@transmediale 2012 in/compatible, R15N and Stammtisch.

January 31st, 2012 by Dmytri | Permalink

Today’s Stammtisch will not be at Cafe Buchhandlung as usual, rather we will be at Transmediale, starting at 5pm chatting with visitors about R15N. The opening is free, all are welcome so come say hi and get a preview of this years Transmediale.

HTTP://R15N.NET/tm12

R15N is our contribution to this years festival:

R15N will be the Official Miscommunication Platform of Transmediale 2012.

Our hope is that the system will serve to create engagement and a greater sense of community at this years Transmediale. The installation side of R15N is minimal. Some signage and two retro phones under desk lamps, along with a phone booth in which to access the website will represent the work in the physical space of the festivals, but the main purpose of these is to get visitors to register to the system.

Only once the user is registered is the artwork really experienced.

The system is extremely miscommunicative, failed calls and missed calls and occasional poor call quality seem bewildering at first, and the R15N experience begins quite mysteriously and somewhat awkwardly, as users get dropped into the network and begin to be connected with strangers, with whom they are ment to interact. But very quickly the experience starts to feel normal as users acclimatize to it’s quirks and begin to lose inhibitions.

Read the complete article here: http://wp.me/p24fqL-sw
Watch an introductory video about R15N:

Or learn more with the informative presentation:

I wrote about this years theme, in/compatible, following an reSource for Transmediale Culture presentation earlier this year:

To borrow the theme of this year’s Transmediale, “in/compatible.”
The slash between “in” and “compatible” indicates the bifurcation of the intrinsic and the extrinsic, both compatible and not compatible, providing an outwardly in/terface that is compatible, but only as a part of a transformative flow towards an inwardly nature that is ultimately incompatible. The road up to a new harmony, the negation of the negation, synthesis, and thereby also the road down to the new antithesis, the new in/compatibility, the endless flux.
It must seem paradoxical to strive against the existing being by adopting it’s outwardly nature, but disruption requires it. Unprotected by an adaptive exterior, the new nature can not survive, and therefore can never become. Naive attempts to build simple alternative ways of being, acting, or relating, in conflict with what is, while insisting on external and internal harmony deny becoming, and are drowned in the stream, entering into conflict too soon without sufficient development for the negation to become negated.

You can read the whole article here: http://wp.me/p24fqL-o

See you all at transmediale! Can’t make it to berlin? You can still be a part of the festival by joining R15N. Register by calling +49308687035761.

Here is the schedule for tonights opening:

17:00 h
transmediale 2012 Exhibition Vernissage
Dark Drives. Uneasy Energies in technological Times curated by Jacob Lillemose
with artworks from Ant Farm, William S. Burroughs and Antony Balch, Art 404, Bjørn Erik Haugen, Bureau of Inverse Technology (B.I.T.), Chris Burden, Chris Cunningham/Aphex Twin, Constant Dullaart, Costanza Candeloro and Luca Libertini, Daniel García Andújar / Technologies To The People, Heath Bunting, Jack Caravanos (Blacksmith Institute), Vibek Raj Maurya, Jaromil, Jennifer Chan, JK Keller, JODI, jon.satrom, Junko & Mattin, Marcelina Wellmer, Matteo Giordano, Karla Grundick and Mistress Koyo, Paidia Institute, Peter Luining, Ruth White, SPK, Steina and Woody Vasulka, Sture Johannesson, Nikola Tesla, Jay Dahl, TR Kirstein, Tracy Cornish, UBERMORGEN.COM, VNS Matrix, [epidemiC], Franco Berardi, Eva and Franco Mattes aka 0100101110101101.ORG
Steam Machine Music – live construction | performance with Morten Riis
Screening: Re-enactment Videospiegel | The first programme of VideoFilmFest ’88
The connection between the video festival, the work and the artists is somewhat loose. Successful videos feature at countless festivals, but often their creators do not even attend the screenings. And yet every one of these screenings – at least those with videos of short running times – is totally unique. The works are gathered together in a programme which, under normal circumstances, is never screened again outside of the festival. We have therefore decided for the 25th anniversary of transmediale to once again screen as a loop the opening programme from the first VideoFest in 1988; not only does this bring together a range of remarkable videos that have rarely been seen since, but also, as an opening programme, it offers a compelling statement of VideoFest’s own agenda.
18:30 h
transmediale 2012 Opening Ceremony | presentation with Kristoffer Gansing, Hortensia Völckers, Bernd Scherer and performance by jon.satrom
20:30 h
Labor Berlin 8 / Studio Weise7 Exhibition
The in/compatible Laboratorium | Vernissage with Kristoffer Gansing, Valerie Smith, Studio Weise 7 (Servando Barreiro, Brendan Howell, Gordan Savičić, Bengt Sjölén, Julian Oliver and Danja Vasiliev)
reSource Opening: R15N | presentation with Dmytri Kleiner, Baruch Gottlieb, introduced by Tatiana Bazzichelli
Steam Machine Music | with Morten Riis
Performances: The Future of Creativity | with Jeremy Bailey

Call +49308687035761 and you will receive a text message with your account details!!! A free text message from R15N! Don’t miss out on this!

January 30th, 2012 by Dmytri | Permalink

– @dmytri

R15N Launches Tomorrow! Register Today! Call +49308687035761 and Don’t miss out on important messages from the transmediale community.

January 30th, 2012 by Dmytri | Permalink

http://r15n.net– @dmytri

Interflugs, Kulturwertmark

January 27th, 2012 by Dmytri | Permalink

Interflugs[1] is a student managed lecture series organized at WestGermany[2], an underground event venue located in a former doctor’s office near Kottbusser Tor.

The Interflugs series is initiated by students of Universität der Künste. The event was well attended, and discussion flowed freely as the crowd had many questions as well as views and interpretations of their own. The topic was “The Price and Value of Free Culture.” Obviously, a question that’s deeply relevant to artists looking to develop their practice in the age of digital reproduction and social media.

Constanze Kurz and Frank Rieger of the Chaos Computer Club presented the “Kulturwerkmark.”[3]

The Kulterwertmark concept is a developing model of democratic cultural production where fans of artists commit to a monthly flat rate to participate, and distribute this amount to individual culture producers by way of micropayments. Simular in principle to the way flattr.com[4] operates.

However, the Kulturwertmark envision this model a much broader social level, where the management of the system is not a private firm, but a foundation made up of the artists and the fans. And more ambitiously, the Kulturwertmark project hopes to get the approval of the major rights holders, such as the record labels and movie studios, to participate, indemnifying the subscribers for persecution for downloading and sharing cultural works, in exchange for money funded by the flat rate paid by the subscribers. The Project also hopes to get approval from other organizations that represent rights holders, such as regional collection societies like Germans notorious GEMA[5].

Even more ambitiously, the project hopes to convince rightsholders and cultural producers to vastly reduce exclusivity periods provided by copyrights, to limit them to 15 years, instead of the current life-plus-x, and even provide an earnings expectation, which would waive copyrights on the work even earlier once a certain level of earnings have been exceeded. Also noting that even once a given exclusivity has expired for a given work, the producers of the work would continue to receive income, since income is directed by fans micro payments, not royalties.

On one hand, there is a lot to support about the system, the collective funds provided by the subscribers flat rate create a kind of mutual capital, that can not only be used to support cultural production, but also cultural preservation and promotion.

The system is inherently democratic, as members of the foundation, fans an artists control the system, and the remuneration of individual culture producers is subscriber-directed, by virtue of the micropayment system.

The use of the micropayment system is an important distinction over other “cultural flat rate” proposals, since the subscriber directed micropayments eliminate the need to track usage and downloads , thus eliminating the surveillance needed to allocate payments in flat rate systems driven by downloads or views.

However, the idea of rightsholders and their representatives buying into such a system is extremely dubious for the simple reason is that it only compensates them for the value of their current stock of cultural works, yet their business model is predicated on controlling the value of future cultural works, which a system that lacks user controls does not provide.

The idea of a flat rate is nothing new to the cultural industries. Spotify and Nokia’s partially eliminated “Comes With Music” service both offer all-you-can-eat subscriptions to music, and both have the support of the rightsholders. The rightsholders are not opposed to flat rates, what they are opposed to is exactly the democracy and user freedom that the Kulturwertmark seeks to provide.

It’s not just a question of getting fans to pay for music, it’s much more of a question of being a position to control which artists fans will want to pay for. The labels don’t see themselves as merely holders of existing rights, they see themselves as Star Makers. Their promotion, distribution and hype generating capabilities is what they want to protect. Platforms that don’t allow them to promote their artists are of no interest to them, in fact they are a threat to them. For this reason they will happily allow a private platform where user interactions and data are centrally controlled to offer a flat rate, or even have access to some of their assets for free. So long as the platform delivers what they want most of all: Control. They require the ability to dictate which users can do what with what content on a central platform where their usage can be monitored, advertisements can be shown, search results manipulated and “sponsored,” etc. Without such control they worry that the next generation of stars will not be their own, and that is what they fear most.

Therefore, Kulturwertmark is a pipe dream. It makes the mistake that all the labels want is money. What they really want is to maintain what they already have: The ability to control culture.

The many interesting ideas in the Kulturwertmark model can only have a future if they abandon the idea of attracting capitalist righstholders into the system, and instead focus on building a platform that can attract and sustain the next generation of cultural producers, who do not and will not transfer their rights to the labels.

As I wrote in a Rap commission by the 2008 Oxcars: “If you really want to fuck the recording industry stop downloading their shit!”

You can find the entire rap here: http://wp.me/p24fqL-1J

 

[1] http://www.interflugs.de

[2] http://berlin.unlike.net/locations/305905-West-Germany

[3] http://www.ccc.de/de/updates/2011/kulturwertmark

[4] http://flattr.com

[5] http://bit.ly/wAeQM1

 

Today at Interflugs. And the next stammtisch is at @transmediale opening. Pass it on.

January 26th, 2012 by Dmytri | Permalink

Next weeks Stammtisch will not be at Buchhandlung, but instead we will go the opening of Transmediale 2012 in/compatible, in which Telekommunisten is a participant. The opening is free and all are encouraged to come!

Also I’m participating at Interflugs is Today:

  • 19:00
  • WestGermany
  • Skalitzer Straße 133, 10999

Constanze Kurz and Frank Rieger (Chaos Computer Club) will discuss with Dmytri Kleiner (Telekommunisten Network)
The Price and Value of Free Culture

One has to deal with issues of freedom, creativity, participation and property when one releases content on the Net. Despite providing personal data to (advertising) platforms, there is the wish to exchange content and form genuine social networks. Can there be cultural commons through the internet? What’s the idea behind Copy-Left, and how can content producers and artists still survive economically?

Constanze Kurz and Dmytri Kleiner will discuss concepts like: the Creative Commons, the newly released CCC Kulturwertmark, and the “venture communism” proposed by the Telekommunist Network.
Constanze Kurz is a computer scientist and author, who works especially on surveillance technology. She and Frank Rieger are spokespersons of the Chaos Computer Club and together they published “Die Datenfresser” a book on data privacy protection. http://www.ccc.de/

Dmytri Kleiner is a software developer working on projects investigating the political economy of the Internet, and the ideal of workers’ self-organization of production as a form of class struggle. He is a founder of the Telekommunisten Collective and recently released The Telekommunist Manifesto through the Institute of Network Cultures. http://telekommunisten.net/

 

http://www.interflugs.de/events/en-behaving-differently-constanze-kurz-dmitry-kleiner/

Greece and the Macroeconomics of Class Struggle.

January 24th, 2012 by Dmytri | Permalink

At thursday evening’s talk at the occupied Empros Theater in Athens, Tiziana Terranova and I gave presentations on the political economy of social media to a diverse and engaged community.

The Empros Theatre is in central Athens, part of the overall urban geography that has been besieged by occupations, protest and police brutality in the recent surge of class conflict stirred by crisis and the accompanying austerity being inflicted on the Greek population. The theater was occupied by a collective of artists a few months ago, and hosts talks, presentations and events, often engaged in the cultural and political questions surrounding the resistance against the politics of austerity.

The financial crisis has pushed the greek economy into extremely dire straights. Eurozone pressure and speculative attack on government debt has forced the greek government into counterproductive austerity measures which are hotly contested by the population. As demand falls as a result of austerity-driven spending reduction, the economy sinks further into stagnation, in turn reducing taxation levels, leading to more austerity, and so on. A classic vicious circle.

The situation has unmasked the folly of the Euro. If Greece had monetary sovereignty, the government would have recourse to all sorts of monetary and fiscal means to stabilize demand and stimulate the economy, but because Greece is part of the Euro monetary union, it’s hands are tied. As a user, and not an issuer of it’s currency, Greece can not control it’s monetary policy, and as a result, has concrete limitations on its fiscal policy as well. It can neither increase spending to stimulate the economy, nor can it issue bonds and adjust lending rates to influence interest and control the cost of servicing its debt. All it can do is raise taxes and cut spending, and while these may stave off default and move towards Eurozone dictated fiscal constraints, these do not do what the greek economy desperately needs to recover, that is,
create demand, and thereby employment, increase tax levels, etc.

Within Eurozone Monetary policy is centrally managed. Yet, Eurozone nations may be, and usually are, out of sync at any given time in terms of what sort of policy best suites their current economic situation, and policy is naturally driven by the bigger economies, such as those of Germany and France, and not according to the interests of smaller economies like Greece. Thus, the greek people pay the price for a financial situation that was not of their own making. While other nations, especially the financial elite within them, are able to escape consequence.

Yet, while one could conclude that if Greece left the Euro and regained monetary sovereignty it would protect it’s people, sadly, not even this is likely to be true.

The political elite of Greece are beholden to the global financial elite and remain fully committed to the neoliberal program of wich the Euro was once shining jewel. The destruction of the welfare state, and immiseration of the workforce is not just a unhappy consequence of the neoliberal agenda, it is the goal. Thus, the Euro and the constraints it places on a nation’s ability to pursue the public good is quite intentional. And as they say, where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Even without the Euro, the intent remains. There is no reason to doubt that the henchmen of neoliberalism would, in any case, find ways to continue to push greek workers towards destitution. This is the case in the US and the UK, where despite possessing monetary sovereignty, these governments seems to be more interested in insulating financiers from loses, rather than actually stimulating the economy and thereby benefiting the whole of the people.

The problem is that the role of the State is to mediate among the classes on behalf of the ruling class. This is a simple political fact that can not be changed. The ruling class controls the bulk of the wealth in society and thus has the means to relentlessly push it’s own interests, and always eventually get its way. And with each victory, strengthen its position further.

Not ambitious politician or party can represent any other class, though they can represent different factions within it. To fail to attract the support of at least some faction of the ruling class amounts to handing victory to your rival, at least in most cases, and certainly in the long run.

The structure of the social order is the mirror image of the structure of wealth in society. It should be fairly safe to believe that even if the Greek government had the monetary sovereignty to intervene in the economy of behalf of their people, they would not.

Within a capitalist economy, wealth flows to owners of capital, and thus concentrates in fewer and fewer hands, while the share of wealth available to the great masses of people gets ever smaller, and with it, there political influence as well.

But for the largely autonomist crowd at the Empros theatre, the loss of political influence is not directly the most critical loss.

As with mutualist, syndicalist, “P2P” and other political views that can be described as autonomist, which can broadly include the free culture and free software movement, Occupy Wall Street, the Indignados of Spain, etc, a large current in the Anti-Austerity movement in Greece also believes that we must create our own institutions, our own alternative structures that move beyond the meagre choices offered by bourgeois society and prefigure the future society we are fighting for.

And that is right, that is also the main form of political struggle that Venture Communism proposes and explores mechanisms of realizing. Thus, the most important direct loss is not political influence, but rather mutual capital. Our capacity for investing in alternative structures comes from a single source: The amount of wealth that we, as workers, can consistently divert from consumption. Thus, as the share of wealth accrued by capital increases, not only does our political influence decrease, so does our capacity to invest in alternatives.

We can understand this as the macroeconomics of class struggle. The total wealth available for both political influence and alternative initiatives comes from the “monetary base” derived from the amount of wealth that workers can sustainably divert from consumption. Capitalism, as manifested in the neoliberal agenda, will work towards pushing this base towards zero, to increase its own base, its accumulated capital. Thus, the first dimension in the macroeconomy of class struggle os our collective will to fight to resist reduction of our base wealth. Mass collective struggles against further reduction of benefits and wages are crucial. “Counterpoltics.”

Yet, this is but one dimension, since our base of mutual capital is not only smaller than the accumulated capital of the capitalist class, but far less intensively utilized.

We must intensify the application of our base wealth. We do this by investing in alternative ways to produce and share, this means both the organisation of the surplus working power of unemployed and underemployed members of our communities, but also by making whatever money we can spare have available for social investment in commons-orientated means of creating wealth. “Venture Communism.”

And yet, these are still not likely to be enough. For not only is the Capitalist base far larger and more intensivly utilized, capital is also much more leveraged. Systems of capitalist finance multiply the amount of money by borrowing and lending. Much of the money available for investing and spending in the economy exists as a result of such activity.

We must not only protect our base wealth by means of counterpolitics, and intensify our application of wealth by means of venture communism, but we must expand the size of this wealth by means of “Insurgent Finance.” That is we must draw capital inflows into our social economy by drawing the existing accumulations of retained wages; worker’s pension funds. Pension funds are currently under the control of capitalist managers, and not only are they not being utilized to capitalize a people’s economy, but pension funds have historically been some of the most predatory financiers in the industry, most often working against the interests of workers.

We need to create securities that underwrite social ventures and convince pension funds, and workers in general, to hold them. In addition to the securities used to build capital for social enterprise, we must employ other mechanisms such as crowd funding and mutual credit to further stimulate our social economy. Insurgent Finance must not only capture capital inflows to finance the means of social production, but also create liquidity to capture demand.

We transform our society as we build the means satisfy our needs outside the financial cycles of capitalism. When we take demand away from forms of consumption that reproduce capital and further concentrate wealth, and instead satisfy the needs and desires of our communities by other means. When we produce and share according to our mutual needs and desires, and not according to the logic of profit capture.

While there is certainly much more that could be said about these dimensions of the macroeconomy of class struggle, the implied strategy is straight forward: Protect our base wealth with counterpolitcs, intensify it with venture communism, expand it with insurgent finance.

See some of you at Cafe Buchhandlung Tonight, I’ll be there around 9pm. (http://bit.ly/buchhandlung).

R15N Users! Calling +49308687035761 will now reset your password and send it via sms! (or setup a new account if you need) http://R15N.NET

January 23rd, 2012 by Dmytri | Permalink

– @dmytri

R15N Slide Presentation. R15N Explained!

January 18th, 2012 by Dmytri | Permalink

R15N

How EMI is removing Martin Luther King from YouTube

January 17th, 2012 by Dmytri | Permalink

 

http://bit.ly/wCDWDH

Autonomy, Labour, and the Political Economy of Social Media

January 17th, 2012 by Dmytri | Permalink

I’m flying off to Athens on Thursday to give a public talk[1] in an occupied theatre with Tiziana Terranova, with whom I also participated in a discussion on the Empyre list last week[2].

The Talk is titled “Autonomy, Labour, and the Political Economy of Social Media.”

The Political Economy of Social Media is of course nothing other than the Political Economy of Capitalism applied to Social Media. Looking at  Social Media through the lens of capitalism unveils some rather striking implications, many of which have become central to my work, and many which I’m only beginning to explore further.

The basics are by now well discussed, among many others, I have covered these some time ago in InfoEnclosure 2.0[3] and expanded upon the theme in the Telekommunist Manifesto[4]. The central fact is that Capitalism will not fund free, open networks. It can not do so because it must control user data and interaction in order to capture profit, and for this reason capital financed centrally controlled social platforms are replacing free, open, peer-to-peer platforms.

The trouble is, once you understand that capital will not fund open platforms, the question remains, who will? How can they be funded. In the Manifesto and in earlier works, I introduce the idea of Venture Communism, an autonomist/mutualist approach focused on worker’s self-organisation of production as way to build what capitalism can not.

However, many questions remained open, for while Venture Communism may sketch out a structure with which a common stock of productive assets can be efficiently allocated among independent producers, similar to the way computer networks provide an efficient way for independent workers to employ a common stock of immaterial productive assets, it doesn’t go very far into investigating how these material productive assets can be acquired by a Venture Commune in the first place.

The basic idea that bonds are sold in order to acquire productive assets. But sold to whom? In a functioning Venture Commune, with established enterprises producing wealth, this would not be an issue, the bonds would be purchased by the worker-owners of the commune from the retained earnings of their productive output.

However, the bad news is this is not easy before the commune exists, because before the commune exists the workers are not worker-owners capturing the full value of their collective contribution to production, but just workers. Working for capitalists. Workers who are paid just enough to sustain their lifestyle while the capitalist-owners appropriate all the remaining wealth produced.

In other words, as I explain in my arguments about Kickstarter that I reposted from the Empyre list a few days ago. In order to “kickstart” workers-self organized forms of production, to create free and open social media platforms, or anything else, we must, in the first instance, depend on the retained earnings that workers can consistently divert from consumption.

The problem is the basic workings of the labour market functions to drive this potential amount toward zero.

What this means is that we can not solve the problem by way of autonomist or mutualist means alone, but need to engage directly in political struggle. Even if our goals are autonomist, our ability to achieve our goals is directly tied to the level of wages and public goods provided by society, for this determines the structure of wealth, wich itself the determines the total amount of wealth we can invest in becoming worker-owners rather than just workers.

For this reason Counter-politics[5] is required, and indeed, perhaps Counterpolitics is an important strategy that emerging “Crowd Funding” platforms could fund.

The role of the State is to mediate among the classes on behalf of the ruling class. The role of Counterpolitics is to engage in struggle within the theatre of the State against the ruling classes. Not to take the State, but to build social power and fight to maximize wage levels and availability of public goods to create the space for autonomist and mutualist means to make the state irrelevant. Can we Crowd-fund The Debtors’ Party? [6]

I’ll be at Stammtisch a little earlier than normal today, probably around 8pm or so. See you at Cafe Buchhandlung! [7].

 

[1] http://www.mignetproject.eu/?p=502

[2] http://wp.me/p24fqL-sO

[3] http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/infoenclosure-2.0

[4] http://telekommunisten.net/the-telekommunist-manifesto

[5] http://wp.me/p24fqL-K

[6] http://wp.me/p24fqL-X

[7] http://bit.ly/buchhandlung

 


Center for Gender Studies of the Department of Social Policy of Panteion University and the European research project MIG@NET invite you to the event titled: «Autonomy, Labour, and the Political Economy of Social Media». Presentations by:

Tiziana Terranova -  Becoming autonomous? Labour and the political economy of digital social media

Dmytri Kleiner – P2P Communism vs Client-Server Capitalism

on Thursday 19 January 2012 at 7:00 pm at Empros Theater, 2 Riga Palamidi Street, Psirri

Tiziana Terranova lectures and researches cultural studies and new media at the Università degli Studi di Napoli ‘L’Orientale’ in the Department of Human and Social Sciences. She is the author of Network Culture: politics for the information age (Pluto Press 2004). She is currently working on a book on neoliberalism and the Internet.

Dmytri Kleiner is a member of Telekommunisten and develops miscommunication technologies, including deadSwap, Thimbl and R15N, He is author of the Telekommunist Manifesto. He can be followed at http://dmytri.info.

The event will be held in English.

subscribe