Group items tagged

As knowledge became a major factor of informational capitalism a draconian copyright regime grew dramatically (Lessig, 2005 ). The GPL/GNU pioneered a juridical-productive strategy for producing global commons of knowledge and protecting them against the invasion by capitalism. In this sense, Stallman’s initiative was a major milestone in the struggle of knowledge workers against informational capitalism

The production of Linux was truly a revolution in the organization of cooperation among a large number of producers. Marx argued that any scientific knowledge was a product of collective work (Marx, 1981: 199 ), as each scientist built upon the achievements of previous ones. But this collective aspect of science was not a result of conscious and simultaneous cooperation among scientists but of contingent transfer of knowledge along a time and space axis.

The combination of GPL license with the Linux mode of cooperation represents the gist of the P2P mode of production, which coincides with the general principles of advanced form of communism, described by Marx.

1) There will be no equivalence, between each individual’s contribution to social production and their share from the total social products. They will contribute according to their ability and will use products according to their needs. Money as the quantitative measure of value will disappear (Marx, 1978b). Money does not play any role in internal P2P system, though it still constitutes its external context and inserts pressure on it.

2) In Marx’s advanced communism the division of labor, and with it the state and market vanish (Marx, 1978 a, b). In P2P the division of labor is replaced by the distribution of labor (Weber, 2004) and the logics of state and market are questione

3) Advanced communism, Marx (1978a) envisaged, would transcend alienation not only by abolishing the logic of quantitative equivalence in the realm of exchange between individual and society, and among individuals, and the division of labor, but also by allowing and enabling individuals to use socially produced means of production to materialize their own creative powers. My ethnographic findings show that creativity and peer recognition are among the strongest motivations of P2P producer

At this point we can raise the following questions: 1-Is P2P really a new historical mode of production, or just an appendage to the capitalist mode of production? 2-What is its relation to the capitalist mode of production? 3-To what extent can P2P be applied to material production? 4-What are the possibilities that it will replace or displace the capitalist mode of production altogether

The P2P production productive forces correspond to what Manuel Castells (2010/1996:70-72) defines as the Information Technological Paradigm (ITP). The all-encompassing ITP emphasises informal networking, flexibility, and is characterised by the fact that technology acts on information, information acts on technology, as well as by the integration of various technologies such as micro-electronics, telecommunications, opto-electronics and computers in a larger system. It is important to emphasise that knowledge workers themselves are an important component, or the most important components, of ITP productive forces.

Yet capitalism prevents the free flow of knowledge in all directions in the net. It is true that the capitalist mode of production, adapting itself to ITP, has become global, and has increasingly adopted a network form. However, the sum of all potential links in the net exceeds dramatically the sum of links of the global networks of capital. Hence, the potential of the net, as a paradigmatic productive force of our time, exceeds the capitalist mode of production (Hardt and Negri, 2000)

I described briefly above major aspects of P2P that accord to Marx’s understanding of communism. All these aspects contradict the logic of capital. Here I will show how the logic of P2P profoundly contradicts the capitalist division of labour, because division of labour is the key component of any mode of production. Let me emphasize that in P2P we have a distribution of labour and not a division of labour

The scholars of post-Fordism argue that post-Fordism has transcended Taylorism by enhancing workers’ skills and involving them in decision making

Such claims are at best controversial (Castells, 2010/1996). Many argue that Taylorism is still the dominant form of the organization of the labor process

Post-Fordism has replaced the Taylorist impersonal and mechanized despotism with new forms of personal enslavement. Individual producers do not choose their tasks, or the pace, time and place of their work. In other words the work process is micro-territorialized both spatially and temporally. In this sense the contrast with P2P cooperation cannot be stronger. In P2P cooperation the work processes are globally de-territorialized, in terms of both time and space.

Brook (1975) showed that in a centralized organization the increase of the number of engineers who work on a particular software problem decreases the efficiency by creating unnecessary complexities at an exponential rate. Raymond (2001) demonstrated that this was not true of de-centered networked cooperation of P2P. Here, the increase in the number of workers increases efficiency and improves the product. This hypothesis can be true of all forms of cognitive production.

The commercial use of P2P’s products does not make them commodities because the user does not pay for them and therefore they do not enter the costs of his own commodity. From this follows that the total labor which is globally spent today on different forms of P2P is outside the capitalist social division of labor and circumscribes it.

A fully fledged P2P society is not compatible with money and commodity. The commodity form inherently circumscribes the freedoms that are guaranteed in the GPL

To sum up, the ITP productive forces combined with the de-centered network-based form of cooperation, the absence of wage labor, voluntary contribution, and the commons form of products constitute the main features of the P2P mode of production

Although the P2P mode of production is still an emerging phenomenon, its logic is clearly different from that of capitalism and has been created as a response to the requirements of the new productive forces. Therefore, its historical significance, urgency and novelty can hardly be exaggerated. The capitalist mode of production is a barrier to the realization of the potentialities of knowledge in the era of Internet. It limits human creativity and the development of knowledge workers in general. Therefore, it is no coincidence that a section of knowledge workers have rebelled against capitalist relations of production by lunching P2P. As Söderberg (2008) argues this is a form of class struggle.

The new social production consists of islands in the sea of the capitalist mode of production. The relation between the two, as pointed to above, is one of mutual dependence and antagonism. The social production depends on capitalism for acquiring some of the means of production and wages of its contributors, whilst capitalism on the other hand uses the commons of social production for free.

The social formation is an integrated socio-economic-ideological/cultural system. It may consist of more than one modes of production. However, one mode of production dominates the others and its imperatives define the overall characteristics of the social formation. In this sense we can speak of feudal and capitalist social formations as distinct from feudal and capitalist modes of production. Although the dominant mode of production dominates other modes of production, it cannot erase their specific logics. The continuous tension and dependency between the dominant mode of production and subordinated ones make social formations dynamic, uneven, and complex phenomena.

The capitalist social formation has gone through three partially overlapping phases: the emerging, the dominant and the declining ones. In the emerging phase (1850-1950) the capitalist mode of production dominated the feudal, domestic and other pre- capitalist modes of production worldwide, extracting labor and value from them (Mandel, 1972: chapter 2 ). In the second phase (1950-1980) the capitalist mode of production eroded the pre-capitalist mode of productions profoundly, and replaced them with the capitalist mode of production. Capitalism expanded both intensively, penetrating new domains of productive activity such as services, and extensively, conquering the whole globe. The third phase (1980- onwards) is characterized by the emergence of the ITP paradigm and the social mode of production within the capitalist social formation. This period has been described in terms such as “Network Society” (Castells, 2010/1997 ), “Empire” (Hardt and Negri, 2000), etc.

Although the P2P mode of production is still under the sway of the capitalist mode of production, its standing vis-à-vis capitalism is different from that of pre-capitalist modes of productions. While in the two first phases capitalism represented the new productive forces, in the third phase P2P is the new and emerging mode of production and capitalism is the declining one.

If P2P dominates capitalism we will have the emerging phase of P2P social formation. I do not want to give the impression that the victory of P2P over capitalism is either a smooth evolutionary process or inevitable. It is fully contingent upon the orientations and consequences of the current social struggle, particularly the struggle of P2P communities.

Automation will be a pillar of this transformation, though automation is not a necessary pre-condition for material P2P. In a fully automated production, the P2P production of cognitive factor (research and development, design and software) will bring material production under the sway of P2P.

The natural limit to raw material will also place a limit on material wealth and will require rules of distribution. But the criterion for distribution in the global community and within each local community cannot be the contribution of labor by individuals and communities, because cognitive work is globally collective, has no exchange value and does not produce exchange value. Only the needs of communities and individuals defined democratically among and within communities can be the criterion for distribution

the success of state and capital in preventing P2P from becoming the dominant mode of production is not guaranteed beforehand. Things can go either way depending on the consequence of social struggles. The P2P movement, if supported by all other social movements of the multitude, may prevail. Social struggle will also determine what type of P2P society we will have.

What then are the possible scenarios for P2P production to become the dominant mode of production? Will it grow parallel with capitalism until it overtakes it? Or, will its path of development be much more complicated, marked by ebbs and flows, and temporary setbacks? Will a social revolution that expropriates strategic means of production from capitalists be a prerequisite for P2P production to become the dominant mode of production? What will be the role of social struggle and human consciousness in advancing P2P production

“the idea of communism” is becoming appealing again. However it is not enough, though really necessary, to say that “another communism is possible” (Harvey, 2010:259) but to imagine the general contours of communist production. Herein lies the historical and political significance of P2P production. It represents, though in embryonic form, a model for communist production and distribution.

What then are the strengths and weaknesses of the P2P production social movement?

Its weakness, as Söderberg (2008) argues, is that most of the participants in the P2P production lack an explicit anti-capitalist consciousness, let alone a communist consciousness

However, the majority’s involvement in production is motivated by personal reasons, such as doing something exciting and creative, and improving their own skills. However participants are aware of, and value the fact, that they are producing commons.

No doubt the formation of a solid collectivist and progressive culture which grows organically around P2P production and other social movements will be essential for the formation of a communist society. Despite the significance of this progressive culture-in-making, it cannot remedy the lack of a clear programmatic communist vision and sustained theoretical critique of capitalism among the participants.

The lack of a clear collectivist vision combined with the dominant capitalist environment makes P2P production vulnerable to invasion by capitalism

No doubt there is a self-conscious communist section among the producers in P2P production. This communist section must carry out an uncompromising theoretical and critical theoretical struggle within the P2P production movement. However, this struggle should be conducted in friendly terms and avoid sectarianism. Communists should not position themselves against non-communist participants in the P2P movement. Actually, as Barbrook (2007) argues, all contributors to P2P production are involved in a communist material practice, regardless of their attitudes to communism.

In addition to the lack of class consciousness among P2P producers, and perhaps as a result of this, the absence of sustained connections/alliances between P2P producers and other progressive social movements is another weakness of the P2P movement. This is also a weakness of other social movements

The very fact the Occupy Wall Street was initiated by Adbusters and Anonymous, and that its de-centered/network form of organization, alongside that of Indignados, is very similar to that of P2P, is indeed very promising.

The academic and the activist left, on the other hand, have not yet grasped the historical novelty and significance of P2P production.

The software was met with enormous interest

Another crucial factor is the community that coordinates the development of the operating system. The open, decentralized, and seemingly chaotic way of working together pioneered by Torvalds and his collaborators became known as the “bazaar” model of software development (Raymond 2001)

With free software, there is no strict boundary between users and developers. Many participants simply use the software, but some help to improve it, either occasionally or even regularly and intensely. The participants themselves decide whether and how to contribute. Participation is not obligatory, but quite easy if you want to get involved.

Linux and Wikipedia are important examples of two communities – the free software movement (also called open source movement) and the free culture movement

The GNU/Linux story reveals the essential characteristics of peer production. Peer production is based on commons: resources and goods that are jointly developed and maintained by a community and shared according to community-defined rules.

If I modify and distribute a GPL’ed software, I must publish my own version under the GPL. This principle is called “copyleft” since it turns copyright on its head. Instead of granting exclusive rights of control and exploitation to the authors, it ensures that all versions of the software will remain in the commons forever.

While production for the market aims to produce something that can be sold, the usual goal of peer production is to produce something useful.

In contrast to companies and entities in planned economies, peer projects don’t have command structures. That does not mean that they are unstructured; on the contrary, most projects have “maintainers” or “admins” who keep the project on course and decide which contributions to integrate and which to reject.

The success of GNU/Linux is based on the fact that – like all free software – it is a commons that everybody can use, improve and share. The freedoms that make free software a commons were first defined by Richard Stallman in the 1980s. He designed the GNU General Public License (GPL) as an exemplary license to legally protect these freedoms.

Open hardware projects design physical products by freely sharing blueprints, design documents, and bills of materials.

No production is possible without means of production. The RepRap 3D printer has received a lot of attention because it can “print” many of its own parts. Other free 3D printers are the Fab@Home and the MakerBot, around which a large community has formed. Thingiverse is a platform for sharing 3D designs for such printers. Projects such as FurnLab and CubeSpawn design CNC (computer-controlled) machines for processing wood and metals; their aim is to facilitate “personal fabrication.

You cannot create things from designs and blueprints alone – physical resources and means of production are needed as well. Technological advancements have made various production processes less expensive and more accessible.

It makes more sense for productive infrastructures to be community-based, i.e., jointly organized by the inhabitants of a village or neighborhood. There are already examples of this.

Community-organized production places are emerging as well.

Fab Labs are modern open workshops whose goal is to produce “almost anything.” That’s not yet realistic, but they can already produce furniture, clothing, computer equipment (including circuit boards), and other useful things.

Their goal is the creation of an entirely commons-based production infrastructure, a network of free and open facilities that utilize only free software and open hardware.

But can peer production really get that far in the physical world? Won’t it be stopped by the fact that natural resources and the Earth’s carrying capacity are limited?

Digital, Internet-based peer production has produced astonishing amounts of software and contents – a digital plenty that benefits us all. In the physical world, a similar plenty for everyone must seem impossible if one equates plenty with lavishness and wastefulness. But plenty also has another meaning: “getting what I need, when I need it.

Commons-based peer production brings such a needs-driven conception of plenty for everyone into reach.

Physical production is impossible without natural resources. Therefore, peer production won’t be able to realize its full potential unless access to resources is managed according to its principles. Digital peer production treats knowledge and software as a commons. Likewise, physical peer production needs to manage resources and means of production as commons, utilizing them in a fair and sustainable way and preserving or improving their current state.

The challenge is huge

For the future of commons-based peer production it will be very important to bring together the perspectives and experiences of commoners from all areas – whether “digital,” “ecological,” or “traditional.”

Tällaiseen avoimen lähdekoodin ympäristöön saapui Richard Stallman, joka aloitti työn MIT:n tekoälylaboratoriossa vuonna 1971. Stallmanin ohjelmointiprojekteista kenties tunnetuin on Emacs-tekstieditori, jonka suosio on jatkunut 1970-luvulta näihin päiviin asti.

Monet ohjelmistojen valmistajat alkoivat 1980-luvun vaihteeseen mennessä suhtautua lähdekoodiin kuin yksityisomaisuuteen ja lopettivat sen toimittamisen ohjelmien mukana. Stallman tahtoi vuonna 1980 muokata uuden lasertulostimensa ohjelmistoa, mutta Xerox ei antanutkaan hänelle lähdekoodia. Tämän ja vastaavien kokemuksien vuoksi Stallmanista tuli avoimen lähdekoodin puolesta kampanjoiva aktivisti.

Vuonna 1983 Stallman perusti GNU-projektin, jonka päämääränä oli luoda avoimeen lähdekoodiin perustuva käyttöjärjestelmä. Hän perusti myös Free Software Foundationin ajamaan vapaaohjelmien aatetta juridiselta ja poliittiselta kannalta.

Free Software Foundationin määritelmän mukaan vapaan ohjelmiston täytyy täyttää neljä ehtoa, alkaen ehdosta nolla, koska tietokoneet aloittavat laskemisen nollasta: Vapaus ajaa ohjelma, mistä tahansa syystä (vapaus 0). Vapaus tutkia ohjelmaa, ja muutella sitä tarpeidesi mukaan (vapaus 1). Lähdekoodin saatavuus on ennakkoehto tälle. Vapaus jakaa kopioita uudestaan, jotta voit auttaa naapuriasi (vapaus 2). Vapaus jakaa uudestaan kopioita ohjelman parannelluista versioista (vapaus 3). Tämä antaa koko yhteisölle hyödyn tehdyistä muutoksista. Pääsy lähdekoodin pariin on ennakkovaatimus tälle.

Vuonna 1991 suomalainen Helsingin yliopiston opiskelija Linus Torvalds julkaisi internetissä GPL-lisensoidun Linux-kernelin, josta tuli GNU-projektin ohjelmiin yhdistettynä toimiva kokonainen käyttöjärjestelmä, jota pitäisikin Stallmanin mukaan kutsua GNU/Linuxiksi eikä pelkästään Linuxiksi.

Keskeisistä avoimen lähdekoodin ideologeista tulee mainita vielä kolmas epädiplomaattinen herrasmies, Eric S. Raymond. Jos Stallman on lähinnä punavihreä aktivisti ja Torvalds pragmaattisesti suuntautunut henkilö, on Raymond yleisiltä poliittisilta mielipiteiltään ollut lähellä oikeistolibertarismia

Raymond perusti Stallmanin Free Software Foundationin kanssa kilpailevan Open Source Initiativen. Molemmat suuntaukset ajavat avointa lähdekoodia, mutta Stallmanin vapaaohjelmistot ovat jossain määrin ideologisempi idea kuin Raymondin pragmaattisempi käsite avoimen lähdekoodin ohjelmistot. Raymondin pyrkimyksenä oli pudottaa suurin osa 1960-lukulaisuudesta pois, jotta liike-elämän olisi helpompi innostua avoimesta lähdekoodista.

Raymond on myös kirjoittanut erään merkittävimmistä avoimen lähdekoodin ideologiaa yleisesti käsittelevistä kirjoista, The Cathedral and The Bazaar. Katedraalimallissa lähdekoodi on saatavilla, mutta se tarjoillaan ylhäältäpäin ohjelmistojulkaisujen mukana. Basaarimallissa lähdekoodi on jatkuvasti tarjolla internetissä, ja sen muokkaamiseen on helppo osallistua.

Lähdekoodin eli tiedon ilmainen jakaminen tuo mieleen sosialismin, mutta ehkä on sopivampaa verrata sitä tieteen etiikkaan.

Tieteellinen kommunismi viittaa siihen perinteiseen käsitykseen, että tieteen tulosten täytyy olla avoimia ja koko tiedeyhteisön käytettävissä. Koska ohjelmistoja luotiin alun perin juuri julkisissa tutkimuslaitoksissa, on luonnollista, että tämä ajattelu periytyi tieteestä suoraan ohjelmistotuotantoon. Vasta myöhemmässä vaiheessa ohjelmat alettiin nähdä suljettuna ja yksityisomisteisena ilmiönä.

Rinnastukset poliittiseen sosialismiin ontuvat myös siinä mielessä, ettei yksikään avoimen lähdekoodin keskeinen puolestapuhuja ole varsinaisesti liiketoimintaa vastaan.

Osittain sekaannus johtuu siitä, että englanniksi sana »free» tarkoittaa sekä ilmaista että vapaata. Niinpä suomeksi avoin lähdekoodi on vapaata, muttei aina ilmaista. Englanniksi käsitettä joudutaan selittämään esimerkiksi sanomalla, että avoin lähdekoodi on »free as in freedom, not free as in free beer.»

Markkinataloutta avoin lähdekoodi ei siis vastusta. Jossain määrin sitä voidaan kuitenkin pitää anarkistisena. Peruslähtökohtana on se, että jos joku ei pidä tavasta, jolla jotain projektia hoidetaan, hänellä on mahdollisuus perustaa projektista oma versionsa, eli forkata siitä oma versionsa.

Anarkismista huolimatta avointa lähdekoodia luonnehtii myös meritokraattisuus. Tyypillisesti käytössä on valistuneen diktaattorin malli. Vaikka projekti pyörisi hyvinkin anarkistisesti, voi sen perustajalla, ahkerimmalla tai taitavimmalla jäsenellä olla lopullinen veto-oikeus päätöksiin.

Kuitenkin avointa lähdekoodia kehitetään paljon myös täysin hierarkkisesti organisoituneissa yrityksissä, joten anarkismiakaan ei voida pitää kattavana tunnuspiirteenä. Keskeisimmäksi tunnuspiirteeksi nousee juuri tieteen ihanteen kaltainen tiedon jakaminen.

Google on tukenut jatkuvasti avoimen lähdekoodin hankkeita, vaikka sen liiketoiminnan ytimessä olevat hakualgoritmit lienevät kaikista liikesalaisuuksista salaisimpia. Facebookin tapauksessa lähdekoodin avoimuus ei ehkä ole kovinkaan tärkeää, koska avoimen lähdekoodin projektit pystyvät helposti luomaan vastaavan palvelun, olennaisinta on hallitseva markkina-asema ja se mitä Facebook tekee käyttäjiensä luovuttamilla tiedoilla. Avoimen lähdekoodin näkökulmasta pahin vaihtoehto ei ole Microsoft, jonka hallinta keskittyy käyttöjärjestelmän tasolle. Sellainen on ennemmin vertikaalisesti koko tuotantoketjuaan kontrolloiva Apple.