Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
luminous:lg_tu_day3 [2008-10-26 08:26] – 213.235.237.74 | luminous:lg_tu_day3 [2017-01-18 05:57] – 46.161.9.24 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ==== Luminous Green Time's Up Style ==== | ||
- | **Day 3** of [[workshop_timesup|Luminous Green in Linz]] | ||
- | |||
- | The construction of the various components of the Time's Up urban steam baths are continuing in full speed. More and more of the components are beginning to function (i.e. squirt water of various degrees of cleanliness and temperature), | ||
- | |||
- | ([[http:// | ||
- | |||
- | The steam bath has been ceremoniously opened at midnight, with a whistle of a slightly out-of-tune steam flute, with about 15 people plunging into the hot tub after stripping their clothing in the bitter cold. The water was pumped straight from the harbour starting from about 8PM, using the screw & rope pump, powered by an electrical motor attached to the windmill, as there wasn't enough wind for the windmill to pull the water up by itself. The water was filtered, using a silica sand filter and poured into a large tub, made of a piece of a shipping container, old mattresses and a large tarpolin. The water was warmed by a set of wood-fire ovens, that produced steam, that was pumped into the tub, using a tangle of tubing, temperature and pressure meters. The water smelled fresh and was approximately 40 degrees Celsius. The backdrop to the hot tub was the semi-finished shower, made out of found materials - a heavy-duty sewage drain, many pieces of yellow wood, with a bright orange " | ||
- | |||
- | {{http:// | ||
- | {{http:// | ||
- | {{http:// | ||
- | |||
- | === Christian Siefkes === | ||
- | |||
- | The morning of the last day was dedicated to Christian Siefkes, a computer scientist from Berlin, who works and researches peer economy & production. He is looking at possible post-capitalist models of society and attempting to answer the question how such a society could be organised. | ||
- | |||
- | {{http:// | ||
- | |||
- | He mentioned several already existing examples. In the free software community people involved do things because they enjoy doing them, or because they have a need for something (the itch & scratch method). Free content propagation, | ||
- | |||
- | If we were to translate from existing projects in this sphere, what would peer production be like across different sectors? According to Chrisian there are several characteristics that can be valid in non-software based fields as well. Peer production is based on contribution, | ||
- | |||
- | Christian took peer production a step further, asking how would a society work if it would be driven by peer economy. In a peer economy, the use is the driver. Usage value is driving production (if people need something, the community will produce it). In capitalism, the main driver is profit, which means that production is driven to maximise exchange value, rather than use value. In peer economy, exchange value becomes irrelevant, hence profit becomes irrelevant. Instead of profit, the needs of the people become the direct goal of production. In peer economy people work because the care about the projects. In capitalism, if you don't have anything else to sell, you sell your labour. In peer economy all work is shared, so there is no need to sell labour, or anything else. There is also no unemployment & if the work is well distributed, | ||
- | |||
- | Which problems can be expected from moving from information to material production? Firstly effort sharing needs a degree of self-organisation (for example stigmergy – http:// | ||
- | |||
- | The economy of the amount of effort versus the amount of use need to be dealt with as well. Again, the best case scenario – a flat rate - is akin to a good potluck dinner – everyone brings one dish & everyone eats everything. In a situation that involves a larger project, say making cars, the contributions can be connected to the goods, rather than people: if I want one car, I contribute x amount of effort, if I want more, I have to contribute more effort. A slightly more complicated allocation is through proportional distribution, | ||
- | |||
- | Free cooperation is an important foundation for peer economy. The first step in collaboration is setting a clear goal – what do we want to produce? The next step is to organise the project in order to reach these goals & dividing the project into tasks. After that it comes down to effort sharing – deciding who will do what. In this case, large projects work better, as more goods are produced and shared, while smaller projects are more flexible. Having many small, but pooled projects can work well as well. Projects can decide to jon a distribution pool, where it becomes easier to obtain everything you need. A distribution pool contains a pool of tasks for each project, which become a global pool of tasks shared by all projects & contributors. It is important to mention that these distribution tools are not based on exchange, but on contribution – we help each other produce what everyone needs, rather than working for individual profit – there are no distribution tools and the production is driven by a need to get some of the goods for yourself. Coupling of giving and taking means that if you produce something that no one needs it's a wasted effort. In the opposite case, if there is a scarcity of goods that too many people want, the value of the goods will raise, but the benefit will be for the whole community, rather than just for the seller. | ||
- | |||
- | Local cooperation (cooperation based on geographical proximity) is based on similar organisational principles of goal setting, organisation and effort sharing. This cooperation can be structured in local association, | ||
- | |||
- | The final part of the talk was reserved for commons and possessions. The problem with property is that even when you don't use it, it remains your property, while you only have a possession if you need it. If you don's someone else can make use of it. The effort can be distributed in time. Possessions can be rented from a community, not from someone outside, so if you want to have a possession of something (for an x amount of time), you contribute effort to the community. Commons are important in terms of natural resources. As no one can own natural resources, resources that are not used are returned to the commons for everyone' | ||
- | |||
- | So finally, Christian asked what we could expect from a society based on peer economy? Peer production is designed to satisfy people' | ||
- | |||
- | More information: | ||
- | * http:// | ||
- | * http:// | ||
- | |||
- | == Discussion: == | ||
- | |||
- | Are these based on several forms of anarchy? People believe they wouldn' | ||
- | |||
- | How would you hack peer economy? By creating additional pools, starting a black market economy that might lead back to capitalism? How would that work when there is no property and class? | ||
- | |||
- | What happens to natural resources when they can be freely used (or managed by associations)? | ||
- | |||
- | Decision making process – democracy & meritocracy, | ||
- | |||
- | What happens with the work that responds to needs that people don't realise they have (e.g. art) – people will have more time to do things they like, so the society is organised around hobbys – which is where you don't directly respond to needs, but which can eventually be recognised as contributions. | ||
- | |||
- | Who defines what needs are – the whole concept of needs might change in the process... |