Thank you to Rob Atkinson and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation for allowing me to participate Tuesday in a forum titled “‘Info-Communism:’ A Progressive Path Forward or a Political and Intellectual Dead End?” I had the pleasure of responding to Syracuse University Professor Milton Mueller and his compelling paper, “Info-Communism? Ownership and Freedom in the Digital Economy.”

Professor Mueller’s thesis, to oversimplify, is as follows: (1) Unhelpful terms such as “communism” get thrown around in debates about the commons and peer production, often embraced by commons advocates themselves, and are not helpful. (2) It is also unhelpful to make a distinction between property rights and a commons, because one cannot truly have one without the other; they are symbiotic, not antithetical. (3) Making a moral argument for “sharing” is not helpful because it is a slippery slope leading to clear cases where sharing would not be appropriate. (4) The commons movement must recognize the important role of individuals and their rights.

I agreed wholeheartedly with this thesis.

I should note that Professor Mueller is a strong supporter of the movement toward an online commons, more so than I am. He is cynical of the effectiveness of the approach of some commons advocates; I am cynical of what might result if some commons advocates succeed completely. That said, I have far more of a comfort level with an approach to a commons as proposed by Professor Mueller, and have long maintained the value of a commons in conjunction with a market. (Think open source software and proprietary software, or Creative Commons and traditional rights markets.)

I feel “Utopian” is both an accurate and respectful word for commons advocates. I noted The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says a Utopian “aims to overcome social inequality, economic exploitation, sexual repression, and other possible forms of domination.” I said I couldn’t speak to most Digital Utopians I know on the issue of sexual repression — although five minutes on the Internet tells you many find it sexually liberating — but I thought all commons advocates speak in terms of social equality and an end to exploitation.” Which, I should note, are admirable goals, just as Robert Owen had admirable goals.