30+ ‘free’ gen – each time you hear free, reach your pocket vs pre-30 google gen – yea free!
controversialist, ale snad ok: “Any topic that can divide critics equally into two opposite camps..totally wrong. and .so obvious..has got to be a good one.”
este precitaj dalej
+ research:
http://burundi.sk/dusan/carrythatweight/index.php/Tactics_of_leaking_and_politics_of_the_common
Lecture at Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía, Madrid, 2 November 2009
There is no longer an outside
The commons are inside the space of capitalism
If somebody violates an artwork protected by a Creative Commons licence, a ‘traditional’ tribunal is meant to intervene.
To defend the the commons we rely on the force of the public, on the public force — that is the State.
The ‘legal code’ of Creative Commons licences: “The work is protected by copyright”
A sort of new ‘capitalism without intellectual property’ (Google, Facebook) is emerging and supporting the flows of free culture produced by the digital multitudes.
If the new cultural commons want to escape the typical modern opposition between public and private, they have to focus on their productive power, on their living knowledge before it is turned into a legal object or a cognitive commodity.
In the school of Italian post-operaismo, similarly, a new understanding of rent emerged recently.
Within cognitive capitalism the leading business model is said to be based on rent rather than
profit. ‘The rent is the new profit’.
If rent is becoming the dominant model of the knowledge economy, which should be the political
response? Sabotage of value (like @ dotcom crash; mortgage crisis) — the sabotage of rent.
we support P2P practices as they represent a sabotage of cognitive and speculative rent on a massive scale. Target of knowledge sharing and peer-to-peer networks is the regime of rent rather than the copyright regime.
Dmytri Kleiner kritizuje Creative Commons aj Benklerovu ideu ‘commons-based peer-production’..
o CC hovori, ze namiesto toho aby podporovala slobodu uzivatela (napriklad GPL definuje slobodu ako 4 slobody uzivatela–to use/share/study/modify), dava autorovi ‘slobodu’ urcit uroven kontroly nad uzivatelom (teda rozne obmedzenia ako noncommercial-only/view-only atd).. cim CC neberie kontrolu z ruk producentov (co je ideou Free Culture), ani vobec nerusi rozdiel medzi producentom a konzumentom, ako tvrdi Lessig.
no a Benklerova teza z Wealth of Networks o ‘commons-based peer-production’ hovori o komunite autorov (peers), ktori spolocne tvoria v prostredi bez vlastnictva (commons). tu zas Kleiner tvrdi, ze tym ze Benklerovo commons ma imaterialnu/digitalnu povahu, tak ti co skutocne profituju v takejto situacii su ti, ktori vlastnia (materialne) prostriedky na vyrobu (nematerialnych) statkov, pretoze tvorcom neposkytuju slobodny pristup, ale na nom zarabaju. no a na to, aby autori prispievajuci do takejto commons neboli vykoristovani vlastnikmi fyzickeho materialu, treba do commons okrem virtualnych prostriedkov (softver, videa, texty, obrazky, atd) produkcie zahrnut aj materialne prostriedky..
Rather than seeing the commons as something that exists outside of drives to dominate and control, there is no commons without the antisocial tendencies that animate it.
As a file is shared between two computers, a disc burned and handed to two individuals, there is always a third, the owner of the network, or the hardware, that profits from it. This leads Pasquinelli to declare, along with, Vercellone, that “rent is the new profit.” (Pasquinelli also develops this idea through a discussion of this essay by David Harvey). This new form of rent operates in terms of speed and time rather than space.
If it is true that ‘the multitude is to the metropolis, as the working class is to the factory,” then the multitude must in some sense produce the skyrocketing rents of gentrification.
To make the case for “no technical solutions”, Hardin notes the limits placed on the availability of energy (and material resources) on Earth, and also the consequences of these limits for “quality of life”. To maximize population, one needs to minimize resources spent on anything other than simple survival, and vice versa.
hypothetical example of a pasture shared by local herders. individual herder will continue to add additional animals to his or her herd. However, since all herders reach the same rational conclusion, overgrazing and degradation of pasture is its long-term fate.
examples of latter day “commons”, such as the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, national parks, advertising, and even parking meters.
potential management solutions: commons problems including privatization, polluter pays, and regulation.
The metaphor illustrates the argument that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately dooms the resource through over-exploitation.
THIS BOOK
is sequel to Empire {which described a current form of global order as networked power of nation-states (G8), institutions (WTO, NATO, IMF) and corporations, being constituted by permanent state of (civil) war}
Empire (new global form of sovereigny–empire) => Multitude (emerging global class formation–multitude) ~ reverse of Hobbes’ De Cive (1642; social body and forms of citizenship–nascent bourgeoisie which needed political power above it as abs.authority) => Leviathan (1651; future form of sovereignty–nation-state)
PREFACE
war
democracy
multitude = possibility of democracy on a global scale; also provides means to achieve it; alternative growing within Empire; is network in which all differences can be expressed freely and equally; is not identity / the people (is unitary conception; is single identity; is one); is not uniform / the masses (are indifferent; where all colors fade to gray); is not the working class (separates workers from owners who don’t work; separates industrial workers from service/agricultural workers; separates waged workers from unpaid laborers); has good model in internet (nodes are different but connected; new can always be added); internal differences of multitude must discover (or rather produce) the common that allows them to communicate/act together (while remaining different)
shifts in global economy – industrial working class no longer plays hegemonic role in global economy; production is not only in economic terms, but social production (of communications/relationships/forms of life)
the common = not the commons (refers to pre-capitalist-shared spaces that were destroyed by advent of private property); our communication/collaboration/cooperation are not only based on the common but they in turn produce the common in expanding spiral relationship; production of the common = central to every form of social production + is primary characteristic of new dominant forms of labor today
biopolitical production = newly dominant model of production; it not only involves the production of material goods in strictly economic sense but also touches on and produces all facets of social life, economic, cultural, and political; is strong pillar of multitude
“political” organization = second pillar of multitude; resistance/revolutionary orgs as not only means to achieve democracy, but to create internally the democratic relationships
Empire = new form of global order (no longer as imperialism via nation-state extending in a foreign territory)
network power = new form of sovereignty; its nodes = dominant nation-states + supranational institutions + major capitalist corporations + other powers; is “imperial”, not “imperialist”; is tendency; unilateralism (USA as dominant power) neither multilateralism (UN) are not just desirable but not even possible; perpetual war ~ state of (civil) war is inevitable in Empire and functions as instrument of rule; imperial peace (Pax Imperii) is false pretense of peace
WAR
[12-13] war si becoming permanent social relation
Clausewitz: war is a continuation of politics by other mean; today some theorists: war is becoming the primary organizing principle of society, and politics merely one of its means or guises
Mao: politics is simply a war without bloodshed
Gramsci: political strategies: either wars of position or war of maneuver
war has become regime of biopower – form of rule aimed not only at controlling population but producing/reproducing all aspects of social life
[14-15] consequences:
– limits of war are indeterminate, both spatially and temporally
– int’l relations and domestic politics become increasingly similar and intermingled
– reorientation of conception of the sides of battle or conditions of enmity (eg against terrorism)
[38-39] shift in int’l rels: not that much 1989, as 26 may 1972, when USA+USSR signed Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which regulated nuclear weapons production of 2 superpowers ~ mass bombing like @WW2 could no longer be part of art of war; war begun to be less oriented twd defending against coherent mega-threat and more focused on proliferating mini-threats; less intent on general destruction of enemy and more inclined twd transformation or even production of enemy; high-intensity police actions (~low-intensity warfare; eg US @Vietnam or Latin Am, or USSR @Afg) rather than all-out large-scale combat
[39] early 70s: 1971 delinking US$ from gold standard; 1973 first oil crisis; bgn of destruction of welfare state; bgn of shift of hegemony of econ.prod. from factory to more social/immaterial sectors
[40-41] “military-industrial complex” = simplification eliminating any real considerations of class conflict, insurgency, and movements of multitude; term was created to name a confluence of interests in imperialist phase of capitalist development bwn major corps and state military/policy apparatus (eg. Knupp steel works and German army; Dassault aviation manufacturing and Gaullist military policies; or Lloyds insurance and British imperialist projects; or Boeing and Pentagon); now rather “military-vital complex”
MULTITUDE
[196-197] flesh of the multitude produces in common in a way that always exceeds the measure of any traditional social bodies, and it doesn’t produce chaos and social disorder, but what it produces is common, and that common we share serves as the basis for future production, in a spiral, expansive relationship (eg. communication as production: we can communicate only on the basis of languages, symbols, ideas, and relationships we share in common, and in turn the results of our communication are new common languages, symbols, ideas and relationships); today this dual relationship between production and the common–the common is produced and it is also productive–is key to understanding all social and economic activity
[198] singularities interact and communicate socially on basis of the common, and their social comm. in turn produces the common; multitude is subjectivity that emerges from this dynamic of singularity and commonality
[199] shift from habit (american pragmatist philosophy) to performance as core notion of production of the common
[202] production of the common tends to displace trad.divisions bwn individual/society, subjective/objective, private/public
[203-204] WRONG: “private” = includes the rights and freedoms of social subjects together with the rights of private property, blurring the distinction between the two. this confusion results from the ideology of “possessive individualism” in modern legal theory, that conceives every aspect/attribute of subject, from its interests and desires down to its soul, as “properties” that are owned by individual, reducing all facets of subjectivity to the economic realm; “private” = subjective + material “possessions”; “public” = state control + what is held and managed in common; WE NEED alt legal strategy/framework: conception of privacy that expresses singularity of social subjectivities (not private property) and conception of public based on the common [commonality] (not state control)–one might say a postliberal and postsocialist legal theory; good example: “postsystems theory” school, which is molecular conception of law and production of norms that is based on constant/free/open interaction among singularities, which through their communication produces common norms
[204] community = often refers to moral unity that stands above population and its interactions like sovereign power
[204] the common IS NOT community; IS NOT public; it is based on communication among singularities and emerges through collaborative social processes of production
[205] neolib. legal frameworks – privatization of public goods (water, air, land, and all systems of mgmt of life: healthcare, pensions) and privatization of public services (telecom and other network industries, post, public transp., energy sys, edu); these public goods and services were very basis of modern sovereignty in hands of nation-state
/ Sylvère Lotringer has criticized Negri and Hardt’s use of the concept for its ostensible return to the dialectical dualism in the introduction to Paulo Virno’s A Grammar of the Multitude
http://burundi.sk/monoskop/log/?p=399
problem property a problem hodnoty
(political theory)
1. Michael Hardt – Politics of the Common (2009)
michael hardt gives very good summary of current debates
about the commons. he explains the immaterial property
and the common got into centre of contemporary production
shifting away from industrial capitalist mobile/immobile
commodity properties. he says that today the capital
and economic development paradoxically relies on the common,
and that the central task for contemporary society is
to develop an alternative management of the common.
by the common he means the ecological (earth, ecosystems,
and all forms of life interacting with them) and social/cultural
(shared products of human labor–ideas, images, affects,
social relationships) domains. that is not much news,
but what is interesting – these two domains are often treated
separately, and here hardt mentions two major instances
of contradictions which link them:
contradiction between private property and the common;
and the fact that the value of common is immeasurable with
the traditional capitalist system of measures (and is rather
based on value of life, which we have not yet invented).
/ o ‘the common’ hovori ako o ekologickych (lesy, plaze,
vzduch, jazera) a nematerialnych socialnych/kulturnych
statkoch (videa, texty, fotky, idey, pocity, socialne vztahy,
zabava, nove formy zivota), ku ktorym maju (mat) vsetci
volny pristup. hovori o dvoch hlavnych rozporoch
s ohladom na klasicky system – konkretne nemoznost
urcit ich (ekonomicku) hodnotu, a problem vlastnickeho
vztahu k nim.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21899
2. Slavoj Zizek – Ecology: A New Opium of the Masses
tu zizek vychadza z idei commons ako ju chapu hardt a negri,
a jemne ju rozsiruje: commons ako kultura, externa
priroda (ekologia), a interna priroda (biogenetika).
tvrdi, ze je do commons zasadne zapojit aj mensiny,
populaciu vylucenu z politickych procesov.
http://www.lacan.com/zizecology1.htm
(je tam aj video prednaska)
(economy)
3. Lawrence Lessig – Remix: Making Art and Commerce
Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (2008)
to je jeho nova kniha, hovori tam o tom, ako mozu
ist dokopy ekonomika ‘komercie’ (klasicky online biznis)
a ‘zdielania’ (v ktorej nefigujuru peniaze–napr. priatelstvo
alebo P2P filesharing). odtial by bolo dobre vytiahnut
nejaku cast, ale najst nejaky sumarizujuci text, pripadne
jeho kritiku.
http://burundi.sk/monoskop/log/?p=224
4. Mikael Pawlo – What’s the meaning of “non-commercial”? (2004)
pawlo je sef svedskych iCommons a kritizuje tu fakt, ze drviva
vacsina materialov pod CC pouziva klauzulku ‘non-commercial’.
pyta sa co to znamena — a dava vela prikladov, kde sa to
co je commercial a co non-commercial neda urcit – napriklad:
verejna televizia, verejne skoly, reklamy na neziskovky,
rss-feedy embednute vo weboch na ktorych je reklama –
to su priklady, v ktorych nie je mozne urcit ci mozeme
pouzit CC videa ktore su sirene pod noncommercial licenciou.
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0501/msg00006.html
x. Bauwens – crowdfunding
(software)
5. Richard Stallmann
Stallmann v Lessigovej knihe hovori, ze free software
nie je altruizmus, ze tie veci programatori nerobia
lebo maju dobre srdce, ale spravidla maju pragmaticke
dovody. musi k tomu byt nejaky dobry clanok.
(philosophy)
6. Bernard Stiegler – transindividuation
to je francuzsky filozof, ktory sedel 7 rokov v base
za kradez v banke, a napisal tam niekolko zvazkov, ktore
prepisuju filozofiu z pohladu techniky/technologii.
bol nejaky cas sefom IRCAM, potom aj Centre Pompidou.
v poslednom case ho celkom hypuju. uz dlhsie kritizuje
web 2.0 sluzby a hovori o procese “transindividuacie”,
kedy svoj esteticky vkus menia uzivatelia medzi sebou
tym, ze zdielaju online material. nadvazuje na zabudnuteho
filozofa Simondona, ktory s tym terminom prisiel snad
este v 50-tych rokoch.
k tomu mam zatial len toto kratke video:
(commons in practise)
7. Creative Commons v cz/sk praxi
mozno interview s clovekom z cz/sk projektu, ktory dava veci
pod CC (je ich viac).
8. kauza a predaj Pirate Bay
zatial nemam tip na clanok
9.
jeden zaujimavy projekt v anglicku:
http://uniteddiversity.com/commons-creation/
(art/activism)
10. Ines Doujak – Victory Gardens
instalacia (2007) viedenskej umelkyne kritizujucej politiku USA a EU,
ktora prehliada privatizovanie verejnych statkov (vody, potravin, pody)
korporaciami prostrednictvom patentov [biopiratstvo],
najma v krajinach “mega diverzity” (mexiku, indii, brazili, indonezii).
/ Hardt: I object to calling this piracy, by the way, because pirates
at least have the dignity to steal property. These corporations steal
the common and transform it into private property.
http://www.lakeside-kunstraum.at/archiv.detail.asp?active_semprog_ID=525386989&active_topic_ID=854442775
http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2008/05/raised-above-the-ground-with.php
11. Yes Men – Bhopal
[52,53-55]
[49-51]
A central task for reimagining society today is to develop an alternative management of the common wealth we share.
two distinct but related domains of the common:
– ECO ecological (natural) common [but this category is insufficient] – earth and all of its ecosystems, including the atmosphere, the oceans and rivers, and the forests, as well as all the forms of life that interact with them.
– ART social and economic (artificial) common [but this category is insufficient] – products of human labor and creativity that we share, such as ideas, knowledges, images, codes, affects, social relationships, and the like.
ECO & ART:
common in both domains confounds the traditional measures of economic value and imposes instead the value of life as the only valid scale of evaluation.
contradictions (ale ukazuju sa ako complementaries):
ECO – pro conservation, since earth is limited, logic of scarcity; ART – pro creation, open/limitless nature of production of common; ALE: both perspectives refer fundamentally to production/reproduction of forms of life, which are happening simultaneously (since eg. work-time vs non-work time collapsed)
ART – interests of humanity as central (ie. extend our politics to all humanity, overcome hierarchies/exclusions of class and property, gender and sexuality, race and ethnicity..); ECO – interests much broader than human/animal worlds; ALE: navzajom sa mozu ucit eko-aktivisti a humanrights-aktivisti
The claim for centrality of the common relies on the hypothesis that we are in the midst of an epochal shift from a capitalist economy centered on industrial production to one centered on what can be called immaterial or biopolitical production. Toni Negri and I have argued this hypothesis over the course of three books — Empire, Multitude, and Commonwealth.
– {industrial capitalism THEN} Industrial production has been central, rather, in the sense that the qualities of industry — its forms of mechanization, its working day, its wage relations, its regimes of time discipline and precision, and so forth — have progressively been imposed over other sectors of production and social life as a whole, creating not only an industrial economy but also an industrial society.
– {industrial capitalism IS OVER} industry no longer marks the hierarchical position in the various divisions of labor and, more significantly, that the qualities of industry are no longer being imposed over other sectors and society as a whole.
– {immaterial/biopolitical production NOW} (central position of industry is taken over by) production of immaterial goods or goods with a significant immaterial component, such as ideas, knowledges, languages, images, code, and affects (health care workers and educators, fast food workers, call center workers, and flight attendants). The cognitive and affective tools of immaterial production, the precarious, non-guaranteed nature of its wage relations, the temporality of immaterial production (which tends to destroy the structures of the working day and blur the traditional divisions between work-time and nonwork-time), as well as its other qualities are becoming generalized.
+ property: immobile (eg. land) => mobile (eg. commodities) => immaterial (discussions about patents/copyrights; question of exclusivity and reproductibility)
2 contradictions, 2 shared logics form significant basis for understanding guises of common & struggle to preserve/further them; foundation for linking forms of political activism aimed at the autonomy and democratic management of the common:
I. contradiction between private property and the common.
ART: bwn need for common in interest of productivity and need for private in interest of capitalist accumulation
ECO: bwn private nature of accumulation and social nature of resulting damages
II. the common defies traditional capitalist measures of value (or obey radically different scale based on value of life, which we have not yet invented)
ART: value of biopolitical/immaterial goods is immeasurable using traditional system of measure of econ.value; economists cast them as “externalities”, accountants as “intangible assets” (of esoteric value), (global bankrupt largely derives from this)
ECO: value of the common is immeasurable (eg. how much $ is damage costs of having half of Bangladesh under water? or permanent draught in Ethiopia? or destruction of trad. Inuit forms of life?)
watch out (when struggle for the common operate according to opposing logics in ECO and ART):
III. preserve ECO vs limitless prod ART
IV. humanity as frame of reference @ART vs broader @ECO
next: UN Climate Conference, Copenhagen, Dec 2009
next: the common @identity and identity politics; the common @social institutions (family, nation, ..)
[82-83]
The Charter of the Forest assumes a notion of the ‘commons’ or a practice of subsistence commoning in the hydrocarbon energy resources of the time. | they refer to those classes of people whose goal in economic life is the consumption of uses rather than the accumulation of money. In short, they refer to the Many not the Few | Subcommandante Marcos provided the voice of the Zapatistas and the indigenous people of Chiapas calling for the return of Article 27 and the ejidos, or common land, while reminding us of the Magna Carta. As the Many demand water, energy, and wherewithal against the surplus value hogged by the Few
http://www.metamute.org/en/Charters-of-Liberty-in-Black-Face-and-White-Face-Race-Slavery-and-the-Commons
[187-190]
poznamky z konf.
[130-131] commercial & sharing economies => hybrid econ.