We need to imagine new forms of governance
1More
Marsha Shenk: Symbionomics Interview on Vimeo - 0 views
3More
The Promise of the Commons: an Interview with David Bollier - 0 views
-
Because at a local, self-organized level, the commons can perform lots of tasks that governments just aren't doing well because they’re too corrupted or bought off or too centralized and incapable of dealing with diverse, distributed complexity.”
-
“the commons provides for more fairness, it provides for more individual freedom of participation and it provides for a sense of sufficiency for everyone without getting into the consumerist, growth forever syndrome.
"Random" Predictive Content Discovery: Jarno Koponen Interview | Data Science Weekly Blog - 0 views
52More
Fostering creativity. A model for developing a culture of collective creativity in science - 0 views
-
Scientific progress depends on both conceptual and technological advances, which in turn depend on the creativity of scientists
-
creative processes behind these discoveries rely on mechanisms that are similar across disciplines as diverse as art and science
-
research into the nature of creativity indicates that it depends strongly on the cultural environment
- ...48 more annotations...
-
create optimal conditions in a research organization with the aim of enhancing the creativity of its scientific staff
-
Creativity has been traditionally associated with art and literature but since the early twentieth century, science has also been regarded as a creative activity
-
Measurement of brain activity showed that creativity correlates with two brain states: a quiescent, relaxed state corresponding to the inspiration stage, and a much more active state corresponding to the elaboration stage
-
have a common feature: they depend on a balance between analytical and synthetic thinking, and usually describe the creative process as a sequence of phases that alternate between these states
-
However, more recent studies suggest that creativity also depends strongly on the social and cultural context
-
Although creative individuals are essential, the strong link with the environment indicates that creativity might be greatly enhanced by generating a culture that supports the creative process.
-
Many of the interviewees repeatedly emphasized three main qualities necessary to be a good scientist: rigorous intellect, the ability to get the job done and the ability to have creative ideas.
-
Although breakthroughs in science depend on such an ‘internal' conceptual shift, they also rely on ‘external' experimental results. However, most interviewees described their breakthroughs as largely internal:
-
Only two scientists expressed the view that their breakthroughs were purely external events, based on the observation of novel data.
-
Although the synthesis of a new concept relies on intuition, which is based on subconscious mental processing, it must be subjected to conscious examination and analysis
-
The majority of interviewees answered that other people provided them with ‘inspiration to do something new'
-
positive feedback after the emergence of a new idea is almost as important as the inspiration that triggered it
-
Therefore, scientists would value a culture of interaction and mutual inspiration more highly than access to technology, although the latter is essential for their experiments.
-
At the end of the interviews, each scientist was asked to describe the best possible conditions for generating creativity at a research institute.
-
These results indicate strongly that an interactive environment is the single most important factor for stimulating creativity
-
hierarchy is based on genuine respect because people are great scientists, but at the same time they're very approachable and open towards what you have to say
-
These results suggest that the best conditions for scientific creativity come with a free-flowing hierarchy and a highly developed culture of interaction to guarantee the exchange of ideas and inspiration.
-
Finally, because of the freedom to try new things, these ideas can be tested and eventually generate new insights.
-
The importance of a ‘freedom to try new things' and a ‘free-flowing hierarchy' further supports the idea that individual components in an emergent system must be able to interact flexibly without central control
-
During the interviews, it became apparent that although a culture of interaction and creativity exists at EMBL, this itself is not often the subject of discussion. The values on which this culture is based are seemingly implicit rather than explicit
-
Potentially, the EMBL culture of interaction could be strengthened further by consciously expressing and discussing the values on which it is based
-
Lectures in preparation for the presentation on Open Science. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lCEl7cU-oA5IlJ8xiOQ3jyyc_xiJ0216kkt46xhNMek/edit#slide=id.g36f1fcffd_014
Kevin Kelly: Symbionomics Interview on Vimeo - 1 views
Jimmy Wales: Symbionomics Interview on Vimeo - 0 views
Neal Gorenflo: Symbionomics Interview on Vimeo - 0 views
Ward Cunningham: Symbionomics Interview on Vimeo - 0 views
BetterMeans: Symbionomics Interview on Vimeo - 0 views
58More
How Peer to Peer Communities will change the World - 0 views
- ...55 more annotations...
-
emergent communities of practice are developing new social practices that are informed by the p2p paradigm
-
At this stage, there is a co-dependency between peer producers creating value, and for-profit firms ‘capturing that value’, but they both need each other.
-
Peer producers need a business ecology to insure the social reproduction of their system and financial sustainability of its participants, and capital needs the positive externalities of social cooperation which flow from p2p collaboration.
-
peer producing communities should create their own ‘mission-oriented’ social businesses, so that the surplus value remains with the value creators, i.e. the commoners themselves, but this is hardly happening now.
-
Instead what we see is a mutual accomodation between netarchical capital on one side, and peer production communities on the other.
-
For peer producers the question becomes, if we cannot create our own fully autonomous institutions, how can we adapt while maintaining maximum autonomy and sustainability as a commons and as a community.
-
In commons-oriented peer production, where people aggegrate around a common object which requires deep cooperation, they usually have their own infrastructures of cooperation and a ecology combining community, a for-benefit association managing the infrastructure, and for-profit companies operating on the market place; in the sharing economy, where individuals merely share their own expressions, third party platforms are the norm. It is clear that for-profit companies have different priorities, and want to enclose value so that it can be sold on the marketplace. This in fact the class struggle of the p2p era, the struggle between communities and corporations around various issues because of partly differential interests.
-
Even commercially controlled platforms are being used for a massive horizontalisation and self-aggregation of human relationships, and communities, including political and radical groups are effectively using them to mobilize. What’s important is not just to focus on the limitations and intentions of the platform owners, but to use whatever we can to strengthen the autonomy of peer communities.
-
The fact today is that capital is still capable of marshaling vast financial and material resources, so that it can create,
-
using mainstream platforms for spreading their ideas and culture and reach greater numbers of people, while also developing their own autonomous media ecologies, that can operate independently, and the latter is an engagement for the ‘long haul’, i.e. the slow construction of an alternative lifeworld.
-
The commons and p2p are really just different aspects of the same phenomena; the commons is the object that p2p dynamics are building; and p2p takes place wherever there are commons.
-
So both p2p and the commons, as they create abundant (digital) or sufficient (material) value for the commoners, at the same time create opportunities to create added value for the marketplace. There is no domain that is excluded from p2p, no field that can say, “we wouldn’t be stronger by opening up to participation and community dynamics”. And there is no p2p community that can say, we are in the long term fully sustainable within the present system, without extra resources coming from the market sector.
-
One trend is the distribution of current infrastructures and practices, i.e. introducing crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, social lending, digital currencies, in order to achieve wider participation in current practices. That is a good thing, but not sufficient. All the things that I mention above, move to a distributed infrastructure, but do not change the fundamental logic of what they are doing.
-
we are talking about the distribution of capitalism, not about a deeper change in the logic of our economy.
-
No matter how good you are, no matter how much capital you have to hire the best people, you cannot compete with the innovative potential of open global communities.
-
the opposite is also happening, as we outlined above, more and more commons-oriented value communities are creating their own entrepreneurial coalitions. Of course, some type of companies, because of their monopoly positions and legacy systems, may have a very difficult time undergoing that adaptation, in which case new players will appear that can do it more effectively.
-
the corporate form is unable to deal with ecological and sustainability issues, because its very DNA, the legal obligation to enrich the shareholders, makes its strive to lower input costs, and ignore externalities.
-
we need new corporate structures, a new type of market entity, for which profit is a means, but not an end, dedicated to a ‘benefit‘, a ‘mission’, or the sustenance of a particular community and/or commons.
-
entrepreneurs attaching themselves to open design projects start working from an entirely different space, even if they still use the classic corporate form. Prevent the sharing of sustainability designs through IP monopolies is also in my view unethical and allowing such patents should be a minimalist option, not a maximalist one.
-
The high road scenario proposes an enlightened government that ‘enables and empowers’ social production and value creation and allows a much smoother transition to p2p models; the low road scenario is one in which no structural reforms take place, the global situation descends into various forms of chaos, and p2p becomes a survival and resilience tactic in extremely difficult social, political and economic circumstances.
-
Making sure that we get a better alternative is actually the historical task of the p2p movement. In other words, it depends on us!
-
I don’t really think in terms of technological breakthroughs, because the essential one, globally networked collective intelligence enabled by the internetworks, is already behind us; that is the major change, all other technological breakthroughs will be informed by this new social reality of the horizontalisation of our civilisation. The important thing now is to defend and extend our communication and organisation rights, against a concerted attempt to turn back the clock. While the latter is really an impossibility, this does not mean that the attempts by governments and large corporations cannot create great harm and difficulties. We need p2p technology to enable the global solution finding and implementation of the systemic crises we are facing.
92More
Towards a Material Commons | Guerrilla Translation! - 0 views
-
the modes of communication we use are very tightly coupled with the modes of production that finance them
-
I’m focused on the policy formation around this transition to a new, open knowledge and commons-based economy, and that’s the research work I’m doing here
- ...88 more annotations...
-
We now have a technology which allows us to globally scale small group dynamics, and to create huge productive communities, self-organized around the collaborative production of knowledge, code, and design. But the key issue is that we are not able to live from that, right
-
A lot of co-ops have been neo-liberalizing, as it were, have become competitive enterprises competing against other companies but also against other co-ops, and they don’t share their knowledge
-
instead of having a totally open commons, which allows multinationals to use our commons and reinforce the system of capital, the idea is to keep the accumulation within the sphere of the commons.
-
The result would be a type of open cooperative-ism, a kind of synthesis or convergence between peer production and cooperative modes of production
-
then the material work, the work of working for clients and making a livelihood, would be done through co-ops
-
But it hasn’t had much of a direct connection to this emerging commons movement, which shares so many of the values and principles of the traditional cooperative movement.
-
There’s also a lot of peer-to-peer work going on, but it’s not very well versed around issues like cooperative organization, formal or legal forms of ownership, which are based on reciprocity and cooperation, and how to interpret the commons vision with a structure, an organizational structure and a legal structure that actually gives it economic power, market influence, and a means of connecting it to organizational forms that have durability over the long-term.
-
The young people, the developers in open source or free software, the people who are in co-working centers, hacker spaces, maker spaces. When they are thinking of making a living, they think startups
-
They have a kind of generic reaction, “oh, let’s do a startup”, and then they look for venture funds. But this is a very dangerous path to take
-
Typically, the venture capital will ask for a controlling stake, they have the right to close down your start up whenever they feel like it, when they feel that they’re not going to make enough money
-
Don’t forget that with venture capital, only 1 out of 10 companies will actually make it, and they may be very rich, but it’s a winner-take-all system
-
I would like John to talk about the solidarity co-ops, and how that integrates the notion of the commons or the common good in the very structure of the co-op
-
They don’t have a commons of design or code, they privatize and patent, just like private competitive enterprise, their knowledge
-
Cooperatives, which are basically a democratic and collective form of enterprise where members have control rights and democratically direct the operations of the co-op, have been the primary stakeholders in any given co-op – whether it’s a consumer co-op, or a credit union, or a worker co-op.
-
What was really fascinating about the social co-ops was that, although they had members, their mission was not only to serve the members but also to provide service to the broader community
-
In the city of Bologna, for example, over 87% of the social services provided in that city are provided through contract with social co-ops
-
The difference, however, is that the structure of social co-ops is still very much around control rights, in other words, members have rights of control and decision-making within how that organization operates
-
And it is an incorporated legal structure that has formal recognition by the legislation of government of the state, and it has the power, through this incorporated power, to negotiate with and contract with government for the provision of these public services
-
So, the social economy, meaning organizations that have a mutual aim in their purpose, based on the principles of reciprocity, collective benefit, social benefit, is emerging as an important player for the design and delivery of public services
-
This, too, is in reaction to the failure of the public market for provision of services like affordable housing or health care or education services
-
This is a crisis in the role of the state as a provider of public services. So the question has emerged: what happens when the state fails to provide or fulfill its mandate as a provider or steward of public goods and services, and what’s the role of civil society and the social economy in response?
-
we have commonses of knowledge, code and design. They’re more easily created, because as a knowledge worker, if you have access to the network and some means, however meager, of subsistence, through effort and connection you can actually create knowledge. However, this is not the case if you move to direct physical production, like the open hardware movement
-
I originally encountered Michel after seeing some talks by Benkler and Lessig at the Wizard of OS 4, in 2006, and I wrote an essay criticizing that from a materialist perspective, it was called “The creative anti-commons and the poverty of networks”, playing on the terms that both those people used.
-
Some people have called the open hardware community a “candy” economy, because if you’re not part of these open hardware startups, you’re basically not getting anything for your efforts
-
They conceive of peer production, especially Benkler, as being something inherently immaterial, a form of production that can only exist in the production of immaterial wealth
-
From my materialist point of view, that’s not a mode of production, because a mode of production must, in the first place, reproduce its productive inputs, its capital, its labor, and whatever natural wealth it consumes
-
From a materialist point of view, it becomes obvious that the entire exchange value produced in these immaterial forms would be captured by the same old owners of materialist wealth
-
I wanted to create something like a protocol for the formation and allocation of physical goods, the same way we have TCP/IP and so forth, as a way to allocate immaterial goods
-
share and distribute and collectively create immaterial wealth, and become independent producers based on this collective commons.
-
One was the Georgist idea of using rent, economic rent, as a fundamental mutualizing source of wealth
-
So, the unearned income, the portion of income derived from ownership of productive assets is evenly distributed
-
typical statist communist reaction to the cooperative movement is saying that cooperatives can exclude and exploit one another
-
But then, as we’ve seen in history, there’s something that develops called an administrative class, which governs over the collective of cooperatives or the socialist state, and can become just as counterproductive and often exploitive as capitalist class
-
So, how do we create cooperation among cooperatives, and distribution of wealth among cooperatives, without creating this administrative class?
-
This is why I borrowed from the work of Henry George and Silvio Gesell in created this idea of rent sharing.
-
The idea is that if a cooperative wants an asset, like, an example is if one of the communes would like to have a tractor, then essentially the central commune is like a bond market. They float a bond, they say I want a tractor, I am willing to pay $200 a month for this tractor in rent, and other members of the cooperative can say, hey, yeah, that’s a good idea,we think that’s a really good allocation of these productive assets, so we are going to buy these bonds. The bond sale clears, the person gets the tractor, the money from the rent of the tractor goes back to clear the bonds, and after that, whatever further money is collected through the rent on this tractor – and I don’t only mean tractors, same would be applied to buildings, to land, to any other productive assets – all this rent that’s collected is then distributed equally among all of the workers.
-
The idea is that people earn income not only by producing things, but by owning the means of production, owning productive assets, and our society is unequal because the distribution of productive assets is unequal
-
This means that if you use your exact per capita share of property, no more no less than what you pay in rent and what you received in social dividend, will be equal
-
But if you’re not working at that time, because you’re old, or otherwise unemployed, then obviously the the productive assets that you will be using will be much less than the mean and the median, so what you’ll receive as dividend will be much more than what you pay in rent, essentially providing a basic income
-
It doesn’t seek to limit, control, or even tell them how they should distribute it, or under what means; what they produce is entirely theirs, it’s only the collective management of the commons of productive assets
-
On paper this would seem to work, but the problem is that this assumes that we have capital to allocate in this way, and that is not the case for most of the world workers
-
do we express our activism through the state, or do we try to achieve our goals by creating the alternative society outside
-
My materialist background tells me that when you sell your labor on the market, you have nothing more than your subsistence costs at the end of it, so where is this wealth meant to come from
-
I believe that the only reason that we have any extra wealth beyond subsistence is because of organized social political struggle; because we have organized in labor movements, in the co-op movement, and in other social forms
-
To create the space for prefiguring presupposes engagement with the state, and struggle within parliaments, and struggle within the public social forum
-
Instead, we should think that no, we must engage in the state in order to protect our ability to have alternative societies
-
We can only get rid of the state in these areas once we have alternative, distributed, cooperative means to provide those same functions
-
We can only eliminate the state from these areas once they actually exist, which means we actually have to build them
-
What I mean by insurrectionary finance is that we have to acknowledge that it’s not only forming capital and distributing capital, it’s also important how intensively we use capital
-
I’m not proposing that the cooperative movement needs to engage in the kind of derivative speculative madness that led to the financial crisis, but at the same time we can’t… it can’t be earn a dollar, spend a dollar
-
they did things the organized left hasn’t been able to do, which is takeover industrial means of production
-
if they can take over these industrial facilities, just in order to shut them down and asset strip them, why can’t we take them over and mutualize them?
-
more ironic once you understand that the source of investment that Milken and his colleagues were working with were largely workers pension funds
-
in Québec, there is a particular form of co-op that’s been developed that allows small or medium producers to pool their capital to purchase machinery and to use it jointly
-
much more lean and accountable because they are accountable to boards of directors that represent the interests of the members
-
I’ve run into this repeatedly among social change activists who immediately recoil at the notion of thinking about markets and capital, as part of their change agenda
-
I had thought previously, like so many, that economics is basically a bought discipline, and that it serves the interests of existing elites. I really had a kind of reaction against that
-
advocating for a vision of social change that isn’t just about politics, and isn’t just about protest, it has to be around how do we reimagine and reclaim economics
-
I think what we’re potentially talking about here is to make the social economy hyper-productive, hyper-competitive, hyper-cooperative
-
The paradox is that capital already knows this. Capital is investing in these peer production projects
-
Part of the proposal of the FLOK society project in Ecuador will be to get that strategic reorganization to make the social economy strategic