[p2p-research] Being autonomous, tools for conviviality and DoOcracy was Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source (innovation as manipulation)

[Alexandre Dulaunoy]

On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we had this discussion about 18 months ago, when you talked about
> the contempary situation as a new type of fascism.
>
> What is demobilizing about it, in my view, is that it overemphizes the
> enemy, it presumes a total defeat of civil society, which is not the case,
> yes, there are new state powers, yes democracy is in crisis, but do we live
> in a totalitarian state, or totalitarian capitalism, no, absolutely not.
>
> I think that the fact the you mention insurrectionist anarchism, surely the
> most ineffectual strategy at present, as using Agamben, is indicative, it
> leads to nihilism.
>
> Otherwise of course, I do find your thoughts and contributions very
> informative, since I probably won't have the time to read it all, but I
> truly feel that the language the post-modern left is using, is bringing it
> further and further away from any contact with real social movements, and
> totally away from the construction of a new p2p world, I feel it is the
> scholastics of our time,
>
> the way I see the method is: take something which has a grain of truth, say
> measures of exception, take it as the absolute truth, then build a whole
> system of thought on that doubtful premise,
>
> of course, I wouldn't be able to engage in a convincing discussion about
> this, but I noted how activists on the ground, often felt the same way as me
> during this type of academic conferences ...
>
> Michel

Dear Michel and p2p enthusiasts,

When I see the current discussions around p2p concepts and our societies,
there is always a common requirement that would allow more p2p activities
between citizen : this requirement is the autonomy of each element in a
p2p networks (in our societies or in the non-physical world).

To be autonomous, you need two important concepts:

- (1) The ability to control your tools to be autonomous and
- (2) also getting the benefit of running autonomous.

(1) is what's called by Ivan Illich the "tools for conviviality"[1] where he was
already making a definition of free software[2] in the seventies. Everyone
must have the control on their tools (e.g. technologies, information
tools,...) and
be able to use them without the need of a monopoly.

"A convivial society should be designed to allow all its members the
most autonomous action by means of tools least controlled by others."

(2) is self explanatory, if you can't get a benefit/reward (either
direct or indirect),
the incentive to be autonomous is very low.

Looking at the past discussions, it seems sometimes that we could
be afraid to jump into a "DoOcracy"[3] because some risks exists but
I think the risk is higher to give up and ask "large organization" to do
the next tools for the next years. We will then loose the control of the tools
and won't be able to be autonomous.

That's why when doing something to render people (and/or machine)
more independant, we need to keep in mind (IMHO) that the system
must be simple and convivial for everyone willing to use or modify it.

Just a small comment,

Thanks to all for your work.

adulau

[1] http://clevercycles.com/tools_for_conviviality/
[2] Free software as defined by the FSF with all the 4 freedoms.
[3] http://www.communitywiki.org/en/DoOcracy

-- 
--                   Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) -- http://www.foo.be/
--                             http://www.foo.be/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Diary
--         "Knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance
--                                that we can solve them" Isaac Asimov