Today, copyright influences strongly how cultural works are produced, who can access them, and how they can (or cannot) be used and shared. An important problem connected with the current strict copyright practices is the danger of confinement, degradation or even loss of important cultural heritage.

The world-famous artist Vladimir Horowitz is a striking example for these problems: His recordings are highly esteemed by critics and fans alike; nonetheless, a significant part of them remain unpublished, in locations without access of public or conservation specialists, and thus in danger of permanent loss.

The following interview discusses the reasons for these problems, as well as implications for general copyright practices, with Bernie Horowitz, administrator of The Horowitz Website, enthusiast and collector.

(1) Over 20 years after his death, Vladimir Horowitz is still one of the most famous pianists. Why?

Bernie Horowitz: One doesn’t have to be a classical music aficionado to experience Vladimir Horowitz’s overwhelming nervous intensity.

Some admire Horowitz for this singular quality and others do not. But, Horowitz must not be reduced to one attribute – he was an exceptionally versatile musician who was equally capable of moving listeners to tears. (German users need the Stealthy extension for Firefox for this and most other videos.)

(2) Considering his fame, many people will be surprised that a significant part of his recordings remains unpublished. Can you make a rough estimate which how many of his live recordings (excluding pirate recordings) are blocked?

BH: For an inventory of what Sony has in its vault, please see here. Specific programming information about each individual concert is available here. (I think the focus should be on the unreleased live recordings, from the 1945-50 period, but especially 1966-68 (which have presumably been preserved in high-quality sound, unlike the “private” recordings).

(3) How important are the unreleased Horowitz recordings? What is at stake for music fans?

BH: It is widely accepted that Horowitz’s live performances are superior to those he recorded in the studio. But RCA did not begin recording Horowitz’s live recitals until 1951, when he was forty-seven years old. While RCA finally decided to start recording Horowitz live in 1951, he retired from the stage in 1953 (after only three recitals had been recorded) and didn’t return until 1965 (when he was sixty-one years old), before retiring again in 1969. Hence, arguably the greatest pianist of the twentieth century was recorded in his prime, in live solo performance by his recording company on just twenty occasions; three times between 1951 and 1953 (between the ages of 47 and 49), and seventeen times between 1965 and 1968 (ages 61 and 65). Of the latter group, most remain entirely unreleased except for a few fragments. A complete list of Horowitz’ live recordings can be found here.

(4) From 1945 to 1950, Horowitz paid an engineer to record his performances at Carnegie Hall. Why has Sony the rights to these “Yale recordings,” which were donated by Horowitz to Yale University?

BH: This is a very complicated issue, and my understanding is limited; the Horowitz Estate owns the Yale recordings, but Sony possesses the licensing rights. There’s also a cornucopia of conditions for the approval of releases and the disbursal of profits from sales. I’ll say a bit more about this in response to other questions below, but I don’t want to speculate about subjects I don’t fully understand.

(5) A small part of the “Yale recordings” was issued on 3 CDs in 2009/10. How did this come about, and is there a chance of further releases?

BH: After Horowitz’s death in 1989, his producer, Thomas Frost, and engineer Jon Samuels listened to all the “private” recordings. They agreed that the material should be evaluated for commercial release. Frost approached Horowitz’ wife, Wanda (Toscanini-Horowitz), about issuing the “private” recordings, but the releases were restricted to pieces which Horowitz had never otherwise recorded. This substantially limited Frost’s options. However, he presented Wanda with a compendium of recordings from the collection, enough music to fill two CD’s. Wanda approved the releases, but vetoed two specific selections: Horowitz’s only existing performances of Franz Liszt’s St. Francis Walks on the Water and Mili Balakirev’s Islamey. Both these recordings (finally released just recently) feature unbridled virtuosity and staggering technical command. After years of reading critics assaulting the depth of Horowitz’s musicianship, Wanda was fed up. She apparently decided that no matter how well-played, these two pieces wouldn’t serve the best interests of her husband’s reputation, along with many other performances from the collection.

I don’t know about further releases – I’m in no way affiliated with the Horowitz Estate, Sony, or professionally involved with music, I’m just a dilettante.

(6) What do we know about Horowitz’ position on these recordings, which he donated to Yale University?

BH: Horowitz said more about this than people realize, including interviews and press conferences. I recall at least one instance where a questioner asked directly Horowitz about releasing the private recordings (which were known to insiders at the time because he would play them for guests at home), and he complained about the sound quality and said that he thought it precluded commercial release of the material.

In a recorded interview with Don Newlands of the CBC in 1975, Horowitz discussed his performances of the Brahms 2nd Piano concerto with Toscanini and Bruno Walter (see 5:29), the conductor with whom Horowitz said that he worked best. The Walter recording (recorded live at Carnegie Hall on April 8 or 9, 1948) is one of those locked up at Yale. I think it’s implicitly clear from the CBC interview which one Horowitz preferred.

I’ve heard from a third-hand account (from somebody who spoke to a Yale student who listened to the Walter recording in the early 1990’s) that the Brahms performance in question is excellent, vastly superior to the recordings with Toscanini. It’s a shame that this recording remains unreleased, because all other existing Horowitz recordings of the piece were conducted by Toscanini, and I (and many others) don’t find them to be so great.

(7) The recordings in Yale are accessible to visitors (in accordance with the function of the archive). These recordings were originally made on acetate disks susceptible to scratching or breaking (one disk had already broken before the donation was made). Has it been it possible to make backup copies, or are the only existing copies played for the visitors?

BH: The acetates were transferred to tape immediately upon their donation to Yale. Unfortunately, judging from the sound of the 1994-5 releases relative to those from 2009-10, the originals are apparently still utilized for new releases, and it sounds as though they’ve deteriorated over the past fifteen years.

(8) Furthermore, there exist professional recordings of live performances from 1966 to 1968. How valuable are these recordings? What reasons might Sony have for not publishing this material, as well as the Yale recordings?

BH: The Yale recordings and the 1966-68 CBS recordings fall into different categories. If I understand correctly, in the case of the former, the Horowitz Estate actually owns the recordings, while Sony has the licensing. The latter are owned by Sony rather than the Estate (but the Estate still controls an uncommonly sizable portion of the royalties, of which most go to charities). As per the examples I presented above, the only possible answer I can imagine for the CBS recordings not being released is money; Sony probably doesn’t anticipate a profit.

(9) Some pirate recordings in bad sound that are in circulation show these to have been spectacular concerts.

BH: I don’t think there can be any possible doubt as to the musical merit of releasing the 1966-68 recordings. Just listen to Horowitz’s “Vallée d’Obermann” from December 10, 1966 (see below); imagine that in professional-grade sound!!

The 1966-68 period reflects the only time of Horowitz’s prime career during which he was professionally recorded in live performance on a regular basis. Navigating the high seas (Horowitz and his wife could be very difficult when it came to releasing recordings), and utilizing a few selections of these live recordings, Frost produced award-winning recordings released in 1967, 1968 and 1971 (in addition to one every year from 1962-65).

Interestingly, most of the Horowitz recitals recorded by Columbia from 1966-68 were also recorded by members of the audience, who’d smuggled in recording equipment. And, while these recordings often feature very poor sound quality, they suggest that as with Wanda’s preferences with the posthumous release of her husband’s “private” recordings, the selections released by Columbia from the 1966-68 period may have been selected partially in accordance with Wanda’s distaste for recordings in which Horowitz’s virtuosity was abundant. I could argue at length, but will simply present two examples.

Horowitz’s commercial “live” (edited and spliced) recording of Liszt’s “Vallée d’Obermann,” from November 27, 1966. (German users need the Stealthy extension.)

Horowitz’s performance of Liszt’s “Vallée d’Obermann” from December 10, 1966, recorded from the audience (also recorded by CBS and held in the Sony vault).

Horowitz’s commercial live recording of the final movement of (Rachmaninoff’s Second Sonata from December 15, 1968).

Horowitz’s performance of the final movement of Rachmaninoff’s Second Sonata from May 12, 1968, recorded from the audience – also recorded by CBS and held in the Sony vault:

(10) Is there a danger of deterioration or loss to the unissued Horowitz recordings in the vaults of Sony? Is anything known about their condition?

BH: I don’t know about the condition of the recordings in the Sony vault. But, my hope is that by 1966, recording technologies had advanced to the point that recordings wouldn’t deteriorate very much over time.

(11) In 2009, Sony issued a big 70-CD-“Original Jacket Collection”, which included only a small percentage of unreleased material. Why do you think Sony gave this project priority over the unpublished material?

BH: My guess would be finance. It would be much cheaper for Sony to issue the “Original Jacket Collection” without paying engineers and producers to collate previously unreleased material. From Sony’s perspective this would be a matter of mere “opportunity cost.” How many people who considered purchasing the “Original Jacket Collection” know about the unreleased material? Would this dissuade them from making the purchase anyway? In my case, definitely – but I’m probably in the minority.

(12) Is the fact that Horowitz donated the “Yale recordings” to the University a sign that he wanted them made available to the public?

BH: I think we have to make a distinction between the commercial release of the “Yale recordings” and the mere ability to access them through the archive.

There should never be any ambiguity about the fact that the Horowitz’s intended to make the recordings available to people who wanted to visit the archive and listen.

The isolation of the private recordings at Yale grossly discriminates against those who live in Asia and Europe. It’s enough that people who live outside the northeastern US have to visit New Haven, Connecticut to hear these recordings – but there’s more: the archive is so poorly staffed and over-booked that appointment-making is tedious and must be done far in advance. Towards the end of his life, Horowitz took pains to cater to his fans abroad, first with a special “International” concert on May 7, 1978 (most of the tickets were sold to people who lived outside the US), and then with his tours to Japan and Europe between 1983-87.

On the question of the recordings being commercially issued, as was the case with releases during his lifetime, I think Horowitz (and Wanda) would have been highly selective and reluctant. As for Horowitz himself, we must remember that he was the sort of person who on numerous occasions had releases blocked and recalled, and we know without doubt that substandard sound quality would have been a significant (if not decisive) consideration in his mind. But, at the very least, I think that he might have supported the release of the aforementioned Brahms 2nd Concerto with Bruno Walter, depending on its sound quality. It should also be noted that as long as Wanda was alive, Horowitz couldn’t have arranged this release; can you imagine him telling Wanda that he didn’t like the other Brahms 2 performances because of her father’s conducting?

(13) Supporters of strong copyright laws argue that market forces will ensure that works of great artists are made available to the public. The example of Horowitz seems to prove the opposite – does this mean current copyright doesn’t work, and might endanger even the recorded heritage of world-renowned artists?

BH: The purpose of copyright laws is to protect artists’ control of their own material; should they wish to withhold certain segments of their output, that’s their right. I’m not aware of any facet of copyright law which incorporates the public interest in access to restricted, copyrighted material.

But, with respect to artists restricting access to their own material, I don’t feel that copyright is something we should worry too much about. I’d posit that in most such cases, the death of the artist or generator of the restricted material ultimately facilitates access. Yes, there are extreme instances where unreasonable people have made it impossible for certain material to ever see the light of day after they die. (I vaguely recall reading in Robert Dallek’s Nixon and Kissinger that Nixon’s physician recently made arrangements precluding public access to Nixon’s medical files for the next 75 years!) In most cases, however, the death of the artist voids such restrictions. I think the problem is merely that market forces no longer reflect the proclivities of consumers. If we were dealing with 1980’s-grade technology today, wouldn’t you agree that Horowitz recordings would sell many more individual copies? As for the current landscape, I can’t conceive of an electronic mechanism which could prevent CD-burning and file sharing, somehow assuring that each consumer seeking a certain recording would have to make a purchase.

If Sony releases a brand new Horowitz CD which contains the unreleased recordings, a few people will purchase copies and then share them online. Sony would never recover their costs (if substantial) because so few people would actually pay.

(14) Horowitz died in 1989, and his wife, Wanda Toscanini-Horowitz, in 1998. Today, “the Estate of Vladimir Horowitz” is represented by Allan Steckler, who has to approve every new publication. Has there been a clear policy regarding unissued material from their side?

BH: Yes, Allan Steckler exercises de facto control over any releases by the Horowitz Estate. Mr. Steckler has never publicly expressed any sort of “policy” for such releases. There are a number of other legal complications which I won’t address; there are others who have jurisdiction (and veto power) over releases, and there also exist special conditions affecting the disbursal of profits yielded by Horowitz recordings sales. Horowitz fans must not forget that Mr. Steckler is financially incentivized to issue as many Horowitz recordings as possible. If I thought Mr. Steckler were the person who actually selected the materials for recent releases (from the Yale collection), I would hold it against him. However, he’s not.

Horowitz fans concur that many of the selections included in the recent “Yale” releases were incomprehensible. Purely on the basis of piece selection (and not sound quality, which I cannot evaluate), the selections were a mere tease. Nobody wanted to hear another Horowitz recording of the Schumann Fantasie or Chopin Barcarolle (both in poor sound) and least of all a collection of Haydn and Beethoven Sonatas. If given a choice, this was the Yale material which Horowitz fans wanted to hear least!

(15) Would it make sense for fans of Horowitz to write to Sony and/or to Allan Steckler, or even to initiate a campaign for release of the unissued recordings?

BH: Only an incorrigible optimist would suggest that such a campaign might make a difference. I think the only way the situation will change is if some noble soul conducted an armed robbery of the Sony vault as well as the Yale archive. Who’s with me?! To be serious, under present circumstances, I think that encouraging the release of the 1966-68 material would require intervention at the top level of the Sony Classical bureaucracy.

From what I can tell, Horowitz is more popular in Asia and Europe than in the United States. I don’t think this problem would be solved by fan mobilization.

I should also point out that Sony Classical has been in a state of upheaval lately. They recently switched CEO’s, and rarely seem to dig into their archives. Even if all the support for Horowitz was somehow projected, I don’t know that it would make a difference under present conditions.

(16) Companies now control a major part of our cultural heritage. Obviously, they have thus gained an important cultural function. Do you think they are aware of this responsibility?

BH: Ambrose Bierce famously said that corporations are an “ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.” I’d be hesitant to attribute corporations any sort of collective consciousness. Then again, according to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (a 2010 US Supreme Court decision), corporations qualify as persons under the First Amendment (insofar as exercising political views in campaign ads, for example).

(17) Taking into account that companies today fulfill functions traditionally given to archives and museums, would some kind of “cultural preservation law” make sense, obliging film and record companies to preserve, secure (by making copies) and publish material from the great artists (i.e. musical recordings, films etc.)?

BH: Though it’s a nice idea in principle, a government regulation mandating the preservation of certain historical recordings would be unfeasible. I don’t see how legislation could account for the selection process (it would be inconceivable to preserve everything). Furthermore, even if such a law were passed, industry lawyers would have a field day; any such mandate would impose a heavy cost burden on recording companies (which are struggling already) on the basis of affecting material that they already “own.” Hence, because it would be unrealistic to expect the companies to pay for these preservations, any such initiative would necessitate heavy government funding, an impossibility considering the current financial state of the US.

(18) Speaking about copyright reform, different proposals have been made. Would a “use it or lose it” clause for companies (NOT private copyright-holders) make sense, requiring them to publish material in a certain timespan, otherwise giving copyright back to the authors or their heirs?

BH: I like the timespan idea. Why would a company suddenly decide to issue a recording that’s 50 years old? There should be a means by which recording companies make old recordings (which will never be issued) available to small consumer groups.

(19) Other proposals currently discussed would shorten the length of copyright protection, e.g. ending it with the death of the creator of the work. Do you think that’s a good idea?

BH: I answered this partially in question #11; I think that what we’re dealing with in the case of Horowitz mostly isn’t a copyright problem, it’s a money/consumer expression problem. Besides, it would be a violation of basic principle to strip the copyright from the inheritors of an artist’s material. Realistically, I think any such policy would have to centrally focus on encouraging propagation of the content rather than stripping or limiting copyright or ownership.

Conclusion

(MS) The unissued recordings of Vladimir Horowitz are just one example of the access barriers which exist in many areas of culture today. If we don’t want to lose many fascinating works, we should think about new ways of organizing access to cultural works. Clear opposition by the creators themselves is the only reason where non-publication is legitimate. In the long term, copyright as we know it seems outdated – but we need a new way of production (peer production, as discussed on this blog) to replace it without hurting creators.

Those who care about unpublished and endangered works, however, can get active today. Fan communities might recognize their power to organize and petition copyright holders. One could also think about a law requiring publication of cultural works by the copyright holders under certain conditions (e.g. when a certain number of votes are cast in an online petition), or about the mentioned “use it or lose it”-clause that guarantees access to works if the copyright holders don’t manage publication. Even today, fan communities are very productive and contribute significantly to culture: fan fiction, fanzines and websites, and the sharing of pirate recordings (that even ten years ago would only have been accessible to a few elect people) over the Internet is commonplace.

Communities and fans already self-publicate works that weren’t accessible (examples are Project Gutenberg for books and Parnassus records for classical music). However, copyright often limits these efforts. Probably, many fans would like to help with restoration and publication of Vladimir Horowitz’ recordings, but due to current copyright conditions, the result of their communal work would depend on decisions not under their control and result in profit for others – factors that deter community engagement. We should therefore think about how we can enlarge the possibilities of communities to become directly involved in preservation, access to and publication of cultural works, by limiting copyright and granting access to those who take responsibility. Building on this, a new approach to sharing works and taking responsibility for them is possible, and a community-based culture can be created.

The paper is a reflection of more than ten years of Oekonux project by extracting ten patterns out of the past debates. Maybe I should also translate the paper into German?

Conclusion

Far from being a consistent theory of historical transition towards a free society these patterns give a fairly good impression of why they don’t fit into any of the traditional approaches. There might be some accordances with one approach or the other, and most of the Oekonux participants will not agree with all of the patterns, but no single approach could answer to all challenges at once in a consistent way.

This is not coincidental. On the one hand, the formation of a new society can not be entirely grasped in terms of the already fully developed society which is going to be made history. On the other hand, there are overarching aspects which continue to exist in all societies, but which undergo a reconfiguration. Other aspects dissolve completely. And finally some aspects are leveraged in a way that they hardly have anything in common with their origin. These three forms of transition – preservation, dissolution, leverage – describe the meaning of what G.W.F. Hegel called sublation (Aufhebung). Ten patterns of societal transition presented in this paper try to fulfill this requirement.

Literature

Pattern 10: Germ Form

Last but not least, the most important pattern is the germ form or five-step-model (Holzkamp, 1983). It is a model to understand the concurrent existence of phenomena with different qualities. When discussing peer production the debate is often dominated by two groups: those who are in favor of peer production and who try to prove peer production is anti-capitalist and those who see peer production only as a modernization of capitalism. The challenge is to think it as both. The germ form model accomplishes this by viewing the emergence and development of commons-based peer production as a process of its own contradictory unfolding in time.

Normally applying the five-step-model is a retrospective procedure where the result of the analyzed development is well known. By mentally assuming the result of a transition towards a free society based on commons-based peer-production the emergence of this result can be reconstructed using the model. Here is a very rough sketch of the five steps applied to the case of peer production.

1. Germ form: A new function appears. In this phase the new function must not be understood as a rich germ or a seed enclosing all properties of the final entity which only has to grow. Rather in this phase the germ form shows only principles of the new, but it is not the new itself. Thus, commons-based peer production is not the new itself, but the qualitatively new aspect it shows is the need-oriented mediation between peers (based on Selbstentfaltung, see pattern 5). During this phase this is visible only on a local level.
2. Crisis: Only if the overall old system falls into a crisis can the germ form leave its niche. The capitalist way of societal production and mediation via commodities, markets, capital, and state has brought mankind into a deep crisis. It has entered a phase of successive degradation and exhaustion of historically accumulated system resources. The recurring financial crisis makes this obvious to everyone.
3. Function shift: The new function leaves its germ form status in the niche and gains relevance for the reproduction of the old system. The former germ form is now double-faced: On the one hand it can be used for the sake of the old system, on the other hand its own logic is and remains incompatible with the logic of the dominant old system. Peer production is usable for purposes of cost-saving and creating new environments for commercial activities, but it rests upon non-commodity development within its own activities (cf. pattern 3). Cooptation and absorption into normal commodity producing cycles are possible (De Angelis, 2007), and only if peer production is able to defend its own commons-based principles and abilities to create networks on this ground will the next step be reached. Free Software as one example of peer production quite clearly is at this stage.
4. Dominance shift: The new function becomes prevalent. The old function does not disappear immediately, but steps back as the previously dominant function to marginal domains. Commons-based peer production has reached a network density on a global level, so that input-output links are closed to self-contained loops. Separated private production with subsequent market mediation using money is no longer required. Need-based societal mediation organizes production and distribution. The entire system has now qualitatively changed its character.
5. Restructuring: The direction of development, the backbone structures, and the basic functional logics have changed. This process embraces more and more societal fields which refocus towards the new need-based mode of societal mediation. The state is stripped down, new institutions emerge, which no longer have a uniform State character, but are means of collective Selbstentfaltung (cf. pattern 5). New contradictions may come up, a new cycle of development may begin.

This is only an epistemological model, not a scheme for immediate action. The main advantage is the possibility to escape unfruitful either-or debates. It allows for thinking the emergence of a new mode of production being useful for the old system while maintaining its transcending function towards a free society as concurrent phenomena.

The germ form model adapted in the Oekonux context is a dialectical conceptualization of historical transition.

Literature

Pattern 9: Beyond Politics

Since commons-based peer production is mainly about constructing a new mode of production, it is basically a non-political movement. Here, politics is understood as addressing the state and its institutions to demand changes in some desired direction. Such politics are based on interests which in capitalism are generally positioned against each other. If a society is structured along inclusion-exclusion patterns (see pattern 7), then it is necessary to organize common but partial interests in order to realize them at the expense of the common partial interests of others. In this sense commons are beyond politics, because they basically do not operate in the realm of interests but of needs.

It is important to distinguish between needs and interests. Needs have to be organized in the form of interests, if the usual mode of realization is the exclusion of the interests of others. Commons on the other hand are based on the variety of needs of their participants, which act as a source of creativity. The mediation of these different needs is part of the process of peer production. Thus, it is not necessary that participants additionally organize their needs as interests and try to implement them politically. Instead, they achieve this directly.

One aspect which makes this clear is the question of hierarchies. Usually hierarchies are part of capitalist commodity production. Therefore, a common left topic was to reject any hierarchies to avoid domination. This ignores the fact that hierarchies as such do not generate domination, but rather the function hierarchies have in a given context. In a company hierarchies express different interests, for example the interests of workers and of the management (cf. pattern 5). However, in a peer production project a hierarchy may express different levels of expertise or different responsibilities, which are shared by those who accept someone in a leading position. Being a maintainer does not mean following different interests at the expense of project members. Such a project would not prosper. On the contrary, a maintainer is keen to integrate as many active and competent members as possible. This does not avoid conflicts, but conflicts are solved on the common base of the project’s goals.

Commons-based peer production does not require to articulate people’s needs in the form of opposing interests and thus is beyond politics.

Literature

Pattern 8: Beyond Socialism

Socialism, as defined by Karl Marx in the “Critique of the Gotha Programme” (Marx, 1875) is a commodity-producing society ruled by the working class. Historically this was realized by the so called “real existing Socialism”. There have been many critiques of real socialist countries (lacking democracy, etc.) from within the left. Nevertheless, a good part of the left shares the assumption that an interphase between a free society (which may be called communism) and capitalism is unavoidable. The general concept is that the working class holding the power can reconstruct the whole economy according to their interests which represent the majority of the society. In short: power comes first, then a new mode of production will follow, in order to build a really free society. This concept has failed historically.

The reason for this failure is not due to internal tactical differences and shortcomings. Instead it is due to the unrealistic concept of qualitative historical transformation. Never in history was the question of power placed first, it was always the new mode of production which emerged from the old way of producing which prepared the historical transition. Capitalism initially developed from craftsmanship in medieval towns, then integrated manufactures, finally leading to the system of big industry. The question of power was solved “on the way”. This does not diminish the role of revolutions, but revolutions only realize and enhance what was already developing. The revolutions of the Arab Spring do not create anything new, but try to realize the potentials of a normal democratic bourgeois society.

This analysis of historical developments (discussed in more detail in pattern 10) has to be applied to the current situation. Historical transition can not be realized by taking over political power – be it by parliament or by street actions – but by developing a new mode of production. The criteria for being “new” can be derived from the negation of the old mode of production: instead of commodities: commons production, instead of exchange and mediation by money: free distribution, instead of labor: Selbstentfaltung, instead of exclusion mechanisms: potential inclusion of all people. However, care needs to be taken since not all developments of capitalism are to be abolished. Rather some continue – though in a transcended form.

Commons-based peer production transcends capitalism as well as commodity-based socialism.

Literature

The workshop has been organized by the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung which is the foundation of the party “Die Linke” in Germany. “Die Linke” is the socialist party in Germany. As far as I understood the Keimform people co-organized this event.

The workshop has been attended by about 40 persons. At least 8 of them were on the Oekonux list at some point. It was very nice to meet all these people again — some of them I had not met since years.

Some other people came from the broader commons debate. Most of the remaining attendees I’d consider coming from the classical left which is of course what “Die Linke” is.

The topic of the workshop was: What does the concept of commons mean for the left in general and for “Die Linke” in particular.

Well, I’m not really into this commons debate but my impression is this: It is composed of two discourses which IMHO have nothing to do with each other. One of the discourses is the commons based peer production discourse which is put forward by people like StefanMz and ChristianS. I.e. the topic of the Oekonux list. The other discourse is a very classical left discourse with all the same old, same old questions and approaches. Here are some aspects which IMHO mark the boundary:

• Appropriation of means of production: Part of the left commons discourse seems to be the classical discussion about power relationships. As one example the power over means of production is discussed in the form that the means of production must be appropriated from the current owners. That reflects closely the classical discussion that the working class should be owner of the means of production. In the peer production discourse this question — which is of course an important one — is answered differently: Let’s build the means of production ourselves. This is a very different approach.
• Importance of environmental issues: In the left commons discourse environmental issues seem to play an important role. This is of course part of the more recent left standard program. In peer production I can’t see that environmental issues play any special role.
• Retrial of failed concepts: One of the interesting questions to the participants was: “How are you involved in the commons on a daily basis?” Of course I listed all the digital commons I’m using daily and producing for often enough. Many other at the table named classical approaches like people’s kitchens (Volksküche), organizations which are similar to cooperations (Genossenschaften) or gratis shops (Umsonstläden). If I add self-governed companies I guess many of those people would agree. Well, of course these things have been tried for decades. Many of them came up in the 1970-ies, some are as old as the workers’ movement. What seems to be clear to me is that after so many decades we know that these approaches may be a nice individual niche but they don’t have any practical relevance on a larger political scale. In peer production we don’t see these failed concepts at all.
• Classical oppression and equality: One person spelled out the classical oppression topics like gender or disablement. Race could be probably also added. This persons’s critique in the commons debate was that it doesn’t include this type of inequality — or rather that it doesn’t make inequality a topic. I tried to explain that inequality escpecially in needs and abilities is central to a peer production approach. What is a  project worth where all participants want the same and have the same abilities? Unfortunately this didn’t reach this person at all. I also tried to make clear that under Selbstentfaltung conditions the chance for equal chances for all are much better. But even this was refused by this person. In the end I have no idea what this person wanted — beyond: you need to do what I think is right. Or in other words: political correctness.
• Political correctness as a precondition: In another discussion a similar topic came up: People find it hard that in commons projects they have to accept people with a different political opinion. In other words: They would prefer that political correctness should be a precondition for becoming member of a commons project. Well, I saw many leftists who suggested Free Software licenses with political correctness built in. It never worked. In fact I think one of the key advantages of Free Software licenses is that they do not require political correctness on any side. Don’t let me be misunderstood: Of course there are rules in peer production projects. But these rules relate to the goals of the project and not to alienated goals like political correctness.
• Reference to crafts: In many cases there is rather a reference to (classical) crafts than to modern industry or automation. This certainly reflects the technology scepticism in the post 1970-ies left. Of course in peer production technology is welcomed and seen as a means to bring us forward.
• Ignorance of the new mode of production: People like StefanMz bring this topic up again and again: By peer production we talk of a new mode of production. Still it seems not to be heard. Or may be what this means is just not understood. Given that the mode of production is one of the main Marx terms this makes things worse, however. One hint to the latter is that this strong thesis is not even criticized!

Well, as I said I’m not really into the commons debate. But my impressions from Berlin strengthened my scepticism: There are two discourses where the classical left discourse in a nutshell is old wine in new bottles. I see that the visible peer production realms like Free Software and Wikipedia do inspire the classical left. But they don’t really understand what happens in front of their eyes. They prefer to do and think the same old, same old, instead. Like generations before them.

I thought about possible reasons for this. After all these people want to engage for a viable alternative — why do they spend their time with pointless activities then? May be the classical materialist saying that the being determines the concsiousness (Marx) applies here. Many of these people are not involved in the digital commons/peer production — probably most of them still even prefer M$. So they have no practical idea of what peer production may mean. Yet they don’t understand this concept. And look at Oekonux for another hint: Many of the most influential people are into both: Politics and technology including peer production.

An extreme variant of this ignorance of modern thoughts was the main topic of one talk. In the brand new party program of “Die Linke” the word “commons” does not appear at all and also the German translation “gemein…” does appear only once. This after some years of commons debate in the left. Although this is not really surprising IMHO it makes finally clear that “Die Linke” is not useful for a promising project. This is a pity IMHO.

The whole workshop reminded me of a picture which came up in the Oekonux debate long ago. There are two ways of dealing with the ever rising flood: Build dams to protect the existing or build ships to sail for new shores. The classical left discourse IMHO focuses on building dams. They want to protect what is. The peer production discourse is of course a ship builder approach.

I like this picture because it makes clear a couple of things. For instance that both approaches are needed. At the very least the ship builders can not build ships when there are no dams to protect them From the flood. But the most important difference this picture illustrates is this: For building dams you need a completely different set of abilities and tools than for building ships.

You even need different mind sets. Dam builders need to prefer strength, firmness, immobility and stability and are interested in the past and presense they want to protect. They fight against something. Ship builders need to prefer dynamic, agility and are interested in new horizons. The fight for something. In a way it is funny and sad at the same time that today those who think they are oh so progressive turn out to be so conservative…

I often compare our time with early capitalism. When I project the current commons discourse into this time I’d say that it is a discourse between the early capitalists and the rebel fraction of the nobility. While the first opposed monarchy the second only wanted a different king. How should this possibly work?

Well, as you may imagine there were very little to learn for me during this workshop beyond some impressions of the commons debate. However, one thought was new and after all this sceptical stuff I’d like to share it with you.

We talked about needs and an older woman from Austria told that she well remembers a time when it was simply clear that you get a job and there is sufficient social security and so on. A situation younger people usually have difficulties to even imagine. She said that life felt differently then and that even the needs were different. I think she is right. And it’s pretty obvious that you don’t need to care much about your social security if it is simply given and you can be sure that this is still the case in 20 years.

I know this effect from Free Software. I remember that in the 1980-ies I stored a copy of the Gnu Free Software onto a tape of my own although I didn’t need it. I wanted to own a copy so I’m sure I can use it if I want. Today I’d not even have this idea — because I know that Free Software is available and will be available tomorrow. And Wikipedia is available and will be available tomorrow.

In other words: these resources are part of the common infrastructure and it’s clear that they will stay. We discussed this a but further and suggested that insurance models like in health insurance or flat rate models may have a similar effect although on a paid-for basis.

Pattern 7: Beyond Exclusion

One of the most basic separations capitalism generates is the separation of those who are inside and those who are not. This inside/outside pattern is not a class separation (cf. pattern 6) and it is not only one big separation. It is a structural mechanism of inclusion and exclusion along all possible lines of society: job-owner vs. jobless, rich vs. poor, men vs. women, people of color vs. white people, bosses vs. subordinated, owners of means of production vs. non-owners, members of social security vs. non-members etc. It has to be recognized as a basic structural principle of capitalism: An inclusion of the one side implies an exclusion of the other side. For the individual this means that any personal progress is realized at the expense of others who stagnate or regress.

In general the commons are beyond the mechanism of exclusion. In Free Software, for example, the more active people join a project the faster and the better a goal can be achieved. Here, the relationship between people is not structured by inclusion-exclusion mechanisms, but by an inclusive reciprocity (Meretz 2012). The maintainer of a project tries to include as many active people as possible, strives for a creative atmosphere, and tries to solve conflicts in a way, that as many people as possible can follow the “rough consensus” and the “running code”.

If a consensus is not possible the best solution is then a fork: a risky but valid option to test different directions of development. If you look at existing forks (e.g. between KDE and GNOME), then many of them are working closely together or maintain an atmosphere of cooperation. Yes, there are other examples of fights against one another. But these non-productive forks are mainly due to alienated interests playing an important role. Oracle tried to implement a command and control regime after having bought OpenOffice as part of the Sun package. The fork to LibreOffice by many important developers was an act of self-defense and self-determination to maintain their environment of Selbstentfaltung. They don’t want to go back into the old “labor mode” of development (cf. pattern 5).

While capitalism is structurally based on exclusion mechanisms, commons-based peer production generally creates and advances inclusion.

Literature