Visions of a full-scale peer production (was: Re: [ox-en] Re: Fundamental text by StefanMn and StefanMz - Part 3)

Hi Raoul and all!

15 months (478 days) ago Raoul wrote:
> Since this is a little big long, you may find a printer-friendly version at
> http://dorax.club.fr/080616_on_fund_text.rtf

@Raoul: Thank you for you great comment. I largely agree with
StefanMz' reply so don't feel the need for an own. Especially I love
it how you show the contradictions in my own thinking over time by
pulling out older quotes from me :-) . I'd call my contradictions over
time learning ;-) .

However, there was one chapter which I think should be discussed
further. Because it is nicely separated from the rest I consciously
broke the thread starting a new one. I also quote large parts of your
text first and then comment on a few parts.

> 2 - Can we imagine what could be peer material production?
> 
> Part 3 of the text reads:
> "Today it is hard to see how material production can be organized
> according to the logic of information goods...  It is perfectly
> possible that in a dominance or restructuring step the problem on
> how to embed material production in the peer production mode of
> production is on a basis which can not be imagined today."
> 
> Maybe that statement is a consequence of the doubts about the
> possibility of making common material goods non-rival. In any case,
> I think it is far from obvious. Of course we cannot imagine the
> concrete details or even important aspects of such a mode of
> production, but we can imagine what a general framework could be.
[...]
> We can imagine some general aspects of what could be the cycle of
> material production, that is including the distribution and
> consumption aspects (I'll come back later on that inclusion)
> according to peer production principles. Since production is
> orientated exclusively towards the satisfaction of human
> needs/desires (instead of profit) and the final user is the source
> of innovation, lets start by "the end", when the user gets the
> product.
> 
> For most of commonly needed products, we could imagine sorts of
> "super-markets" (we should say "super non-markets") where goods are
> free/gratis. These might also be Internet sites. The nature and
> quantities of the products taken (instead of bought) would be
> instantaneously registered and the data sent by Internet to centers
> at different levels (villages, local, regional, worldwide).
> 
> That data would be permanently processed at different levels by a
> set of softwares in order to generate a list of consumption
> requirements, including as much information as possible:
> geographical localization, quantity, qualities, etc. The softwares
> would be constantly developed and improved integrating the
> final-user desires, systematically collected, elaborated, processed
> at all levels. That list would be made available to anyone in the
> planet, giving an instantaneous and permanent list of all the common
> consumption "itches" that humans "need to scratch".
> 
> On the productive side, any center of production would thus have a
> real and large choice to decide what it prefers to produce, having
> the security that its product will be useful and used/consumed. It
> could also make propositions of new solutions to present or future
> needs/desires.
> 
> Every production center, in his turn, would express permanently its
> needs in order to realize its projects and, as for consumption,
> through Internet, these would be instantaneously collected,
> processed and put at public use. 
> 
> These needs/desires include raw material, machines and, of course,
> human work (not labor).  Raw material and machines needs would be
> processed as the consumption "itches" and put at disposal of the
> centers of production. Human work needs would also be permanently
> and instantaneously put at disposal of all human beings. Any person
> wishing to participate in social production has thus the possibility
> to choose what she wants to do, or something close to it, as in Free
> Software. (voluntary self-aggregation).
> 
> At that level, the first necessity to create a peer society is the
> capacity to transform any productive task in a pleasure for the
> person who does it. (Pleasure does not exclude "effort": playing
> soccer is exhausting, for example). Automation is here a key element
> in order to eliminate or transform what today are repulsive tasks.
> As producers are  the "end users" of the means and ways of
> production, they should be the permanent masters of innovation at
> that level, orientated towards Selbsentfaltung development. 
> 
> Even if many questions remain open, as the distribution on goods
> which can not be made abundant or "governance" systems, for example,
> some fundamental aspects of what could be the application of peer
> production principles to the material sphere can be seriously
> imagined, and their superiority to capitalist ones easily
> demonstrated.
> 
> One may object that, even if such a vision may seem coherent and
> materially feasible, it does not say what would be the transition to
> that full-developed peer society. That is true. But, if you want to
> imagine a transition you need to know from where to where it goes.
> If you don't have any idea about the end of it (or at least a very
> advanced point), you cannot even think it.
> 
> The old formula: "From each according to his ability, to each
> according to his needs/desires" may summarize what a full-developed
> peer society should be based on, since it also summarizes what the
> peer production principles are. Today we can and must give to that
> abstract goal a more concrete image.

Thank you for this vision. Indeed it is a very great vision worth
spelling out in more detail. And I share that it is about time to
create a more concrete image - see the drawing board initiative.

What came to my mind when reading this was a comparison with the plan
based economies in the states of the so-called real socialism. And
also a comparison with market based economies would be interesting. I
think it would be interesting to create such a comparison in detail.

Now for some comments.

> For most of commonly needed products, we could imagine sorts of
> "super-markets" (we should say "super non-markets") where goods are
> free/gratis.

In German we once had the nice word play of the "kassenlose
Gesellschaft" (society without cash desks) instead of the "klassenlose
Gesellschaft" (classless society). Unfortunately this doesn't work in
English :-( .

> These might also be Internet sites. The nature and
> quantities of the products taken (instead of bought) would be
> instantaneously registered and the data sent by Internet to centers
> at different levels (villages, local, regional, worldwide).

Technically you could solve this in various ways.

The important point is that consumption is registered at the point of
distribution. That is a very fine-granular method of gathering this
data. In fact nowadays it is probably common in shops where the cash
desk recognizes exactly the product you are just buying.

In fact this is a sort of real-time gathering of data which was not
available to the plan economies. They had to base their plan on the
a-posteriori data.

> That data would be permanently processed at different levels by a
> set of softwares in order to generate a list of consumption
> requirements, including as much information as possible:
> geographical localization, quantity, qualities, etc. The softwares
> would be constantly developed and improved integrating the
> final-user desires, systematically collected, elaborated, processed
> at all levels. That list would be made available to anyone in the
> planet, giving an instantaneous and permanent list of all the common
> consumption "itches" that humans "need to scratch".

Such an overview would certainly by useful. In fact with the raw data
you can make lots of evaluations of all kinds.

> On the productive side, any center of production would thus have a
> real and large choice to decide what it prefers to produce, having
> the security that its product will be useful and used/consumed. It
> could also make propositions of new solutions to present or future
> needs/desires.
> 
> Every production center, in his turn, would express permanently its
> needs in order to realize its projects and, as for consumption,
> through Internet, these would be instantaneously collected,
> processed and put at public use. 

You could even go one step further. If you know the "productive input"
required to produce each product you can recursively calculate the
total "productive input" required for a single end consumer product.

> These needs/desires include raw material, machines and, of course,
> human work (not labor).  Raw material and machines needs would be
> processed as the consumption "itches" and put at disposal of the
> centers of production. Human work needs would also be permanently
> and instantaneously put at disposal of all human beings. Any person
> wishing to participate in social production has thus the possibility
> to choose what she wants to do, or something close to it, as in Free
> Software. (voluntary self-aggregation).

Here is a big difference to Christian's vision which requires people
to choose. Of course I prefer your vision :-) .

And seeing it that way the urge of humans to abolish work can be used
far better: If you look at these needs you have a strong urge to
automate away these needs or at least make them pleasant. I think it
is very important to release this power!

> One may object that, even if such a vision may seem coherent and
> materially feasible, it does not say what would be the transition to
> that full-developed peer society. That is true. But, if you want to
> imagine a transition you need to know from where to where it goes.
> If you don't have any idea about the end of it (or at least a very
> advanced point), you cannot even think it.

Very important!


						Grüße

						Stefan
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]