V. Kostakis & Y. Varoufakis: What Comes After Capitalism? // Μετά τον καπιταλισμό, τι; [EN subs]

Welcome. Welcome to an event by mέta, the Centre for Postcapitalist Civilsation entitled, "What comes after capitalism?" The commons, peer-to-peer (P2P), and new ways of production, ownership and governance As most of you may already know, the Centre for Postcapitalism Civilisation... starts with the following case. We are already living in a postcapitalism period... and the question is whether it will lead to a dystopian techno-feudalism... as described by Facebook's Mr Zuckerberg currently the "other mέta"...

We've talked about the dystopian version of postcapitalism that is already evolving. However, today, we are more than happy to talk about the exact opposite. About the much more optimistic version of postcapitalism that has already begun. We have some data of a totally different production situation...

and our special guest speaker will tell you much more about it. It's a situation that does not concern the distant future but the near present. The question is, during this "tug of war" between dystopian tendencies...

and optimistic and accessible alternatives, who is going to get the upper hand? We have two members of mέta's Advisory Board with us. The main speaker is Professor Vasilis Kostakis, whom we thank very much. Mr. Kostakis, in addition to being a member of mέta's Advisory Board... is Professor of P2P Governance at Tallinn University... and Faculty Associate at Harvard University.

He is also a member of P2P Lab and the rural makerspace "Tzoumakers"... in Tzoumerka, Epirus. He'll start with a presentation, that will fascinate you as much as it fascinated me. Afterwards, we'll continue with a discussion with Yanis Varoufakis... who in addition to being a member of mέta's Advisory Board...

is also Secretary of MeRA25 and Professor of Economic Theory at the University of Athens. I'm very pleased since we are talking about an eutopian, almost utopian, postcapitalism... instead of its dystopian version, to which we usually refer... to give the floor to Vasilis Kostakis. Vasilis, thank you very much! Thank you and I'm starting right away. So...

I think it's generally accepted that two of the main problems... we are facing today... are the ecological crisis and the unequal distribution of wealth. The question that brought us here is whether or not there are alternatives. I'd like to point out the two different plans for dealing with... these crucial problems, the ecological crisis and the unequal distribution of wealth.

Let's name them for the sake of discussion, Plan A and Plan B. Let's start with Plan A. Green capitalism or ecomodernism could be a way to solve... both the unequal distribution of wealth and the ecological crisis... by using new technologies, because our problem is that we haven't yet discovered...

the right technologies to deal with these two problems. And this means we will soon be living... East and West, North and South in such situations. The question of course is, if this thing is possible. My answer is, as you may have guessed, no. For at least two reasons, which I'll explain briefly.

The first reason as to why green capitalism or ecomodernism can't solve... these two main problems is because there are many hidden costs... which neither we nor those who support the idea take into account. This is the Copenhill in Copenhagen... a green building, a smart building which has many features.

And of course it's located in Denmark, one of the most iconic countries... perhaps the most iconic, when it comes to existing examples of green capitalism. So, what is this country doing? This country has achieved, pursuant to some economic indicators... as much energy as it produces or rather as much energy as it needs... to be produced within its borders.

Therefore, the country has energy autonomy... and produces it with renewable energy sources, such as these wind turbines. However, this indicator doesn't take into account the following. It works as I told you. What are our needs? That many.

Can the country cover them internally with renewable energy sources? Yes. Then this country is green. However, what this indicator doesn't take into account... is that wind turbines are built somewhere and when such a wind turbine is built...

it needs rare earths metals, minerals, cobalt, copper... which are produced elsewhere, extracted elsewhere, not in Denmark. Therefore, the indicator doesn't take this into account.

Namely, the carbon dioxide emissions, energy and material needed to build a wind turbine... to transport it from China to Denmark... and what happens to its disposal or recycling, which is probably not possible today. If we take into account all these costs, no country in the western world... where we have advanced capitalism, is not even close to being considered green. Εven if every country becomes like Denmark, even if we magically become like Denmark...

we wouldn't have solved the problem. And this indicator doesn't take into account quality issues such as... the type of work needed for the construction of a wind turbine or the sensors... that flood the first building I showed you, the Copenhill building. And of course for the disposal of all these high-tech products... the indicator doesn't take anything into account.

The second reason as to why we believe... that green capitalism and technology can't solve these problems on their own... is the paradox of efficiency. What is efficiency?

It's basically the ability to improve something, namely a technology... and produce something better or just as good at a lower cost. For example. The steam engines. The steam engines, as you know, were one of the key technologies... which led to the early industrial revolution. The steam engines were constantly improving, their efficiency was getting better.

And what does that mean? It means that in order to travel a kilometer... we would need less coal, less carbon. So one could argue that we would consume less carbon overall... because this technology is more efficient. Well, many years have passed and we have excellent and reliable empirical data... which tell us that coal consumption has increased perhaps exponentially.

The same applies to digitalisation. Businesses are now being digitalised, so we have less need for paper... and so less trees are being cut down... and at least we do something good for the environment, while saving costs. Again, we know that... the e-mail of an organisation, this comes from the US...

has increased paper consumption by an average of 40%, despite digitalisation. There are many reasons for this. One of the main reasons that links these two paradoxes is because... we have an economy that wants to continue its growth.

Can we do more? Let's do more. Can we travel more now that we have more efficient steam engines? Let's travel more. Let's produce more. I guess we believe that this is the way for a better life... and we'll somehow find the meaning of life, if that exists. And now I move on to Plan B, which I think is the main reason why I'm here today.

How could we solve these two issues in a more inclusive, democratic... and a truly sustainable way, not just for one country... but for the whole planet. Let's name this plan "Cosmolocalism".

It has many names, I'm simply here to communicate some examples... of a phenomenon we have recently chosen to call it "Cosmolocalism". I say again that it has many names, so let's move on. What does this phenomenon do? As you may know, there are two main... Well, this phenomenon overturns the two main principles...

two current conventional truths. The first that innovation is strictly a product of competition. Better competition, better innovation. And that innovation is a good thing in general. And the second that people are selfish beings, programmed to maximise their monetary profit. These are two truths that permeate many of the policies that define our lives.

We claim that this productive phenomenon overturns these two principles... or, if you will, enriches them. People want, among other things, to maximise their monetary profit... depending on the context and under certain conditions... but at the same time people want to collaborate, share and communicate. Sometimes innovation stems from competition, but most of the time...

it stems from the collaboration amongst people. Or sometimes from a bizarre coexistence of the aforementioned. That's open to debate. The first example of this phenomenon is the encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

An example, a case, which in 2001 when it first started... sounded a bit strange. I mean, if someone told me about the creation of an encyclopedia...

where anyone could contribute whatever they wanted... anyone would consume what they wanted, would read... and this production wouldn't be organised on the basis of profit maximisation... that would seem strange to me.

But it worked. And soon that brought the economic elimination of Encarta... the digital encyclopedia of Microsoft... as well as, after almost 270 years... the economic elimination of Britannica's printed publications. At the time that phenomenon was considered as the exception that confirms the rule.

As the years go by, we have more examples, a lot of exceptions. And when we have that many exceptions, we should find the rules and rewrite them! We have free software, open source software, which for example... a free software version today powers the 500 most powerful computers... the supercomputers.

All the supercomputers which are the backbone of the Internet and the world wide web... don't use a software that has been created in a traditional way. Namely, through a company with some specific contracts... with a strictly hierarchical structure and people who work together to create something. It has been created in a similar way to Wikipedia.

This is the situation with regard to the software. This phenomenon that we observe and study... has gradually shifted to hardware production, the secondary sector of production. I'll give you four examples and at the end there is a small twist. The first example comes from the world of prosthetics.

The amputees face a problem... because the majoriy of prosthetics are high-tech... they have sensors, microprocessors, cables and are quite sensitive. We have noticed that these people most of the time... don't use high-tech hands... but instead they use hooks...

and they will use the hand a few times as it's more expensive and wears out. So a group of people... of researchers from different parts of the world... in a similar way as Wikipedia was created... as Wikipedia entries are written, created designs and software for the prosthetic hand. This is what we call "digital commons". This knowledge is a common good.

So anyone with access to a low-cost 3D printer... like the ones behind us... can create a robotic hand locally and adapt it to their needs. The second example is that small-scale farmers also face problems because... big companies don't construct machines, machine tools for their own needs... but instead construct equipment for the large-scale farmers.

So, a farmers' collaborative from France, L'atelier Paysan... decided to construct their own machines... and the designs of these machines were made available on the Internet... as a digital common. The Wikipedia community produces knowledge and creates entries...

the free software communities creates software... the prosthetic hand community creates prosthetic hand designs... and L'atelier Paysan create designs for small-scale agricultural machinery... which can be adapted to your local needs. In the network of L’atelier Paysan, other groups, collaboratives... private farmers from different parts of the world...

such as the Farmhack network in the United States... have come to participate in the joint development of these digital commons. One such group is in Tzoumerka, where we conduct our action research. There, the Municipality granted us this building...

and we turned it into a makerspace similar to the one located behind you... but with few machines capable of digital construction... like 3D printers, laser cutters and so on, because needs are different. We have such things, but we also have the standard machines for cutting wood, iron. It's a process, which is not very different from other processes...

which take place in other similar communities around the world... which construct agricultural machinery. We conduct a discussion with regard to the needs with the participants. We search for the solutions online. The idea is not to rediscover, not to reinvent the wheel...

but to see what is out there that has been recorded, documented... and shared by other communities... as a digital common, to localise production... or rather to localise the construction. Because production is carried out both globally and locally...

hence the term "Cosmolocalism". So we have a localised construction, here for example... you can see the construction of the interior part of an oregano mill.

I mention the oregano mill as an example... because it won an award in a European design competition. And it's not that the award certifies something...

but at least it shows that our solution has some coherence and utility... in terms of design and operation. Later on, we can discuss about the various tools in more detail. So here we have the network of Tzoumakers... which is basically a confederation of small projects...

focusing on both the local and the global situation. They design globally, construct locally and an ecosystem is formed... which creates jobs, meaningful production and many more that we'll get to later. Another example are the small-scale wind turbines. I'll show you some photographs so you can have the whole picture.

We are in Nepal, in Mithila, a mountain village... which wanted to power an off-grid clinic. In a similar way, they discussed, they found solutions, free solutions... they spoke with groups that specialise in this type of renewable energy sources...

open and soft-scale renewable energy sources. A workshop was organised and the wind turbine was constructed... and this clinic has its own wind turbine, which can be maintained by the locals.

The last example is the first open source satellite in orbit. Once again, the same concept. Global design, knowledge, software, designs but localised construction. Now, what about the twist I promised you? Openbionics is the project with the prosthetics.

Tzoumakers is the project that participates in this network of agricultural machinery. New Guinea is the group that participated in the construction of the wind turbine... and other wind turbines in Nepal. And Libre Space Foundation is the foundation that built this satellite... which NASA sent into space.

All these projects are either from Greece... or Greek men and women participate in them. So, I'm talking about projects which are very familiar to us. There are many.

I chose to talk about projects which some of them are here. For example the Libre Space Foundation or New Guinea, which is located in Nea Makri. There are other similar projects, the WikiHouse from the United Kingdom... that builds houses, which have received the necessary certification...

for their construction from the competent bodies... both there and in the Netherlands. Or 3D printers with the same concept. Global knowledge design and localised construction. A 3D printer which in fact has created an economy... if not of billions, then millions, with regard to this open knowledge.

So, very briefly... This model has at its core, digital commons of knowledge design software... which meet requirements for localised construction, technologies from 3D printing... CnC machines, to the standard milling cutters, band saws and so on. These technologies are located in places, like here...

which are operated, if I'm not mistaken, by the Municipality... or places that are operated by communities, collaboratives and other projects. The names in the bibliography are Makerspace and Fab Lab. But let's call them small communal factories. And through these spaces...

Or Hackerspace... A localised construction is conducted, adapted to the needs of the people... and to the bioclimatic conditions that exist in each place. Now, how can this solve the ecological crisis? I'll mention four reasons. These reasons are not a "universal cure". We don't have enough empirical data to argue that those mentioned are absolutely valid.

If anything can be valid in the world we live in… But these are the tendencies, let me put it this way. Firstly, these communities create designs for their own benefit. L’atelier Paysan in France won't benefit from constructing a machine... that will break down after a while as they don't try to maximise their profits. They construct it for their own use and share it.

So it won't work for big companies like Apple... with the iPhones that either break or you can't change the battery... or there is no support for the software.

And if we are talking about agricultural production and all these smart machines... that are expected to determine agricultural production, you can imagine... how crucial it is if the technology is in the hands of the farmer...

or at least the local community. The second reason is production localisation. What does that mean? Less movement of materials. I think it's clear.

Sharing of means of production. Instead of everyone having a 3D printer in their garage... we have one machine that does a similar job in common spaces. So the weight, the burden... carried by Congo mines for example... could be significantly less...

if said means of production could be used more optimally. And the last reason... is the way that this productive phenomenon of "Cosmolocalism"... is managed by the various communities and production... and how it adapts to the culture of each place.

For example, L’atelier Paysan are a collaborative. The Farmhack, in the United States, are a network, not a collaborative. They are autonomous producers, they find common ways to communicate... and they have a common platform where they work together. The way in which each business and project is organised...

corresponds to the culture and the needs of the people... and the location of the production. There are many more things to discuss... but I'd like to conclude my introductory presentation.

There are several proposals for policy action and intervention... to strengthen this production model. But I'm going to stop now so that these issues arise...

through the discussion that will surely follow. Thank you. Expressing my gratitude, can you please switch to the original image...

as I am scared of Lego, I have a phobia since I was little! Thank you very much. Let me invite Yanis Varoufakis to the panel... and let's spread out a bit. It might be better there.

Should we just stand? Why not? Let's stand! Before we start with a brief summary, a question to Vasilis... Are there plans for an open source car? I'm just curious, and then I'll continue with the summary. -It's an old discussion. -I see.

In fact it was one of the first projects, it was bought, I can't remember from whom... but from a big automobile industry in Germany. And now a very brief summary before we move on to the discussion. Vasilis, thank you because you didn't present us a vision for the future... but an actual emerging and gushing reality...

where someone uses his working hours, his effort not for profit or as an employee... but to freely share a collectively produced effort... where opportunities emerge without big companies, without General Motors, LG... which mass produce for a fraction of the price... products that are so important for so many people.

Everything you described to us, and now I'd like to get Yanis Varoufakis' opinion… doesn't seem to be the classic definition of capitalism... where people fight for the profit and in the context of self-interest. Not that they carry out all this design and production... because they are some kind of moral saints... but because they expect to receive back from the community as well.

Yanis, what do you think? First of all we have to thank mέta... for these discussions as they don't happen so often. Let me personally thank Vasilis… and I'll repeat what Sotiris said, in my own words. Basically, you argued...

that in order for important things to happen... we don't need a capitalist production structure. The myth... that if we want to return to non-capitalism...

or to move on to postcapitalism, we have to go back to the jungle... and live on trees with bananas and oranges, that's the real myth. Great, complicated, globalised, technological things can be done...

without the capitalist organisation of production and distribution. This is the important message and I really liked... when you ended the lies from the other myth...

that in "poor" Greece nothing can be done if we don't buy it from Microsoft or Palantir. So, we all thank you for that and the examples you used that were also Greek... made it even more optimistic... they gave hope to this country, to this place. But I'm going to be the devil's advocate because that's why I'm here! I don't think you're going to disagree with what I say... but I think it's important.

During the capitalist growth... development and evolution, from the start of the 19th century onwards... there is this paradox. On the one hand, capitalism is destroying the commons. This is how capitalism began. With the destruction of the commons...

their privatisation, the expulsion of the peasants from the land... the privatisation of the land, the establishment of the proletariat... and then the privatisation and commodification of important values. They have now reached the point of commodifying asteroids as well. Markets already exist in Luxembourg...

where contracts are drawn up as to who owns the asteroid... even though we haven't reached it yet. Everything is commodified...

even the wombs of women as there is a market for surrogacy. That's capitalism. The continuous commodification of goods... and the destruction and privatisation of the commons. But where's the paradox? That along with this process, from the start the 19th century...

new commons were created. For example, in Britain where capitalism began... because the working class had no access to the banking system...

because they couldn't get loans, no one would grant them loans... no bank would open an account for them... they established their own collaborative banks. The so-called Building Societies, and what was their function? They functioned as a common fund for the workers... who deposited a few shillings per month... so that at some point they could take a loan and build something...

or use the money to buy a Christmas present for their children. That's how Building Societies started, and they ended up being so successful... that they stood in for the banks until the arrival of Margaret Thatcher... who did something truly unbelievable. Because she couldn't privatise them as they weren't state-owned...

she nationalised them in order to privatise them. The main example here being the Co-operative Bank of Britain... which was a result of this process. A proletarian bank which became successful... and lost its collaborative character. I believe that the most interesting example is the Internet.

The Internet started as a collaborative platform... in which crazy scientists, Universities... Ministries of Defense, and in particular the DOD of the US participated. The Internet started in a non-capitalistic way... it started as a digital world, like Wikipedia. When computers were first connected to each other, during the '70s...

in order to be able to communicate, a language was created... a protocol or several protocols. Those were the first "open" protocols, which means what? It means that they belonged to no one. Just like the Greek language which still doesn't belong to anyone... or the English language, no one can patent it and charge you for using it.

The same applies for Internet's open protocols. You may have noticed these small letters, POP, SMTP... HTTP, all the above are a common language. The people who created it didn't create it to make money...

they created it so that computers could communicate with one another. And on this collaboratively created infrastructure... the first Internet was created. Ergo the ability of communicating through computers, bits, SMTP...

the ability to download things from one another's website, HTTP... all this together with two very important languages... two very important common protocols, which were the following. The first one was GPS. GPS was created by the US Army, which intended to use it... and at some point they decided to make it an open protocol for everyone.

They could very well have given it to Microsoft. If they had done that, in order to find your destination, you would have to pay. It would be like Facebook...

or like Skype, which is something you use, and was later acquired by Microsoft. However, they didn't do it, and it ended up being a common protocol. The second one was Wi-Fi. I don't know if you know the story. Do you know it? -Yes. It was created in Australia by a State Research Organisation.

They tried to create something else, but Wi-Fi was the result... and they shared their protocol with the world. They could have sold it. They didn't. And that was the start of the Internet. Can I add a third one? The World Wide Web.

-Yes. Which was based on the above. -And on sharing with public funds. Exactly. Without these commons, Internet wouldn't exist. Not to mention digital technologies, Facebook and Google. They wouldn't exist.

However, I remember all this as I'm quite old! I remember the whole process and how to use it. I knew it! I'm sorry but I'm not trying to be clever. It was obvious why they were common goods. It was because the big companies had not yet realised...

how much money they could have made out of them. When they realised it, Microsoft was the first to try to appropriate it. And it succeeded to a large extent. In the end, this "dinosaur" failed to appropriate the Internet...

but other "dinosaurs" emerged. Like Google with its amazing search engine. Like Facebook and so on.

And now, a second Internet is being created which is based on the first. The first Internet that was created collaboratively, still exists today. It's the basis, the foundation. The second Internet that we all use now... is Google, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok. Where is it based? It's based on the fact that the pioneers failed to or simply didn't think...

to create an open protocol for communication... not between computers but between people. And I'm talking about secure communication... like for example when you show your student pass to get a discount at the movies... similarly you could be able to prove your identity on the Internet.

That was not a part of the first collaborative Internet. This is the basis of Zuckerberg's creation... and let's not forget the "theft" of our name and the term Metaverse! But this is not something new, the same happened in the 19th century. There were collaborative communities... like for example the Building Societies and the Co-operative Bank.

Robert Owen was a visionary, utopian socialist of the 19th century... who created entire communities... and Vasilis already mentioned the communities in Tzoumerka... and I'm not referring to communities... where 10-20 people sit around a table and exchange views... I'm referring to communities of five or ten thousand people...

who bought the land and worked as a Commune... without a market, without prices, without a hierarchy. And very successful ones in the 19th century in Britain and elsewhere.

Some of these communities can be found in the United States and Australia. All of them, either collapsed... or were privatised when they became a success. In other words, we know...

and we mentioned some examples of how this is done. We know that the collaborative platform is more effective, more eco-friendly... and more humane than the capitalist platform.

Unfortunately, we also know after 250-300 years of history... that capitalism is like cancer. It will not leave unharmed any healthy "collaborative" cells... in the event that the latter became a success. Like Linux. The graph you saw was incredible.

The fact that all supercomputers use a collaborative programme. So what; Linux is used and these computers are also used and now Jeff Bezos... has the largest computer network for data storage... which is owned by a single individual... and as a result he can bleed dry the rest of society. So, we are not going to see...

an evolution of these collaborative platforms... which will push the capitalist system into a corner. We'll see the exact opposite. The only way in order for the modern collaborative platform... not to end up like Robert Owen's platform in the 19th century...

is through the policy action of political parties and political movements... which using the knowledge that collaborative platforms... can work and be more effective than the capitalist ones... should relentlessly clash with the political, legal, economic... financial manifestation of this "carcinoma", which is private property... capitalist property or as I like to call it "techno-feudal" property.

And for me, as a final conclusion... the contribution of Vasilis' presentation and other similar presentations... is that it strengthens our spirit giving us the conviction... that the choice is not between returning to the jungle... or to a primitive form of production...

or having a technologically advanced society which, however, will be capitalistic. No, we can abolish, transcend capitalism... and still have the best technology that can exist.

And to put it differently, capitalism, private property... neo-feudalism of Zuckerberg, of Bezos, of Google and others... actually holds us back technologically, because there is this worldwide belief...

that capitalism strengthens technology and boosts our technological capability. No, capitalism "buys" such initiatives and shuts them down. Either shuts them down or places them in the service of misanthropism. Thank you. Before I pose a question, does the defense attorney...

wish to say something following the devil's advocate? I want to make things even worse so I can make them better later! So, just a few remarks. It's basically just like Yanis said, Internet's first and second generation. For the second one, the generation of Facebook and Google... it's not just that they used as a basis...

the first collaborative Internet that was created... it's also that a big part of these projects... is based on software that is created now... and the major financiers of free software today... are Google and Microsoft. Even though, Microsoft argued in the '90s...

that any free software is a "carcinoma"... today Microsoft is the second or third largest financier. So the situation is even worse now.

And of course a big part of the free software... is created by people employed by these companies. Because the state stood idle or did very little. Because there was an absence of political institutions. What's the use of the welfare state, if not to support this type of production? To have a capitalist production model and then redistribute value... like Sweden or Finland does.

And at the same time try to do something different. Help people gain access to the means of production and introduce new legal tools. Because if during Owen's time they had to create collaborations...

for not only agricultural production or buildings... but also for technology design... and they had to deal with digital production... they wouldn't have the legal tools available today... such as, for example, the general public use license...

which basically says the following. Are you a big company? Do you want to use this software? Use it, but anything created with this software... must be left "open" so everyone can use it. But of course there are loopholes and states don't offer adequate support.

Maybe a company will use a software... but neglect to adhere to this legal license... and create a new "closed" software... and you are forced to take legal action. How will this be resolved?

We lack in terms of empowerment. So, yes, I agree, maybe the situation is even worse. I guess Yanis already knows, he just didn't mention it... and I think it's interesting to talk about how we can... with real policy actions...

with state or local government support... to strengthen this new production model. Please allow me to ask you both a question. You desribed a revolution which already bears fruit in the making...

and undermines, apart from the positive things it provides... some of the statutory elements of what we define as capitalism. There's a question as old as war itself. Can there be communism in a country? Yes, but it would be better if you lived elsewhere! With regard to the question if postcapitalism can exist in a country... let's say that somehow the governance of that state... consists of people who sincerely embrace these ideas.

What would the three or five things... -Sotiris, I'm afraid we can't... continue this discussion because it's anti-historical. We can't discuss what would happen if the state imposed... the legal framework that Vasilis mentioned... because the state is designed to prevent such a legal framework from being imposed. So, I don't think any state would say, "Vasilis, you are absolutely right...

if Microsoft or Cisco uses a software evolved through open protocols... they must make it available to the public". There is no such state. Such a state must be created by overthrowing the existing state.

Could we describe, in Greece for example... the initiatives that should be taken by the legislative and executive branch? No, it's not that interesting. It's like trying to describe the existence of socialism in Greece.

Sure, we can talk about it, but I think it's beside the point. The Greek government will never attempt to change the legal framework. To begin with, it's not something that the Greek government can do. They will lose the case if the other party appeals to the European Court of Justice.

Hence the question of postcapitalism in a country! I'd like to give an example as I'm from Ioannina... where we are currently facing a "fight", if I may call it that. It's a "fight" against the local and regional government... who wants to build a high-tech park on 40 acres of land...

and the funding of 25 million euros will come from the Recovery Fund. Why? Because a German company created 50 new jobs in the region... and the Regional Governor decided to build an all-inclusive hotel for them... that's essentially what the park is for, and maybe other companies will do the same.

By the way, the Metropolitan Bishop invited this company! So, because we study these technology parks... and especially the high-tech parks in Silicon Valley and Singapore... and we know their problems, we brought the matter to the local press... we held a four-month public consultation... we contacted local bodies, ranging from anarchist and autonomist ones... up to the Chamber of Commerce and everything in between...

including local companies, namely small tech-companies with 10-15 employees... and we came up with eight specific suggestions. Do you want to build a high-tech park so these companies can work there? Build it, but on the other hand, you must also make sure to construct... a collaborative co-working space... where people are able to work and promote open technologies.

How? Let's say you're a Social Cooperative Enterprise that creates open technology. A technology that is governed by a specific license. We'll grant you rental priviliges. You'll get a discount. And that's only one of our suggestions... This alone could create a political subject in our region...

and through processes and developments have a real effect... It's a valid effort, but my question is this. Let's assume that you achieve something similar to Singapore... where they have a tech park and anyone with a start-up company...

pays no rent, has free accounting services and internet. Is that correct? -Yes. The problem, however, is that when the mega-company comes... even if its scope of business is irrelevant to scope of the collaborative company...

and wants to use a technology that the collaborative company created. Then the mega-company will buy the other company... and it takes tremendous heroism on the part of these youths... who have developed this technology so as not to sell it...

and avoid privatisation of what was previously open. I agree, but until it was privatised, it was open... and it's not privatised retrospectively because this is what happened with 3D printing. The basic patent of 3D printing expired in 2005. It was registered in 1989 and it expired in 2005. Why didn't we talk about 3D printing before 2005? Because it was patented and it wasn't open to global innovation.

The first projects were open. The initial knowledge created on the formerly patented, now free technology... was protected and is still protected to some extent... under these legal licenses that keep knowledge open. Currently there are companies that use the patent of 3D printing...

and whatever they create remains open. They can't close it. They were told that if they wanted it they would have to keep it open. Some companies respected that, some didn't. Those that didn't respect it suffered significant financial loss. The companies which kept the open character hold the majority of profits.

I mean, something was gained. I'm not saying we won the case, we're far from it. But for as long as the technology remained open... and there are some parts of 3D printing which are still open...

helped democratise this technological development. -To an infinitesimal degree. -I can't say for certain... -Let's get back to Linux's example. -Yes, okay. Even where the patent has been kept open...

its final use is for the over-concentration of funds of the very few. I completely agree. No argument there. I'm just saying that at least we have taken a step... so we can have access to that knowledge. I don't know what we can do with it afterwards... but at least we have gained that.

Listen, every victory is important... and the struggle must be continuous. However, if things don't change through subversions... social upheavals and clashes...

if production relations and property status never change... if we can't change the fact that some company... owned by another company, owned by another company... owned by another company, owned by whoever... comes and takes it and closes it, if we can't change that...

there is no chance of real democratisation... of either economic activity or knowledge. But I'm claiming that it can't be closed pursuant to some legal licenses.

In several cases, companies failed to close the software. Once Pandora's box has been opened... What has Facebook failed to close? Facebook has managed to close everything, IBM failed to do the same. But you know that the capacity of IBM is infinitesimal compared to Facebook... in terms of power and ability to accumulate political power and capital. -Google also failed to close everything. -Yes, but Google represents another model...

which essentially turns you into a product. I agree, but it's interesting that these mega-companies in their attempt... to exploit this peer-to-peer dynamic... and the ability to generate value...

took a step and tried to control it aiming to over-concentrate profits... but they left willingly or unwillingly some small cracks... which we might be able to utilise through our creative struggles... productive projects and political pressure... and possibly make them even bigger. -Exactly. -Do you mind if I ask a question?

Despite the fact that all of these possibilities exist... we are not yet familiar with the fact that a product, a car... a wind turbine doesn't need to be bought from a for-profit company. Nevertheless, on the digital and intangible level... it's amazing to see how many people use Wikipedia or LibreOffice. This leap into the tangible world...

the understanding that we're not talking about Wikipedia or LibreOffice... but for an agricultural machine, a car, a wind turbine, how will it work? Because the majority here, and that's why we came to hear this talk... are unaware that these possibilities exist now, and not in the distant future. How are we going to take this leap into the tangible world? First of all, with the first part of my presentation I wanted to show...

that the intangible part is not really intangible, it's tangible. The software is stored at a data centre, energy is used for its operation... the Internet is not something intangible, it's cables that run across the ocean. So, it's actually very tangible, but anyway, for the sake of discussion...

let's name the first "digital' and the second "not so digital"... although in order for a wind turbine to work we have to produce something digital... the blueprints, the software and so on. I won't tell you how it could be done, I'll tell you how it's done. I'll explain how we try to do it at Tzoumerka.

We received funds from the European Union to conduct research... and we tried to set up a place at the Municipality of North Tzoumerka. A place where local people can come... and because funds are limited we decided to focus on agricultural production... and they will say, "I'm facing this problem, can you solve it?" And we search online for any open solutions.

So, there is this public place, although we wanted it to be municipal... or the locals could form a cooperative and take ownership of the place. When funding ends in two years... we have to decide what to do with the place and all the equipment there. It could remain a public infrastructure where engineers would work... or people involved in business consulting and you could go there and say...

"I produce honey. I want a smart honeycomb. Can we create it here?" Whereas you would pay twenty times the market price. Exactly what happened with the oregano mill.

A couple of producers came to us and said, "An oregano mill costs ten thousand euros". "Can we make one with three thousand that has exactly the same function?" And we made it. We then send it to Crete in order to fix some minor issues... and we feel confident that when it's ready... we'll set up 3-4 of them in the abandoned schools of the Municipality... and the locals can take the keys from the Mayor in order to have access. Okay, I know that sounds a bit bucolic, but it's already happening.

-You're talking about shared use. -Yes. In France, L' Atelier Paysan have their own vans. If you're a member of the cooperative and something gets broken... and that something is open and created by L' Atelier Paysan...

they come with their vans and fix it or set up an on-site workshop. A large part of the construction process is localised... through such public infrastructure. That is very important... because it also creates community and social ties in local communities... and introduces the concept of the neighborhood, of the village...

as not just a social group sitting idle in a cafe... but as communities where solidarity is not just about the well-being of the neighbor... but also about the production of products... which aren't necessarily purchased from the market. On the other hand, again as the devil's advocate. Even if the software is open, which it won't be...

even if the software used in the production of a car is open... the economies of scale in the production of a car are huge... because let's not forget that it's not the software that makes a car competitive...

it's the battery. The battery is now what the internal combustion engine once was... and it needs not only the design... but also the large scale of production to be produced in a competitive way...

so that it's not expensive, and of course it needs the proper certification. I guess it's easy to get a certification for the oregano mill... but in order to make a car it's obvious that the level of certification must be higher. The same applies for prosthetic robotic arms. And let's not forget that all certification companies are private... and that the situation is similar to that of the banking system.

The people who own the banks... also own the credit rating agencies of banks. -Is a P2P certification possible? -No, it's not legal. You can't get a P2P certification for a car or a water heater. -It's not legal today. -And I wouldn't want it that way.

I wouldn't want to certify your car and you to certify my water heater. We would be living in a very dangerous society! First of all, technologies must be categorised. There is some high-tech equipment... like the robotic prosthetic arm which can't obtain a P2P certification by whomever.

-I won't certify it! -There are such models. Such certification models or protocols are being developed... in the context of peer review but with specialised individuals. There is no doubt that a collaborative certification can take place.

The state must assign... -Yes, that's what I was saying. Like the state assigns to the peer review process of the universities... to decide whether or not you'll become an associate professor... the same should apply for the certification. But this needs to be decided by the state and passed by parliament...

it requires a revolution. It's not a matter of deciding to do it differently. I believe the majority here is in favor of that alternative! I don't think so. That's just anarchistic nonsense! I think the question was not about the technical requirements... but on a political level and the answer was based on that... With the necessary changes and fail-safes. However, Sotiris, this is not something that can be decided by a community.

It needs a political revolution. And you know why? It's not right to imply that things can be done easily and voluntaristically. Voluntarism is the worst enemy of true change. Any famous last words before you answer three brief questions? I just wanted to say that Rome wasn't build in a day... therefore we can't have all the answers at once. Let's start from where we can and build on that...

until we gain something even if we end up losing it. At least we'll go down fighting... and we'll have left a legacy to those who will follow. I couldn't agree more. The fight must be systematic and on a daily basis... and all these communities must be supported by all of us.

However, the devil's advocate argues that this is not enough. Vasilis' work is necessary but not capable of changing things. So, three brief questions followed by three brief answers. And we tend to favor questions asked by our female audience.

Hello, I'd like to ask about the fourth example of your presentation... with regard to the open source satellite. Where is the creation team located? The team started from hackerspace.gr which is an open cultural center in Athens. I can't recall the exact area as I'm not from here. -So a university is not involved? -At least not in the beginning.

I can't say for sure as I've lost track of the situation in the last year. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Vasilis, the whole presentation was very interesting.

My sense, and I'd like a further analysis on that... is that the future of 3D printing is of central importance... in conjunction with its remain in a democratic and open context... as to the evolution mentioned by Vasilis, I mean it seems to be the key to that... if I'm not mistaken. I think it's very important... and in conjunction with the fact that in order to have a positive outcome...

we need to have active movements and resist on a political level. I think that those two are the key to success... and I feel optimistic for the first time in a long time... although Yanis lowered expectations somewhat! So, I'd like to find a couple of things...

so that we can leave here with a sense of hope which is very important... otherwise what's the point? Good evening. Hello, Vasilis. It happens that I'm also from Ioannina. Your presentation was a real challenge. And my question is this.

The programme you're implementing is fantastic... and I'd like to know what happens next... because you mentioned that funding through the NSRF is running out.

So what will happen next in Ioannina? When the programme and the funding ends... what actions have been taken for its continuation? Because Tzoumerka is a growing region... and your programme is vital to Epirus... I'd like to know how this could proceed... and how other communities can use it as an example. So we can avoid the redistribution of wealth to other productions...

and the farmers and the community can take matters into their own hands. I don't know how much the local community is involved... -Okay, thank you. -Thank you. -Funding isn't through the NSRF, right? -No, it's not. I'd like to clarify that, we're not talking about the NSRF...

because in that case, the Greek state chooses its recipients... we're talking about academic, research funding, not for the NSRF. Should we proceed with the answers? -Yes.

Can we ask a few more questions? I have to leave in exactly three minutes. I'm sorry, but I have another event as I was double-booked for today. -But we can keep going. -That's fine by me.

So, would you care to comment on the questions? I'd like to answer to Danae's witty remark! It's a family feud! The evolution of open protocols, open processes and open technology... has been my psychological support for decades. And seeing these projects in Greece which I didn't know...

makes me feel even better. However, hope... must not be sacrificed on the altar of folly. We must not believe that technology alone can liberate a society...

which is held captive by social forms of ownership... which in turn kill technology and these communities... and that's why I mentioned Robert Owen and the 19th century experience.

If we want to help these communities, we must choose to be confrontational... and face up to the policies that try to stifle them. If we just feel optimistic today listening to Vasilis and we go home... thinking that the technology is evolving collaboratively in communities...

which through their collaborative process will put an end to capitalism... then we're despicable! That was a bit harsh, I apologise. No, by all means. I also emphasised this in the first part... it's not a technological issue, it's mostly political.

Agreeing with both of you, I'd like to say that the more you eat, the hungrier you get. Seeing small wonders that appear and take shape despite adverse conditions. Of course we need more profound... -No, because if we're just satisfied... with the nice things that are happening and we go home to watch television...

and neglect to do something about it because already something is happening... then we're part of the problem. We won't move forward if we rely on open technology...

we will move forward when we decide that for this community to triumph... we have an obligation to clash. Well, I'm ready to move forward! Yanis, we would like to thank you and we'll continue our discussion. Please wait for the microphone. -Can I answer the first three questions? -Yes. Are the previous ones pending? -Two of them. -Yes, of course.

Start please and I'll be right back. 3D printing is indeed an interesting topic... but as a tool, 3D printing represents for the construction sector... pretty much the same as the microwave represents for an average cook.

Not something so amazing. However, it's amazing to see... the evolution of 3D printing in recent years. And that was due to the expiry of the patent.

This is the most interesting thing. 3D printing may or may not be useful depending on what you produce. Also, 3D printing is considered high-tech...

and utilises many rare ores... like cobalt and copper and that exercises great pressure to Africa... and in particular to the Congo where these ores are extracted. So we're not talking about a "universal cure"... but for a situation of proper use in collaborative spaces...

where we don't follow the American model which was promoted by Silicon Valley... "turn your garage into a factory and everyone will become makers". This can alleviate environmental pressure...

as long as the use of this technology remains complementary. With regard to the active movements, I completely agree. One of our goals is to encourage those involved in technology to talk about policies...

because previous studies have shown us how non-politicised these people are... at least a large percentage of them. We want people from movements and people who collaborate... to come together and talk about technology and policies. So, if you're young and you're creating something...

you don't have to be funded by a venture capitalist in order to create a startup... you can form a cooperative. Also, universities must stop promoting only one model, there is an alternative. Now, with regard to what comes next. Firstly, our project was focused on research...

and it doesn't intend to radically change the world around us. We won't construct 500 machines every year... because our purpose is to determine what the basic practices are... so that such spaces can be constructed elsewhere if needed. And to show that it works, it can be done...

but we're not there for the farmers' daily operations. We organise some workshops, we show the environmental dynamics... the ecological dynamics of this method of construction... we see how people can work together and design things, it's a whole process. We listen to them, discuss their designs, combine their needs...

and see how an expert talks to a non-expert in order to construct something. We talk to farmers about what happens next... we have created a community there... so in terms of how this community is governed...

the principles are co-decided by the participants... and not by us who are funded for research purposes. During our last meeting this summer we decided that there are two ways. The first way is for farmers and locals to form a cooperative...

and we'll leave the machinery as a donation to them... and we'll become honorary members of the cooperative. The second way is to let the Municipality take over. Now there seems to be a third way and we discussed it earlier with Yanis...

with regard to the region of Epirus which wants to build a technology park. It's a pity to waste so much money when there are so many projects available. Tzoumakers are just one of them... You can tell us the website so we can get more information.

-Which website? -Yours. Is it opentechpark.org or .gr? It's opentechpark.org. It's a platform that hosts a 4-month discussion... with regard to the type of technology park we want. It's a discussion that concerns not only Central Macedonia but also Attica... as it's funded by the Recovery Fund and the goal is to build two similar parks...

high-tech parks, and that means a specific model of technological development... and specific business models. So, our question to the Regional Governor is, what about other projects? Which you mentioned are open technology projects. What's the difference between high-tech and open technology projects? High-tech, for example, is a prosthetic robotic hand with wires inside.

I can't remember the exact Greek terminology... so wires and many microcircuits, okay? These fail easily. Soft-tech would be a prosthetic robotic hand that wouldn't have these circuits. The one I showed you earlier is something in between, it's what we call mid-tech. For the prosthetic robotic hand I showed you...

the team that made it has invented a hydraulic system... and when you put your hand here, the hand doesn't automatically close. Most hands can't hold all the glasses, this particular can. Why? Because they have built a system where each finger has a button... and it's important for you to realise their design approach... which is not to maximize financial gain, but to solve people's problems.

There is a button which is hydraulic, namely it doesn't have a circuit. You move your finger like this, you press the button and so you can hold any glass. Where is the power source? It has a system that rests on the other shoulder... and you create motion with the shoulder to operate the hand. This is a amazing concept that dramatically reduces the production cost of the hand.

The first hand can cost 20.000 and the second 250-300 dollars. It has the same dynamics and the same grasping capabilities. It can be manufactured locally and it's mid-tech...

it's part soft-tech, I already explained why... but its manufacture requires a 3D printer which is high-tech... so when you have an open technology... you can take advantage of high-tech's good features... and soft-tech's good features and create something that meets your needs.

It's very important to talk about a different technology development... which won't nec

2022-01-29 11:58

Other news