This paper argues that liberal democratic politics in Australia is in a life-threatening crisis. Australia is on the verge of slipping into a techno-feudal (post-capitalist) and post-political (new Centrist) state of perpetual emergency. Citizens in Australia, be they of the Left or Right, must make an urgent attempt to wrest power from an increasingly non-political Centrism. Within this Centrism, government is deeply captured by the international corporate interests of Big Tech, Big Natural Resources, Big Media, and Big Pharma, as beholden to the economic necessities of the neoliberal world order (Big Finance). Australia now illustrates what the post-political ‘new normal’ of a high-tech enabled bio-security state actually looks like. It may even be that the liberal democratic state is now little more than a legal fiction in Australia. This did not happen over-night, but Australia has been sliding in this direction for the past three decades. The paper outlines that slide and shows how the final bump down (covid) has now positioned Australia as a world leader among post-political bio-security states.
Dr Paul Tysonis an interdisciplinary scholar working across sociology, theology and philosophy. He is an honorary senior fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland, Australia, and a member of mέta’s Advisory Board.
The Centre for Postcapitalist Civilisation, mέta, presents Michael Albert’s mέta Working Paper entitledPostcapitalist Allocation: Participatory Planning (accessible here), part of the “Towards (a Better) Postcapitalism: A Handy How-To Guide” series under “Allocation.”
mέta Working Papers’ series “Towards (a Better) Postcapitalism: A Handy How-To Guide” publishes solicited policy papers on aspects of how would a non-dystopian postcapitalism look like. The series focuses on three ‘pillars’:
Production | Allocation | Decision Making
i.e., how could/would postcapitalist production be like (and who would own the means of production), what shape would the allocation of goods take (and which alternatives to the market economy may be explored), and what would be the main tenets of postcapitalist decision making and democracy.
In this paper, Michael Albert addresses the second pillar, allocation, as participatory planning.
Michael Albert is a founder and current member of the staff of Z Magazine as well as staff of Z Magazine’s web system: ZCom. He is a member of mέta’s Advisory Board. Albert’s radicalization occurred during the 1960s. His political involvements, starting then and continuing to the present, have ranged from local, regional, and national organizing projects and campaigns to co-founding South End Press, Z Magazine, the Z Media Institute, and ZNet, and to working on all these projects, writing for various publications and publishers, giving public talks, etc. Albert is the author of 21 books. Most recently these include: No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World (Zero Books, 2021), Fanfare for the Future (ZBooks), Remembering Tomorrow (Seven Stories Press), Realizing Hope (Zed Press) and Parecon: Life After Capitalism (Verso).
The Centre for Postcapitalist Civilisation presents Professor Stephen R. Shalom’s mέta Working Paper entitledDecision-Making in a Good Society: The Case for Nested Councils (accessible here), part of the “Towards (a Better) Postcapitalism: A Handy How-To Guide” series under “Decision Making.”
mέta Working Papers’ series “Towards (a Better) Postcapitalism: A Handy How-To Guide” publishes solicited policy papers on aspects of how would a non-dystopian postcapitalism look like. The series focuses on three ‘pillars’:
Production | Allocation | Decision Making
i.e., how could/would postcapitalist production be like (and who would own the means of production), what shape would the allocation of goods take (and which alternatives to the market economy may be explored), and what would be the main tenets of postcapitalist decision making and democracy.
In this paper, Stephen R. Shalom addresses the third pillar: postcapitalist decision making.
Stephen R. Shalom is emeritus professor of Political Science at William Paterson University of New Jersey, USA. He is a member of the editorial board of New Politics, and a long-time activist in peace and justice movements. Among other works, he is the author of Which Side Are You On? An Introduction to Politics (Longman, 2003), “Parpolity: A Political System for a Good Society,” in Real Utopia: Participatory Society for the 21st Century, ed. Chris Spannos, AK Press, 2008) and editor of Socialist Visions (South End Press, 1983).
Effective appropriation of new technology has long been considered essential for innovation. Yet, the role of patents and other Intellectual Property tools has been questioned, both for rewarding innovators and serving societal needs. Simultaneously, there is ample empirical evidence of technological advance accelerating under conditions of loose appropriability, for example, when patents expire and cases of innovations based on shared technology and diverse motivations. This paper explores the case of the 3D printing technology, which appears to have found successful commercialization and dynamic market growth after key patents expired. We analyze the role of commons-based peer production practices in forging synergies among different factors and effectuating an alternative innovation pathway and the challenges and contradictions in the process. Finally, we critically assess recent developments of 3D printing technology and draw lessons for innovation policy by incorporating aspects of emerging commons-based innovation paradigms.
Keywords
property rights; innovation policy; 3D printing; peer production; digital commons; open innovation
Alex Pazaitis is a researcher at Tallinn University of Technology and a core member of the P2P Lab. He holds a PhD in Technology Governance and is leading parts of the COSMOLOCALISM and CENTRINNO projects. Alex has extensive experience in research and innovation projects and project management and has worked as a consultant for private and public organizations. His research interests include technology governance; innovation policy; digital commons; open cooperativism and distributed ledger technologies.
Chris Giotitsas is a Core Member of the P2P Lab. He has pursued a PhD at the School of Management, University of Leicester, UK, investigating free and open-source technologies and agricultural communities. His work combines theories about technology and social movements in order to explore alternative trajectories of technological development. Chris is currently a researcher at Tallinn University of Technology. He is also a member of the editorial collective for the Journal ephemera.
Leandros Savvides holds a PhD in Management, an MA in Social and Political Thought, and a combined Bachelor’s degree in International Politics and Sociology. He currently heads the Business Management program at Global College, Nicosia, having previously held teaching positions at the University of Leicester and the University of Roehampton (London). His research interests include technology and its place in contemporary work and society, alternative and resilient organizations/economies such as the circular economy, cultural and utopian studies, and digital economy.
Vasilis Kostakis is Professor of P2P Governance at Tallinn University of Technology, Faculty Associate at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center, and co-founder of the P2P Lab, as well as a member of mέta’s Advisory Board. In 2019, Vasilis was awarded a four-year grant from the European Research Council, to study the convergence of the digital commons with local manufacturing technologies. His work focuses on how to create a sustainable economy based on locally productive communities that are digitally interconnected. Vasilis has written essays for several outlets such as the Harvard Business Review and Aeon. His work has appeared in 16 languages.
The Centre for Postcapitalist Civilisation, mέta, presents Michael Albert’s mέta Working Paper entitledPostcapitalist Work: Balanced Jobs and Equitable Remuneration (accessible here), part of the “Towards (a Better) Postcapitalism: A Handy How-To Guide” series under “Decision Making.”
mέta Working Papers’ series “Towards (a Better) Postcapitalism: A Handy How-To Guide” publishes solicited policy papers on aspects of how would a non-dystopian postcapitalism look like. The series focuses on three ‘pillars’:
Production | Allocation | Decision Making
i.e., how could/would postcapitalist production be like (and who would own the means of production), what shape would the allocation of goods take (and which alternatives to the market economy may be explored), and what would be the main tenets of postcapitalist decision making and democracy.
In this paper, Michael Albert addresses the first pillar: postcapitalist production/work.
Michael Albert is a founder and current member of the staff of Z Magazine as well as staff of Z Magazine’s web system: ZCom. He is a member of mέta’s Advisory Board. Albert’s radicalization occurred during the 1960s. His political involvements, starting then and continuing to the present, have ranged from local, regional, and national organizing projects and campaigns to co-founding South End Press, Z Magazine, the Z Media Institute, and ZNet, and to working on all these projects, writing for various publications and publishers, giving public talks, etc. Albert is the author of 21 books. Most recently these include: No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World (Zero Books, 2021), Fanfare for the Future (ZBooks), Remembering Tomorrow (Seven Stories Press), Realizing Hope (Zed Press) and Parecon: Life After Capitalism (Verso).
It is most unlikely that adjusting to a 1.5 to 2 degree hotter world is possible within the prevailing political and economic norms of our times. In our post-capitalist times we need to modify modern technological market “liberalism” (which has become, actually, techno-feudalism). If we do not modify our present norms, the collapse of the natural means of power and privilege native to our present world order makes it almost inevitable that democratic liberalism will devolve further into a distinctly anti-liberal species of techno-tyranny. To avoid such a dystopian future, this paper explores how we might re-imagine our global politico-economic norms without embracing techno-tyranny. The argument put forward is that modern liberalism makes the means of personal wealth accumulation and private freedom, the end of public life. This confusion of means with ends implies, ironically, that if our means become unviable, we have no way of aiming at valuable human ends by different means. We have a culturally assumed faulty teleology in political economics and in our philosophy of technology. A revised form of Aristotle’s teleology is proposed whereby an understanding of common human flourishing defines human ends, and where a range of new means could then be pursued to achieve that end, respecting the natural limitations on means that are now upon us.
Dr Paul Tysonis an interdisciplinary scholar working across sociology, theology and philosophy. He is an honorary senior fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland, Australia, and a member of mέta’s Advisory Board.
The Centre for Postcapitalist Civilisation presents Michael Albert’s mέta Working Paper entitledPostcapitalist Decision Making (accessible here), part of the “Towards (a Better) Postcapitalism: A Handy How-To Guide” series under “Decision Making.”
mέta Working Papers’ series “Towards (a Better) Postcapitalism: A Handy How-To Guide” publishes solicited policy papers on aspects of how would a non-dystopian postcapitalism look like. The series focuses on three ‘pillars’:
Production | Allocation | Decision Making
i.e., how could/would postcapitalist production be like (and who would own the means of production), what shape would the allocation of goods take (and which alternatives to the market economy may be explored), and what would be the main tenets of postcapitalist decision making and democracy.
In this paper, Michael Albert addresses the third pillar: postcapitalist decision making.
Michael Albert is a founder and current member of the staff of Z Magazine as well as staff of Z Magazine’s web system: ZCom. He is a member of mέta’s Advisory Board. Albert’s radicalization occurred during the 1960s. His political involvements, starting then and continuing to the present, have ranged from local, regional, and national organizing projects and campaigns to co-founding South End Press, Z Magazine, the Z Media Institute, and ZNet, and to working on all these projects, writing for various publications and publishers, giving public talks, etc. Albert is the author of 21 books. Most recently these include:No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World (Zero Books, 2021), Fanfare for the Future (ZBooks), Remembering Tomorrow (Seven Stories Press), Realizing Hope (Zed Press) and Parecon: Life After Capitalism (Verso).
Cultural heritage was invented in the realm of nation-states, and from an early point it was considered a public asset, stewarded to narrate the historic deeds of the ancestors, on behalf of their descendants. Nowadays, as the neoliberal narrative would have it, it is for the benefit of these tax-paying citizens that privatisation logic on heritage sector have been increasing over recent decades, to cover their needs in the name of social responsibility and other truncated views of the welfare state.
This volume examines whether we can place cultural heritage at the other end of the spectrum, as a common good and potentially as a commons. It does so by looking at Greece as a case study, lately a battlefield of harsh and experimental austerity measures but also of inspiring grass-roots mobilisation and scholarship, currently blossoming to defend the right of communities to enjoy, collaboratively manage and co-create goods by the people, for the people.
Since cultural heritage -and culture in general- is hastily bundled up with other goods and services in various arguments for and against their public character, this volume invites several experts to discuss their views on their field of expertise and reflect on the overarching theme: Can cultural heritage be considered a commons? If so, what are the advantages and pitfalls concerning theory, practice and management of heritage? What can we learn from other public resources with a longer history in commons-based or market-oriented interpretation and governance? Can a commons approach allow us to imagine and start working towards a better, more inclusive and meaningful future for heritage?
Stelios Lekakis studied classical archaeology and heritage management at the University of Athens and the University College London. He is currently a researcher at Newcastle University (landscape archaeology, characterization, perception and management) and teaches cultural management at the Open University of Cyprus and political economy at the Hellenic Open University. He works with NGOs (a founding member of MONUMENTA) and university departments – in Greece and abroad – as a cultural heritage consultant, focusing on participatory management and cultural informatics projects. He has published extensively in various academic journals and edited volumes. He is also the creative director of the LTD company: Mazomos Landscape and Heritage Consultants BVBA.
Drawing on Milbank and Agamben, a politico-juridical anthropology matrix can be drawn describing the relations between ius and bios (justice and political life) on the one hand and dominium and zoe (private power and ‘bare life’) on the other hand. Mapping movements in the basic configurations of this matrix over the long sweep of Western cultural history enable us to see where we are currently situated in relation to the nexus between politico-juridical authority (sovereignty) and the emergency use of executive State powers in the context of biosecurity. The argument presented is that pre-19th century understandings of ius and bios presupposed transcendent categories of Justice and the Common Good that were not naturalistically defined. The very recent idea of a purely naturalistic naturalism has made distinctions between bios and zoe un-locatable and civic ius is now disappearing into a strangely ‘private’ total power (dominium) over the bodies of citizens, as exercised by the State. The very meaning of politico-juridical authority and the sovereignty of the State is undergoing radical change when viewed from a long perspective. This paper suggests that the ancient distinction between power and authority is becoming meaningless, and that this loss erodes the ideas of justice and political life in the Western tradition. Early modern capitalism still retained at least the theory of a Providential moral order, but since the late 19th century, morality has become fully naturalized and secularized, such that what moral categories Classical economics had have been radically instrumentalized since. In the postcapitalist neoliberal world order, no high horizon of just power –no spiritual conception of sovereignty– remains. The paper argues that the reduction of authority to power, which flows from the absence of any traditional conception of sovereignty, is happening with particular ease in Australia, and that in Australia it is only the Indigenous attempt to have their prior sovereignty –as a spiritual reality– recognized that is pushing back against the collapse of political authority into mere executive power.
Dr Paul Tysonis an interdisciplinary scholar working across sociology, theology and philosophy. He is an honorary senior fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland, Australia, and a member of mέta’s Advisory Board.
The Centre for Postcapitalist Civilisation presents Professor Robin Hahnel’s mέta Working Paper entitledParticipatory Planning (accessible here), part of the “Towards (a Better) Postcapitalism: A Handy How-To Guide” series under “Allocation.”
mέta Working Papers’ series “Towards (a Better) Postcapitalism: A Handy How-To Guide” publishes solicited policy papers on aspects of how would a non-dystopian postcapitalism look like. The series focuses on three ‘pillars’:
Production | Allocation | Decision-making
i.e., how could/would postcapitalist production be like (and who would own the means of production), what shape would the allocation of goods take (and which alternatives to the market economy may be explored), and what would be the main tenets of postcapitalist democracy.
In this paper, Professor Robin Hahnel addresses the second pillar, ‘allocation’, as participatory planning.
Robin Hahnel is a radical economist and political activist. He is Professor Emeritus at American University in Washington, D.C. where he taught in the Economics Department from 1976 – 2008. He is currently a visiting professor in economics at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, where he resides with his family. During the past fourteen years he taught as a Visiting Professor at Portland State University, Lewis and Clark College, and Willamette University in Oregon. His work in economic theory is informed by the work of Thorstein Veblen, John Maynard Keynes, Karl Polanyi, Pierro Straffa, Joan Robinson, and Amartya Sen among others. He is best known as co-creator, along with Michael Albert, of a radical alternative to capitalism known as participatory economics (or parecon for short). His more recent work is focused on economic justice and democracy, and the global financial and ecological crisis. Politically he considers himself a proud product of the New Left and is sympathetic to libertarian socialism. He has been active in many social movements and organizations over forty years, beginning with the Harvard and MIT SDS chapters and the Boston area anti-Vietnam war movement in the 1960s.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Advertisement".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Cookie
Duration
Description
__atuvc
This cookie is set by Addthis to make sure you see the updated count if you share a page and return to it before our share count cache is updated.
__atuvs
This cookie is set by Addthis to make sure you see the updated count if you share a page and return to it before our share count cache is updated.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Cookie
Duration
Description
uvc
The cookie is set by addthis.com to determine the usage of Addthis.com service.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Cookie
Duration
Description
loc
This cookie is set by Addthis. This is a geolocation cookie to understand where the users sharing the information are located.
