (CafePress.com) and even to use online toolsfor designing products who >rst physical models can be outsourced, such as with eMachineShop.com.Personal fabricators are an extension of this model but are not yet available; in the meantime sites likeiFabricate attempt to >ll the gap[iv]. A related growing trend is the use of personal outsourcing where byindividuals can easily >nd assistance in the developing countries. T here is also a >nancial infrastructurebeing on o@er. T he creation of the Z opabank, where any consumer can also be a lender, is an importantdevelopment as well[v]. Others are experiment with a Corporate Digital Commons format to poolresources. EBay, with its 64 million active users and 260,000 associated stores (and similar initiatives by

Amazon.com) have create a whole parallel economy of primary or secondary earnings.Related to the trend of netarchical capitalism is the user-driven innovation process that we explainedbefore. T his can happen within companies but also through the creation of new kinds of exchanges wherecompanies o@er incentives to communities of researchers to come up with technical or scienti>c solutions.Among the examples are Innocentive.com. T hese initiatives blur the distinction between the commons andthe market, s ince the supply is organized with P2P formats, but the corporate incentives create competitionfor the resources offered, and eventual payment is involved[vi].At the same time, we might except peer to peer exchanges that fall outside of any for-pro>t priorities, andbusinesses from the social economy sector, for whom pro>t is a subsidiary concern. T his new sector mayseem marginal today, but is in my opinion, the next wave in terms of new types of corporations[vii].What seems important in a possible evolution towards a participatory society is the following. Although thelarge netarchical corporations do enable participatory networks, their for-pro>t nature makes themdangerous trustees of commons-favorable protocols. T heir will be a continuous tension between their needto retain the trust of their user base, and the pressure of advertisers as well as their own bottom-line needs.It would be preferable that minipreneurs and those who need platforms to transform use value intoexchange value, to have access to open platforms. Projects like the Broadcast Machine[viii] of theParticipatory Culture Group, or the Prodigal[ix] marketplace seem to go into that direction.T here is another aspect in which the concept of netarchy is useful. T hroughout this essay we always stressthe double nature of P2P: a form in which it is the infrastructure (technical, collaborative, etc..) of the currentsystem; and a form in which it transcends the current system pointing towards an alternative economicorganization. In one way, distributed networks and P2P-like processes can be used to re-enforce Empire, inanother way, to combat it. Ideologically, there will be those who favor P2P but see capitalism as theendgame of history, who cannot imagine an alternative; while others, including myself, see it as the premiseof radical social change. It is easy to see how the >rst position can be termed netarchical, s ince it inevitableaccepts and glori>es the for-pro>t appropriation of the participatory networks, while the latter will favorsautonomous cooperation.T his is not to say that netarchy does not play a useful role. New classes at >rst usually play a progressiverole, riding on the back of new productive possibilities. And such is the role of netarchy. Compared to thecognitive capitalists and vectoralists, who respectively monopolize knowledge assets and informationvectors, netarchists need neither one nor the other. T hus they do not necessarily s ide with the forces tryingto rig computers with digital rights management restrictions, nor with the forces putting young people whoshare music in jail. Rather they will try to both enable and use the new practices, on the one hand makingthem safe for capitalism, but also funding, technologically developing and enabling new P2P processes.Acting as intermediaries between both worlds, they look for reformist solutions as it were.

3.5.D. The emergence of a netarchical ideologyT he emergence of the netarchy is accompanied by a new ideology which both embraces participation, butcrucially sees capitalism as the only conceivable horizon for the future of humanity. It is the kind of ideologyone can identify with the California ideology" expressed in Wired magazine.T he netarchical ideology has its expression especially in the international political economy, especially in theform of bottom-of-the-pyramid economic development, as championed by C.H. Prahalad. Prahalad and themovement he inspired[x] recognize that the one billion people at the bottom of the pyramid manage to havea cash Kow of $2 per day, even though they do not have the capital. And Hernando de Soto, with the socialcapital movement in general[xi], shows how this capital can be partly generated by formalizing the informalcapital that they often do have, but that the current institutional framework cannot recognize. T hus Prahaladand others try to convince capital and development institutions to develop solutions like micro-banking,creating bottom-up collectives of the most poor and a virtuous cycle[xii]. A bottom-up, distributed form ofcapitalism if you like, which shows an uncanny resemblance to P2P processes, and this is why we considerthis position to be netarchical. T he problem with these solutions is that they often aim to capitalizeeverything, and do not have any regard for the surviving forms of the commons which are still very muchalive in certain areas of the South, destroying the traditional social fabric. T he pro>t requirement and onecannot see how the current 15% pro>t requirement of >nancial investors and multinational corporations canlead to any permanent engagement of these forces in B.O.P projects.Jock Gill of the Greater Democracy weblog has criticized BOP schemes for these reasons, and has o@eredan alternative approach: namely citizen-to-citizen or edge to edge development partnerships. Wherebycollectives of individuals with capital, would directly provide collectives of individuals without capital, withthe necessary amounts of small capital, and without imposing the pro>t requirement. Such practices arealready widespread within the U.S. themselves, in the form of Gifting Circles, whereby local groups collategifting money of its members, study options for giving together, and decide on appropriate local initiativesto support."

DiscussionKey to netarchical capitalism is the tension between the sharing economy of the users, and the monetisationof attention by the proprietary Web 2.0 platform owners.

Bauwens & Kostakis bookRead the second part of the Network Society and Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy co-authoredby Vasilis Kostakis and Michel Bauwens.

Mark Pesce on Sharing vs. ProfitsFrom http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/?p=24 :"Sharing information carries its own costs and rewards. Much of the work of arbitrageurs draws from someinside information, which, were it widely known, would rectify the market inequity the arbitrageur pro>tsfrom. T hus, there are some situations where sharing presents such a great threat to pro>t that the drive tofairness is e@ectively s ilenced. In most other s ituations, the sharing of information confers bene>t both onthe individual o@ering up the information and the community which receives the information. Individualsidenti>ed as experts in a particular area gain in social standing within their communities; this is a form ofwealth in itself, and though less tangible than cash, should never be discounted. T his social calculus servesas the foundation for many communities, and it is both delicate and constantly in Kux: members in everysocial network are constantly jockeying for position by sharing, aggregating, or critiquing the information.When the wealth of a community leaves that community when it is committed to print, or licensed out acommercial organization problems immediately arise. T he >rst of these is the question of authorship: isthe creator of the information being recognized as the author the work? If so, the social calculus of expertiseexpands into a new sphere. If not, it will feel like theft. Next comes the question of money: who pro>ts fromthe work of another? Qui bono? If the host of the community takes the content generated by that communityand realizes pro>t from that content, the creators of that content will immediately be aYicted with a numberof conKicting feelings. Assuming that attribution has been passed along, there is no loss in social standing.But to see someone else making pro>t from work freely shared strikes at the very heart of fairness. Moresigni>cantly, this problem will not be solved simply by o@ering content creators a license fee for theircontent. T heyre not in it for the money. T hey are not professionals. T heir motivations have everything to dowith the sharing of expertise in a context that is all about social standing and not about commerce. Mixingthese diametrically opposed inKuences will quickly result in a spiraling series of crises, leading inevitably tothe collapse of the community, once its members realize that theyre being ripped off.T he only possible solution that would satisfy both the desire to share and the desire for pro>t relies on apersistent transparency of motives. T he host must enter into a negotiated agreement with the members ofthe community which sets all ground rules for the use of community-generated content. Furthermore, theseagreements must be negotiated on an individual basis, so that every participant in a community has theability to opt-in or opt-out of the exterior >nancial arrangements of the community. T his doesnt make thesituation any less fraught, because >nancial motives will still come into conKict with the intent of thecommunity, but it does ensure that everyone understands and accepts the rules before they participate inthe process of knowledge creation. T hat will go a long way toward keeping tempers cool when conKictsarise." (http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/?p=24 )

Mark DeuzeFrom http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/2007-July/002652.html :"T he key to understanding the currently emerging relationships between media consumers and producers,or between media owners and media workers (whether paid or voluntarist) for that matter, is theircomplexity, their reciprocity as well as animosity: their liquidity. Such relationships are seldom stable,generally temporary, and at the very least unpredictable. Yochai Benkler and others articulate in this contexta hybrid or new mixed media ecology, typi>ed by a global digital culture that can be understood in terms ofwhat Lev Manovich calls a culture of remix and remixability, where user-generated content exists both withinand outside of commercial contexts, and supports as well as subverts corporate control. So while one canindeed see the End User Licensing Agreements and Terms of Service of the major user-created contentsites (including but not limited to game modding platforms, corporate citizen journalism initiatives, and viralmarketing sites) as informal labor contracts, it would be a mistake to presume that the collective intelligenceof the user community thus is "controlled" by the corporation (or vice versa). For example, as part of myresearch I talk with professionals throughout the news and entertainment industries (both in the U.S. andelsewhere), and many if not most of them express openly the fear that they have lost control over their ownbrands and properties as they get taken up and deployed by consumers and users in diverse, disorganized,

decentralized, but very public ways.""research within such 'media giant' organizations (for News Corp consider T im Marjoribank's or Eric Louw'swork for example) show that creativity, commercialism and management operate in much more complexways than the singular/monolithic way you suggest, and not only do many if not most workers in suchorganizations also just want to tell great stories - within constraints of commercial and corporatepressures, granted now we see consumers (former audiences) move in and out of these organizations andtheir creative processes as well. In a world without any media literacy, that would be a real problem - butfrankly, I am doubtful whether we are still living in such a world. If anything, consumers-turned-users shouldbe educated/trained to enable them to engage the "media giants" much more on their own turf. And simplyearning a lot of money does not make a company unethical. T here are important concerns regarding theincreased outsourcing (crowdsourcing) of media production to media consumers not in the leastbecause it seems to correlate with an increase in lay-o@s throughout the media industries. So educationworks at least in two ways: in order to survive in a competitive, globally networked and niche-driven world,media organizations have to invest in their talent and reconsider crowdsourcing as a cost-cutting measure,and the people formerly known as the audience (Jay Rosens apt expression) need to become literateregarding the e@ective exploitation of their labor. Perhaps we need a global union for unsalaried mediaemployees?transparency and media literacy are key, and it is our responsibility as media educators and their corporateresponsibility as good business practitioners to work with users rather than trying to co-opt or controlthem. T he pre-World Wide Web experience with fan cultures has already shown us that such businessstrategies simply do not hold, and ultimately contribute to a brands downfall and loss of credibility. On theother hand: it is diNcult for big mass media enterprises to retool, to reinvent s ince they are used to be incontrol of the media marketplace in a context of information and channel scarcity. We should therefore notforget that most of these companies are still new at the online/converged/interactive game, so perhaps wecannot blame them for trying to cut and paste their top down control model onto the World Wide Web (thatdoes not mean its okay - its just a more grounded perspective on the current staple of co-opting practices).I operate under the assumption that such a strategy will fail, and that a new one, as advocated by Sambrookand others, of transparency, co-creation and participation will prevail. Indeed, I >nd it more inspiring tosearch for instances, examples, initiatives, values and praxis within (or: at the margins of) the professionalmedia world where there is diverse and complex co-creative collaboration and exchange, rather than justlamenting those evil corporations that just do not tell you in all honesty that all they want is to control youand the dollars you spend.Facebook users are not "captive" (nobody is forcing them in or out), but the observation that usersincreasingly enact some kind of critical agency in the face of less-than-convenient features of socialnetworks (especially the often complete lack of transportability in migrating avatars, content and databasesbetween di@erent sites). Again, I would hesitate to frame all things occurring in this media environment interms of binary oppositions. Sure, companies are trying to monetize the collective intelligence ofcyberspace. And yes, users sometimes accept, and sometimes reject the conditions under which theirparticipation is enabled. But the interdependency of all the actors involved makes for a more complex andliquid reality than simply one of all-powerful professional producers versus hapless, captive and easilyexploitable users." (http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/2007-July/002652.html )

Trebor Scholz's critique of value capture by proprietary platformsT he excerpt above were already taking from an interview/conversation between Trebor Scholz and MarkDeuze. For the arguments by T rebor, read the questions/debating points in the interview.URL = http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/2007-July/002652.html

The market domination strategies of the netarchical platformsRichard Eskow:Despite its self-promoted reputation for disruption and invention, Microsofts monopoly approach isSilicon Valleys real business model and its been faithfully followed, in one form or another, by all of themassively successful tech ventures that have come since. (As a note: We use monopoly as shorthand,although in many cases including Microsofts were also describing monopsony practices.)Facebook is the textbook example. Although it was never distinguished by smart design or ease of use,Facebook moved aggressively to capture a monopolistic share of the social media market. T hen came theads, the interference, the invasions of privacy, manipulation of users news feeds for the corporations ownpurposes not to mention invasions of privacy and the sale of personal data to third parties.Facebook builds nothing, manufactures nothing, creates nothing. Instead it encourages its users to do the

creating, then charges them in invisible ways by redirecting their time and attention to produce pro>tsfor itself. YouT ube, like Facebook, never generated its own content. It built its monopoly position by offeringfree access to the creative work of others. Once >rmly established on its monopolistic throne, it beganforcing viewers to watch advertisements before viewing videos.T hats the model: First lure them in and establish your monopoly, then monetize. YouT ube is now owned byGoogle, which also commands a monopoly share of its market. Unlike some of its less-gifted peers, Googleis a genuinely inventive and talented company. But, like its peers, it has relied heavily on government-fundedtechnology (the Internet, computers, smartphones) and government-funded research to capture itsmonopoly share. It has used its monopoly to redirect users attention, and to exert frightening levels ofcontrol over users experience of the world.Now a new generation of would-be monopolies is on the move. T he most aggressive of them is the martiallynamed Uber, which recently distinguished itself by earning an F rating from the Better Business Bureau.Uber is following the path laid down by its forebears: First, identify a core market. Second, establish amonopoly position. T hen capitalize on that position, either by squeezing customers and/or vendors or byusing it to expand into additional markets.So, how does this strategy work ? Richard Escow explains: Its true that Amazon isnt a monopoly or monopsony in anything except books yet. But it hasdemonstrated through its actions that it intends to become one in every market it serves. It has used itsenormous cash Kow cash Kow based on government-provided tax breaks in order to act proactively andruthlessly to eliminate future competitors. While its far from a monopoly in diapers, for example, it used itsrevenue base to engage in brutal price competition with Diapers.com (which it then acquired).T his strategy could be described as serial monopoly and serial monopsony. It enters a market, leveragesan economic advantage (sales tax exemptions, revenues from other product lines) and then preys oncompetitors until it reaches something like a monopoly position. Serial monopolists are always thinkingabout the next market to be dominated. T odays revenues are often directed toward that end, rather than toshort-term profits.T hats why arguments like Yglesias miss the mark. When Yglesias writes that low and often non-existentpro>ts and monopoly are not really concepts that go together, hes working from an old playbook. In thenew serial monopoly model, they go together very well.Ubers leaders may not be as shrewd as Bezos, and their early move to surge pricing may have tipped theirhand too soon. But serial monopoly is Ubers model, too. T hats what those ice cream cones and kittenswere really all about.In one way the serial monopolists are a new creature, spawned from technology that allows them to enternew markets without initially manufacturing or warehousing the merchandise themselves. In another sensetheirs is an old tactic, one that would have been familiar to the railroad tycoons who were setting the price ofgrain in 19th century America.T hese corporations are monopolists and much more. T heyve quickly assumed extraordinary inKuenceover our lives. T hey control what we know, what we see and how we spend our time. T hey decide whoknows our most intimate secrets. T hey are acquiring the kind of power totalitarian governments of the pastcould only dream about.Why have we been so quick to idolize the tech economy? Why have we accepted their claims so uncriticallyand paid so little attention to what they were actually doing? T heres the excitement of the new, and thecachet that comes with great wealth. T here may also be an element of the phenomenon South Americaneducator Paulo Freire called the internalization of the oppressor consciousness, where it becomes morecomfortable to accept the values of the powerful than to confront the fear and sense of responsibility thatarise when you challenge them. Whatever its causes, our credulous embrace of the tech culture has left usvulnerable to its seemingly endless appetites and ambitions. T hose ambitions, as expressed by everyonefrom its pundit and economist supporters to its own leading executives, add up to nothing less than theremaking of our economy and culture in their own neolibertarian image.If that pink dolphin city is anything like the society the tech corporations are creating, then things we take forgranted things like privacy, competition and a thriving middle class may not exist there. Googles mottois Dont be evil, and by its own lights these tech entrepreneurs probably arent.Still, Silicon Valley represents a set of values that is amoral by commonly held standards. Its rapidly takingcontrol of the distribution systems for music, literature and arts. And its increasingly manipulating ouraccess to information, even as it absorbs an ever-increasing share of our economy.Sco@ at the word monopoly if you like. But if these developments dont concern you, youre not payingattention.(http://www.salon.com/2014/10/24/silicon_valley_will_destroy_your_job_amazon_facebook_and_our_sick_new_economy/ )

This page was last modified on 1 November 2014, at10:43.This page has been accessed 8,017 times.Copyright Information

Key Books to ReadGalloway, Alexander. Protocol: How Control Exists after Decentraliz ation MIT Press, 20 0 4On the new type of power in networks

Wark, McKenz ie. A Hacker Manifesto . Harvard University Press, 20 0 4Develops the hypothesis of the Vectoral Class and the Hacker Class.

Richard Barbrook. The Class of the New .Available online at http://www.theclassofthenew.net/3.html

Alexander Bard and Jan Sderqvist. Netocracy: the new power elite and life after capitalism ,Pearson Education, London 20 0 2.Michel Bauwens: I totally disagree with this book, which sees the controllers of networks as the new elite andargues that we no longer have a capitalist society.

Richard Florida. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure,Community and Everyday Life , Basic, New York 20 0 2.

More Information1. Read Adam Arvidsson's masterly essay, T he Crisis of Value and the Ethical Economy, as well as the

response by Michel Bauwens in the Dornbirn Manifesto2. Gillespie, Tarleton L., T he Politics of Platforms (May 1, 2010). New Media & Society, Vol. 12, No. 3,

2010. [1]3. Protocollary Power

Categories: Encyclopedia Business Governance P2P T heory

Netarchical CapitalismP2P FoundationContentsNavigationTools

DescriptionDiscussionBauwens & Kostakis bookMark Pesce on Sharing vs. ProfitsMark DeuzeTrebor Scholz's critique of value capture by proprietary platformsThe market domination strategies of the netarchical platforms

Key Books to ReadMore Information