[p2p-research] The future of work...

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> http://www.iftf.org/node/754

They mention: "Peer production networks" here:
http://www.iftf.org/system/files/deliverables/SR-1092_B_tech_foundations_screen.pdf
"Peer production networks. Technologies like listservs and Wikis create 
frameworks for volunteer communities to accomplish productive work. The 
collective intelligence of these  potentially unbounded communities creates 
new value by rapidly solving problems that would tax or stymie smaller 
workgroups. The diversity of the individuals working on one collaborative 
platform allows for an impressive variety of insight and input that a 
homogenous group would never produce. Wikipedia is the earliest, and most 
prevalent, example of this kind of peer production network."

But they maybe still miss the big picture. Contrast: 
http://www.iftf.org/system/files/deliverables/SR+1092-A_FoWPerspectives_screen.pdf
"In the assessment, conducted by Sustainable Asset Management, they look at 
human capital  development, talent attraction and retention, and corporate 
citizenship/philanthropy as well as environmental activities. Thus, 
corporate support for sustainability is not an immeasurable fad but can 
provide commensurable value for employees, potential employees, investors, 
and organizations alike. "


with Bob Black from 1985:

http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
"""
And so it is, although it is nothing but a description of the modern 
workplace. The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who lament 
totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any 
moderately de-Stalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American 
workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office 
or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery. In fact, as Foucault and 
others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and 
their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques. A 
worker is a part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, 
and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how 
fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, 
if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the 
bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no 
reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a 
dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as 
if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it 
disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. Without necessarily 
endorsing it for them either, it is noteworthy that children at home and in 
school receive much the same treatment, justified in their case by their 
supposed immaturity. What does this say about their parents and teachers who 
work? The demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the 
waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for 
decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's not too 
misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- 
industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. 
Anybody who says these people are "free" is lying or stupid.
"""

I have not read those documents in full, I just glanced at them for a couple 
minutes just now, but does anything in them really and deeply address Bob 
Black's point there for most people?

Sure, office workers will have super cool iPhones to do their social 
networking work for the company they work for at home or anywhere they are, 
but has this made them, in Bob Black's sense, that much more "free"? Or, for 
that matter, happy?

Or does anything address Jeff Schmidt's points?
   http://www.disciplined-minds.com/
   http://louisville.edu/journal/workplace/martinreview.html
"""
There are two key ideological processes in professional education, according 
to Schmidt. One is favoring students who pick up the point of view of their 
superiors, behavior Schmidt calls "ideological discipline." The other is 
favoring students who direct their curiosity as requested by others, a trait 
Schmidt delightfully dubs "assignable curiosity." For example, the teacher 
sets the class an assignment, say on symbolism in a novel. It doesn't matter 
so much whether the novel is by Austen or Gordimer. The question is whether 
the students will do as they are told. "Good" students will undertake the 
assigned task conscientiously, perhaps even going beyond what the teacher 
expected -- but in a way that pleases the teacher. "Difficult" students may 
do something different, refusing to accept the task as given. No prizes for 
guessing which students get encouragement and rewards.
"""

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/