←From page 3

Figuring out a framework for co-operating with a global network is among my main challenges, I think something like an affiliate program is needed, but have not worked out the possible structure and possible political issues yet.


17. How important is terminology in your project (both online and offline)? Sometimes, making things more or less understandable for new users is the difference between "success" and "failure", especially when it comes to abstract concepts or relatively new ideas.

Very important and an area I consider us to still be very weak in, the fact is most people still do not understand either the project or our products, and this is a major challenge.


18. What is your project's relation with public space and the interaction with public, offline audience? Would you say this relation is a key part of your project's own dynamics?

I am an active member of the art and hacker communities in Berlin and I think this contributes more to the exposure of Telekommunisten than the offline audience at this stage.


19. What's the fundamental difference in the definition of "peer production" which Michael Bauwens defines as "non-reciprocal production" and you define as "independent equals working with and on a common stock of productive assets"?

It seems to me that "non-reciprocal" not logically related to the word "peer," which means "independent equals" in both plain English and network topology.

As mentioned, a P2P network is not a "non-reciprocal" network, but a network made up of independent nodes.

If you accept the emphasis on "independant, equal" as opposed to "non-reciprocal," which -- as I have explained -- describes circulation, not production in an economic sense, then I see the question in terms of class-stratification, the origins of which are rooted in control of circulation by way of property.

Which is why the core of my critique of Bauwens, Benkler and others is that they insist that "peer production" can only exist in the context of the production of freely circulating immaterial capital, and my contention is unless we  have a commons of material land and capital we can not be equals, and thus  can not even be peers. Unless we eliminate property, we can not control circulation.

Economically, I express this by demonstrating that surplus value will always flow through to scarcity, that owners of property will always capture the exchange value created by an immaterial commons.

Thus, unless we address the formation and allocation of a commons of material productive assets, capitalism will continue to be the dominant mode of production and the interests of property owners  will continue to subjugate the interest of direct-producers.


20. Is there anything else you wish to add?

Please pass on the word that Telekommunisten is not a closed project, we want and need to share and co-operate with a global network, and we need people who like the concept to get involved for it to work.

---

(1) This interview was carried out at the beginning of 2008, after the first public actions with the Bank of Common Knowledge (BCK), when Platoniq researched into new points of view to expand their collaborators network and to enhance and develop BCK's structure, contents, participation strategies and economic sustainability. To achieve this, we got in touch with several collectives, projects managers and consultants whose work and activities were similar to Platoniq's and BCK's philosophy. We conducted surveys and carried out interviews and consultancies with experts who came from different contexts and had various needs. Thus, we obtained a wide spectrum of answers and oppinions.