Christian Siefkes * Peer Production Everywhere (was: [ox-en] Conference documentation)

Hi list!

Below is the documentation from Christian's talk. The images are on
the website.


						Grüße

						Stefan

=== 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< ===

Peer Production Everywhere
==========================

Thoughts About a Society Based on Commons and Peer Production - And How to Get There
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Commons-based Production in the Past
------------------------------------

- In many times and in many areas, production was organized around a *pool
  of commons.*

  * *Open Field System:* European agriculture during the Middle Ages.

  * Water, air, forests and land have traditionally been "in the commons."

- *Commons* are managed and used by people, but they can't be
  *private property* in the usual (modern) sense of the word.

- Garrett Hardin got it wrong: commons were not "anything goes" areas, they
  were *governed by community-defined rules.*

- The true "Tragedy of the Commons" was the *enclosure of the commons*:
  The commons did not collapse, they were "stolen."

Commons-based Peer Production Today
-----------------------------------

.. image:: Siefkes-what-is-pp.jpg

Traits of Peer Production
-------------------------

*(1) Peer production is based on contributions (not on exchange).* Peer
projects have a common goal and every participant *contributes* to
this goal in some way or other.

People contribute to a project because they want it to succeed, not because
they need or want to make money - it's *use value,* not *exchange
value,* that motivates them.

The effort required to reach the common goal is shared among those who care
enough to contribute *("effort sharing").*

Traits of Peer Production
-------------------------

*(2) Peer production is based on free cooperation (not on coercion or
command).* There are structures, but no command hierarchies: Nobody can
*order* others to do something, and nobody is forced to obey others.

*Structures* can and will *adapt:* If participants of a project are
unhappy about some aspects of the project they can try to convince the
others to change them. If that fails, they can still *fork* the project:
they can break away from the others and do their own thing.

Traits of Peer Production
-------------------------

*(3) Peer production is based on commons and possession (not on
property).* *Commons* such as free software and open knowledge play an
important role as input or output (or both) of peer projects.

Where things are not commons, they matter as *possession* (something that
can be *used*), not as *property* (something that can be *sold*).

The Future of Commons-based Production
--------------------------------------

- If the renaissance of commons-based production continues, what might be
  the result? How might a *society based on commons and peer production*
  look like?

- What can we learn from the past and present?

  * Commons need *communities.*

  * Communities make their own *rules* to protect and strengthen the
    commons.

- A commons-based society will be based on *communities* which develop
  *their own rules for creating, maintaining, and handling the commons*
  they create and use.

- Production will be organized around a *pool of commons* created and
  maintained by these communities.

Typical Principles of Such a Society?
-------------------------------------

*(1) Everyone can give as they like.*

- People *self-select* to do things which they consider important or which
  they like to do.

- Often, the things which people like to do most are also the things they
  do *best.*

- This does not mean that every contribution will be *accepted:* others
  have to *trust* the contributor or convince themselves that their
  contribution is sound.

Typical Principles of Such a Society?
-------------------------------------

*(2) Taking from the commons means taking something as possession, not as
property.*

- *Possession* is what I use.

- *Property* is something I can sell or commercialize at will.

- The apartment I've rented is in *my possession,* but it's the
  *property of my landlord/-lady.*

- *Commons* can often become possession, but never property (in the full
  sense of the word).

- In a commons-based society, the *resources and means of production are
  commons.* The *produced goods are commons or possession.*

(2) Commons can become possession, but not property
---------------------------------------------------

- Without property, there is *no profit.*

- In commons-based societies, production is motivated by *other reasons*
  than in capitalism:

  * People help to produce *something* because *they want to have* it.
  * They self-select themselves to do *tasks* which *they enjoy doing.*
  * They support production in order to *give something back to the
    community.*
  * ...

-> There are *ample reasons* why production takes place even where there
is no profit.

Typical Principles of Such a Society?
-------------------------------------

*(3) Everyone can take commons into possession, as long as they don't take
them away from others.*

- Just like today: *everybody can freely take* free software and free
  content without having to give anything back, since by taking them you
  don't take them *away* from others.

- Works for everything that can be *copied at practically zero cost.*

Typical Principles of Such a Society?
-------------------------------------

*(4) If taking would mean taking away, the best way of solving this
problem is to produce enough to satisfy everybody's wishes.*

- If things cannot be copied freely, taking needs *social agreements.*

  * If you and me both want to use the bicycle, who'll get it?

- It might be possible to solve such problems by *arranging production*
  so as *to ensure that there are enough goods* for those who want them.

  * "We need to produce another bicycle."

- If *there's enough for everyone interested,* *taking* doesn't become
  *taking away.*


Typical Principles of Such a Society?
-------------------------------------

*(5) The second best way is to distribute limited goods in a fair
manner.*

- Organizing *production* requires *effort,* and the community must
  find a way to distribute this effort.

- The *ideal case* is that *effort distributes itself* more or less
  *spontaneously.*

  * *Free software/content* are based on *stigmergic effort sharing:*
    participants leave *hints* (signs - Greek: *stigmata*) motivating others
    to continue:

    - To-do lists, bug reports, feature requests
    - Wikipedia: "red links", "most wanted articles"

- *Otherwise,* more *explicit agreements* and procedures *are
  needed.*

  * *BitTorrent:* the more bandwidth you provide for upload (allowing
    others to get the files they want), the more bandwidth you'll get for
    download (allowing yourself to get the files you want) -> *giving and
    taking are coupled.*

(4+5) How to Share Effort and Goods?
------------------------------------

.. image:: Siefkes-allocation.jpg

(4+5) How to Share Effort and Goods?
------------------------------------

.. image:: Siefkes-labor-weights.jpg

(4+5) How to Share Effort and Goods?
------------------------------------

- Effort is shared among those who *can* contribute - if you're unable
  (unwilling?) to contribute, you don't have to (everybody else will have
  to contribute slightly more).

- How to share *natural resources?*

  * Resources are *commons*; they are *pooled* together with goods and
    tasks.

  * If there is enough of a resource, it is *available for free* (since
    no effort is necessary to produce it).

  * Otherwise, *auctioning* might be a suitable way for resource
    allocation: those who are ready to contribute most *effort* get the
    right to use them.

    -> By contributing more effort, you *make life easier for everybody
    else,* because *all the other pool members now have to contribute
    slightly less.*

  * Resources are usually only available for *using,* not for *using
    up.*

Typical Principles of Such a Society?
-------------------------------------

*(6) Cooperation will be organized by area and by interest, and units of
cooperation will nest and overlap as appropriate.*

- Lots of *projects* produce specific goods.

- *Local associations* of different sizes handle the things that concern
  all the people living in a specific area.

- Associations and projects *cooperate* as reasonable to handle
  *activities* that can be better *organized at a larger scale,* and to
  *manage and share resources.*

(6) Local Cooperation
---------------------

.. image:: Siefkes-local-cooperation.jpg

(6) Cooperation Between Projects
--------------------------------

.. image:: Siefkes-distribution-pools.jpg

Typical Principles of Such a Society?
-------------------------------------

*(7) Production will take place in projects of people who work together on
an equal footing (as peers).*

- As mentioned: *Peer production* is based on *free cooperation* (not
  on coercion or command): Nobody can *order* others to do something, and
  nobody is forced to obey others.

- *Maintainers* only lead by example and by *convincing* others that
  their proposals make sense.

- *Structures evolve:* If participants are unhappy about aspects of a
  project, they can try to convince the others to change them.

- If that fails, they can *fork* the project and do their own thing.

What Difference Would It Make?
------------------------------

- *Demand-driven* instead of *profit-driven* production: production
  takes place to fulfill people's *needs and desires,* *not* to *turn
  money into more money.*

- Direct, loosely coordinated *cooperation* with others instead of
  *buying and selling.*

- The *means of production* are *commons,* shared by all. *Nobody* is
  excluded from access to the means of production and thus *forced to sell
  their labor power.*

- There is *no need to out-compete others.* Instead, it makes sense to
  *cooperate* with others who pursue similar goals, since doing so will
  allow you to reach your goals more smoothly and with less effort.

What Difference Would It Make?
------------------------------

- Without the need to out-compete your competitors, *knowledge and
  innovations will spread much faster*\  - sharing is beneficial and secrecy
  is no longer required.

- No structural necessity for *endless growth:* there is no profit to
  maximize, and whether or not the mass of goods (use values) increases
  only depends on people's choices on how to live.

- *Little need for regulation,* since the antagonistic relations of
  capitalism (between competitors, between capitalists and workers) no
  longer exist - the *state* (as we know it) *becomes superfluous.*

How to Get There?
-----------------

- There are lots of promising projects and ideas:

  * `Arduino <http://www.arduino.cc/>`_, `Openmoko <http://www.openmoko.com/>`_,
    ...
  * `Appropedia <http://www.appropedia.org/>`_
  * Factor E `Farm <http://openfarmtech.org/>`_
  * `Open Source Fab Labs <http://www.appropedia.org/Fab_Focus>`_
  * `c,mm,n <http://www.cmmn.org/>`_
  * `Community-supported agriculture <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community-supported_agriculture>`_, `permaculture <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/permaculture>`_ movement /
    `Permablitz <http://www.permablitz.net/>`_ initiative
  * `Village Telco <http://www.villagetelco.org/>`_ / `Free Telephony
    Project <http://www.rowetel.com/ucasterisk>`_
  * `Wireless community networks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_community_network>`_
  * `Open Manufacturing mailing list
    <http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing>`_
  * `Open Innovation Projects <http://open-innovation-projects.org/>`_:
    collects `open design <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/open_design>`_ projects
  * ...

The Struggle for Peer Production
--------------------------------

- The core challenge: *Organizing a new mode of production,* based on
  commons and cooperation among peers -> this is already taking place.

The Struggle for Peer Production
--------------------------------

- Freeing the *means of production,* so they won't be used only for
  purposes of companies or the state:

  * *Computers and Internet access* have already been sufficiently
    "common" and affordable (in the Western world, at least), to make *free
    software, Wikipedia, Wireless community networks,* and *file sharing* a
    reality.

  * Something similar starts to become possible for *some areas of material
    production* -> *decentralized on-demand production, rapid manufacturing,
    permaculture*\ ...

  * It's advantageous when *means of production become sufficiently
    affordable* that "normal people" (or small groups of people) can buy
    them.

  * It's even better *when we can produce them ourselves:* so far, that's
    mainly the case with digital means of production (programming
    languages, compilers, and other tools for programmers and professionals
    as free software). But with *open hardware projects* such as
    *Arduino, Openmoko, Appropedia, Factor E Farm, Open Source Fab Labs,
    Free Telephony Project* we're getting there for physical means of
    production, too.

The Struggle for Peer Production
--------------------------------

- Freeing the *natural resources:* they can be bought (-> *Cost
  Recovery*), or they can be freed by making them *commons* -> struggles
  for public/general access to and use of natural resources (such as land)
  can facilitate conditions for generalized peer production, esp. in poorer
  countries.

- Freeing the *knowledge:* *free software, free culture, open access,*
  and *free design* movements are already doing this.

  Fights against *patents* and *other restrictive laws* (e.g. excessive
  product safety regulations) are important as well, as they might make
  (legal) peer production impossible, impractical, or risky.

The Struggle for Peer Production
--------------------------------

-> Access to *natural resources,* to *production knowledge* and to
*joint, peer-based production processes* decreases our dependency from
the market and from the state.

Favorable Conditions for Peer Production
----------------------------------------

- Suitable for *decentralized* production: global design, local
  production.
- *Modular* approaches based on specialized components that can be
  combined in versatile ways (GNU/Unix tools philosophy) -> there is
  no need to re-invent the same (free) wheels again and again.
- *Low barriers of entry*\  - affordable means of production.

Organizational Models
---------------------

* Open design, *profit-driven manufacturing:* Free the design, sell the
  product

  -> not bad, but may be *risky,* since it automatically subjects you to
  *market logic.*

* *Open Production Club:* jointly produce for the club members, everybody
  can join

  -> it's better to *clearly separate* the *external logic of
  capitalism* (based on exchange and money), from the *internal logic of
  pooling and cooperation* (where there might be coupling between giving
  and taking, but never exchange).

Cost Recovery
-------------

- How do we get the money for the things we still have to buy, since we
  can't produce them ourselves?

  * *Pass-through:* individual users must pay their share of external
    costs - would exclude those that cannot pay (unless special care is
    taken of this case, e.g. through a special pool of donations).
  * *Suggested contributions:* payment is voluntary, but suggested (as
    used for this conference).
  * *Donations:* payment is entirely voluntary (used by the `Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>`_).
  * *Membership fees:* membership may be voluntary or obligatory - in the
    latter case, people who can't pay would be excluded (used by `hacker
    spaces <http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Hackerspaces>`_ such as the Berlin
    `c-base <http://www.c-base.org/>`_, which are also open to non-members).
  * *Sponsorship:* like donations, but depends on one or a few generous
    donors -> might create dependencies.

Effort Recovery
---------------

- How to ensure that production actually takes place?

  * *None:* leave it entirely to individual decisions whether and how
    people give back to the project/pool - as done in free software -> might
    not work as well for physical production.
  * *Suggested contributions:* as for cost recovery, but suggest giving
    back time (effort) instead of money.
  * *Couple giving and taking:* only active contributors may benefit ->
    would exclude those that cannot contribute, unless special care is
    taken of this case.

Resources
----------

- *Book:* Siefkes, Christian. *From Exchange to Contributions.* Edition
  C. Siefkes, Berlin, 2007. License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA.

  * *German translation:* *Beitragen statt tauschen.* AG SPAK Bücher,
    Neu-Ulm, 2008. License: Creative Commons BY-SA.

- *Website:* http://peerconomy.org/

- *Group weblog:* http://www.keimform.de/

  * *Articles in English:* http://www.keimform.de/category/english/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBS2MpeQnTZgC3zSk5AQJkoAQAnMih2le8ihbvrHCyND++D0CSYRvTsbFv
setQLhfXIQk9TAGdbcucozooVTAd4ZSFtMFgFf938c2ovJ0OUGdvjojAk+8v7rVr
DgLTFsriqQSRs8CbP0H++EZtvzzFkBgs/f+3FCuqFNv59oTDjgsP5BFDDHMXEPtT
WdKVGuadW7w=
=t2Dm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----