Germ Form Theory
The germ form theory of Free Software production is a hypothesis that this form of peer production is the germ of a new society.
It is developed by Stefan Meretz of Oekonux, here at http://en.wiki.oekonux.org/StefanMeretz/GermformTheory
"I would not call the ideas around the term "germ form" a "theory", however, others do. There are two origins of the term "germ form": one in german critical psychology founded bei Klaus Holzkamp (1927-1995, in german: ; another one in
an article by Robert Kurz  Antioekonomie and Antipolitik.
While Holzkamp in his work did not use the term "germ form" explicitly, he developed the principles of developments in a very general sense. Kurz on the other hand used "germ form" explicitly by arguing that no one can imagine a societal jump out of capitalism without having pre-forms of new types of societal organisation. Because of being used so widely in different theories he doesn't like, later on he emphasized some distance to his own theory, especially to the term "germ form".
Five steps to a new society
Holzkamp generalized his "five step model of development" from analyzes of qualitative steps of evolution - from single cells to human society.
One five step cycle consist in: 1. emergence of the germ form of development; 2. crisis of the old form of development; 3. germ form becomes an important dimension inside the old form of development; 4. germ form becomes the dominant form of development; 5. reconstruction of the entire development process
Now step by step (this part is translated from open source year book 2005).
1. emergence of the germ form of development: Everything what currently is self-evident and ubiquitous, was once something new and completely not self-evident. Over many steps the new has finally prevailed. This new which later on will be the old is called germ form. Germ forms can emerge in niches and special areas. They live from the old, but exhibit forms of the new.
2. crisis of the old form of development: Germ forms only become relevant when the old gets into a crisis. This can happen mainly due to two reasons: Firstly the outside conditions can change so dramatically or so fast, that the old principle can not react adequately. Secondly the old can run out, if all potences of further development are exhausted. Stagnation is one type of reaction, collapse another.
3. germ form becomes an important dimension inside the old form of development: Under the condition of the old the germ form can leave niches and expand quantitatively. It becomes an important dimension of development inside the old still dominant form. This establishment of the germ form can have two directions: It can lead to an integration into the old overtaking the old principles, or the germ form asserts itself better and better based on its own principles into and beside the old. In the first case the germ form character gets lost, in the second case the new gets strenghened. In both cases the old can profit from an integrated or a strenghened germ form and attenuates its own crisis phenomena.
4. germ form becomes the dominant form of development :The former subsidiary germ form becomes the dominant form of development. The new previals because it is better in respect to the important dimensions of the entire development process. The germ form character of the new comes to an end. Now its principles are determinative and displace the overcome and non-functional principles of the old, even step by step or abruptly. The new becomes the self-evident ubiquitous.
5. reconstruction of the entire development process: Finally all aspects of the entire development process re-structure with respect to the dominant self-evident new principle of development. Especially this concerns such processes, which are not determinative but derivative. With this step potentially the first step of a new five step cycle is reached: germ forms can emerge, the old gets into crisis and so on.
All phases can take longer or shorter time spans, and at every time there can be backstrokes. Nothing is given or predetermined. The five step cycle can only be realized completely, when it has taken place, and only with hindsight the former germ form can be identified certainly. Being within the development process the five step model can help to sharpen the senses, to gain a better action potence. Now, the controversial thesis in the oekonux project is: With free software we have a germ form of a new society."
About the transition of one mode of production to another, by Oekonux.de participant Raoul Victor:
"Venetian merchants, who had made their fortunes in the midst of feudalism by selling arms or luxury goods from Asia to European feudal seigniors, did not constitute the heart of social production. Even if they brought to the narrowness of feudal life - centered around the fief and its village church - an opening to world commerce (the courtesans of the European courts could wear robes made of Oriental products), the relations among the merchants and between them and the rest of the feudal world remained marginal, and would appear to be purely subsidiary. The production of essential, indispensable goods for the subsistence of men (agricultural goods and artisan ones, principally), was performed under feudal relations. This marginal, secondary aspect of capitalist relations in the midst of feudal society was so self-evident that even in the 18th century, the first bourgeois economists, the French Physiocrats, could, without laughing, pretend that merchants and manufacturers should not pay taxes because they do not create any true "net product": They do nothing but transport it or modify its form. What do we want to deduce? That from their birth, in the midst of the old society, the superior relations of production, were not obligatorily born with a complete form, capable of managing the totality of social production, nor even its most vital part. The fact that, today, free software and, more generally, digitizable goods concern no more than a part, again, marginal, of social production and consumption, does not constitute any argument showing the impossibility that the economic relations that they induce will not one day become the dominant social relations. That which has permitted capitalist relations to become dominant after centuries of existence is not only the ideological, military, and political victory of the bearers of the new capitalist values against the old feudal regime, even if they have played a determining role, but the material, concrete fact - which demonstrates daily and by methods more and more evident - that the new relations were the only ones that could permit the use of new productive forces engendered by the opening of commerce and the development of production techniques. "In the last instance," it is the economic imperative, the irreversible historical tendency to the development of labor productivity, that finishes by imposing its own law. That which today permits one to envision the possibility that relations of production founded on the principles of free software (production with a view toward satisfying the needs of the community, sharing, cooperation, the elimination of market exchange) could become socially dominant is the fact that these relations are the most able to employ the new techniques of information and communication, and that the recourse to these techniques, their place in the social process of production, can only grow, ineluctably."
Source: Raoul Victor, Free Software and the Market Society, http://www.oekonux.org
"Needless to say, Benkler was not alone in theorizing FOSS as a new mode of production. Already by the late 1990s, the phenomenal growth of FOSS projects like Linux had captivated the attention of several researchers and thinkers, who argued that FOSS should be seen as the quintessential example of a new mode of production brought to life by the distributed networks of cyberspace. On the other side of the Atlantic, no-one delved into the subject of peer production more deeply than the group of critical theorists associated with the so-called Project Oekonux (1999-2013). Launched in Germany in 1999 by Stefan Merten, a software programmer with an anarchist-Marxist background, Oekonux was essentially an online discussion group interested in exploring the mode of production of FOSS and its transformative potential from an anti-capitalist perspective. Members interacted mainly through two mailing lists: one for German speakers and another for anglophone members.
In addition to the debates on its mailing lists, which attracted thinkers from all over the world, such as Michel Bauwens (Thailand), Franz Nahrada (Austria), Mathieu O’Neil (Australia), Graham Seaman (UK), Johan Söderberg (Sweden) and Raoul Victor (France), Oekonux organized four international conferences (in 2001 in Dortmund, in 2002 in Berlin, in 2004 in Vienna and in 2009 in Manchester), which were globally the first ones that looked at FOSS and peer production from such a clearly political perspective. What is commonly referred to as ‘Oekonux theory/ies’ is basically a particular analysis of FOSS and peer production, which formed the epicentre of longlasting debates on the Oekonux mailing lists and conferences.5 Generally speaking, the theory of Oekonux echoes many of the fundamental points of Benkler’s analysis. ‘Oekonuxers’ were well acquainted with The Wealth of Networks, so it should come as no surprise that they were influenced by its theses. Characteristically, Oekonux adopted the term of commons-based peer production in the mid-2000s (Meretz 2012). As in Benkler’s book, the starting point of Oekonux is the acknowledgment of the catalytic role of the Internet in spawning a new mode of production, which contrasts sharply with the capitalist mode of commodity production. The epitome of this new mode of production are FOSS projects like Linux, which are ‘created on a voluntary basis, unlike any commodity’ (Merten 2000). Thus, in consonance with Benkler’s analysis, Oekonux highlighted the fact that FOSS is not a commodity produced by wage workers in a corporate structure, but the fruit of volunteer labour done for the sake of the pleasure and ‘self-unfolding’ involved in this activity (Merten 2000). In short, like Benkler, Oekonux conceptualized FOSS as a mode of nonmarket production driven by the ‘pleasure principle,’ rather than by the profit-motive. Similarly, it paid a great deal of attention to the pivotal role of self-organization in this setting. Its significance is epitomized in full-swing in one of the early Oekonux texts by Merten (2000), which underlines that ‘no one tells the GNU/Linux developers what to do...Everything they do is done through their own initiative...No boss tells them what to do….GNU/Linux is organized by the developers themselves.’ Another point that Oekonux has in common with Benkler concerns the potential of peer production to become dominant in the digital economy. A main conclusion that Oekonux drew from its analysis of FOSS is that the peer production model, on account of its productive superiority, ‘promises to surpass and overcome the competition from commercial products’ (Merten 2000).
However, what sets Oekonux apart from Benkler is its thesis that FOSS is prefigurative of a post-capitalist society ‘beyond labor, money, exchange’ (Merten interviewed in Richardson 2001) and the emphasis it put on the zeitgeist-grabbing potential of peer production to supplant the capitalist mode of production on a global level, triggering thereby systemic change on a planetary scale. This is a conclusion that Oekonux was driven to by examining the historical development of peer production from a dialectical perspective. The approach of Oekonux, as we shall see, constitutes the first attempt at a methodical analysis of FOSS and peer production from a Marxian perspective. The key elements of this analysis are as follows: innovations like FOSS, the Internet, as well as related techniques and methods of production, represent ‘a tremendous advance in productive forces’ (Victor 2004). All these new technologies and techniques have been developed at the heart of the capitalist system. And so, they are initially dependent on that system. This means that those who produce them ‘are not nourished by their own product...[For instance,] those who work for free or are paid by an enterprise to create free software remain dependent on the revenues provided by the market world’ (Victor 2003). On top of that, the same technologies serve as critical infrastructures for the daily operation of the capitalist system. Quite simply, the modern economy would have been unthinkable without the Internet.
Those two characteristics of FOSS -i.e. its integration into the operation of the agents of the dominant economy and the material dependence of its developers on capital- imply the compatibility of peer production with the hegemony of capital. However, that stateof-affairs is ephemeral. Oekonux shared Marx’s famous thesis that the potential of the new productive forces cannot be fully honed within the context of the capitalist economy, which, as a result, leads to rupture in the dominant system. At a certain stage of economic development, as Marx (1977) wrote in the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or –this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution.
In a nutshell, ‘Capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production which has flourished alongside and under it’ (Marx 1990: 929). To Oekonuxers, it was obvious that Marx’s theory was now more relevant than ever. It could deepen one’s understanding of FOSS and peer production by illustrating the clash between the new productive forces and the old social relations of production in the bosom of the software industry. At the heart of that clash, as Oekonux remarked, lies the question of property. By contrast to the capitalist mode of production, which is predicated on restrictive intellectual property rights such as copyrights and patents, peer production is intertwined with an entirely different type of property, which, in fact, constitutes an objective precondition for its emergence (Söderberg & O’Neil 2014: 2).
That explains why the historical development of peer production has been going hand in hand with the creation of free/open licenses, which ensure legally the free sharing of digital artifacts. The archetypal licensing mechanism of this kind, the GNU General Public License (GPL), was created in 1989 by Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), as a legal weapon in the struggle of the hacker community against proprietary software (Stallman 1999). The GPL is colloquially referred to as ‘copyleft’ due to the fact that it is the opposite of copyright: software that has been ‘copylefted’ under the GPL is free from the usual restrictions that copyrighted software imposes upon end users. Today, thirty years later, there is a plethora of GPL-inspired free/open licenses available to software developers.
In parallel, their popularity with FOSS developers has led to the development of similar licensing mechanisms for other types of digital artifacts. The Creative Commons licenses (whose first version was released in 2001), for instance, are geared towards the needs of artists and cultural producers. In any case, from the vantage point of Oekonux, the significance of copyleft rests on its opposition to and subversion of copyright. As Söderberg (2002) writes in Copyleft vs. Copyright: A Marxist Critique, one should not lose sight of the fact that ‘to oppose copyright is to oppose capitalism’ (Söderberg 2002). For Oekonuxers, the implications of Söderberg’s point were obvious: viewed from that perspective, the development of FOSS could be construed as ‘a revolt of the new productive forces against the old capitalist relations of production’ (Victor 2004).
The elucidation of the subversive edge of FOSS remains to this day the most recognizable contribution of Oekonux to the development of the theory of peer production (Söderberg & O’Neil 2014: 3). One should not, however, forget that the debates on peer production in the early 2000s were characterized by polarization (Meretz 2012). On the one side were the proponents of peer production, for whom it signaled a radical break with capital. On the other side, the critics of peer production were convinced that it posed no threat to the dominion of capital. The approach of Oekonux was undeniably more balanced and methodical, allowing it to counterpose the characteristics of FOSS that render it compatible with capital against those which are disruptive toward its hegemony. More precisely, it allowed Oekonux to discern that the mode of peer production is characterized at one and the same time by the unity of these antitheses and by their struggle, both of which determine the changes which peer production undergoes over time.
Hence, by taking account of the dialectical opposition between peer production’s immanent and transcendent characteristics, Oekonux avoided the trap of binary thinking into which the majority of peer production critics and proponents alike had fallen. Most importantly, its dialectical approach allowed it to resolve the antithesis between the forces of immanence and transcendence through the concept of the ‘seed-form.’ Using this metaphor, Oekonux drew a parallel between peer production and the stages of development of a seed. Like a seed, a new of mode of production needs the appropriate substratum and the right environmental conditions in order to emerge and break through the soil. According to that theory, in the beginning, a new mode of production usually occupies a ‘niche’ in the economy without posing any threat to the mode of production that dominates the broader economy. Oekonux argued that this was indisputably the case with peer production, which emerged and established itself in the software industry as a production model that is fully compatible with market imperatives. But as we mentioned before, that compatibility is quite fragile. The reason, according to Oekonux, rests on the endemic nature of crises in the capitalist system, which create the objective conditions for the expansion of the peer production model into increasingly more sectors of the economy. Under these circumstances, peer production ‘gains relevance for the reproduction of the old system.’ Despite the fact though that ‘it can be used for the sake of the old system...its own logic is and remains incompatible with the logic of the dominant old system’ (Meretz 2012).
Thus, due to the ever-recurring cycle of crises, Oekonux argued that the model of peer production finds fertile ground to grow and its field of application shifts from the periphery into the core of the economic system. Under this pressure, the capitalist mode of production is forced to fall back to ‘marginal domains.’ Logically following then, in the course of time, peer production evolves into the new dominant mode of production. This stage is marked by world-historical changes: ‘market mediation using money is no longer required...The entire system has now qualitatively changed its character’ (Meretz 2012). As a result of the transformation of the economy, then, a new society arises, which is characterized by the principles of peer production: a communal form of property and a new type of social relations without the alienation, the exploitation and the coercion inherent in capitalism.
Oekonux did not attempt to invest this future ‘GPL society,’ as it calls it, with an eschatological mantle. The role it plays in the theory of Oekonux is not that of an anticapitalist version of the ‘end of history.’ As in the past, new contradictions may appear in the GPL Society, thereby triggering a new cycle of transformation (Meretz 2012). To its credit, Oekonux did not try to account for the conclusions of its analysis by reference to any ineluctable laws of historical necessity. As it recognized, there is no certainty that peer production will ever supplant the capitalist mode of production. That peer production has the potential to transcend capitalism does not mean that it shall actually realize that potential in praxis. In fact, as Oekonux warned, if commoners and peer producers do not fight to defend their principles, they run the risk of being co-opted and assimilated (Meretz 2012). In the last instance, therefore, a lot depends on their struggle. When, twenty years ago, Oekonux formulated the argument that peer production is the germ of a post-capitalist society, it caused a stir among intellectuals and activists drawn to the subject of the digital commons. Admittedly, Oekonux was home to one of the most interesting and theoretically rich political analyses of FOSS and peer production. Its provocative theses fueled a plethora of heated debates on its mailing lists, which were buzzing with life for about a decade. Then, around the end of the 2000s, without any particular reason, the discussions on the mailing lists started to dwindle until they became inactive. Feeling that this was the end of Oekonux, in 2013 Merten announced his decision to discontinue the project.7 Thus, without much fanfare, Oekonux ceased its activities.
Yet, in spite of its short life span, Oekonux had a lasting impact on the development of peer production theory. Its theses had a tremendous influence on some of the most important contemporary thinkers. The case of Michel Bauwens, who was a long-time contributor to the debates on the Oekonux mailing lists and conferences, is characteristic. Bauwens became involved in Oekonux around 2002 at a time when he had just begun to theorize ‘peer-to-peer’ as a new paradigm of production that was going to shake the world (e.g. Bauwens 2002). His approach had many points in common with Oekonux, as well as with Benkler. As in their case, Bauwens’ theses were the result of analyzing Linux and FOSS as an alternative mode of production, governance and property, which is enabled by the distributed technological infrastructure of the Internet. He similarly conceptualized peer production as a mode of production that is neither directed to market exchange, nor governed by bureaucrats and managers. The antithesis between the immanent and the transcendent characteristics of peer production was, as we have seen, of decisive importance in the development of Oekonux’s theory." (http://heteropolitics.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Digital-Commons.pdf)
A discussion page at Oekonux at http://en.wiki.oekonux.org/GermForm
A text from Raoul Victor called: "Germs of Non-Commercial Relationships within the Most Modern Capitalism" at http://dorax.club.fr/Germs.htm