We are pleased to present you with a brief report of the research conducted along with the publications produced of the P2P Lab collaborators in 2013. Through a 10-posts series we will attempt to demonstrate findings, ideas and projects run by our colleagues. In this opening post, allow me to cite the list of P2P Lab‘s peer-reviewed articles, books & chapters:
1. Kostakis, V., Fountouklis, M. & Drechsler, W. (2013) Peer production and desktop manufacturing: The case of the Helix_T wind turbine project. Science, Technology & Human Values, 38(6): 773 – 800.
2. Kostakis, V. & Papachristou, M. (2013). Commons-based peer production and digital fabrication: The case of a RepRap-based, Lego-built 3D printing-milling machine. Telematics & Informatics.
3. Kostakis, V. & Drechsler, W. (Forthcoming). Commons-based peer production and artistic expression: Two cases from Greece. New Media & Society.
4. Kostakis, V., Niaros, V. & Giotitsas, C. (Forthcoming). Open source 3d printing as a means of learning: An educational experiment in two high schools in Greece. Information, Communication & Society.
5. Kostakis, V. & Bauwens M. (contracted). Network Society and Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy. Palgrave Macmillan Pivot.
6. Kostakis, V., Niaros, V. & Giotitsas, C. (Forthcoming). Production and governance in hackerspaces: A manifestation of Commons-based peer production in the physical realm?. International Journal of Cultural Studies.
7. Kostakis, V. & Stavroulakis, S. (2013). The parody of the Commons. TripleC: Cognition, Communication, Co-operation, 11 (2): 412-424.
8. Kostakis, V. & Giotitsas, C. (Forthcoming). Public information as a Commons: The case of ERT and the peer-to-peer prospect. International Journal of E-Governance.
9. Kostakis, V. (2013). At the turning point of the current techno-economic paradigm: Commons-based peer production, desktop manufacturing and the role of civil society in the Perezian framework. TripleC: Cognition, Communication, Co-operation, 11(1): 173 – 190
10. Bauwens, M. & Kostakis, V. (Forthcoming). The reconfiguration of time and place after the emergence of peer-to-peer infrastructures. Araya, D. (Ed.). Technopolis: Smart cities as democratic ecologies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Kostakis, V., Giotitsas, C. & Papanikolaou, G. (Ed.) (Forthcoming). P2P and the Commons (in Gr). Ioannina: Voreiodytikes Publications.
12. Kostakis, V. (2013). The emergence of the P2P prospect (in Gr), Theseis, 123: 127 – 141.
13. Bauwens, M. & Kostakis, V. (2013). A note on four future scenarios on capitalism and the Commons (in Gr), Theseis 124: 101-108
From first article cited: “Through the case of the Helix_T wind turbine project, this article sets out to argue two points: first, on a theoretical level, that Commons-based peer production, in conjunction with the emerging technological capabilities of three-dimensional printing, can also produce promising hardware, globally designed and locally produced.”
Like all politics being local, everything is produced locally somewhere. Arguably, desk-top printing takes localization to a higher level, but the tool is not produced where the printing occurs. In fact, arguably, it succeeds in falsifying the truism that everything is produced locally somewhere, because now we will see products appear from the virtual nowhere, with the least amount of local involvement possible. Are we seeing a misunderstanding of the meaning and value of community in this proposition that desktop 3d printing is “local”? Or, in other words, are we confusing the value of expanding access to useful global products such as wind turbines to every local with the notion that genuine local marketplaces are a powerful tool in sustainable development. Imho, that real value is in local production for local consumption, and the 3d printer is a profoundly flawed entry into that equation because it is at least separate from and potentially denies the possibility of empowering local development of local resources for local consumption. For the sake of illustration, if I produce potable water with this tool where there is no other potable water, then I will (1) make water production and consumption in that location 100% dependent on an imported technology such that the local community will not have control of this essential resource and by extension not have freedom to control any resources except those granted by the manufacturer of the printer, and (2) I will be helping create a community that is not empowered and/or impelled to protect human and natural resources: a “company town”. Imho, the 3D printer is a a powerful tool that will reshape manufacturing and redistribute wealth, but it does not ensure equitable distribution of wealth or decentralization of power. Perhaps quite the opposite.
Please remove the request for comments if reasonable criticism isn’t posted – my time is priceless to me.
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for your comment.
To begin with, you are right in your critique on “locally produced”: “locally manufactured” would sound much better indeed.
In a nutshell, our article adopts Feenberg’s idea that (2002, 15), ‘‘technology is not a destiny but a scene of struggle . . . a social battlefield’’, where individuals and social groups struggle to influence and change technological design, uses, and meanings. What we attempt to argue is that a core feature of network economy is the radical decentralisation of the capital (in our case in the form of desktop manufacturing) necessary to produce not only information but also its material manifestation. This is true for software, it’s true for music etc and it could become true for material production as well. It is not claimed that the decentralisation of (some of) the means of production ensures equitable distribution of wealth or decentralisation of power.
Overall, we assume for the current context that ‘‘the real issue is not technology per se, but the variety of possible technologies and paths of progress among which we must choose,’’ (Feenberg 2002, v) trying not to be limited to a dichotomy between two polarized extremes (those who claim that technology is neutral and those who think that technology is malicious and threatening to humanity).In the conjunction of Commons-based peer production with desktop manufacturing, technology could be considered as subject to contestation, reconstruction, and democratic participation enabling people ‘‘to participate effectively in a widening range of public activities’’ (Feenberg 2002, 3).
Thank you once more for your constructive critique.