P2P Foundation:Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(20 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
In the sandbox you can '''play''' with ''wiki syntax'' and more.
In the sandbox you can '''play''' with ''wiki syntax'' and more.


You answered (11jan09):


The role of contemporary spiritual communities in the Post-Industrial reinvention of the Pre-Industrial past
"As free software moves from the margins to center stage, more and more


The following is from an interesting discussion by Eric Hunting on the role played by religious or spiritual communities in developing alternative forms of production.
corporations adapt to the model, and pay programmers to do such parts of the
free software as needed for themselves, but they use the open licenses.
So these corporations compete, but also collaborate through the common
platform of free software.


I just want to add that of course this does not imply of a particular path, nor of of the presence of authoritarian elements within a particular community (for example, it seems that in Daimanhur http://www.wie.org/j36/damanhur.asp?ecp=WIEN-0704, if you do not want to follow the lead of the founder, you're out, which means the 'democratic federation infrastructure has definite limits).
For Linux, 75% of programmers are now paid by such corporations, which means
they have an increasing influence over the direction of development, have a
seat in the Foundations etc; (...)


I would also briefly like to mention another lead I' following, that of neo-traditional economics http://delicious.com/mbauwens/Neotraditionalism, i.e. the economic theories of religious traditions before industrialization, where the logic of economic life was geared towards the immaterial (salvation, enlightenment). My hypothesis is that, as we are moving to a similar focus on the non-material, there are things that we could learn from these approaches.
The reality of the various projects is then strongly influenced by the governance model,
which can be controlled primarily by a community-oriented foundation, or by
a corporate-oriented format."


Some remarks about the existence of "hybrid forms" and about the dynamics of these forms.


The reality you describe is a hybrid social form of production, borrowing aspects from both systems, capitalism and P2P, or peer production. Using your definition of peer production (free and open input; free volunteering production; universally available output), one can say that there are hybrid aspects at the three moments of the process: 1. input, raw material is partly capitalistic as the computers, the offices, etc. are privately owned by the corporations (as IBM), but, for software production, free/open software is also a "raw material"; 2. production is not based on free volunteering, but some aspects of the production are new, non capitalistic, as the cooperation between programmers of antagonistic corporations; 3. the output can be oriented by corporations more towards their own needs (commercial management software, for example) but the output remains universally available.


Eric Hunting:
The "social networking" also generates hybrid forms. If you take MySpace or YouTube: 1. the input is partly capitalistic (the infrastructures and the financing by advertising), but for the rest most of the input (videos, blogs, etc.) are free and open; 2. the production process is based partially on capitalist wage relations for the infrastructure management, but the rest is based on free volunteering; 3. the output is supposed to be universally available but corporations impose limits and try to extend these limits, provoking open conflicts with users/producers. (See for example: http://bang.calit2.net/tts/2008/12/31/why-i-am-deleting-my-myspace-account-and-you-should-too/)


I actually first heard about Damanhur through Fortean Times magazine many years ago, long before the story seemed to break on the mainstream media in the US this year. I've had their original pre-tourist-board-push web site bookmarked for a long time. (http://www.tempio.it/) I put little stock in their mash-up of New Age beliefs and their pursuit of psuedo-scientific psychotronic technologies. But, though it tends to look in style like a secret lair for the Abominable Dr. Phibes, I do think their temple is one of the great works of contemporary art and architecture and an excellent example of the potential of excavated architecture, which I have used as an example in discussions of practical strategies of lunar and planetary settlement. And it's another good example of how people are cultivating images of the future derived from the ancient past.
Hybrid forms also developed in the past transitions between modes of production. Between the 6th and the 10h century, many landlords, including the Church, had simultaneously slaves and serfs (or "coloni" which were the first form of serfs). Between the 12th century and the 19th century many hybrid forms developed especially in the cities where capitalism developed within feudal relationships.


What's most intriguing about Damanhur, though, is the subversive nature of its culture. In ancient times it was common for cults, alchemists, herbalists, and early scientists to rely on encryption as a means of securing their research and knowledge from competitors or from exposure to authorities. But with Damanhur we have this situation -and still pre-Internet at the start, mind you- of a community of about 1000 people who effectively cultivated an encrypted culture flying under the radar of European authorities for decades! They even had their own secret currency, and yet somehow managed to avoid the 'Waco Treatment' long enough to secretly construct one of the largest and most sophisticated works of architecture ever created by such a tiny religious community in modern times. It's like the plot of a science fiction story where the descendants of ancient astronauts are drawn together into a secret tribe with a secret racial language and pool together bits and pieces of the plans for a starship extracted out of their own DNA and then construct it in a secret underground hangar. It's an amazing demonstration of the potential of small groups of people systematically cultivating surplus productivity through community structures and then applying that to a shared goal. This is the sort of amplifying effect I have anticipated for things like cultivating post-industrial technology within a community setting -though, of course, with Damanhur there's the factor of religious fervor as well. We squander a lot of our lives to other people's profit in exchange for cash. Though I wouldn't consider it a model to follow, this is definitely a good picture of just how much that lost productivity amounts to. If 1000 determined people could build this in their spare time, what could a million do?
The evolution of these forms has been often slow, with periods of acceleration but also periods of recession. The example of the Arsenal of Venice, which in the early 16th century employed some 16,000 people and could produce almost a ship per day using production-lines, something not seen again after until the industrial revolution, illustrates how non-linear this evolution can be.


Another religious community that has impressed with their sophistication is Auroville in southern India. (http://www.auroville.com/  This site used to be more about the community but had since gone more commercial, the community info apparently moved to auroville.org but the site down at the moment. However, the Auroville Earth Institute page has a good overview of the community architecture) I learned of them through my study of earth block architecture for use in non-toxic MCS-adaptive housing. They have produced some of the most sophisticated earthen architecture in the world and developed what I think is the most advanced form of Cinva Ram ever created; the Auram 3000. They may even hold the world record for the largest span earth block vaults and domes ever built and the largest solar oven kitchen. Unlike other religious communities, they are very public and involved in a broad spectrum of industries.
The dynamic of that evolution depends on many factors. The evolution of technologies is one of them, but it is far from explaining everything, as the Venetian Arsenal example shows. Here the social consciousness, the social and political conflicts play a crucial role. The European wars of religion after the 16th century and the bourgeois revolutions where indirect or direct expressions of the conflict between the old feudal logic and the raising capitalistic one.


Another interesting community that's not exactly a religious community but was founded, if memory serves, by a catholic priest after the Spanish Civil War, is Mondragon in Arrasata Spain. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragón_Cooperative_Corporation) You've probably already heard of this one. It is based on a workers cooperative that was founded as a trades apprenticeship school for disadvantaged youth whose graduates turned entrepreneurs and formed a coop that just kept getting progressively more industrially sophisticated until if became a multinational multi-industry coop and could compete with other European technology centers. I've considered it a possible model for the GreenStar Industrial Cooperative that I've proposed in TMP2. This is a good example of a pre-Internet P2P economic system cultivated in a community setting -exploiting community nepotism in a progressive way. it seems to incorporate many of the characteristics of the systems proposed by economist Louis Kelso, though with more of a traditional early 20th century socialist bent to it.
In the conflict you refer to about the management of Free/open software foundations, between "community-oriented" and "corporate-oriented" formats, we are witnessing the same kind of conflict between the old logic and the new. Its dynamic depends and will depend not only on material-technological realities but also on social and "political" struggles, at micro and macro scales. And things should become harsher when peer production will pretend to extend to the realm of material production.
 
 
You also wrote:
 
"This is inevitable, as no free software project can survive in the long run
without a core of developers being paid."
 
Yes. As long as the material means of production (and thus the material means of consumption) remain under the capitalist logic governance, the peer production realities will be in a way or another limited.
(At a certain level, the problems to finance the 4th Oekonux Conference, or your personal difficulties to keep working the P2P Foundation while being obliged to work in order too feed your family are also materializations of that reality).
 
The development of the present economic crisis should make more visible at a social scale the need to overcome the dominant logic. The "invisible hand" is paralyzing an increasing share of the material means of production while workers are made redundant and unsatisfied material needs explode. Let's hope that this evidence will help to develop the consciousness of the urgency to extend peer production principles to the material sphere.

Latest revision as of 11:40, 29 January 2009

In the sandbox you can play with wiki syntax and more.

You answered (11jan09):

"As free software moves from the margins to center stage, more and more

corporations adapt to the model, and pay programmers to do such parts of the free software as needed for themselves, but they use the open licenses. So these corporations compete, but also collaborate through the common platform of free software.

For Linux, 75% of programmers are now paid by such corporations, which means they have an increasing influence over the direction of development, have a seat in the Foundations etc; (...)

The reality of the various projects is then strongly influenced by the governance model, which can be controlled primarily by a community-oriented foundation, or by a corporate-oriented format."

Some remarks about the existence of "hybrid forms" and about the dynamics of these forms.

The reality you describe is a hybrid social form of production, borrowing aspects from both systems, capitalism and P2P, or peer production. Using your definition of peer production (free and open input; free volunteering production; universally available output), one can say that there are hybrid aspects at the three moments of the process: 1. input, raw material is partly capitalistic as the computers, the offices, etc. are privately owned by the corporations (as IBM), but, for software production, free/open software is also a "raw material"; 2. production is not based on free volunteering, but some aspects of the production are new, non capitalistic, as the cooperation between programmers of antagonistic corporations; 3. the output can be oriented by corporations more towards their own needs (commercial management software, for example) but the output remains universally available.

The "social networking" also generates hybrid forms. If you take MySpace or YouTube: 1. the input is partly capitalistic (the infrastructures and the financing by advertising), but for the rest most of the input (videos, blogs, etc.) are free and open; 2. the production process is based partially on capitalist wage relations for the infrastructure management, but the rest is based on free volunteering; 3. the output is supposed to be universally available but corporations impose limits and try to extend these limits, provoking open conflicts with users/producers. (See for example: http://bang.calit2.net/tts/2008/12/31/why-i-am-deleting-my-myspace-account-and-you-should-too/)

Hybrid forms also developed in the past transitions between modes of production. Between the 6th and the 10h century, many landlords, including the Church, had simultaneously slaves and serfs (or "coloni" which were the first form of serfs). Between the 12th century and the 19th century many hybrid forms developed especially in the cities where capitalism developed within feudal relationships.

The evolution of these forms has been often slow, with periods of acceleration but also periods of recession. The example of the Arsenal of Venice, which in the early 16th century employed some 16,000 people and could produce almost a ship per day using production-lines, something not seen again after until the industrial revolution, illustrates how non-linear this evolution can be.

The dynamic of that evolution depends on many factors. The evolution of technologies is one of them, but it is far from explaining everything, as the Venetian Arsenal example shows. Here the social consciousness, the social and political conflicts play a crucial role. The European wars of religion after the 16th century and the bourgeois revolutions where indirect or direct expressions of the conflict between the old feudal logic and the raising capitalistic one.

In the conflict you refer to about the management of Free/open software foundations, between "community-oriented" and "corporate-oriented" formats, we are witnessing the same kind of conflict between the old logic and the new. Its dynamic depends and will depend not only on material-technological realities but also on social and "political" struggles, at micro and macro scales. And things should become harsher when peer production will pretend to extend to the realm of material production.


You also wrote:

"This is inevitable, as no free software project can survive in the long run without a core of developers being paid."

Yes. As long as the material means of production (and thus the material means of consumption) remain under the capitalist logic governance, the peer production realities will be in a way or another limited. (At a certain level, the problems to finance the 4th Oekonux Conference, or your personal difficulties to keep working the P2P Foundation while being obliged to work in order too feed your family are also materializations of that reality).

The development of the present economic crisis should make more visible at a social scale the need to overcome the dominant logic. The "invisible hand" is paralyzing an increasing share of the material means of production while workers are made redundant and unsatisfied material needs explode. Let's hope that this evidence will help to develop the consciousness of the urgency to extend peer production principles to the material sphere.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=P2P_Foundation:Sandbox&oldid=27936"