P2P Foundation:Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user 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):


After the Second World War, the chemical industries of the West shifted their
"As free software moves from the margins to center stage, more and more
attention back to civilian applications, including the large scale
production of synthetic
urea, organo-chlorines and other fertilizers and pesticides. These agrochemicals were
marketed supposedly to provide additional nutrition for farmers' crops and to kill crop
pests. However, farmers and governments did not realize that these products also killed,
incapacitated, weakened, or otherwise made life difficult for very important but littleknown
creatures: soil organisms which turned organic matter into natural plant food, and
friendly organisms like predators and parasites which kept pest populations in check.
These creatures comprised a vast, largely invisible and unrecognized commons which all
farmers unknowingly tapped into, every time they planted seeds and grew crops. In their
defense, the chemical industry might claim that they did not know either (which would be
an admission of recklessness, if not negligence). But this excuse would be untenable by
the 1960s, when the chemical industry viciously attacked Rachel Carson and her book
Silent Spring, which had called attention to the harmful effects of DDT and other
agrochemicals on nontarget
organisms, including human beings.


In effect, the chemical industry was selling farmers and governments a deadly
corporations adapt to the model, and pay programmers to do such parts of the
technological Trojan Horse, an anti-abundance
free software as needed for themselves, but they use the open licenses.
poisoned pill. Agrochemicals appeared to
So these corporations compete, but also collaborate through the common
offer more abundant harvests; in truth, their deployment would gradually weaken and take
platform of free software.
the life out of the farmers' biological support systems such as natural sources of plant
food and pest enemies. As more agrochemicals were used, the diverse soil populations
dwindled, the soil became less fertile and farmers' crops starved. To keep the plants from
starving, more synthetic fertilizers were added, which caused the living soil populations
to dwindle even further. As the predator and parasite populations likewise dwindled, pest
populations went up. So farmers had to spray more pesticides, which then killed even
more predators and parasites. More recent studies based on the theory of trophobiosis
suggest that synthetic fertilizers actually make plants more attractive to pests.
Farmers who took the poisoned pill were caught in the trap and fell into
agrochemical addiction, draining life out of the soil and around the crops.


In the 1960s, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)4 introduced IR8,
For Linux, 75% of programmers are now paid by such corporations, which means
the first of a series of new “highyielding
they have an increasing influence over the direction of development, have a
varieties” (HYV) of rice, whose high yields partly
seat in the Foundations etc; (...)
came from their better responsiveness to chemical treatment. Farmers were wary and few
were willing to let go of their traditional varieties. Drawn by aggressive government
subsidies and lending programs, however, more and more farmers switched. As they did,
they also stopped planting their heirloom varieties, which were soon lost as the old seeds
they had saved dried up and died. As the heirloom varieties disappeared and HYV-dependence
grew, farmers also lost their selection and breeding skills.
Agrochemicals and the new chemically responsive
varieties would eventually be
promoted as the “Green” Revolution. Even today, this technological poisoned pill
continues to keep millions of farmers addicted to agrochemicals, mired in poverty and
debt.


Another facet in the technological substitutions of this period was the gradual
The reality of the various projects is then strongly influenced by the governance model,
replacement of work animals by farm machinery. In the Philippines, for instance,
which can be controlled primarily by a community-oriented foundation, or by
carabaos were the farmers' main source of mechanical power. Carabaos also grazed the
a corporate-oriented format."
less fertile areas around the farm, their dung enriching the soil. The animal usually
recovered by itself from injury or sickness. Even more – perhaps the most amazing thing
of all – the female carabao gave birth to another carabao every two years or so. Yet,
through the same poisoned pill strategy, farm machinery suppliers and the government
eventually managed to get many farmers to switch to a mechanical power source that was
fuelled by costly imported gasoline instead of free grass, gave out noxious pollutants
instead of milk and natural fertilizer, required a skilled technician and costly spare parts if
it stopped working, and of course never gave birth to its own replacement.


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.


Counterproductive
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/)
efforts to control abundance and scarcity have occurred in
other fields as well:


* Drug laws make medically effective
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.
herbal preparations inaccessible to many.
Ironically, herbs easily grown in backyards and community gardens, whose
preparations would be illegal if prescribed by traditional healers, are often the
basis for very expensive drugs manufactured by pharmaceutical firms. It is not a
coincidence that many of these firms are owned by the same agrochemical
companies which control the seed industry.


* Through misleading advertising and collusion with hospitals and medical
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.
professionals, formula milk companies have managed to undermine mothers'
confidence in their own breast milk. This had led to a decline in breastfeeding in a
number of Asian countries.23 As mothers try substitutes; their production of milk
slows down and eventually stops, creating a vast new market for formula milk.


* A traditional Filipino song about plants around the hut (“Bahay Kubo”), taught
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.
to every child in grade school, enumerates 18 food plants that include legumes,
greens, root crops, seeds, nuts, and spices. The song omits many more. Filipinos
have become so fixated on Western foods and diets that they overlook the great
variety of indigenous food sources, many of which simply grow untended like
weeds in their backyards. The monoculture mindset treats these food sources as
weeds that must be suppressed. Razed by farm mechanization and the use of
herbicides, most of them have now disappeared from people's backyards, from
their diets, and from their consciousness, creating real food scarcity and
malnutrition.


* Organic products are scarce and expensive because a system biased towards
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.
chemicals imposes on organic producers the burden of proof: detailed record keeping,
 
testing, inspection, certification and labelling. What if producers of
 
chemically treated
You also wrote:
crops and foods, not organic producers, were instead required
 
by law, in accordance with the “polluter pays” principle, to keep detailed
"This is inevitable, as no free software project can survive in the long run
records of chemical treatments; get their products regularly inspected and tested by
without a core of developers being paid."
accredited laboratories for minimum residue levels; undergo thirdparty
 
certification; and follow mandatory labelling requirements to identify which
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.
chemicals and by what amounts their food products have been exposed to? If this
(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).
were so, the price tags of both organic and chemically treated
 
foods would change
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.
dramatically in favor of organics.

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"