Conclusions and Policies

  • Arwid LundEmail author
  • Mariano Zukerfeld
Part of the Dynamics of Virtual Work book series (DVW)


In this final chapter, we present a summary and a comparison of insights gained from the case studies done, followed by the presentation of four major strands of policy suggestions that challenge the for-profit perspective that has been criticized throughout this book. In so doing we are challenging liberal ideology from the point of view of socialism’s understanding of freedom as an effective power to act, an ideological position that logically and ideally is dependent on an effective openness that is not open for subsequent enclosures. Within this change of perspective we will prioritize horizontal ways of organizing production in more participatory and horizontal ways—as in the cases of cooperatives and commons-based peer production (CBPP)—that stress the importance of commoning together. This ideological position can in turn be tied to republicanism. We propose policies in four related sectors of cognitive capitalism in order to operationalize and structure this shift of perspective. The policies relate to economy, technical infrastructure, legal regulation (where we introduce the Commoners License Family) and alternative digital platforms.


  1. Bauwens, M., & Kostakis, V. (2014). From the communism of capital to capital for the commons: Towards an open co-operativism. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 12(1), 356–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauwens, M., & Kostakis, V. (2015). Towards a new reconfiguration among the state, civil society and the market. Journal of Peer Production, 7, 1–6.Google Scholar
  3. Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., & Pazaitis, A. (2019). Peer to peer: The commons manifesto. In Critical, digital and social media studies. London: University of Westminster.Google Scholar
  4. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benkler, Y. (2014). Peer production and cooperation, forthcoming. In J. M. Bauer & M. Latzer (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of the Internet. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. Bolleyer, N. (2018). The state and civil society: Regulating interest groups, parties, and public benefit organizations in contemporary democracies. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bottomore, T. B., & Harris, L. (Eds.). (1991). A dictionary of Marxist thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Bouckaert, G., & Peters, G. (2004). Symposium on state autonomous agencies. Public Administration & Development, 24(2), 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coase, R. (1960, October). The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curran, J., Fenton, N., & Freedman, D. (2016). Misunderstanding the Internet (2nd ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Angelis, M. (2017). Omnia Sunt Communia: On the commons and the transformation to postcapitalism. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  12. Demsetz, H. (1970). The private production of public goods. Journal of Law and Economics, 13(2), 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dereva, M., Niaros, V., & Bauwens, M. (2018). Fab Mob reciprocal license for the legal contractualisation of commons. Retrieved from
  14. Dodd, J. C., Lichter, S. P., & Reichman, J. D. (2019, February 1). Copyright transfer, assignment and licensing in the United States. Retrieved March 3, 2019, from
  15. Frenander, A. (2007). No discord, or, and area without significant political stakes? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13(4), 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital labour and Karl Marx. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuchs, C. (2015). Left-wing media politics and the advertising tax. Reflections on Astra Taylor’s book ‘The people’s platform: Taking back power and culture in the digital age’. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 13(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  18. Fuchs, C., & Sandoval, M. (2013). The diamond model of open access publishing: Why policy makers, scholars, universities, libraries, labour unions and the publishing world need to take non-commercial, non-profit open access serious. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 13(2), 428–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Georgieva, I. (2014). Search neutrality as a regulation principle for Internet search engines. A multidisciplinary approach. Master in Intellectual Property Rights, Faculty of Law, Ku Leuven University. Retrieved from
  20. Goteo. (2019a). About Goteo. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from About: website:
  21. Goteo. (2019b). About the projects. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from Crowdfunding the commons website: The only differences between.
  22. Goteo. (2019c). GOTEOFAQ. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from Crowdfunding the commons website:
  23. Hardt, M. (2000). Guaranteed income, or, the separation of labor from income. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, 5, 21. Retrieved from
  24. Hughes, J. (1988). The philosophy of intellectual property. Georgetown Law Journal, 77, 287–366; reprinted in Intellectual property: Moral, legal, and international dilemmas (A. Moore, Ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  25. Introna, L. D., & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). Shaping the web: Why the politics of search engines matters. The Information Society, 16(3), 169–185. Scholar
  26. Jessop, B. (2018). Elective affinity or comprehensive contradiction? Reflections on capitalism and democracy in the time of finance-dominated accumulation and austerity states. Berliner Journal für Soziogie, 28(1–2), 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kleiner, D. (2007, July 18). Copyfarleft and copyjustright. Mute. Retrieved from
  28. Kleiner, D. (2010). The telekommunist manifesto (G. Lovink & S. Niederer, Red.). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
  29. Kostakis, V., & Bauwens, M. (2014). Network society and future scenarios for a collaborative economy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lanier, J. (2013). Who owns the future. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  31. Lapavitsas, C. (2010). Regulate financial institutions, or financial institutions? In P. Arestis, R. Sobreira, & L. Oreiro (Eds.), The financial crisis: Origins and implications (pp. 137–159). Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Levi-Faur, D., & Jordana, J. (2006). Toward a Latin American regulatory state? The diffusion of autonomous regulatory agencies across countries and sectors. International Journal of Public Administration, 29(4–6), 335–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindsköld, L. (2015). Contradicting cultural policy: A comparative study of the cultural policy of the Scandinavian radical right. Nordisk kulturpolitisk tidskrift, 18(1), 8–26.Google Scholar
  34. Lucarelli, S., & Fumagalli, A. (2008). Basic income and productivity in cognitive capitalism. Review of Social Economy, 66(1), 71–92. Scholar
  35. Lund, A. (2001). Albert Jensen och revolutionen: syndikalismens revolutionära idéer 1900–1950. Stockholm: Federativ.Google Scholar
  36. Lund, A. (2017a). A critical political economic framework for peer production’s relation to capitalism. Journal of Peer Production (10). Retrieved from
  37. Lund, A. (2017b). The open data movement in the Age of Big Data Capitalism (Nr 7). London: Westminster Institute for Advanced Studies (WIAS).Google Scholar
  38. Lund, A. (2017c). Wikipedia, work and capitalism: A realm of freedom? In Dynamics of virtual work. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan and Springer Nature.Google Scholar
  39. Lund, A., & Venäläinen, J. (2016). Monetary materialities of peer production: The case of Wikipedia and its controversies with paid labour. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 14(1), 78–98.Google Scholar
  40. Magyar, J., & Kleiner, D. (2018). Peer production license. I P2PF Wiki. Retrieved from
  41. Maia Chagas, A. (2018). Haves and have nots must find a better way: The case for open scientific hardware. PLoS Biology, 16(9), e3000014. Scholar
  42. Marx, K. (1867). Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol. 1). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  43. Meretz, S. (2008, June 3). Copyfarleft & a critique. Mute. Retrieved from
  44. Morozov, E. (2015, January–February). Socialize the data centres! New Left Review, 91. Retrieved December 21, 2018, from
  45. Moullier-Boutang, Y. (2011). Cognitive capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  46. Oszlak, O., & O’Donnell, G. (1995). Estado y políticas estatales en América Latina: hacia una estrategia de investigación. Redes, 2(4), 99–128.Google Scholar
  47. P2P Foundation. (2018). CopyFair License. I P2PF Wiki. P2P Foundation. Retrieved from
  48. Rigi, J. (2012). Peer to peer production as the alternative to capitalism: A new communist horizon. Journal of Peer Production (1). Retrieved from
  49. Rigi, J. (2013). Peer production and Marxian communism: Contours of a new emerging mode of production. Capital & Class, 37(3), 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sahlins, M. D. (2004). Stone Age economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Said Vieira, M., & De Filippi, P. (2014). Between Copyleft and Copyfarleft: Advance reciprocity for the commons. Journal of Peer Production, (4).Google Scholar
  52. Sandoval, M. (2016). What would Rosa do? Co-operatives and radical politics. Soundings: A Journal of Politics and Culture, 63, 98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scholz, T. (2016). Platform cooperativism. Retrieved from Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung website:;
  54. Shah, A. (2007). Overview. In Participatory budgeting. World Bank Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Söderberg, J. (2008). Hacking capitalism: The free and open source software movement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Stallman, R. (2018). Talking to the mailman. New Left Review, September–October, (113), 69–93.Google Scholar
  57. Stallman, R. M. (n.d.). Why open source misses the point of free software. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from
  58. Toner, A. (2007, November 22). Copyfarleft: An anarchist Gema? Retrieved March 4, 2019, from
  59. Virno, P. (2004). A grammar of the multitude: For an analysis of contemporary forms of life. New York: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  60. Wikipedia contributors. (2018). Guild socialism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from
  61. Wikipedia contributors. (2019a). Benevolent dictator for life. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from
  62. Wikipedia contributors. (2019b). Participatory budgeting. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from
  63. Wikipedia contributors. (2019c). Platform cooperative. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from
  64. Yansen, G. (2019). Blockchain and data market. The case of Wibson from a critical perspective. In M. Ragnedda & G. Destefanis (Eds.), Blockchain and Web 3.0: Social, economic, and technological challenges. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linnaeus UniversityVäxjöSweden
  2. 2.Södertörn UniversityHuddingeSweden
  3. 3.National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET)Buenos Aires CityArgentina

Personalised recommendations