intro’d to Dmytri here:
“You can’t code away their wealth”: Dmytri Kleiner explains why the construction of P2P alternatives is conflictual blog.p2pfoundation.net/cant-code-away…
This is one of the must-see, must-listen-to videos to watch this year! Brilliant explanation by Dmytri Kleiner on the ‘transvestment’ approach, i.e. how to transfer value from the system of capital to the system of peer production. Kleiner explains for example why federated systems, depending on servers and investments, can’t compete with centralized technologies, because they cost money as they grow, but true ‘end to end’ systems grow in resources as they add users, with their existing resources.
starting at 36 min (may 2016)
36 min – change comes from struggle.. not from proposals.. things that would work better if everyone got on board.. comes from conflict and making things happen… so political as well as tech challenge.. have to address both..
37 min – arts collective in berlin.. investigates political economy of info techs..
what people really want is consent.. not necessarily privacy.. key feature is consent… not privacy/security directly… although consent requires privacy..
38 min – and privacy.. requires.. counter anti disintermediation – requires venture communism… requires creating systems that aren’t centrally controlled.. no ability for platformers to control user data.. which also prevents them from making profit.. requires transvestment – a transfer of value from one mode of production to another.. which requres tech disobedience… because everything produced… promote interest of capital.. so have to use in diff ways than intention of industries that produced them.. to engage in counter politics.. giving ability to create alt forms..
40 min – 90s we thought everything was going to be disintermediated.. ie: no banks, states, countries.. rather p2p networks et al… but didn’t happen.. because powerful invested interests in maintaining these institutions/mediation.. and they successfully took on anti disintermediation... so now can’t just disintermediate.. we need counter anti disintermediation..
42 min – end to end principal… all lies in end mode… no servers et al in middle.. but.. profit requires centralization…. bus models based on this… so things like fb emerge.. because better serve interests of capital..
42 min – lock in – capture of users.. (hal – info rules) – not the media sold… product is audience of media.. and customer is advertisers… fb’s product is advertising.. so buying behavioral control.. fb selling you… to sell comodity you have to grade it.. in order to grade audience.. have to spy on you… so have to be centralized because bus model is sale of audience commodity…
45 min – so to build alt platforms… not about same as facebook but something else.. ie: fb but open source et al… look much deeper on design….. because federated groupware.. was original model of internet.. so if fed groupware was able to resist anti disintermediation.. it already would have… so fed groupware isn’t going to defeat..
46 min – reason fed groupware doesn’t work.. doesn’t address fundamental problem.. capitalism… supply chain induces poison.. ie: anything that increases use of tech is harmful.. ie: every microchip made out of blood..
47 min – venture comm often sounds coop/compatible…. but needs to be federated.. built on transvestment.. employ tech disobedience.. build counter anti disintermediation platforms.. apply econ power toward counter politics.. so impossible because more users mean more resources.. even if many servers.. those servers still require upkeep/admin.. more users more money.. where an end to end system… more users more capacity.. actual systems built based on computer right in front of you.. end to end systems.. diff than federated.. key diff.. end to end makes them grow…
48 min – system should not have any servers/admin… only software running is software on your computer..
49 min – venture communism.. need to be coop and federated.. ownership for all the people…
52 min – revolution happens when one mode challenges another.. thinking multi modaly.. helps you realize we have to build the commons movement.. in the shell of the old
is that true..?
perhaps a nother way is possible.. not built in shell of old..
53 min – have to use tech in ways that are not necessarily following interests of those that made them.. ie: cuba.. use parts of washing machines to fix motors… we have to think that same way.. real innovation.. is figuring out how to use tech who’s next stop is the recycling bin… we can’t limit movement to just the wealthy.. focus on parts of cycle toward the end.. every cell phone has human investment in it.. ie: wars.. to throw it away means we’ve lost that value that has already been created..
56 min – new mode emerges from ground up.. so counter politics.. confronting existing social institutions.. to protect social conditions.. need these conditions to build revolutionary alt’s.. ability to do other things is built on maintaining/protecting positions we have as workers..
? as workers..?
57 min – need both… work on bottom up new forms.. and fighting existing institutions to protect benefits/rights we have
58 min – q&a for panel starts
2013 – Facebook is Internet reimagined through imagination of network television capitalism
capitalism itself actually depends on eliminated competition (to a certain degree).. otherwise.. price of commodity reduced to cost of production
want competition amongst workers.. but not in circulation of commodities
perhaps don’t want competition at all..
3 min – internet itself is distributed social media platform.. so we have gone from centralized to decentralized & (with twitter and facebook et al) .. we’ve gone from de centralized to centralized.. ie: need centralization to charge fees.. to collect data to sell…
4 min – thimble… 2010 – social fiction.. tech problem is simple.. has been solved many times.. reason we have twitter and not thimble.. no one will finance them..
5 min – not that they’re not possible.. not sci fiction.. they work.. just not supported… not a tech fiction.. but rather a social/econ fiction… society has to change… from profit motive..
6 min – not just finding financing.. but sufficient financing.. enough to get people to start using it..
or… get us to disengage from financing.. no? by freeing artists first..
8 min – we have to engage on mediums people are using… not the ones we wish they were using.. and
we can’t assume people have choice… for vast majority of people.. .. they can only use mainstream platforms9 min – econ of media.. language via smythe.. product of network tv is not the program.. the product was the audience.. the audience commodity.. customer is advertising.. selling audience to advertiser… people who want to control your behavior…10 min – we’ve gone back to this.. network tv business model…this is
what fb is.. internet re imagined through imagination of network television capitalism… ie: on centralized platforms… fb same imagination as compu serve
2012 – Internet privacy and decentralized networks
the kinds of social networks we have .. the centralized ones.. are the only kinds capitalism can justify.. in order to capture profit.. the control of users/data is an essential component.. if can’t control.. can’t make profit..
if we want open/free social platforms…. we have to ask a social question… which means we’re no longer talking about social networks.. but about society itself.. poverty/homeless/ed… as a society we have to there’s certain goods we consider public.. only when we ask those questions.. can we answer how our communication can be built in such an environment.. we can’t consider ie: fb to be the problem.. fb is symptom of problem.. problem is capitalism..
only when we address what alt’s we as a society can employ.. that are diff than capitalism can we answer those questions… it’s not like we have alt in history.. we have all kinds of mutual/public forms… we know we can do it if we decide as a society.. but if we leave it to private interest & profit… then we know it will be done in a special way.. to benefit private interest to capture profit to w/o which private interest can’t sustain itself..
3 min – we can’t talk about communication w/o talking about ed/wages.. we can’t retain capitalism simply w/o fb.. if we have capitalism.. we have fb… by product of financial system… if we don’t like this.. we should see this not in isolation.. as social networking phenom.. but wider neoliberalization … entrenchment of public goods in general….
deep enough – via short
parties that rep classes… parties that rep issues.. we’ve seen several issues change the face of politics….
and now we have pirate movement w info politics.. another dimension that hasn’t existed before…
Venture Communist. Miscommunications Technologist. Telekommunisten Polemicist.
Dmytri is author of the telekommunist manifesto..
In the age of international telecommunications, global migration and the emergence of the information economy, how can class conflict and property be understood? Drawing from political economy and concepts related to intellectual property, The Telekommunist Manifesto is a key contribution to commons-based, collaborative and shared forms of cultural production and economic distribution.
“venture communism” as a new model for workers’ self-organization…… allocates capital that is critically needed to accomplish what capitalism cannot: the ongoing proliferation of free culture and free networks.
reading from telekommunist site:
http://telekommunisten.net/2016/05/14/digital-materiality-technical-revolution/ by baruch gotlieb @baruch
Alphabetic codes rip spoken language out of the ephemeral embodied lived context of expression, depositing them in permanent silent scripts. At once we have certain socio-cultural consequences: no more must knowledge be passed down from wise master to acolyte, immutable authoritative texts will henceforth be available which can be copied and distributed silently. Removing the voice of the speaker means that arguments must first and foremost be rational, rationally grounded, and self-contained (i.e. not depending on other contextual information). Since the meaning of the text can be autonomous of the culture or tradition which produced it, we see a new notion of human universality. At the same time , the alphabet has a standardizing effect on language, generating abstract grammatical rules which are then imposed on language learning. A patchwork of dialects are homogenized into ‘national’ languages.
McLuhan followed Havelock in understanding that the silent abstraction of uniform texts from the heterogenous, all-at-once, pre-literate world, created a cultural crisis from which we are still recovering today. Flusser said “every revolution is a technical revolution”, for McLuhan the revolution of literacy reached an apotheosis once the residual embodied-ness of calligraphic script was abstracted comprehensively by the invention of Gutenberg’s moveable-type printing press. Texts dissolve integral organic Nature into repeatable modular processes, a deductive mechanical model which promises to make universally available, at the disposal of all humanity, Its secrets. With Gutenberg we enter the epoch of the mass-reproduction of abstract human ideas.
The social transformations which emerge with the introduction of new technologies can be understood, according to McLuhan, by attending to how the new technology re-organizes the “sense ratios” of its users. The silent visual alphabet thus inaugurates a period of “visual bias” where science based on observation transforms the world into something that is meant to be read. Literacy is one of the early de- or trans-materialization technologies, with its alchemical capacity to (re-)consititue reality from its codes.
The alphabet provided the basis for what would come to be called ‘Intellectual property’. The endless flow of language like the endless rush of the waves once abstracted from holistic unity in Nature become silent commodities the most plastic raw materials. This transformation has taken more time, 250 years after the beginning of the mass-production of literature, and shortly before the industrialization of the technology, the 1710 Statute of Anne modernized copyright law and inaugurated the IP regime we still have today, making universal ideas into commodities for private consumption and owndership (thus also speculation) through the medium of alphabetic text.
The notion of privacy in this context takes much importance in the works of Flusser and McLuhan. . Before the written world all language was, of course shared, even secrets must be shared. After literacy a silent private world was produced which could provide a consummate escape from the world of human affairs, and deliniated the realm of ‘politics’ as a public forum. For Flusser, the sequential linear structure of writing generated the notion of history itself. From then on, events did not cycle it a ritual whole but ‘progressed’ and thereby produced a linear history.
Today, with technical images, generated and communicating at the speed of light, we have a return to the universal appeal of iconic images, except now, they are not images in the ancient sense, they are projections of linear texts.
jan 2017 – via p2pfoundation
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/ROAR_Magazine/status/819625741562314752
P2P is a type of social relations in human networks;
P2P is also a technological infrastructure that makes the generalization and scaling up of such relations possible;
P2P thus enables a new mode of production and exchange;
P2P creates the potential for a transition to an economy that can be generative towards people and nature.
We believe that these four aspects will profoundly change human society
the P2P relational dynamic — strengthened by particular forms of technological capacities — may become the dominant way of allocating the necessary resources for human self-reproduction, and thus replace capitalism as the dominant form.
On the one side, for example, we can consider the capitalism of Facebook, Uber or Bitcoin. On the other, we can look at the commons-oriented models of Wikipedia or free/open-source software projects.
That said, we argue that as long as peer producers or commoners cannot engage in their own self-reproduction outside of capital accumulation, it remains a proto-mode of production, not a full one.
the new class of commoners cannot rely on capitalist investment and practices. They must use skillful means to render commons-based peer production more autonomous from the dominant political economy. E
we should strive to escape the situation in which capitalists co-opt the commons, and head towards a situation in which the commons capture capital, and make it work for its own development.
This proposed strategy of reverse cooptation has been called “transvestment” by telekommunists Dmytri Kleiner and Baruch Gottlieb. Transvestment describes the transfer of value from one modality to another. In our case this would be from capitalism to the commons. Thus transvestment strategies aim to help commoners become financially sustainable and independent. Such strategies are being developed and implemented by commons-oriented entrepreneurial coalitions such as the Enspiral network or Sensorica.
walter palmetshofer (@vavoida) tweeted at 4:29 AM – 8 Apr 2017 :
@leashless univerisal basic outcome https://t.co/EfX7KRgehd and https://t.co/5zexELsMFp(http://twitter.com/vavoida/status/850656717130137601?s=17)
Universal Basic Income is a neoliberal plot to make you poorer
constrained to limiting the amount of the basic income to the savings from the programs it would replace.
“Basic Income” won’t alleviate poverty.
From a social welfare point of view, the substitution of social programs with market-based and charitable provision of everything from health to housing, from child support to old-age assistance, clearly creates a multi-tier system in which the poorest may be able to afford some housing and health care, but clearly much less than the rich — most importantly, with no guarantee that the income will be sufficient for their actual need for health care, child care, education, housing, and other needs, which would be available only by way of for-profit markets and private charities.
Giving everyone in the community, rich and poor alike, more money, would not allow the poorest to get better housing, it would just raise the price of housing.
The notion that we can solve inequality within capitalism by indiscriminately giving people money and leaving the provisioning of all social needs to corporations is extremely dubious. While this view is to be expected among those, like Murray and Friedman, who promote capitalism, it is not compatible with anticapitalism. UBI will end up in the hands of capitalists. We will be dependent on these same capitalists for everything we need. But to truly alleviate poverty, productive capacity must be directed toward creating real value for society and not toward “maximizing shareholder value” of profit-seeking investors.
UBI does not alleviate poverty and turns social necessities into products for profit.
To truly address inequality we need adequate social provisioning. If we want to reduce means testing and dependency on capitalist employment, we can do so with capacity planning. Our political demands should mandate sufficient housing, healthcare, education, childcare and all basic human necessities for all. Rather than a basic income, we need to demand and fight for a *basic outcome — for the right to life and justice, not just the right to spend.
*equity: everyone getting a go everyday..
ie: short bit