gmane.politics.oekonux.english

[ox-en] Blog series on reciprocity and markets

Christian Siefkes — 2012-05-01T14:31:25

Hi all,

I have published a little series of blog articles on reciprocity and a
critique of markets:

http://keimform.de/2012/required-or-facilitated-reciprocity/
http://keimform.de/2012/why-not-just-pay/
http://keimform.de/2012/in-what-sense-are-markets-totalitarian/

The articles are based on parts of my contributions to a much longer
discussion that would have been very much on-topic for this list, but for
whatever strange reason took place on the jox list
(http://www.oekonux.org/journal/list/archive/) belonging to the defunct CSPP
(http://cspp.oekonux.org/) journal.

Best regards
Christian

[ox-en] The Global Square: a call for coders to build the platform

Orsan Senalp — 2012-02-18T23:02:48

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
sorry for cross posting !!

Posted on February 17,
2012<http://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/the-global-square-a-call-for-coders-to-build-the-platform-roar/>
by OrsanSenalp <http://snuproject.wordpress.com/author/orsans/>

By Pedro Noel On February 14, 2012
[image: Post image for The Global Square: a call for coders to build the
platform]*The Global Square — a proposal launched on ROAR last year — is
starting to take shape. Now we need coders to help us build the actual
platform!*Call from our partners at WikiLeaks
Central<http://wlcentral.org/node/2456>:


*The Global Square
<http://46.183.217.125/gs/wiki/wiki/index.php/Main_Page> (original
proposal/project description
here<http://roarmag.org/2011/11/the-global-square-an-online-platform-for-our-movement/>)
aims to be the first massive decentralized social network in the history of
the Internet. We are aware of the difficulties we must overcome, but we
believe the Internet Community has reached a point where such an initiative
is possible. It is possible because we are more united; censorship and
repression have created stronger bonds between those who care about freedom
and the free flow of information. How can we achieve this goal?*

*Structure: organizing humanity in a single collective*

The Global Square is to be an easy to use social and work platform for
individuals and groups. One of the main goals is that it should have very
low barriers of entry for inexperienced users, making it as easy as
possible for them to contribute work, interact and use the various tools at
their disposal. Another goal is that the Global Square be expandable to
allow global coordinated and efficient work in every system. The Global
Square recognizes the principles <http://wlcentral.org/node/2445> of
personal privacy as a basic right of individuals and transparency to all
users as an obligation for public systems.

Continue reading
→<http://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/the-global-square-a-call-for-coders-to-build-the-platform-roar/#more-1969>


[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt-ayLJJRhU35CELgA04lAiVw< at >public.gmane.org

[ox-en] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

Caroline Zeller — 2012-01-12T10:03:57

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
LinkedIn
------------



I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.

- Caroline

Caroline Zeller
Creative director at Kstsoft
China

Confirm that you know Caroline Zeller:
https://www.linkedin.com/e/-pngn3v-gxbm2hem-21/isd/5493662186/ukqGnkrv/?hs=false&tok=04k_iF5J6XjR41

--
You are receiving Invitation to Connect emails. Click to unsubscribe:
http://www.linkedin.com/e/-pngn3v-gxbm2hem-21/IjrLodwxsgroY6SnfLznfPC4sem6qsH/goo/list-en%40oekonux%2Eorg/20061/I1911615054_1/?hs=false&tok=0QWcAjMEWXjR41

(c) 2011 LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA.



[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt-ayLJJRhU35CELgA04lAiVw< at >public.gmane.org

[ox-en] (Fwd) Copyright extension

tOM Trottier — 2012-01-10T21:26:24

------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:tOM Trottier <tOM-GEC4+N7F+sgS+FvcfC7Uqw< at >public.gmane.org>
To:consultations-vppm1TVqICArkoqX8K+gVCwD8/FfD2ys< at >public.gmane.org
Subject:Copyright extension
CC:mgeist-870xbScz6v+w5LPnMra/2Q< at >public.gmane.org
Reply to:tOM-GEC4+N7F+sgS+FvcfC7Uqw< at >public.gmane.org
Date:Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:18:45 -0500


Sirs/Mesdames,

The UK Gowers Review of Intellectual Property concluded:

    Economic evidence indicates that the length of protection for copyright works 
    already far exceeds the incentives required to invest in new works. Boldrin and 
    Levine estimate that the optimal length of copyright is at most seven 
    years. Posner and Landes, eminent legal economists in the field, argue that the 
    extra incentives to create as a result of term extension are likely to be very 
    small beyond a term of 25 years.

    Furthermore, it is not clear that extending term from 50 years to 70 or 95 years 
    would remedy the unequal treatment of performers and producers from 
    composers, who benefit from life plus 70 years protection. This is because it is 
    not clear that extension of term would benefit musicians and performers very 
    much in practice.

    The CIPIL report that the Review commissioned states that: "most people seem 
    to assume that any extended term would go to record companies rather than 
    performers: either because the record company already owns the copyright or 
    because the performer will, as a standard term of a recording agreement, have 
    purported to assign any extended term that might be created to the copyright 
    holder".

(my reformatting)

Why rob the public to benefit private companies? The real creators aren't 
benefiting - especially after they're dead! Intellectual property should not be a 
corporate asset but a public asset with some incentive for creators, not for 
squatters.

Please work to reduce the length of copyright to seven years past the death of the 
creator. For minor children of the creator, perhaps this could be extended to age 
21, if they are receiving all the royalties.

tOM Trottier
------- End of forwarded message -------

[ox-en] Re: [jox] Peer Production and Societal Transformation / italian translation

Jakob Rigi — 2012-01-08T13:06:56

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Stefan,
It is an excellent contribution. I agree with most of your points except the following.
1- Money has nothing to do with the scarcity of godds, the point you barrow from Raymond. Money is an expression, measure and preserver of congealed abstract labor in the form of abstract value. Once, labour and its products are commoditized every thing else can potentially from sex, to even air and water can become commodties, suply and demand determining their prices, which are distorted expressions of their values. In this context the price of an object increases in porprtion of the demand for it and in inversion to proportion of its supply. This as Marx brilliantly showed creates the ilustion, the one that Raymond reproduces, that scarcity is the origin of prices and money. Of course, I agree with you, as Marx did too, that money and labour will vanish in a fully fledged p2p which in M
arx's formulation is nothing but advanced communism.

2- You are righ about socialism, this is a point that was made long ago by Negri in his
Marx beyond Marx which is basically a commentary on Marx"s Grundrisse. I think Guy Debord another arch Marxian made the same point. But if we read carefully the Critique of Gotha programme, Economic and Philosophical Manuscrpts of 1844, particularly parts on alianated labour and communism, and sections fo Grundrisse where Marx talks about advanced communism, we can easily see that in Marx view socialism bears within itself many aspects of capitalism wiyhout being the same. It is debatable whether Marx view of first socialism and then advanced communism was a good project for his era, but in our era we can reach advanced communism without going through socialism.
3- This brings us to your points on state and politics which are very similar to those of Alain Badiou who is aMaoist (advanced in his AntiPolitics). Today major infrastructures including telecommunication and major natural resources are owned by capitalists i.e corporations or states. This ownership is guaranteed by property rights which are protected by violence of state. Is it possible to generalise p2p to all production without collectivization of these strategic resources? Is such a collectivization possible without prior abolishing of the state? If the answer to these questions is negative, if the generalization of p2p requires a social revolution then we need to engage the state in a negative way. We bolish the state but do not creat our own. This means politics. This requires mobil
ization, strategies and tactics and buiding of alliances.

4- Your point 10, is interesting, your classifications are helpful but there is some kind of evolutionism there. You dont see the role of social struggle. If we have a global social revolution tomorrow, which makes the major strategic resources the commons
of humanity the p2p will become the dominant mode of production vey quickly. On the other hand, it is also possible for stat and capital to kill p2p or keep it in a marginal position for the next 100 years. everything hinge on social struggle, hence politics.
All the best
Jakob

I\Stefan Meretz 01/08/12 6:06 AM >>>
Hi all,

some of you may have recognized that my paper "Peer Production and
Societal Transformation" planned to appear in CSPP journal in December
2011 has already been published on keimform.de in series of articles:
http://keimform.de/2011/peer-production-and-societal-transformation/

Originally it was estimated, that the CSPP issue should have been
released prior to finishing the series of articles, but the release of
the new CSPP issue have been postponed to January 2012. Since the
article is the starting point of a debate, you can treat the series as a
preview.

Parallel to publishing the series on keimform.de, a collective of
translators from http://socialforge.wordpress.com/ translated the paper
into Italian. Except the final conclusion the translated paper can be
found here: http://socialforge.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/oekonux-2/

That's great!

Best,
Stefan

[ox-en] Re: [jox] Peer Production and Societal Transformation / italian translation

Jakob Rigi — 2012-01-08T16:45:56

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
stefan, Welcome,
Jakob

Hi Jacob, 

thanks for your immediate and interesting response! 

Am 08.01.2012 14:06, schrieb Jakob Rigi: 

What I borrow from Raymond is the observation, that if you combine a 
free abundant good with a scarce good, then you can demand money for it. 
I do not _explain_ money with the argument of scarcity. 


This may be the case with Raymond, I don't know. He is a positivist, 
affirmative thinker, that's true. Agree on your explanation. 


You may name it like that. 


My point is: If you stick with commodity production, it is not possible. 
Thus I would say Marx was wrong on this point, which he btw. strongly 
fought against in case of Proudon. In the Gotha Programme Critique he 
fell back to the same arguments he rejected before. 
But as you say: It is is debatable, whether Marx could see this so 
clearly in his time. He was under pressure of the emerging workers 
movement to quickly deliver "concrete proposals". 


In my view it is a process, in which all of the aspects are done in the 
same process. There is not such order as "kick the state first, and the 
appropriate the means and resources of production" or vice versa. Doing 
peer production means making the state partly superfluous, but not 
completely (e.g. state-secured copyright as a means to defend copyleft, 
but in the long run making it all public domain). It means acquiring the 
means of production by using them for the commons, making knowledge 
openly available etc. (but they may remain private or collective 
property for now, while the long run overcoming property in the legal 
sense at all is the task [not to be mixed with possession]). 

However, I do not see why abolishing the state means politics. To me it 
means selforganization, creating our own governance structures, our own 
institutions as we already do it now. But this does not mean "state", 
and it does not mean "politics". Politics are necessary where we are 
confronted which attacking "politics", but politics as a mode of 
societal mediation is as historically bound to capitalism as modern 
state is (see pattern 9). 


It may appear like that, but it is not meant that way. The important 
thing here is to understand the dialectics of being beyond capitalism 
while supporting it at the same time. It is not helpful to turn into a 
dichotomy. 


Maybe I have a different notion what social struggle can be. Usually 
social struggle is meant to oppose against attacks on our conditions of 
life. Defense is important, but it is not the source where the creation 
of something new comes from. Commons-based peer production is social 
struggle too, but it is a creating one: new social structures, new ways 
of producing our livelihoods, new logics of inclusion etc. Again: It is 
not helpful to turn these two aspects into a dichotomy. Best would to 
integrate in one process. 


This will not happen, my guess. 


This is a more likely option, however, the commons (p2p) cannot be 
killed. The dialectics is, that capital is living from it. If there is 
no more commons to be enclosed, then capital will die. Thus the more 
likely strategy is to embrace the commons movements which is already 
happening. The question is if we understand it and remain on our own 
principles (e.g. openness). 


Everything hinges on generalizing the commons-based mode of production 
globally. Isn't this is true at the same time? 

Ciao, 
Stefan

[ox-en] Peer Production and Societal Transformation / italian translation

Stefan Meretz — 2012-01-08T11:05:37

Hi all,

some of you may have recognized that my paper "Peer Production and
Societal Transformation" planned to appear in CSPP journal in December
2011 has already been published on keimform.de in series of articles:
http://keimform.de/2011/peer-production-and-societal-transformation/

Originally it was estimated, that the CSPP issue should have been
released prior to finishing the series of articles, but the release of
the new CSPP issue have been postponed to January 2012. Since the
article is the starting point of a debate, you can treat the series as a
preview.

Parallel to publishing the series on keimform.de, a collective of
translators from http://socialforge.wordpress.com/ translated the paper
into Italian. Except the final conclusion the translated paper can be
found here: http://socialforge.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/oekonux-2/

That's great!

Best,
Stefan

[ox-en] Re: [jox] Peer Production and Societal Transformation / italian translation

Jakob Rigi — 2012-01-08T13:06:56

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

I\Stefan Meretz 01/08/12 6:06 AM >>>
Hi all,

That's great!

Best,
Stefan

[ox-en] Re: [jox] Peer Production and Societal Transformation / italian translation

Jakob Rigi — 2012-01-08T16:45:56

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
stefan, Welcome,
Jakob

Hi Jacob, 

thanks for your immediate and interesting response! 

Am 08.01.2012 14:06, schrieb Jakob Rigi: 

What I borrow from Raymond is the observation, that if you combine a 
free abundant good with a scarce good, then you can demand money for it. 
I do not _explain_ money with the argument of scarcity. 


This may be the case with Raymond, I don't know. He is a positivist, 
affirmative thinker, that's true. Agree on your explanation. 


You may name it like that. 


My point is: If you stick with commodity production, it is not possible. 
Thus I would say Marx was wrong on this point, which he btw. strongly 
fought against in case of Proudon. In the Gotha Programme Critique he 
fell back to the same arguments he rejected before. 
But as you say: It is is debatable, whether Marx could see this so 
clearly in his time. He was under pressure of the emerging workers 
movement to quickly deliver "concrete proposals". 


In my view it is a process, in which all of the aspects are done in the 
same process. There is not such order as "kick the state first, and the 
appropriate the means and resources of production" or vice versa. Doing 
peer production means making the state partly superfluous, but not 
completely (e.g. state-secured copyright as a means to defend copyleft, 
but in the long run making it all public domain). It means acquiring the 
means of production by using them for the commons, making knowledge 
openly available etc. (but they may remain private or collective 
property for now, while the long run overcoming property in the legal 
sense at all is the task [not to be mixed with possession]). 

However, I do not see why abolishing the state means politics. To me it 
means selforganization, creating our own governance structures, our own 
institutions as we already do it now. But this does not mean "state", 
and it does not mean "politics". Politics are necessary where we are 
confronted which attacking "politics", but politics as a mode of 
societal mediation is as historically bound to capitalism as modern 
state is (see pattern 9). 


It may appear like that, but it is not meant that way. The important 
thing here is to understand the dialectics of being beyond capitalism 
while supporting it at the same time. It is not helpful to turn into a 
dichotomy. 


Maybe I have a different notion what social struggle can be. Usually 
social struggle is meant to oppose against attacks on our conditions of 
life. Defense is important, but it is not the source where the creation 
of something new comes from. Commons-based peer production is social 
struggle too, but it is a creating one: new social structures, new ways 
of producing our livelihoods, new logics of inclusion etc. Again: It is 
not helpful to turn these two aspects into a dichotomy. Best would to 
integrate in one process. 


This will not happen, my guess. 


This is a more likely option, however, the commons (p2p) cannot be 
killed. The dialectics is, that capital is living from it. If there is 
no more commons to be enclosed, then capital will die. Thus the more 
likely strategy is to embrace the commons movements which is already 
happening. The question is if we understand it and remain on our own 
principles (e.g. openness). 


Everything hinges on generalizing the commons-based mode of production 
globally. Isn't this is true at the same time? 

Ciao, 
Stefan

[ox-en] Peer Production and Societal Transformation / italian translation

Stefan Meretz — 2012-01-08T11:05:37

Hi all,

some of you may have recognized that my paper "Peer Production and
Societal Transformation" planned to appear in CSPP journal in December
2011 has already been published on keimform.de in series of articles:
http://keimform.de/2011/peer-production-and-societal-transformation/

Originally it was estimated, that the CSPP issue should have been
released prior to finishing the series of articles, but the release of
the new CSPP issue have been postponed to January 2012. Since the
article is the starting point of a debate, you can treat the series as a
preview.

Parallel to publishing the series on keimform.de, a collective of
translators from http://socialforge.wordpress.com/ translated the paper
into Italian. Except the final conclusion the translated paper can be
found here: http://socialforge.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/oekonux-2/

That's great!

Best,
Stefan

[ox-en] Re: [jox] Peer Production and Societal Transformation / italian translation

Jakob Rigi — 2012-01-08T13:06:56

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

I\Stefan Meretz 01/08/12 6:06 AM >>>
Hi all,

That's great!

Best,
Stefan

[ox-en] Re: [jox] Peer Production and Societal Transformation / italian translation

Jakob Rigi — 2012-01-08T16:45:56

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
stefan, Welcome,
Jakob

Hi Jacob, 

thanks for your immediate and interesting response! 

Am 08.01.2012 14:06, schrieb Jakob Rigi: 

What I borrow from Raymond is the observation, that if you combine a 
free abundant good with a scarce good, then you can demand money for it. 
I do not _explain_ money with the argument of scarcity. 


This may be the case with Raymond, I don't know. He is a positivist, 
affirmative thinker, that's true. Agree on your explanation. 


You may name it like that. 


My point is: If you stick with commodity production, it is not possible. 
Thus I would say Marx was wrong on this point, which he btw. strongly 
fought against in case of Proudon. In the Gotha Programme Critique he 
fell back to the same arguments he rejected before. 
But as you say: It is is debatable, whether Marx could see this so 
clearly in his time. He was under pressure of the emerging workers 
movement to quickly deliver "concrete proposals". 


In my view it is a process, in which all of the aspects are done in the 
same process. There is not such order as "kick the state first, and the 
appropriate the means and resources of production" or vice versa. Doing 
peer production means making the state partly superfluous, but not 
completely (e.g. state-secured copyright as a means to defend copyleft, 
but in the long run making it all public domain). It means acquiring the 
means of production by using them for the commons, making knowledge 
openly available etc. (but they may remain private or collective 
property for now, while the long run overcoming property in the legal 
sense at all is the task [not to be mixed with possession]). 

However, I do not see why abolishing the state means politics. To me it 
means selforganization, creating our own governance structures, our own 
institutions as we already do it now. But this does not mean "state", 
and it does not mean "politics". Politics are necessary where we are 
confronted which attacking "politics", but politics as a mode of 
societal mediation is as historically bound to capitalism as modern 
state is (see pattern 9). 


It may appear like that, but it is not meant that way. The important 
thing here is to understand the dialectics of being beyond capitalism 
while supporting it at the same time. It is not helpful to turn into a 
dichotomy. 


Maybe I have a different notion what social struggle can be. Usually 
social struggle is meant to oppose against attacks on our conditions of 
life. Defense is important, but it is not the source where the creation 
of something new comes from. Commons-based peer production is social 
struggle too, but it is a creating one: new social structures, new ways 
of producing our livelihoods, new logics of inclusion etc. Again: It is 
not helpful to turn these two aspects into a dichotomy. Best would to 
integrate in one process. 


This will not happen, my guess. 


This is a more likely option, however, the commons (p2p) cannot be 
killed. The dialectics is, that capital is living from it. If there is 
no more commons to be enclosed, then capital will die. Thus the more 
likely strategy is to embrace the commons movements which is already 
happening. The question is if we understand it and remain on our own 
principles (e.g. openness). 


Everything hinges on generalizing the commons-based mode of production 
globally. Isn't this is true at the same time? 

Ciao, 
Stefan

[ox-en] Peer Production and Societal Transformation / italian translation

Stefan Meretz — 2012-01-08T11:05:37

Hi all,

some of you may have recognized that my paper "Peer Production and
Societal Transformation" planned to appear in CSPP journal in December
2011 has already been published on keimform.de in series of articles:
http://keimform.de/2011/peer-production-and-societal-transformation/

Originally it was estimated, that the CSPP issue should have been
released prior to finishing the series of articles, but the release of
the new CSPP issue have been postponed to January 2012. Since the
article is the starting point of a debate, you can treat the series as a
preview.

Parallel to publishing the series on keimform.de, a collective of
translators from http://socialforge.wordpress.com/ translated the paper
into Italian. Except the final conclusion the translated paper can be
found here: http://socialforge.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/oekonux-2/

That's great!

Best,
Stefan

[ox-en] Oekonux book

Stefan Merten — 2011-12-19T09:35:12

Hi list!

Those who have participated longer in Oekonux may remember that once
in a while we discussed the option of an Oekonux book. Finally I made
up my mind: The Oekonux book needs to be written now! I am ready to do
most of the work to make this happen.

The topic of the book will be

     Peer production as a new mode of production

I.e. the central underlying topic of the whole Oekonux debate. It will
explain basic Oekonux theory fragments stitching them together to form
a comprehensible big picture.

Instead of a collection of more or less independent articles it will
have a story line. It should follow a scientific approach but on the
other hand it needs to be comprehensible enough to be readable for the
general public.

It will be in English. The main writing should be done until the end
of 2012 - though this is not a fixed date but more a goal to work
towards.

As of now I'm not completely sure of how exactly this will work. What
I know, however, is this: I don't want to do it alone. So during the
last few weeks I asked some friends for their contribution. StefanMz,
Graham, FranzN and ChristianS agreed to contribute. It's my goal that
none of them needs to disagree with anything in the book.

Apart from that this list will be integrated into the work - of
course. Ideas generated on the list should be integrated into the book
by the main authors. This way I hope to achieve some straightness
which makes it easier for readers. At the same time I think it is
interesting to discuss the book in depth here. May be the text
fragments for the book can be put here and discussed.

Here is the coarse-grained story line I'm thinking of so far:

1. Explain the basic concepts mode of production and peer production

2. Infer theoretically by what a new mode of production can be
   recognized

3. Recognize peer production as a new mode of production

4. Look at the historical practice so far

5. Take a peek into the future

Here is a provisional outline for the book:

I. Theory: Peer production as a new mode of production

   1. Mode of production explained

      * Reference to Marx
  
      * Importance of the mode of production

   2. Peer production explained

      * Main characteristics of peer production
  
        * Internal / external openness
  
        * Selbstentfaltung
  
      * Reference to Oekonux
  
      * Reference to Yochaï Benkler
  
      * Reference to Steven Weber

   3. Development explained: The five-step-model

   4. Enablers of a new mode of production

      * The role of technology

      * The role of thinking

      * The role of culture

II. Practice: A new mode of production takes shape

   1. Evidence for a new mode of production

      * Free Software
  
      * Wikipedia
  
      * Open Access, Free Hardware, Free Music, Open Streetmap

   2. Connections and disconnections between peer production regime
      and capitalism

      * Copyright and copyleft

   3. Crisis of capitalism

      * Positive feedback cycle in commons-based peer production

      * Message: We are at the brink of a new era

   4. Similarities and differences to capitalism

      * Thesis - antithesis - synthesis

      * Lack of alienation
  
      * Motives of contributors
  
      * Availability of product

   5. Governance in peer production

III. Outlook

   1. What to expect

      * Wikipedia as a follow-up to Free Software

   2. Promoting peer production

      * What to do

      * What to avoid

* Hope in exchange based systems

   3. Utopia?

      * Why a concrete Utopia doesn't make sense

* Concrete Utopia *cannot* be imagined today

      * An abstract Utopia

I also started a Wiki page at

http://en.wiki.oekonux.org/Oekonux/Project/Book/ModeOfProduction


Grüße

Stefan

[ox-en] Report from COM'ON workshop: Dam builders and ship builders

Stefan Merten — 2011-12-12T11:01:58

Hi!

[Since the workshop was in German I'm cc-ing the German list.]

Last Saturday I attended the workshop

     COM' ON! - Die alte Eigentumswelt dreht sich

See http://commons.rosalux.de/ for the homepage.

The workshop has been organized by the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung which
is the foundation of the party "Die Linke" in Germany. "Die Linke" is
the socialist party in Germany. As far as I understood the Keimform
people co-organized this event.

The workshop has been attended by about 40 persons. At least 8 of them
were on the Oekonux list at some point. It was very nice to meet all
these people again - some of them I had not met since years.

Some other people came from the broader commons debate. Most of the
remaining attendees I'd consider coming from the classical left which
is of course what "Die Linke" is.

The topic of the workshop was: What does the concept of commons mean
for the left in general and for "Die Linke" in particular.

Well, I'm not really into this commons debate but my impression is
this: It is composed of two discourses which IMHO have nothing to do
with each other. One of the discourses is the commons based peer
production discourse which is put forward by people like StefanMz and
ChristianS. I.e. the topic of this list. The other discourse is a very
classical left discourse with all the same old, same old questions and
approaches. Here are some aspects which IMHO mark the boundary:

* Appropriation of means of production

  Part of the left commons discourse seems to be the classical
  discussion about power relationships. As one example the power over
  means of production is discussed in the form that the means of
  production must be appropriated from the current owners. That
  reflects closely the classical discussion that the working class
  should be owner of the means of production.

  In the peer production discourse this question - which is of course
  an important one - is answered differently: Let's build the means of
  production ourselves. This is a very different approach.

* Importance of environmental issues

  In the left commons discourse environmental issues seem to play an
  important role. This is of course part of the more recent left
  standard program.

  In peer production I can't see that environmental issues play any
  special role.

* Retrial of failed concepts

  One of the interesting questions to the participants was: "How are
  you involved in the commons on a daily basis?" Of course I listed
  all the digital commons I'm using daily and producing for often
  enough.

  Many other at the table named classical approaches like people's
  kitchens (Volksküche), organizations which are similar to
  cooperations (Genossenschaften) or gratis shops (Umsonstläden). If I
  add self-governed companies I guess many of those people would
  agree.

  Well, of course these things have been tried for decades. Many of
  them came up in the 1970-ies, some are as old as the workers'
  movement. What seems to be clear to me is that after so many decades
  we *know* that these approaches may be a nice individual niche but
  they don't have any practical relevance on a larger political scale.

  In peer production we don't see these failed concepts at all.

* Classical oppression and equality

  One person spelled out the classical oppression topics like gender
  or disablement. Race could be probably also added. This persons's
  critique in the commons debate was that it doesn't include this type
  of inequality - or rather that it doesn't make inequality a topic.

  I tried to explain that inequality *escpecially* in needs and
  abilities is central to a peer production approach. What is a
  project worth where all participants want the same and have the same
  abilities? Unfortunately this didn't reach this person at all. I
  also tried to make clear that under Selbstentfaltung conditions the
  chance for equal chances for all are much better. But even this was
  refused by this person.

  In the end I have no idea what this person wanted - beyond: *you*
  need to do what *I* think is right. Or in other words: political
  correctness.

* Political correctness as a precondition

  In another discussion a similar topic came up: People find it hard
  that in commons projects they have to accept people with a different
  political opinion. In other words: They would prefer that political
  correctness should be a precondition for becoming member of a
  commons project.

  Well, I saw many leftists who suggested Free Software licenses with
  political correctness built in. It never worked. In fact I think one
  of the key advantages of Free Software licenses is that they do
  *not* require political correctness on any side.

  Don't let me be misunderstood: Of course there are rules in peer
  production projects. But these rules relate to the goals of the
  project and not to alienated goals like political correctness.

* Reference to crafts

  In many cases there is rather a reference to (classical) crafts than
  to modern industry or automation. This certainly reflects the
  technology scepticism in the post 1970-ies left.

  Of course in peer production technology is welcomed and seen as a
  means to bring us forward.

* Ignorance of the new mode of production

  People like StefanMz bring this topic up again and again: By peer
  production we talk of a new mode of production. Still it seems not
  to be heard. Or may be what this means is just not understood. Given
  that the mode of production is one of the main Marx terms this makes
  things worse, however. One hint to the latter is that this strong
  thesis is not even criticized!

Well, as I said I'm not really into the commons debate. But my
impressions from Berlin strengthened my scepticism: There are two
discourses where the classical left discourse in a nutshell is old
wine in new bottles. I see that the visible peer production realms
like Free Software and Wikipedia *do* inspire the classical left. But
they don't really understand what happens in front of their eyes. They
prefer to do and think the same old same old, instead. Like
generations before them.

I thought about possible reasons for this. After all these people
*want* to engage for a viable alternative - why do they spend their
time with pointless activities then? May be the classical materialist
saying that the being determines the concsiousness (Marx) applies
here. Many of these people are not involved in the digital commons /
peer production - probably most of them still even prefer M$. So they
have no practical idea of what peer production may mean. Yet they
don't understand this concept. And look at Oekonux for another hint:
Many of the most influential people are into both: Politics *and*
technology including peer production.

An extreme variant of this ignorance of modern thoughts was the main
topic of one talk. In the brand new party program of "Die Linke" the
word "commons" does not appear at all and also the German translation
"gemein..." does appear only once. This after some years of commons
debate in the left. Although this is not really surprising IMHO it
makes finally clear that "Die Linke" is not useful for a promising
project. This is a pity IMHO.

The whole workshop reminded me of a picture which came up in the
Oekonux debate long ago. There are two ways of dealing with the ever
rising flood: Build dams to protect the existing or build ships to
sail for new shores. The classical left discourse IMHO focuses on
building dams. They want to protect what is. The peer production
discourse is of course a ship builder approach.

I like this picture because it makes clear a couple of things. For
instance that both approaches are needed. At the very least the ship
builders can not build ships when there are no dams to protect them
From the flood. But the most important difference this picture
illustrates is this: For building dams you need a completely different
set of abilities and tools than for building ships.

You even need different mind sets. Dam builders need to prefer
strength, firmness, immobility and stability and are interested in the
past and presense they want to protect. They fight *against*
something. Ship builders need to prefer dynamic, agility and are
interested in new horizons. The fight *for* something. In a way it is
funny and sad at the same time that today those who *think* they are
oh so progressive turn out to be so conservative...

I often compare our time with early capitalism. When I project the
current commons discourse into this time I'd say that it is a
discourse between the early capitalists and the rebel fraction of the
nobility. While the first opposed monarchy the second only wanted a
different king. How should this possibly work?


Well, as you may imagine there were very little to learn for me during
this workshop beyond some impressions of the commons debate. However,
one thought was new and after all this sceptical stuff I'd like to
share it with you.

We talked about needs and an older woman from Austria told that she
well remembers a time when it was simply clear that you get a job and
there is sufficient social security and so on. A situation younger
people usually have difficulties to even imagine. She said that life
felt differently then and that even the needs were different. I think
she is right. And it's pretty obvious that you don't need to care much
about your social security if it is simply given and you can be sure
that this is still the case in 20 years.

I know this effect from Free Software. I remember that in the 1980-ies
I stored a copy of the Gnu Free Software onto a tape of my own
although I didn't need it. I wanted to own a copy so I'm sure I can
use it if I want. Today I'd not even have this idea - because I know
that Free Software is available and will be available tomorrow. And
Wikipedia is available and will be available tomorrow.

In other words: these resources are part of the common infrastructure
and it's clear that they will stay. We discussed this a but further
and suggested that insurance models like in health insurance or flat
rate models may have a similar effect although on a paid-for basis.


Grüße

Stefan

[ox-en] Fwd: [okfn-announce] OGDCamp 2011: Call for Participation

Stefan Merten — 2011-09-07T14:38:46

------- Forwarded Message

Date:  Mon, 5 Sep 2011 13:09:26 +0200
From:  Daniel Dietrich <daniel.dietrich at okfn.org>
Subject:  [okfn-announce] OGDCamp 2011: Call for Participation
Message-Id:  <C2F3A1AA-F0D4-41EA-9BE4-A81FACE09F00-wKZDxAJnXxE< at >public.gmane.org>

Dear All

The following is the Call for Participation for the Open Government Data Camp 2011: http://ogdcamp.org/cfp/

  * What: The world's biggest open data event to date.
  * When: 20-21st October, with satellite events from 17-26th October
  * Where: Warsaw, Poland
  * Web: http://www.ogdcamp.org
  * Hashtag: #ogdcamp

# Submit your Proposal

This event and will bring together the international Open Government Data Community, so please: be bold! We encourage people to submit talks, workshops and satellite events that are visionary, extraordinary and even mindblowing! If you have something to say, propose or demonstrate that will ignite the imagination of the crowd.

Please submit a proposal via the link below:

  * http://ogdcamp.org/programme/submit/

There are four main kinds of submission:

  * Lightning presentations - 5 minutes
  * Talks - 10-15 minutes
  * Sessions - 2-4 hours
  * Satellite events in the days surrounding the camp - 1/2 day / full day

## About 

The camp has 4 key objectives:

  * Build consensus  around core open data principles and values
  * Build community  expand and strengthen international open data community
  * Share ideas  on the future of open data and how we can do things better
  * Make things  from starting projects, to making plans, to writing code

## Who is behind it?

Open Government Data Camp is run as collaborative partnership between key stakeholders in the open government data community around the world. Find out more at:

  * http://ogdcamp.org/about/who/

# Registration

Registration is now open. Make sure you get one of the few early bird tickets at

  * http://ogdcamp.org/register/

## Travel Bursaries

We have several travel bursaries available to support participants who could otherwise note afford to attend the camp, including:

  * A European bursary for EU27 citizens and residents travelling from within Europe, provided by the European Commission.
  * An international bursary.
  * A US bursary, provided by the Sunlight Foundation.

Full details are available at:

  * http://ogdcamp.org/bursaries/

## Stay in touch

If you're interested in talking with others interested in open government data around the world, you can introduce yourself on the open-government mailing list:

  * http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government

You can follow developments on Twitter with the hashtag #ogdcamp. 

If you have any questions for the organising team, please contact:
info at ogdcamp.org

We are looking forward meeting you in Warsaw!

Daniel Dietrich for the OGDCamp organiser team.

- --
Daniel Dietrich

The Open Knowledge Foundation
Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
www.okfn.org  -  www.opendefinition.org

------- End of Forwarded Message

[ox-en] Mapping the GNU GPL into the Physical Realm

Patrick Anderson — 2011-08-17T23:54:37

Hello all,

I've been trying to understand how the GNU GPL might apply to the
material world and am happily surprised with the results.


In the virtual world of software:
1.) An Object is the result of {compiling} some type of Sources.
2.) Sources are the inputs such as {source-code, makefiles,
shell-scripts, installer scripts, etc.} required to change a future
instance of that Object type.


In the physical world of hardware:
1.) An Object is the result of {work* across time} to some type of Sources.
2.) Sources are the inputs such as {land and water and seeds and
animals and tools} required to change a future instance of that Object
type.
*  Note: some Objects are occasionally created by the 'work' of nature
with no human intervention.



So we can say physical Objects have physical Sources.

For example, the Sources of a bottle of beer include land, water,
barley, hops, yeast, heated water, containers, glass (for the bottle),
kiln (to melt the glass), etc. - and even recursively all the sources
required to initially create the tools that created the tools, etc...


The GNU GPL instructs us to help every user incrementally gain at-cost
access the Sources of all the Objects they use.

I think I've found a way to do this!

The trick is to start a business that can treat some % of Profit
(Price above Cost) as an INVESTMENT FROM THE PAYER.

Treating Profit as Payer Investment causes each user to slowly gain
co-ownership in the *growth* of that organization.

Imagine you buy a $5 hamburger from such a place, but it only cost the
current owners $3 to deliver that surplus (the owners would only be
selling surplus, since the *primary* reason for their investments
would be to receive at-cost objects such as hamburgers).

The cashier would give you a receipt showing you now have (within a
future vesting window) $2 invested in more land, water rights, calves,
and also toward paying wages, etc.

As you continue to gain ownership (and as you also continue to pay
recurring costs on what you already own), you will eventually go to
the new restaurant your overpayments help to create, and you will show
your ownership credentials to prove you already own a prepared
hamburger as a result of your ownership in the entire tree of it's
production.

When the investors will accept the objects themselves (say beer) as
compensation for the risk they took, there is no sale because the end
user already paid all the costs of production, and owns the objects as
a side-effect of those commitments.

And since there is no sale, Profit doesn't even have a chance to enter
the picture.
And without a sale there is no attack-point for external governments -
and so no sales tax.


http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent is a subset or simplified
version of this.


Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com


We can also eliminate wages by committing to swap of skills within a
"closed-loop, user-owned production aggregate" *before* production
begins.  I call it pre-barter.
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt-ayLJJRhU35CELgA04lAiVw< at >public.gmane.org

[ox-en] keimform.de: The Emergence of Benefit-driven Production

Christian Siefkes — 2011-08-09T09:01:49

URL: http://www.keimform.de/2011/benefit-driven-production/

The following paper was written for the Proceedings
<http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-739/> of
the 6th Annual Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon 2011)
<http://okcon.org/2011> which took place about a month before in Berlin. It
is also available in PDF format <http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-739/paper_9.pdf>.

Abstract
--------

The free software and free culture movements have radically changed the
ways of producing software and knowledge goods. In many cases,
participation in such project is benefit-driven rather than profit-driven.
Participants get involved in order to realize some practical or social
benefit, not because of monetary gains. Another difference from market- and
firm-based production is that peer production is non-hierarchical: people
voluntarily cooperate as peers; there are no fixed employer/employee or
client/contractor relationships. And peer production is based on commons:
goods which are jointly developed and maintained by a community and which
are shared according to community-defined rules.

Peer production is not just about producing knowledge: Hackerspaces and Fab
Labs are the first forerunners of a commons-based production
infrastructure. While commons-based peer production reaches beyond
capitalism, the preconditions of its development are created by capitalism
itself. The paradoxical relationship of capitalism to human labor leads to
developments that might make the concept of labor (as we know it today)
obsolete, and with it capitalism itself.

Keywords: peer production, benefit-driven production, commons, commonism,
stigmergy, capitalism

Benefit-driven Production
-------------------------

The *free software* and *free culture movements* have radically changed the
ways of producing software and knowledge goods. These changes have caused
some markets--such as those for Internet software, programming tools and
encyclopedias--to shrink considerably or disappear altogether. These areas
have become dominated by free programs such as Apache, Firefox, WordPress,
non-proprietary programming languages such as Python, open development
environments such as Eclipse, and by the free Internet encyclopedia
Wikipedia. They have largely driven out competing offers which (as usual in
capitalism) are only available for sale.

Sometimes, free software is produced by companies that use it to indirectly
make money, e.g. by selling support, documentation, or suitable hardware.
But many projects are driven by communities of people that contribute
voluntarily and without pay. Participants may be motivated by the desire to
use the software they help creating or they may simply enjoy doing what
they do. Others participate in order to improve their knowledge, to
demonstrate their skills, or to give something back to the community
(Lakhani and Wolf 2005). Free software and free culture projects are thus
frequently *benefit-driven* rather than *profit-driven*: Participants get
involved in order to realize some practical or social benefit (getting
useful software, learning, getting community recognition, doing something
pleasurable), not because of monetary gains.

Modern, neoclassical economy theory sees companies as a means of reducing
so-called transaction costs (Coase 1937). As a company owner, I can assign
tasks to my staff instead of having to buy and negotiate each small service
individually. The employees benefit by knowing in advance how much they
will earn, instead of having to sell themselves day by day in the market,
with uncertain results. But they have to accept subordinate positions in a
hierarchy and must follow the orders of the management. Market relations,
on the other hand, take part between actors who are formally (though often
not actually) equal, but they are always merely functional: I'm not
interested in the others as human beings, I merely see them as potential
trading partners, potential buyers and sellers.

Standard neoclassical theory doesn't know ways of interaction beyond the
market and the firm, but the communities of people who produce on the basis
of voluntary cooperation indicate that it missed something. Since everybody
participates voluntarily, nobody can order the others around. The term
*peer production* has been coined by Yochai Benkler (2006) to express this
stark contrast to the hierarchical nature of firms: participants work
together on an equal footing, as peers.

And in contrast to the market, others aren't merely potential trading
partners, but people cooperating with me in order to reach a common goal.
Peer production is based on contributions, not on exchange. And while trade
(exchange) tends to be a zero-sum game, contributing isn't. If I make a
"good deal," it quite often means that my trading partner made a bad one.
But if somebody contributes something useful, everybody wins.

A world where producers have to sell what they produce and users have to
buy what they want to use, inevitably creates antagonisms. One person's
income is another person's cost. And an increased market share for one
producer means that the others producing the same goods will earn less,
hence producers are forced to compete with each other. The same conflict of
interest as between sellers and buyers in general exists between employees
and employers: the former want to sell their labor power as dearly as
possible, while the latter strive for a maximum of labor at minimal cost.
Benefit-driven production doesn't know these antagonisms, since fulfilling
my needs doesn't have to come at the cost of your needs. On the contrary,
peer production works so well because the participants help each other to
reach their goals and fulfill their needs. Everybody benefits.

Voluntary Production for Others
-------------------------------

Benefit-driven production shouldn't be misunderstood as production merely
for oneself. It is true that peer producers often begin by "scratching a
[...] personal itch," as Eric Raymond (2001) put it; but at the same time,
what they do is also useful for others. And people frequently engage not
because of their consumption needs, but because of their productive needs:
They contribute because they enjoy the tasks they are doing, because they
learn something, or because they want to give something back to the other
contributors.

The fact that peer production is always production for others refutes the
popular conception that without a market system, people would have to fall
back into some kind of Robinson mode: Everybody would only produce for
themselves or their family and large-scale cooperation would cease to
exist. It's pretty clear that such a solitary way of production wouldn't
get one very far. Another well-known alternative are centralized planned
economies--the former "real socialism." In such economies, society as a
whole functions like a big company. Management (the planners) decides what
should be done, assigns the required tasks, and monitors that they are
executed correctly. This alternative hasn't worked well in the past and
doesn't sound very attractive: You are still a dependent employee (though
now of the state) and must follow the orders of your superiors.

Peer production, on the other hand, is production for others which is
neither based on coercion nor motivated by monetary gain. Peers produce for
others because they can, and because it is a way for them to find further
contributors. The more people use the results of a project, the more
potential contributors exist, since people who decide to join forces as
occasional or regular contributors are typically already users of the
project they choose to support. If a project doesn't share with others by
coproducing for them, it endangers its opportunity to win new members.

To distribute tasks, peer producers use an open process that has become
known as "stigmergy" (cf. Heylighen 2007). Participants leave hints (Greek
*stigmata*) about started or desired activities, encouraging others to
follow these hints and take care of the desired tasks. Such hints, e.g.
to-do lists and bug reports in software projects and "red links" pointing
to missing articles in the Wikipedia, constitute an important part of the
communication.

All participants follow the hints that interest them most. This leads to an
automatic prioritization of tasks (the more people care for a task, the
more likely it is to be picked up by somebody). It also ensures that the
different talents and skills of contributors are applied in a more or less
optimal way (since people tend to pick up those tasks they think they are
good at). And since everybody is free in choosing the tasks they want to
do, participants will generally be more motivated than in a market-based
system or a planned economy, where they have to follow the orders of their
supervisor or client.

The Emergence of a Commons-based Production Infrastructure
----------------------------------------------------------

Peer production is thus radically different from the "normal," market- and
firm-based mode of production that dominates our society. Production is
mainly for benefit instead of profit; and people voluntarily cooperate as
peers rather than being part of hierarchical employer/employee or
client/contractor relationships.

Another thing that's different is the way in which people relate to nature
and to the products of their activities. Under capitalism, ideas, products,
and natural resources are usually treated as *property.* Property means the
legal right to exclude or include others from using a good, allowing the
owner to use, sell, or monetize their property at will.

Peer production is primarily based on *commons,* therefore Benkler (2006)
talks about *commons-based peer production.* Commons are goods which are
jointly developed and maintained by a community and which are shared
according to community-defined rules (cf. Ostrom 1990). Water, air,
forests, and land were managed as commons in many societies. Free software
and open content are a kind of commons that everybody is allowed to use,
improve and share. But the relation between peer production and commons is
not one-sided: Peer production is not only based on commons, it also
creates new ones and maintains the existing ones, as the examples of free
software, open content, and *open hardware* (blueprints and descriptions of
physical items that everyone can use to produce, utilize, and maintain
these items) show. All these projects contribute to a knowledge commons
that can be used, shared, and improved by everybody.

Peer production cannot just produce knowledge, it can also produce
infrastructure and physical goods. For example, *community wireless
networks* have formed in many cities; they allow everyone in their
neighborhood free network access. Many of these projects are organized as
*mesh networks*: all participating computers will actively transfer data,
removing the need for privileged servers. Such self-organized,
decentralized networks can create a shared infrastructure for Internet and
telephony (cf. Rowe 2010, 2011); similar networks might supply people with
energy or water. Community projects organizing access to water as a commons
exist in South America (cf. De Angelis 2010).

Open facilities for the production of material goods are emerging as well.
*Hackerspaces* and *Fab Labs* are typically run by volunteers; they often
have computer-controlled machines--including milling machines and fabbers
("3D printers")--which allow the largely automatized production of
individual items or small series. If possible, the utilized machines are
open hardware, meaning that their blueprints can be freely used and
improved by everyone. Another goal is the creation of machines that can
produce machines that are at least as powerful as the original ones, thus
allowing Fab Labs to produce the equipment for further Fab Labs. In this
way, commons-based peer production is starting to create the tools that
will allow it to spread even further, at the same time starting to supply
people with what they need to live.

A Commonist Future?
-------------------

Nick Dyer-Witheford (2007) has proposed the term *commonism* for a society
where the basic social form of production are the *commons* (while in
capitalism, *commodities* are the basic social form). As the success of
commons-based peer production shows, commons and peer production go
together very well. We can therefore expect peer production to be the
typical form of production in a commons-based society. Commonism would be a
society where production is organized by people who cooperate voluntarily
and on an equal footing for the benefit of all.

Some people may claim that such a society must be impossible because it
never existed or because it is against human nature. But that something
didn't happen in the past doesn't mean it won't become real in the future,
and arguments about "human nature" miss the fact that people are formed by
society just as well as they are forming society. Changing social
structures also changes people's behavior.

Nevertheless, commonism would have to remain an abstract idea if it didn't
have the potential to develop out of the current social system, capitalism.
New ways of production can only emerge when "the material conditions for
their existence have matured within the framework of the old society," as
Karl Marx (1859, Preface) expressed it.

There are two preconditions which I consider most relevant for the
development of commonism: (1) Human labor disappears from the production
processes, being replaced by automation and joyful doing. (2) Everyone has
access to resources and means of production. Developments within capitalism
favor the partial emergence of these conditions, though their full
realization would make capitalism impossible.

How these conditions change the processes of production becomes already
visible in the digital realm, where commons-based peer production
flourishes. But as argued above, it's unlikely to stop there. Peer
production reaches beyond capitalism, by being benefit-driven and
non-hierarchical rather than profit-driven and hierarchical and by
obsoleting and destroying markets formerly dominated by commodity
production (such as programming tools and encyclopedias). And yet, the
preconditions of this development are created by capitalism itself.

A paradox of capitalism is that human labor is its very foundation but also
a cost factor which every company has to reduce as much as possible. Labor
creates surplus value and thus profit, but at the same time, each company
can increase its profit (at least temporarily) by cutting down the amount
of labor required, thus achieving a cost advantage compared to its
competitors. One way of reducing labor costs is outsourcing to low-cost
countries, but in many cases, capitalists can achieve even higher cost
savings by replacing human labor with machines, or by getting customers to
voluntarily take over activities that formerly had to be paid.

Until some decades ago, machine usage and human labor were usually tightly
coupled, e.g. in assembly lines. But increasing levels of automation mean
that more and more routine activities can be performed without any human
labor. The remaining activities tend to be difficult to automate because
they require creativity, intuition, or empathy. Hence modern capitalism is
often referred to as a "service economy" or "information society," since
most non-automatable tasks are from these areas.

A related trend is the delegation of tasks to the customers themselves,
thus further reducing the required labor power. Thanks to self service,
supermarkets need fewer salespeople; online shopping and online banking
avoid the need for salespeople and tellers altogether; firms like Ikea
leave the final assembly of the furniture to their customers, thus reducing
labor and transportation costs.

But these developments also change the relationship between people and
their actions. As an employee I work in order to earn money. But if I
assemble my own furniture or if I browse the Internet for products I want
to have, I'm interested in the *result* of my actions. And thanks to higher
levels of automation, boring routine activities (which you wouldn't do
unless "bribed" by money) are increasingly replaced by more creative and
more interesting tasks.

For such tasks, payment is a nice plus (provided you live in a money-based
society), but not a necessary condition, as became apparent during the last
decades to the surprise of many economists, when voluntary, benefit-driven
peer projects started to spring up in all corners of the Internet. These
developments are only possible because the participants have access to the
necessary means of production (such as computers and Internet access). This
precondition may seem to be a serious limitation of the free, commons-based
mode of production, since capitalism is characterized by the fact that most
means of production are concentrated in a few hands. It's possible to
jointly produce software and knowledge where the necessary means of
production are relatively small and already available to large numbers of
people; but what about things that require huge factories?

Once more, the productive forces of capitalism come to the rescue. The PCs
and laptops of today are the progeny of the room-filling mainframes of 50
years ago. Similarly, other productive machines have started to become more
and more accessible and affordable for individuals and small groups.
Inexpensive, but flexible CNC (= computer-controlled) machines increasingly
replace the huge and cumbersome large-scale industrial facilities of the
past. The emergence of a commons-based production infrastructure is a
consequence of these developments, which originate in capitalism but allow
people to go beyond it.

Challenges to Commonism
-----------------------

But will commonism really be able to replace capitalism at some point?
Aren't there areas where it necessarily falls short? Two frequently raised
objections are the problem of unpleasant tasks (which nobody wants to do)
and the question of how to handle allocation and deal with the limitedness
of natural resources, if private property and money cease to matter.

Unpleasant Activities
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lets assume a society based wholly on peer production, where all tasks are
distributed among volunteers by stigmergic self-selection. What happens if
there are no volunteers for certain tasks, because everyone considers them
unpleasant, dangerous or otherwise unattractive? A monetary system forces
the weakest members of society to handle these tasks--those who have no
other options for earning money. Only cynics would say that's a good
solution--but what is the alternative?

Some of these tasks would probably turn out to be dispensable. If that's
not the case, automation, reorganization, and fair sharing remain as
solutions.

Automation has had an enormous impact since the start of the "industrial
revolution"--increasing parts of production have become automated in part
or in total. But in capitalism, the potential of automation is limited by
the height of wages. The less well paid a job is, the more difficult it
becomes to automatize without extra cost. Therefore, the automation of many
unpleasant tasks (such as cleaning) isn't worthwhile under capitalist
logic. With peer production, the situation is different: If there are tasks
that all or most people want to have done, but nobody wants to do, then the
incentive to wholly or partially automatize them is very high. And since
the automation of activities tends to be an exciting and challenging task,
the chances of finding volunteers for doing so are much higher.

If automation is impossible, it's often possible to reorganize activities
in a way that makes them more agreeable. In capitalism, the working
conditions for some jobs are very bad--for example, office cleaners
typically have to work very early in the morning, long before other people
get up. People cooperating voluntarily as peers would find different
arrangements.

Automation and reorganization can also be combined. For example, some
Spanish cities employ garbage trucks with automated forks that can be
remote-controlled from the driver's cab to automatically pick up and dump
the rubbish bins. Hence nobody has to handle the garbage directly and waste
collection becomes almost like a video game, making it easier to find
volunteers.

Activities that cannot be automated away or reorganized may become
candidates for a pool of unpleasant tasks, out of which everybody picks a
few now and then. If everybody (or everybody who cares) does a small part
of such tasks, they can be dealt with without causing much trouble to
anybody.

Allocation and the Limited Availability of Resources
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The fear that allocation without money is an unsolvable problem mainly
stems from a confusion between production for profit and production for
usage, or benefit. I can *sell* a practically unlimited amount of edibles,
but I can only *eat* so many of them before I'm full. The same is true for
all other goods: every desire to actually use them is limited. The only
thing that's potentially infinite is the possibility to turn them into
money (as long as there are buyers). But that possibility vanishes in a
world where production is benefit-, rather than profit-driven, and where
nobody is forced to buy and sell anymore.

Organizing production in such a way that everybody earns enough money is
indeed an unsolvable problem, since there is never a clear end point where
it would be enough. In a money-based society, money cannot only be turned
in any other good (commodity), it can also be employed for making more of
it, turning the money one already has into even more money one might
potentially be able to use in the future. And money is a form of power, it
allows influencing others, buying their labor power, and making them do as
one wishes.

The outcomes of benefit-driven production are instead specific benefits for
the people involved--software, knowledge, food, energy, connectivity,
mobility, care, shelter, clothing, etc. But it's not an unsolvable problem
to produce enough food for all--current society is doing that already, it
is only incapable of distributing it adequately, since those who would need
it most are unable to buy it. Realizing other benefits--producing energy,
mobility, care, shelter etc. for all--should be equally solvable once
production focuses on these benefits rather than on profit.

And peer production only works if you really treat the others as your
peers, as equally relevant. Nobody can self-actualize at the cost of
others, because the others aren't stupid and won't help them doing so--but
without the support of others, nobody will get very far. This means that
everybody's needs and desires matter. It's not a viable option for a
handful of peer producers to build giant houses for themselves and then let
the others worry about how to produce enough food in the remaining areas
that may no longer be sufficiently large. Peer production is about finding
solutions that work for all.

In commonism, as in any society, decisions on how to use the available
resources will be necessary. Is it preferable to produce food for all or
rather biofuel, allowing some to continue driving cars after oil reserves
have been exhausted? Should the energy supply be based on decentralized
renewable sources or rather on nuclear power, whose waste will be difficult
and dangerous to deal with for centuries to come? How to reconcile the
interests of the users of a good, who want new production facilities, with
the potential neighbors of these facilities, who might be annoyed by the
noise? Anyone who understands how and why peer production works, will be
able to imagine possible answers to these questions. But the most important
thing is that they can be raised and answered by the people concerned--all
of us.

References
----------

- De Angelis, Massimo (2010): *Water Umaraqa.* URL:
  http://www.commoner.org.uk/blog/?p=241 (accessed 29 Apr 2011).
- Benkler, Yochai (2006): *The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production
  Transforms Markets and Freedom.* Yale University Press, New Haven. URL:
  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/ (accessed 29 Apr 2011).
- Coase, Ronald (1937): The Nature of the Firm. *Economica* 4(16):
  386--405.
- Dyer-Witheford, Nick (2007): Commonism. *Turbulence,* no. 1. URL:
  http://turbulence.org.uk/turbulence-1/commonism/ (accessed 9 May 2011).
- Heylighen, Francis (2007): Why is Open Access Development so Successful?
  Stigmergic Organization and the Economics of Information. In: Bernd
  Lutterbeck, Matthias Bärwolff, Robert A. Gehring (eds.), *Open Source
  Jahrbuch 2007.* Lehmanns Media, Berlin. URL:

http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/portal/articles/pdfs/osjb2007-02-04-en-heylighen.pdf
  (accessed 29 Apr 2011).
- Lakhani, Karim R.; Robert G. Wolf (2005): Why Hackers Do What They Do.
  In: Joseph Feller; Brian Fitzgerald; Scott A. Hissam; Karim R. Lakhani
  (eds.), *Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software.* MIT Press,
  Cambridge, MA. URL:
  http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262062461chap1.pdf (accessed 5
  Jun 2011).
- Marx, Karl (1859): *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.*
  Progress Publishers, Moscow 1977. URL:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm
  (accessed 29 Apr 2011).
- Ostrom, Elinor (1990): *Governing the Commons: The Evolution of
  Institutions for Collective Action.* Cambridge University Press, New
  York.
- Raymond, Eric S. (2001): The Cathedral and the Bazaar. In: *The Cathedral
  and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental
  Revolutionary.* O'Reilly, Sebastopol, CA, 2nd edition. URL:
  http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/
  (accessed 29 Apr 2011).
- Rowe, David (2010): *Baboons, Mesh Networks, and Community.* URL:
  http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?p=124 (accessed 29 Apr 2011).
- Rowe, David (2011): *Dili Village Telco Part 11 -- State of the Mesh.*
  URL: http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?p=1447 (accessed 29 Apr 2011).

[ox-en] Fwd: [okfn-announce] OKCon 2011 videos released

Stefan Merten — 2011-07-24T08:20:19

Hi!

For those who were interested in this material.


Grüße

Stefan

------- Forwarded Message

Date:  Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:03:11 +0200
From:  Daniel Dietrich
Subject:  [okfn-announce] OKCon 2011 videos released

Dear All, 

It's my pleasure to announce the first set of OKCon 2011 video documentation:

http://vimeo.com/okf/videos

More videos and interviews will follow next week.

Please also check our post-eevnt documentation page, including Slides, Photos, media coverage:

http://okcon.org/2011/after

If you haven any material, like photos, slides, ... please send us links to them. So that we can make things even better next year please do share your thoughts via our feedback form:

http://okcon.org/2011/feedback

Thank you all once again to those who participated!

All the best
Daniel


------- End of Forwarded Message

[ox-en] Fwd: Unlike Us: Understanding Social Media Monopolies and their Alternatives

Stefan Merten — 2011-07-18T10:40:01

Hi list!

The following may be slightly off-topic here but still may interest
many.


Grüße

Stefan

------- Forwarded Message

Date:  Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:25:36 +0200
From:  Geert Lovink <geert AT xs4all.nl>
Subject:  Unlike Us: Understanding Social Media Monopolies and their Alternatives

Unlike Us: Understanding Social Media Monopolies and their Alternatives

Invitation to join the network (a series of events, a reader,
workshops, online debates, campaigns etc.)

Concept: Geert Lovink (Institute of Network Cultures/HvA, Amsterdam)
and Korinna Patelis (Cyprus University of Technology, Lemasol)

Thanks to Marc Stumpel, Sabine Niederer, Vito Campanelli, Ned
Rossiter, Michael Dieter, Oliver Leistert, Taina Bucher, Gabriella
Coleman, Ulises Mejias, Anne Helmond, Lonneke van der Velden, Morgan
Currie and Eric Kluitenberg for their input.

Summary
The aim of this proposal is to establish a research network of
artists, designers, scholars, activists and programmers who work on
'alternatives in social media'. Through workshops, conferences, online
dialogues and publications, Unlike Us intends to both analyze the
economic and cultural aspects of dominant social media platforms and
to propagate the further development and proliferation of alternative,
decentralized social media software.

If you want to join the Unlike Us network, start your own initiatives
in this field or hook up what you have already been doing for ages,
subcribe to the email list. Traffic will be modest. Soon there will be
a special page/blog for the initative on the INC website. Also an
independent social network will be installed shortly, using
alternative software. More on that later! List
info:http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/unlike-us_listcultures.org

Background
Whether or not we are in the midst of internet bubble 2.0, we can all
agree that social media dominate internet and mobile use. The
emergence of web-based user to user services, driven by an explosion
of informal dialogues, continuous uploads and user generated content
have greatly empowered the rise of participatory culture. At the same
time, monopoly power, commercialization and commodification are also
on the rise with just a handful of social media platforms dominating
the social web. These two contradictory processes – both the
facilitation of free exchanges and the commercial exploitation of
social relationships – seem to lie at the heart of contemporary
capitalism. On the one hand new media create and expand the social
spaces through which we interact, play and even politicize ourselves;
on the other hand they are literally owned by three or four companies
that have phenomenal power to shape such interaction. Whereas the
hegemonic Internet ideology promises open, decentralized systems, why
do we, time and again, find ourselves locked into closed corporate
environments? Why are individual users so easily charmed by these
'walled gardens'? Do we understand the long-term costs that society
will pay for the ease of use and simple interfaces of their beloved
'free' services?

The accelerated growth and scope of Facebook’s social space, for
example, is unheard of. Facebook claims to have 700 million users,
ranks in the top two or three first destination sites on the Web
worldwide and is valued at 50 billion US dollars. Its users willingly
deposit a myriad of snippets of their social life and relationships on
a site that invests in an accelerated play of sharing and exchanging
information. We all befriend, rank, recommend, create circles, upload
photos, videos and update our status. A myriad of (mobile)
applications orchestrate this offer of private moments in a virtual
public, seamlessly embedding the online world in users’ everyday life.

Yet despite its massive user base, the phenomena of online social
networking remains fragile. Just think of the fate of the majority of
social networking sites. Who has ever heard of Friendster? The death
of Myspace has been looming on the horizon for quite some time. The
disappearance of Twitter and Facebook – and Google, for that matter –
is only a masterpiece of software away. This means that the
protocological future is not stationary but allows space for us to
carve out a variety of techno-political interventions. Unlike Us is
developed in the spirit of RSS-inventor and uberblogger Dave Winer
whose recent Blork project is presented as an alternative for
‘corporate blogging silos’. But instead of repeating the
entrepreneurial-start-up-transforming-into-corporate-behemoth formula,
isn't it time to reinvent the internet as a truly independent public
infrastructure that can effectively defend itself against corporate
domination and state control?

Agenda
Going beyond the culture of complaint about our ignorance and loss of
privacy, the proposed network of artists, scholars, activists and
media folks will ask fundamental and overarching questions about how
to tackle these fast-emerging monopoly powers. Situated within the
existing oligopoly of ownership and use, this inquiry will include the
support of software alternatives and related artistic practices and
the development of a common alternative vision of how the techno- 
social world might be mediated.

Without falling into the romantic trap of some harmonious offline
life, Unlike Us asks what sort of network architectures could be
designed that contribute to ‘the common’, understood as a shared
resource and system of collective production that supports new forms
of social organizations (such as organized networks) without mining
for data to sell. What aesthetic tactics could effectively end the
expropriation of subjective and private dimensions that we experience
daily in social networks? Why do we ignore networks that refuse the
(hyper)growth model and instead seek to strengthen forms of free
cooperation? Turning the tables, let's code and develop other 'network
cultures' whose protocols are no longer related to the logic of 'weak
ties'. What type of social relations do we want to foster and discover
in the 21st century? Imagine dense, diverse networked exchanges
between billions of people, outside corporate and state control.
Imagine discourses returning subjectivities to their 'natural' status
as open nodes based on dialogue and an ethics of free exchange.

To a large degree social media research is still dominated by
quantitative and social scientific endeavors. So far the focus has
been on moral panics, privacy and security, identity theft, self- 
representation from Goffman to Foucault and graph-based network theory
that focuses on influencers and (news) hubs. What is curiously missing
From the discourse is a rigorous discussion of the political economy
of these social media monopolies. There is also a substantial research
gap in understanding the power relations between the social and the
technical in what are essentially software systems and platforms. With
this initiative, we want to shift focus away from the obsession with
youth and usage to the economic, political, artistic and technical
aspects of these online platforms. What we first need to acknowledge
is social media's double nature. Dismissing social media as neutral
platforms with no power is as implausible as considering social media
the bad boys of capitalism. The beauty and depth of social media is
that they call for a new understanding of classic dichotomies such as
commercial/political, private/public, users/producers, artistic/
standardised, original/copy, democratising/ disempowering. Instead of
taking these dichotomies as a point of departure, we want to
scrutinise the social networking logic. Even if Twitter and Facebook
implode overnight, the social networking logic of befriending, liking
and ranking will further spread across all aspects of life.

The proposed research agenda is at once a philosophical,
epistemological and theoretical investigation of knowledge artifacts,
cultural production and social relations and an empirical
investigation of the specific phenomenon of monopoly social media.
Methodologically we will use the lessons learned from theoretical
research activities to inform practice-oriented research, and vice- 
versa. Unlike Us is a common initiative of the Institute of Network
Cultures (Amsterdam University of Applied Science HvA) and the Cyprus
University of Technology in Lemasol.

An online network and a reader connected to a series of events
initially in Amsterdam and Cyprus (early 2012) are already in
planning. We would explicitly like to invite other partners to come on
board who identify with the spirit of this proposal, to organize
related conferences, festivals, workshops, temporary media labs and
barcamps (where coders come together) with us. The reader (tentatively
planned as number 8 in the Reader series published by the INC) will be
produced mid-late 2012. The call for contributions to the network, the
reader and the event series goes out in July 2011, followed by the
publicity for the first events and other initiatives by possible new
partners.

Topics of Investigation
The events, online platform, reader and other outlets may include the
following topics inviting theoretical, empirical, practical and art- 
based contributions, though not every event or publication might deal
with all issues. We anticipate the need for specialized workshops and
barcamps.

1. Political Economy: Social Media Monopolies
Social media culture is belied in American corporate capitalism,
dominated by the logic of start-ups and venture capital, management
buyouts, IPOs etc. Three to four companies literally own the Western
social media landscape and capitalize on the content produced by
millions of people around the world. One thing is evident about the
market structure of social media: one-to-many is not giving way to
many-to-many without first going through many-to-one. What power do
these companies actually have? Is there any evidence that such
ownership influences user-generated content? How does this ownership
express itself structurally and in technical terms? What conflicts
arise when a platform like Facebook is appropriated for public or
political purposes, while access to the medium can easily be denied by
the company? Facebook is worth billions, does that really mean
something for the average user? How does data-mining work and what is
its economy? What is the role of discourse (PR) in creating and
sustaining an image of credibility and trustworthiness, and in which
forms does it manifest to oppose that image? The bigger social media
platforms form central nodes, such as image upload services and short
ulr services. This ecology was once fairly open, with a variety of new
Twitter-related services coming into being, but now Twitter takes up
these services itself, favoring their own product through default
settings; on top of that it is increasingly shutting down access to
developers, which shrinks the ecology and makes it less diverse.

2. The Private in the Public
The advent of social media has eroded privacy as we know it, giving
rise to a culture of self-surveillance made up of myriad voluntary,
everyday disclosures. New understandings of private and public are
needed to address this phenomenon. What does owning all this user data
actually mean? Why are people willing to give up their personal data,
and that of others? How should software platforms be regulated? Is
software like a movie to be given parental guidance? What does it mean
that there are different levels of access to data, from partner info
brokers and third-party developers to the users? Why is education in
social media not in the curriculum of secondary schools? Can social
media companies truly adopt a Social Network Users’ Bill of Rights?

3. Visiting the Belly of the Beast
The exuberance and joy that defined the dotcom era is cliché by now.
IT use is occurring across the board, and new labour conditions can be
found everywhere. But this should not keep our eyes away from the
power relations inside internet companies. What are the geopolitical
lines of distribution that define the organization and outsourcing
taking place in global IT companies these days? How is the industry
structured and how does its economy work? Is there a broader
connection to be made with the politics of land expropriation and
peasant labour in countries like India, for instance, and how does
this analytically converge with the experiences of social media users?
How do monopolies deal with their employees’ use of the platforms?
What can we learn from other market sectors and perspectives that
(critically) reflect on, for example, techniques of sustainability or
fair trade?

4. Artistic Responses to Social Media
Artists are playing a crucial role in visualizing power relationships
and disrupting subliminal daily routines of social media usage.
Artistic practice provides an important analytical site in the context
of the proposed research agenda, as artists are often first to
deconstruct the familiar and to facilitate an alternative lens to
understand and critique these media. Is there such a thing as a social
'web aesthetics'? It is one thing to criticize Twitter and Facebook
for their primitive and bland interface designs. How can we imagine
the social in different ways? And how can we design and implement new
interfaces to provide more creative freedom to cater to our multiple
identities? Also, what is the scope of interventions with social
media, such as, for example, the ‘dislike button’ add-on for Facebook?
And what practices are really needed? Isn’t it time, for example, for
a Facebook ‘identity correction’?

5. Designing culture: representation and software
Social media offer us the virtual worlds we use every day. From
Facebook's 'like' button to blogs’ user interface, these tools empower
and delimit our interactions. How do we theorize the plethora of
social media features? Are they to be understood as mere technical
functions, cultural texts, signifiers, affordances, or all these at
once? In what ways do design and functionalities influence the content
and expressions produced? And how can we map and critique this
influence? What are the cultural assumptions embedded in the design of
social media sites and what type of users or communities do they
produce? To answer the question of structure and design, one route is
to trace the genealogy of functionalities, to historicize them and
look for discursive silences. How can we make sense of the constant
changes occurring both on and beyond the interface? How can we
theorize the production and configuration of an ever-increasing
algorithmic and protocological culture more generally?

6. Software Matters: Sociotechnical and Algorithmic Cultures
One of the important components of social media is software. For all
the discourse on sociopolitical power relations governed by
corporations such as Facebook and related platforms, one must not
forget that social media platforms are thoroughly defined and powered
by software. We need critical engagement with Facebook as software.
That is, what is the role of software in reconfiguring contemporary
social spaces? In what ways does code make a difference in how
identities are formed and social relationships performed? How does the
software function to interpellate users to its logic? What are the
discourses surrounding software? One of the core features of Facebook
for instance is its news feed, which is algorithmically driven and
sorted in its default mode. The EdgeRank algorithm of the news feed
governs the logic by which content becomes visible, acting as a modern
gatekeeper and editorial voice. Given its 700 million users, it has
become imperative to understand the power of EdgeRank and its cultural
implications. Another important analytical site for investigation are
the ‘application programming interfaces’ (APIs) that to a large extent
made the phenomenal growth of social media platforms possible in the
first place. How have APIs contributed to the business logic of social
media? How can we theorize social media use from the perspective of
the programmer?

6. Genealogies of Social Networking Sites
Feedback in a closed system is a core characteristic of Facebook; even
the most basic and important features, such as 'friending', traces
back to early cybernetics' ideas of control. While the word itself
became lost in various transitions, the ideas of cybernetics have
remained stable in fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics
and the biopolitical arena. Both communication and information
theories shaped this discourse. How does Facebook relate to such an
algorithmic shape of social life? What can Facebook teach us about the
powers of systems theory? Would Norbert Wiener and Niklas Luhmann be
friends on Facebook?

7. Is Research Doomed?
The design of Facebook excludes the third person perspective, as the
only way in is through ones own profile. What does this inbuilt ‘me- 
centricity’ imply for social media research? Does it require us to
rethink the so-called objectivity of researchers and the detached view
of current social research? Why is it that there are more than 200
papers about the way people use Facebook, but the site is ‘closed’ to
true quantitative inquiry? Is the state of art in social media
research exemplary of the 'quantitative turn' in new media research?
Or is there a need to expand and rethink methods of inquiry in social
media research? Going beyond the usual methodological approaches of
the quantitative and qualitative, we seek to broaden the scope of
investigating these media. How can we make sense of the political
economy and the socio-technical elements, and with what means? Indeed,
what are our toolkits for collective, transdisciplinary modes of
knowledge and the politics of refusal?

8. Researching Unstable Ontologies
Software destabilizes Facebook as a solid ontology. Software is always
in becoming and so by nature ontogenetic. It grows and grows, living
off of constant input. Logging on one never encounters the same
content, as it changes on an algorithmic level and in terms of the
platform itself. What does Facebook’s fluid nature imply for how we
make sense of and study it? Facebook for instance willingly
complicates research: 1. It is always personalized (see Eli Pariser).
Even when creating ‘empty’ research accounts it never gives the same
results compared to other people’s empty research accounts. 2. One
must often be 'inside' social media to study it. Access from the
outside is limited, which reinforces the first problem. 3. Outside
access is ideally (for Facebook and Twitter) arranged through
carefully regulated protocols of APIs and can easily be restricted.
Next to social media as a problem for research, there is also the
question of social research methods as intervention.

9. Making Sense of Data: Visualization and Critique
Data representation is one of the most important battlefields
nowadays. Indeed, global corporations build their visions of the world
increasingly based on and structured around complex data flows. What
is the role of data today and what are the appropriate ways in which
to make sense of the burgeoning datasets? As data visualization is
becoming a powerful buzzword and social research increasingly uses
digital tools to make ‘beautiful’ graphs and visualizations, there is
a need to take a step back and question the usefulness of current data
visualization tools and to develop novel analytical frameworks through
which to critically grasp these often simplified and nontransparent
ways of representing data. Not only is it important to develop new
interpretative and visual methods to engage with data flows, data
itself needs to be questioned. We need to ask about data’s ontological
and epistemological nature. What is it, who is the producer, for whom,
where is it stored? In what ways do social media companies’ terms of
service regulate data? Whether alternative social media or
monopolistic platforms, how are our data-bodies exactly affected by
changes in the software?

10. Pitfalls of Building Social Media Alternatives
It is not only important to critique and question existing design and
socio-political realities but also to engage with possible futures.
The central aim of this project is therefore to contribute and support
'alternatives in social media'. What would the collective design of
alternative protocols and interfaces look like? We should find some
comfort in the small explosion of alternative options currently
available, but also ask how usable these options are and how real is
the danger of fragmentation. How have developers from different
initiatives so far collaborated and what might we learn from their
successes and failures? Understanding any early failures and successes
of these attempts seems crucial. A related issue concerns funding
difficulties faced by projects. Finally, in what ways does regionalism
(United States, Europe, Asia) feed into the way people search for
alternatives and use social media.

11. Showcasing Alternatives in Social Media
The best way to criticize platform monopolies is to support
alternative free and open source software that can be locally
installed. There are currently a multitude of decentralized social
networks in the making that aspire to facilitate users with greater
power to define for themselves with whom share their data. Let us look
into the wildly different initiatives from Crabgrass, Appleseed,
Diaspora, NoseRub, BuddyCloud, Protonet, StatusNet, GNU Social, Lorea
and OneSocialWeb to the distributed Twitter alternative Thimbl. In
which settings are these initiative developed and what choices are
made for their design? Let's hear from the Spanish activists who have
recently made experiences with the n-1.cc platform developed by Lorea.
What community does this platform enable? While traditional software
focuses on the individual profile and its relation to the network and
a public (share with friends, share with friends of friends, share
with public), the Lorea software for instance asks you with whom to
share an update, picture or video. It finegrains the idea of privacy
and sharing settings at the content level, not the user’s profile. At
the same time, it requires constant decision making, or else a high
level of trust in the community you share your data with. And how do
we experience the transition from, or interoperability with, other
platforms? Is it useful to make a distinction between corporate
competitors and grassroots initiatives? How can these beta
alternatives best be supported, both economically and socially? Aren't
we overstating the importance of software and isn't the availability
of capital much bigger in determining the adoption of a platform?

12. Social Media Activism and the Critique of Liberation Technology
While the tendency to label any emergent social movement as the latest
'Twitter revolution' has passed, a liberal discourse of 'liberation
technology' (information and communication technologies that empower
grassroots movements) continues to influence our ideas about networked
participation. This discourse tends to obscure power relations and
obstruct critical questioning about the capitalist institutions and
superstructures in which these technologies operate. What are the
assumptions behind this neo-liberal discourse? What role do
‘developed’ nations play when they promote and subsidize the
development of technologies of circumvention and hacktivism for use in
‘underdeveloped’ states, while at the same time allowing social media
companies at home to operate in increasingly deregulated environments
and collaborating with them in the surveillance of citizens at home
and abroad? What role do companies play in determining how their
products are used by dissidents or governments abroad? How have their
policies and Terms of Use changed as a result?

13. Social Media in the Middle East and Beyond
The justified response to downplay the role of Facebook in early 2011
events in Tunisia and Egypt by putting social media in a larger
perspective has not taken off the table the question of how to
organize social mobilizations. Which specific software do the
'movements of squares' need? What happens to social movements when the
internet and ICT networks are shut down? How does the interruption of
internet services shift the nature of activism? How have repressive
and democratic governments responded to the use of ‘liberation
technologies’? How do these technologies change the relationship
between the state and its citizens? How are governments using the same
social media tools for surveillance and propaganda or highjacking
Facebook identities, such as happened in Syria? What is Facebook’s own
policy when deleting or censoring accounts of its users? How can
technical infrastructures be supported which are not shutdown upon
request? How much does our agency depend on communication technology
nowadays? And whom do we exclude with every click? How can we envision
'organized networks' that are based on 'strong ties' yet open enough
to grow quickly if the time is right? Which software platforms are
best suited for the 'tactical camping' movements that occupy squares
all over the world?

14. Data storage: social media and legal cultures
Data that is voluntarily shared by social media users is not only used
for commercial purposes, but is also of interest to governments. This
data is stored on servers of companies that are bound to the specific
legal culture and country. This material-legal complex is often
overlooked. Fore instance, the servers of Facebook and Twitter are
located in the US and therefore fall under the US jurisdiction. One
famous example is the request for the Twitter accounts of several
activists (Gonggrijp, Jónsdóttir, Applebaum) affiliated with Wikileaks
projects by the US government. How do activists respond and how do
alternative social media platforms deal with this issue?

Contact details:

Geert Lovink (geert AT xs4all.nl)
Korinna Patelis (korinna.patelis AT cut.ac.cy / kpatelis AT yahoo.com)

Institute of Network Cultures
CREATE-IT/Hogeschool van Amsterdam
www.networkcultures.org

------- End of Forwarded Message

[ox-en] Leftist and other capitalist ideologies and peer production

Stefan Merten — 2011-07-15T17:07:30

Hi list!

The following is a modified version of a point I'm trying to make in
the CSPP journal list. I reacted to a call for papers which IMHO
projects too much left ideology into peer production namely Free
Software. I thought it might be good to share this here.

My central conviction is this: Peer production is a new mode of
production. *As such* it can not be understood with the tools which
were valid and fine for the previous mode of production - namely
capitalism. Such an approach just makes no sense. Be it that you try
to project markets into peer production - as were common eight years
ago - be it that you try to project leftist visions like absense of
power relations into it. The result is always the same: You read
something into peer production - just to discover that this does not
really work. This is because it can't, because the whole approach is
inadequate in the first place.

To understand this it may be helpful to think back one step. When
capitalism replaced feudalism it was just not possible to understand
capitalism with feudal tools. It was just something completely
different. Neither was capitalism a religion nor were it a feudal
dynasty - although it transcended elements of both.

Of course it is not easy to overcome convictions and knowledge you
held for may be many years. I know this since I went through that
process some years ago - I started out as an anarchist with strong
Marxian influences. It was helpful to have this background and at this
time it may have been the best way to support a better world. But
today I know that what we see in peer production can not be understood
with those ideologies.

But still: It's perfectly fine and valid to analyze capitalism with
leftist methods. Those tools are valid for capitalism because they
came into being as part of that regime. But they are not valid for
peer production - which follows an own, new logic.

For me the challenge is to develop new tools for this new phenomenon.
This includes to look very carefully at things - much more carefully
then you are used to when looking at capitalism with all the well
known structures.

When I talk of peer production transcending thesis and anti-thesis I
mean exactly this: Of course elements of the thesis as well as the
anti-thesis of capitalism are reflected in peer production. But they
are no longer what they are in capitalism. Both, thesis and
anti-thesis are overcome in a new historical form. To analyze and
understand *this new form* is the challenge. And this really needs
some effort including a new perspective!

For instance there is often the illusion that in Free Software there
are no institutionalized forms of power. Well, someone who believes
this has no idea of peer production not speaking of Free Software. Of
course there are institutionalized forms of power.

Now the *really* interesting question is: As a modern leftist you
believe that institutionalized forms of power are bad in general. How
does it come then, that in Free Software we see such institutionalized
forms of power? Why seemingly those forms are accepted by people -
although they are not forced to? To understand this you need to start
to understand what power is in general and what it may be good(!) for.
This is a challenge worthwhile accepting!


Grüße

Stefan