Re: [ox-en] New economic model for free technology?
- From: "Franz Nahrada" <f.nahrada reflex.at>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:22:40 +0200
Michael B wrote
28. September 2005 um 12:58 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]:
Sorry, the previous message was sent before I was
Has there be any discussion on the basic income, as a
necessary precondition for the development of Peer
production? What has been the discussion?
There is a lot of discussion going on "across the scenes".
I think this discussion is inevitable now. Its the main area
of discussion currently....
To preserve 'peer production' as such, the basic
income is the only solution I see to create the
independence of the producers, but it will probably
never cover the full needs.
Maybe not even that. Maybe the situation is as such that the
nature of value and business does not provide the degree
of freedom necessary to create basic income.
But this needs lot of discussions. The situation has been well
outlined by Uli Weiss in Berlin: All attempts to show the
realistic nature of basic income are based on the material
and use-value wealth of society. But we know from critical
theory that the problem is not material capacity, but increasing
*value* scarcity - the "global de-valuation".
Value is the driving force of business, but business works
on *marginalizing values *by competition. There is too much
of everything which cannot "realize" value any more.
And that bis why basic income models will fail.
Money is a form of value - it is based on succesful business
and not on simulation of growth. Growth of money is simulated
and we are aware of that. In reality the worlds monetary system
is short before breakdown,
Basic income theory does mostly not reflect on that!!
Therefore, following Fiske's fourfold intersubjective
typology, i.e. the modes that have always existed
across time and space, we still need solutions for the
other 3 spheres:
- for reciprocity-based relations, we need
or simple agreements. We might try both.
- for market pricing, I think that a form of
'distributed capitalism', where producers are not
dependent on scarce money managed by monopolies, such
a scheme will still be useful
How do you imagine that?
- finally, the state, as representative of the
authoritarian principle, can play a role by providing
funding for collaborative projects (say ,fund
solutions for clean cars or whatever).
But the state is only a power by monetary means. (taxes etc.) It is an
institution which acts on the political monopoly to create debts other
people have to use as money.
For peer production to succeed or expand, I think we
1) the basic income for pure P2P in the immaterial
2) to split immaterial design from material production
through funding by the state or distributed capital
3) for pure material production, the existence of
distributed capital pools seem even more necessary.
Don't misunderstand me, we do need a sphere for pure
non-reciprocal production to exist, through the
universal basic income (or what are the other
alternatives?), but if we want to expand cooperative
production generally (not necessarily non-reciprocal),
the other schemes will be necessary.
Stefan and I refer often to the "Street performer protocol" as an
archetypical solution to support free production. Stefan dislikes it, I
like it. But not as a model for good, simply as a point of "getting the
The only other alternative that I know (and the one I really prefer) is
that we create "mutual cycles of support" where increasingly free products
fill the void created by lack of money. This seems largely a problem of
good design and conviction. Free products must soon include basic human
needs (the "bread") and that is in the long run the strongest base and
tool that we have:
1) have a material base of raw materials and energy --- best is
self-reproducing / biomass based production, thats why I favor rural areas
as birthplace of seed forms of Free Life
2) make the output of each process "feed" another process, so you are glad
something is using your "waste" --- that is a question of systems design
3) integrate processes by agreement, not by market --- market is not a
good coordinator if you want to achieve goals 1 and 2
in the short run itv is important to bring about all necessary
technologies. It is more important that they exist than how they come
about. I think we should be more creative on that. Even basic income would
do, but only as a temporary solution.
Contact: projekt oekonux.de