Self-righteous, wealth-resenting burners running amok

[kiboy]

Hell, I'd rather ban vigilantes and people who engage in public shaming and bullying on the internet than people who spend a lot of money on their camp or their burn.

Hell, me too !!!! As long as it's me deciding who the victim and who the villain is.

How about shaming people who MAKE alot of money on our burn?

Like who? United Site Services? I like to have the porta-potties cleaned up and emptied, personally. CostCo, because so many Burners buy supplies there? Kodiak, from whom I purchased a $650 tent this year?

What I hear is a lot of outrage, but not a lot of clarity over what exactly. Don't like people making money off the Burn? Ok. Define what "making money off the Burn" means so we can have a real discussion about it? Clearly there is not a single person at BM who can say "Nobody made money off me at BM" so it can't be about whether someone is making money off you or not.

I agree with the OP that a lot of this just seems like wealth resentment. Nobody complained when the plug n' play camps didn't aim at wealthy people (see Green Tortoise). It's only once they started providing camps out of the reach of most of us that the outrage started.

OK I didn't realize the tortoise did plug and play. Did they wall off their encampment? Discourage entry by non paying burners? It's things like that, that matter to me rather than cost. I just can't believe most people here care if someone is rich or not. Maybe I'm wrong.

[kiboy]

I have a problem when someone is telling someone else how they should act at Burning Man. And that looks like what the PnP camps are doing. Bringing in ticketed employees that are made to implement a camp-wide interaction policy rather than burning their own burn.

That's one I hadn't thought of. I agree.

And I'm going to admit that I don't like the idea of non participants taking tickets away from people dying to be there. Like me!

[5280MeV]

Really this is about vending, plain and simple. It is a very interesting loophole that certainly meets the letter of the BLM regulations to vend at Burning Man by insisting that all monetary exchanges take place before the event. That is what occurs. I can go to a commercial festival and buy a fancy drink or a yoga lesson. I can buy one at Burning Man, I just need to negotiate and pay for it in advance.

Which is ... about the same with everything you buy prior to the event? Or is the distinction drawn here that a service is rendered, rather than a product purchased?

It isn't so much a distinction of products versus services. I could buy a new car, rent a car, or have my radiator fixed and the end result is as you say - the decommodification happens in BRC. When I am in BRC (or any regional burn), I am generally not in social contact with anyone who I have commercial ties to. If I want to interact with anyone or share anything, none of it is mediated by buying or selling anything. Nothing can be bought or sold - i.e. commodified. Granted, there are exceptions, like the people cleaning the porta potties or some of the paid key event staff, but for general day to day stuff, all transactions have been completed, or at least (in the case of a rental car) the commercial relationship is not with anyone I am going to interact with.

When I have a team of cooks preparing my meals specifically because I previously paid them, I consider that relationship to be mediated by a financial transaction, and the fact that I pay them before or after the event doesn't really change how we interact.

It is actually a lot like chartering a yacht. I pay a bunch of people to give me a great experience relaxing and sailing around. They smile and put up with my behavior and demands within some reasonable bounds. I don't have to really do anything to take care of myself. They get a nice tip at the end, and everyone is happy.

There is nothing wrong with doing this - I take vacations where I don't have to do shit but relax and eat - and it is healthy and refreshing. I don't really consider it to be "decommodified" in any sense, nor is it really any sort of exercise of "self-reliance" (maybe self-sufficiency is a better word, I don't think we really have Emerson in mind here).

Maybe it is fine to have people out on K street performing the equivalent of chartering a yacht, but I don't see how this qualifies them to lead the Burning Man Project and educate the world on some ill-defined ideology of self-reliance and decommodification.


---------------------------------------------------------------


The decommodification principle reads, "We stand ready to protect our culture from such exploitation." So of course, people see a whole theme camp being rented out. Suddenly an awesome theme camp is something that you can buy or rent. As is an art car, etc, etc…

The theme camp is transformed into something that can be purchased, which is commodification by definition. So people now voicing disapproval, which should be expected because -

YOU TOLD THEM TO GET UPSET ABOUT "SUCH EXPLOITATION"


If BBadger's rant should be directed towards anyone, it should be directed towards the board of directors, who wrote down principles saying that people needed to protect the culture from commodification - i.e. buying and renting things like theme camps.


---------------------------------------------------------------


You just can't have for-profit theme camps and art cars out there for rent, and then hold decommodification as a principle. It doesn't make any sense. Pick one or the other and be done with it.

[lucky420]

[quote="

Hell, I'd rather ban vigilantes and people who engage in public shaming and bullying on the internet than people who spend a lot of money on their camp or their burn.[/quote]

Can we ban the cretins and keep the heathens. Heathens are so much fun, cretins not so much

[FIGJAM]

"We stand ready to protect our culture from such exploitation."

It just says stand ready, not actually leap into action.

[maladroit]

Damn, 5280MeV.

It's been a painful process but this is really starting to crystallize into a point.

[Lonesomebri]

Hell, I'd rather ban vigilantes and people who engage in public shaming and bullying on the internet than people who spend a lot of money on their camp or their burn.

Hell, me too !!!! As long as it's me deciding who the victim and who the villain is.
How about shaming people who MAKE alot of money on our burn?

Like who? United Site Services? I like to have the porta-potties cleaned up and emptied, personally. CostCo, because so many Burners buy supplies there? Kodiak, from whom I purchased a $650 tent this year?

Well of course that is who I meant, I can see how you would honestly think so, such confusion for you, this being an honest discussion and all. Cleaning porta-potties for a living versus running a for profit Plug and Play designed to fool the rubes, same diff. One is cleaning up the shit on the playa, the other is spreading it, I can see how intelligent and honest people would see it the same. Once more, why is it so important to this debate of allowing for-profit companies to make decisions about how Burning Man is run, for some people to make up hypothetical or factious or exaggerated or willfully miss-characterized arguments??? I suppose making it clearer would solve....something... not if you want to jump thru hoops to disprove....something... Anyway, yeah, there is alot of grey area between all points, it ain't black and white, duh, even if by trying to prove massive wrongs are okay because none of us is pure. Whatever. We all benefit from the portas, it was your choice to buy the tent, and that corporation wasn't out on the playa selling it....you know that, and whatever, zero interest in the topic, all interest in derailing it, letting the constant hypotheticals take care of that. Disney should sell family plan packages and let their on-playa spear carriers take care of any opposition.

[Isotopia]

Will probably read this the next time I run out of Ambien and need to get to sleep quickly.

[DrYes]

OK I didn't realize the tortoise did plug and play. Did they wall off their encampment? Discourage entry by non paying burners? It's things like that, that matter to me rather than cost. I just can't believe most people here care if someone is rich or not. Maybe I'm wrong.

Nope, they don't wall off their encampment but they certainly don't let you avail yourselves of their camp resources if you're not paying to stay there. Try showing up for a meal or getting water from their camp if you're not paying them.

Walling off an encampment also has nothing to do with whether a camp is plug n' play or not, I think, nor is it an indication of whether individuals in the camp give something back to BM or not. I stayed in a wall-of-RVs camp (non plug n' play) a couple of years, and some of the Burners in there have given an enormous amount back to BM over the years, from multiple members on the board of the Black Rock Arts Foundation to non-profit legal work to helping bail BM out financially when it had a near-catastrophic shortfall one year in the mid 90s. (A group of us in that camp also created 1200 blown glass pieces of art to turn into necklaces to put on the Stimulus Tree ("stimulating the gift economy") that we constructed outside camp.)

Some of the Burners in that camp, and the folks who had been in that camp the longest, are no longer young though (70+), and they wanted a quiet private place to get away from it all at BM. So we built three walls of RV, and one wall of carport. You couldn't see into the inside of the camp from the outside. I personally didn't like that and mostly hung out in front of the carport wall while in camp, but they did, and who am I to complain? It was their camp, they've given shitloads back over the years, and anyway, why not be as comfortable as you can on vacation? If you want to rough it, there are a lot better places to go than somewhere with provided social services and 69,998 (two are just total dicks) people around you all willing to help you if you get in trouble.

Personally, my only issue with plug n' play camps is that I don't think any camp of any sort should get placement unless that camp is giving something defined back to BM, and that has to be more than just cute young girls/guys wearing skimpy outfits and being flirty. But, take that horrid-sounding camp that got written about by the very understandably upset "sherpa". http://burners.me/2014/09/12/a-sherpas-tale/

It sounds like the camp did intend to give something back by handing out organic ice pops or whatever, but that the reality of the playa met their possibly well-laid plans, chuckled, and then kicked the shit out of the plans. Whose "fault" that is doesn't really matter, but there have definitely been large theme camps whose promised contributions have completely failed to materialize in the past too for the same reasons.

I find the idea of staying in the camp in Sherpa's Tale a turn-off but there are plenty of camps at BM you couldn't pay me to stay in. And actually, insofar as I find it really easy to get along with everyone at BM, I'm pretty sure I could happily stay in a plug n' play and get along just fine with the people in it. I'm fairly sure they're people who came to have a good time, like most of us. They just don't know yet that they'll have an even better time if their camp was set up to attract strangers rather than keep them out. Or, they just want a private space under their control to relax in, like the older Burners in my above example. Is that really so problematic?

[DrYes]

Like who? United Site Services? I like to have the porta-potties cleaned up and emptied, personally. CostCo, because so many Burners buy supplies there? Kodiak, from whom I purchased a $650 tent this year?

Well of course that is who I meant, I can see how you would honestly think so, such confusion for you, this being an honest discussion and all. Cleaning porta-potties for a living versus running a for profit Plug and Play designed to fool the rubes, same diff. One is cleaning up the shit on the playa, the other is spreading it, I can see how intelligent and honest people would see it the same. Once more, why is it so important to this debate of allowing for-profit companies to make decisions about how Burning Man is run, for some people to make up hypothetical or factious or exaggerated or willfully miss-characterized arguments??? I suppose making it clearer would solve....something... not if you want to jump thru hoops to disprove....something... Anyway, yeah, there is alot of grey area between all points, it ain't black and white, duh, even if by trying to prove massive wrongs are okay because none of us is pure. Whatever. We all benefit from the portas, it was your choice to buy the tent, and that corporation wasn't out on the playa selling it....you know that, and whatever, zero interest in the topic, all interest in derailing it, letting the constant hypotheticals take care of that. Disney should sell family plan packages and let their on-playa spear carriers take care of any opposition.

I have a great deal of interest in this topic. What I don't have interest in is the kind of mob-with-pitchfork mentality that demands conformity without being able to clearly spell out the principles on which it stands. I think the OP made his post, which is a wee bit over-angry to my mind, because he's also frustrated by seeing people just rant about instances of something without appearing to apply the principles on which they're basing their complaints evenly to all of Burning Man. And, it usually seems that the dividing line boils down to whether the people being complained about are rich or not. That may just be appearances, but it takes only a cursory reading of the complaints here and on the FB group to see the words 1%, rich, and billionaire used in an awwwwffulll lot of the posts. Not once does anyone point the finger at those goddam single Brazilian moms who are ruining Burning Man by paying Green Tortoise for transport, a ticket, food, and water. How else should we read that?

So, how about saying what you mean? What you said was that you object to people making money off Burning Man. You've established that's not what you mean, that what you mean is more nuanced than that. What's the principle you're standing on is what I'm asking, and how does it allow for a plug n' play like Green Tortoise but not one in the Sherpa's Tale? That's all I'm really asking. They strike me as exactly the same thing....in the same way a chihuahua and a rottweiler are the same thing. Different points along the same spectrum.

How would you word a rule to ban the kind of behavior you don't want to see at BM?

[kiboy]

Well it's unlikely I'd just show up anywhere to be fed unless I was invited but you're right then about GT. I'm willing to look at how all the P&Ps are run and if they are a good idea then yes and if not they can all go. I guess more and more I'm open to the idea that P&Ps will work under optimal conditions without doing any harm to the vibe. I'm still concerned about the tickets for work only employees and scalping issues. I hate the idea that someone is missing out because of that but if the workers can really have the time to Play then I'd likely be ok with that too minus the scalping to get them in. I really dislike the issue of ticket scarcity but I have no idea how to address it because I don't know what all is involved with the issue. If you or anyone can link me to a good discussion of that issue I'd be grateful.

[DrYes]

Well it's unlikely I'd just show up anywhere to be fed unless I was invited but you're right then about GT. I'm willing to look at how all the P&Ps are run and if they are a good idea then yes and if not they can all go. I guess more and more I'm open to the idea that P&Ps will work under optimal conditions without doing any harm to the vibe. I'm still concerned about the tickets for work only employees and scalping issues. I hate the idea that someone is missing out because of that but if the workers can really have the time to Play then I'd likely be ok with that too minus the scalping to get them in. I really dislike the issue of ticket scarcity but I have no idea how to address it because I don't know what all is involved with the issue. If you or anyone can link me to a good discussion of that issue I'd be grateful.

The ticket scarcity issue is pretty simple unfortunately: there's more demand for tickets than there is supply. That's it really. Heck, this year tickets were going for $2000 in the week before the event. That's never happened before (they've always plummeted in price leading up to the event) and it's a sign that demand never let up this year. There's nothing the BMORG can do about that (and everyone who talks endlessly about BM to their friends, or makes videos, or posts photos, etc etc contributes to that 'problem.') The # of tickets sold is effectively determined by the Bureau of Land Management, as the BMORG needs a permit from them to hold the event, and the population of the event is capped at what the BLM determines.

It would have made no difference if no scalpers were involved - there would have been the same number of people left without tickets, and that's pretty much going to be the case, I'd guess, for every year going forward. Burning Man is not going to get less popular suddenly.

Regarding plug n' plays, think about the alternative: having the BMORG poke around inside every placed/theme camp to find out if they're running their camp "the right way" or "the wrong way." Myself, I think that's a far worse alternative than anything plug n' plays could do to the culture.

[VultureChow]

Regarding plug n' plays, think about the alternative: having the BMORG poke around inside every placed/theme camp to find out if they're running their camp "the right way" or "the wrong way." Myself, I think that's a far worse alternative than anything plug n' plays could do to the culture.

Bullcrap. These things are either placed or grab space with the help of early entry folks. They also have to advertise. Anyone caught reserving space for an advertised plug n play loses placement. If they are staff or volunteer with early entry, they lose their privileges for next year. There are plenty of things you can do to discourage this short of sending in the storm troopers. Though the thought of DPW folks walking in and making themselves at home gets me all tingly.

Also, can we start referring to them as "Commercial Camps" because plug n play suggests the only distinguishing feature is the ease of burning and not the selling of burning.

[Jackass]

Heck, this year tickets were going for $2000 in the week before the event. That's never happened before (they've always plummeted in price leading up to the event) and it's a sign that demand never let up this year.

Don't you think that the plug n pays had anything to do with this?

IF you've already prepaid 17,000 non-refundable dollars for your pre-reserved spot in camp, you're not going to let a little $2,000 scalped ticket keep you from attending, are you?

[maladroit]

If I were to formulate a rule, it would be something like "Each employee working on-playa must be registered under the Vendor Pass guidelines and must exit the city for a period of no less than 12 hours per 24 hour period. Employees cannot use a Burning Man ticket to enter Black Rock City. Employers must be a business registered within the State of Nevada." And then some exceptions for event staff and essential services.

Harsh as fuck, but if someone really needs employees they can do it.

[unjonharley]

Heck, this year tickets were going for $2000 in the week before the event. That's never happened before (they've always plummeted in price leading up to the event) and it's a sign that demand never let up this year.

Don't you think that the plug n pays had anything to do with this?

IF you've already prepaid 17,000 non-refundable dollars for your pre-reserved spot in camp, you're not going to let a little $2,000 scalped ticket keep you from attending, are you?

I could bet good money the ticket were included in the package... If any $2,000 tickets sold.. The buyers must be a little on the unhinged side.. But then again people were being smuggled in behind false walls.. I'll jump into the horse race and get a ticket,or not.. If not.. I will go spent some time with my 81 year old sister in Mich.. Then try again in 016..

[kiboy]

My sister is in Mich also but she's moving out here to Souther Oregon. From here to BM would be the next logical step.

[DrYes]

Regarding plug n' plays, think about the alternative: having the BMORG poke around inside every placed/theme camp to find out if they're running their camp "the right way" or "the wrong way." Myself, I think that's a far worse alternative than anything plug n' plays could do to the culture.

Bullcrap. These things are either placed or grab space with the help of early entry folks. They also have to advertise. Anyone caught reserving space for an advertised plug n play loses placement. If they are staff or volunteer with early entry, they lose their privileges for next year. There are plenty of things you can do to discourage this short of sending in the storm troopers. Though the thought of DPW folks walking in and making themselves at home gets me all tingly.

Also, can we start referring to them as "Commercial Camps" because plug n play suggests the only distinguishing feature is the ease of burning and not the selling of burning.

Sure, but most of them don't have to advertise, and you'd have to -find- the advertising to begin with, and do it before the camp gets placement. You'd catch a few that way, but from what I know of the handful of people I'm acquaintances with that have camped at camps like that, most of them are just friends of friends of friends kind of thing. People with money tend to do some hanging out together and know other people with money.

The biggest problem from BMORG's perspective, I suspect, is defining what makes a camp plug n' play or commercial. It's not simple unless the camps self-declare. What makes Green Tortoise ok (the org has been fine with it for years) and not other commercial camps. Why is Playa Bike Repair ok, and placed year after year, despite being a for-profit business operating on the playa (aside from free bike repair, you can rent bikes from them or pay them to store and transport your bike to/from the playa)?

It's a really complicated issue that a lot of folks want to reduce without any attempt to actually define what it is they are objecting to.

[DrYes]

Heck, this year tickets were going for $2000 in the week before the event. That's never happened before (they've always plummeted in price leading up to the event) and it's a sign that demand never let up this year.

Don't you think that the plug n pays had anything to do with this?

IF you've already prepaid 17,000 non-refundable dollars for your pre-reserved spot in camp, you're not going to let a little $2,000 scalped ticket keep you from attending, are you?

I could bet good money the ticket were included in the package... If any $2,000 tickets sold.. The buyers must be a little on the unhinged side.. But then again people were being smuggled in behind false walls.. I'll jump into the horse race and get a ticket,or not..

I'd spend $2000 on a ticket if that was my only option to get one. Money well-spent.

But that's also irrelevant. How much people pay for tickets doesn't affect how many people go or can't go. The numbers are the same either way. What scalpers can do is drive up the price of tickets in the secondary market, but that doesn't create a smaller population of either people or tickets. It changes the criteria for who can get one on the secondary market, for sure, just like raising the ticket prices to $380 excluded everyone who can't afford $380 to go to Burning Man.

I'm also quite positive that the delta between the # of plug n' play campers this year and last is not enough -close- to enough to explain the demand this year.

[5280MeV]

Also, can we start referring to them as "Commercial Camps" because plug n play suggests the only distinguishing feature is the ease of burning and not the selling of burning.

That is an important distinction that should have been made at the beginning of this whole debate which is very poorly framed. I remember that when there was the interview with the organizers of two "plug and play" camps on the Burning Blog, these were two completely different entities. If I recall correctly: One was a camp with relatively large camp dues for which certain camp members were in some sense paid or at least tipped out at the end voluntarily. The other was basically a for-profit catering operation with separate staff and client camps.

Running a business is very different and legally requires BLM permitting (as I understand). So really the discussion relates to the meaning (if any) of "decommodification" as understood by the BMorg. On paper "decommodification" is taken to mean that we don't engage in commercial transactions.

I found this (alleged) exchange which I think highlights the misunderstanding of the word transaction taking place:

I found the fact that they sent this confusing, so I emailed them:

Hi!
I'm confused about why you guys keep sending me the information on special recreation permits when commercial activities are banned? Are there activities we might be doing that are actually commercial and would need a permit? like camp dues?

And they responded:

Hi John -

Some camps hire vendors. Those vendors need Outside Services contacts to come in and out of the vendor Gate.
Those vendors are required by the BLM to purchase a permit.
To honor de-commodification, all this vendor activity is pre-paid, or billed post-event, all commercial transactions happening outside our gate.
Thank you,
Placement



It is interesting to say that all transactions are taking place outside the gate, when really only part of the transaction, or exchange of money for goods, is happening outside the gate. The delivery of the goods is an integral part of the transaction and takes place at the event, inside the gate. I don't think that there is any way around this without completely mangling the language.

So I think that the statement that "In order to preserve the spirit of gifting, our community seeks to create social environments that are unmediated by commercial sponsorships, transactions, or advertising. We stand ready to protect our culture from such exploitation." needs to be altered to reflect actual policy, or the policy should be altered to reflect the statement of principle.

If the alleged email exchange is true, then commercial transactions are simply barred from occurring entirely within the gate during the event. It appears that the only prohibition is on the open advertisement of services for hire, and the financial fulfillment of the transaction. In other words, as a Burning Man participant, you are not supposed to pay for the service during the course of the event. It is perfectly acceptable to either provide or receive commercial services, up to and including the chartering of an entire theme camp as a for-profit business.

In any case, if this is the future of Burning Man, then to avoid obvious cognitive dissonance and to have a set of principles that accurately reflect the policy and culture of the event, the term "decommodification" is misleading and should be dropped. Instead, something along the lines of "commercial seclusion" could be the replacement, indicating that we agree not to openly advertise commercial services or products during the event, and we do not fulfill the financial component of any given transaction during the event, electing to pre-pay or be billed for later payment. In addition, the BMorg has the exclusive right to use any images or accounts of the event for commercial purposes or advertising.

[trilobyte]

Calling them commercial camps is not accurate, either. Any camp that charges dues (or contracts for services ranging from water delivery, RV servicing, equipment delivery or rentals, etc) could technically be considered a commercial camp in that light... money changes hands as part of the normal basic operation of the camp.

It's also worth pointing out that plug and play isn't correct, either. While Burning Man initially used that term (because that's what some were already calling it), they changed up and started using the term turnkey, because it best described the kind of all-inclusive setup that these operations was providing. Burning Man's turnkey camping guidelines can be found here.

The issue isn't that they charge for dues, or that they contract (or even subcontract) for different services. The issue is acculturation, helping to make sure that their campmates connect with and participate in the event and the community.

And as a community, I think the real test is what we do with people who are not getting acculturated. Chasing them off and trying to run them out of town (on playa or online) isn't the answer - fuck, that's the exact opposite of being radically inclusive. And toddler-logic ("they weren't inclusive to me first") doesn't really work. The answer is to welcome them with open arms, show them the right way firsthand. More often than not, just seeing a better way to do something... leads people to do things a better way.

[Sham]

What Trilo said!

[kiboy]

What's the chance of having a second event called GERIATRIC MAN for us oldtimers who long for the way it was back in the day?

Maybe we can find some of the old Playa artwork and drag it back out there.

[5280MeV]

Calling them commercial camps is not accurate, either. Any camp that charges dues (or contracts for services ranging from water delivery, RV servicing, equipment delivery or rentals, etc) could technically be considered a commercial camp in that light... money changes hands as part of the normal basic operation of the camp.

This is correct, but this is not what I or (I think) VultureChow are getting at. The point is that "turnkey" or "plug and play" is a poorly defined term that just confuses and confounds the actual issue with stupid things like RV hatred, wealth resentment, and the self-reliance pissing contest.

A commercial camp is a camp that exists primarily as a for-hire service and attempts to earn a profit. That is the definition. Many (most?) "plug and play" or "turnkey" camps are clearly not commercial camps. Apparently some are.

The central issue is what commercial transactions (or parts of commercial transactions) are permissible by the participants of Burning Man? This in turn essentially asks what exactly is meant by "decommodification"?

Certainly, we all receive a commercial service in the form of the porta-john servicing. We know this up front. It is (I think) in the survival guide. But this generally has little effect on the social environment. We also (most of us?) accept ice sales as the only pragmatic way for people to have any decent food by Saturday. I certainly accept this as more fun than being ideologically pure. Furthermore, there was center camp coffee before there were any principles, and you can in fact buy coffee there. I also kinda like this grandfathered in oddity. Shit removal and ice are commodified. We can buy and/or sell these services.

Those are the "rules" as I understood them going in. But apparently the principle of a social environment free from "commercial transactions" really only means that I cannot fulfill the contractually obligated payment during the event - I must pre-pay or be billed later. In this case I am not sure what "decommodification" means.

So theme camps and individuals can hire individuals to come through a special gate and deliver goods or service vehicles. Ok - I suppose that is mostly behind the scenes and enables much more spectacular art and activities that are there to be given to me and everyone else. The vendors come and go, so I guess that doesn't have much of an impact on the social environment. RV servicing and deliveries are commodified. We can buy and/or sell these services.

Now what about commercial bartenders, DJs, cooks, artists, and chauffeurs? As I understand now, I can hire a bartender and just pay him/her before or after the event. Now it is really starting to seem odd to me to pretend that the social environment is somehow not mediated by a commercial transaction. A bartender is part of the social environment, and the bartender is fulfilling his or her part of the transaction. Making drinks, cooking, serving food, playing music, driving people around in art cars are now commodified. We can buy and/or sell these services.

At this point, much of the social environment really seems commodified to me. It really doesn't seem much different than going to a bar and leaving the tab open. I don't pay the bartender "during the event" as he or she will run my card after I go home and the bar closes (with a likely well deserved gratuity added as a matter of policy). According to the rules of Burning Man, I didn't really have a full "commercial transaction" because I didn't actually pay anyone during the event. My interactions in the bar and with its patrons were "decommodified".

I think to take this to the extreme is to just charter a whole theme camp which will provide everything I need from lodging, to food, to costumes, to gifts to give out, to tours of the deep playa. If that can be considered "decommodified", then so can just chartering a yacht. It is the same kind of vacation, just in the dust rather than at sea.

----------------------

Personally, I would rather go to an event where we all agreed not to engage in commercial services beyond those which we all pre-negotiate as a community. I feel like that is mostly true at the regional events. But I have to credit Burning Man as the event that inspired me, and the fact that much of the big art is in many ways made possible by commercial transactions that happen in part during the event and by people who charter theme camps or offer theme camps for hire. So these people have helped to give me something really cool and that is great. Many of them are probably pretty awesome.

However, this is not "decommodified" in any meaningful sense. I think that if one is going to honestly talk about a movement that is driven by principles to show people what can be done by temporarily not engaging in commercial transactions and meeting each other socially without such mediation, then one has to actually follow that principle. That isn't happening, and I don't find this honest.

So I feel that the Burning Man Project either needs to revise or remove the principle of "decommodification", or alternately give up on some of the awesome art and capabilities that come with allowing commercial transactions.

[kiboy]

Frogbird your posts in this thread have given me a lot to think about. I can't think of much I disagree with in this post.

Personally, I would rather go to an event where we all agreed not to engage in commercial services beyond those which we all pre-negotiate as a community.

Me too.
What you said got me reflecting on my first burn and what wowed me the most. It was the gifting atmosphere and the lack of commerce going on. I felt like a great load had been lifted from my shoulders and that gave me a chill that lasted that whole week and the post Burn depression that I felt had a lot to do with going back into the default world to be faced at every turn with the fact that most of what I was going to be doing was business day in and day out. Buying selling and watching my back so I didn't get taken and got my moneys worth. Just getting that out of my face for a week did a whole lot for my happy cells and renewal in my faith in my fellow man.

So I'd deal with less of the big grandeur art scene and still be impressed by what those individuals on a budget could create to keep that feeling of very limited commerce and no ads so I can just pretend for a week that my life is not ruled by the money grab. Or something like that. I'll be checking out the regionals but as I said there is nothing like BRC and the playa. Add art, music, gifting, etc. and it's going to be hard to do without.

[Lonesomebri]

I like how some people say, well, the powerful are doing whatever, but without a clear-cut solution that would work without trying it first, decided by a dictator who does not exist, but first knowing all the variables and facts, even though the truth is subjective and everything can't be known, but until those stipulations are met, any complaint or debate is pointless. Ha, look at this thread and the other. Keep trying. Sure, I use money, so why should I be against child labor? Keep trying. But they sell ice, how can you object to a Walmart? Keep trying. The Plug and Plays you folks can't even see sure have pissed off plenty of people you can see. Keep on trying.

[Lonesomebri]

I told my non-burner friend about the Plug and Play debate waging, and the various responses floated. I mentioned that I would be printing up brochures reading “Are you in a Bad Camp? There is help. You are not alone…” and go pamphleteer the fortresses in 2015.

He asked me “What do you think will happen?” I asked him what he meant, and he said, how do you think workers will respond, how will the camps and the organization respond? Hmmm, this is so similar to how I feel about gifting and volunteering. I don’t care how others feel. I am not doing it for others, I’m doing it for me, ‘cause it feels right, right now. They don’t need to respond for me to feel good doing it. It’s more performance art than any egotistical move to change the world. I have fun doing what I enjoy doing, that’s enough. But don't I need to have a sit down one on one talk with the Plug and Play camp CEO before having any opinion? Hmmmmm, no.

And, yeah, this is about my resentment and being self-righteous. Way back when I gave a ride on my chariot to some beautiful hard bodied tan Gold Roman Legion costumed couple and dropped them near Center Camp. They asked me where First Camp was. I said I didn’t know. And they, the ones interested in finding it, said to me, ”Oh, you looked like you knew what was going on, poseur.” Good people. Good Burners. Salt of the Earth. they totally got it. My only interest in ever seeing First Camp after that was in burning it. Now it’s pay back time on their outliers .

Funny how good decent people seriously believe that bad people are just like them, only misinformed. Once the bad dudes get the right information, are enlightened, then all points of view will become one and the lion will lay down with the lamb. I mean, once the lion realizes the pain and suffering inflicted on the lamb, it will all change. Seriously, look at the villains thru history, were they simply misinformed, only in need of alittle playa time?

Those exploitative elites are not looking to be enlightened, and would laugh at you for suggesting they need it, even if good people who are looking for enlightenment can not fathom that reality.

[goathead]

Calling them commercial camps is not accurate, either. Any camp that charges dues (or contracts for services ranging from water delivery, RV servicing, equipment delivery or rentals, etc) could technically be considered a commercial camp in that light... money changes hands as part of the normal basic operation of the camp.

It's also worth pointing out that plug and play isn't correct, either. While Burning Man initially used that term (because that's what some were already calling it), they changed up and started using the term turnkey, because it best described the kind of all-inclusive setup that these operations was providing. Burning Man's turnkey camping guidelines can be found here.

The issue isn't that they charge for dues, or that they contract (or even subcontract) for different services. The issue is acculturation, helping to make sure that their campmates connect with and participate in the event and the community.

And as a community, I think the real test is what we do with people who are not getting acculturated. Chasing them off and trying to run them out of town (on playa or online) isn't the answer - fuck, that's the exact opposite of being radically inclusive. And toddler-logic ("they weren't inclusive to me first") doesn't really work. The answer is to welcome them with open arms, show them the right way firsthand. More often than not, just seeing a better way to do something... leads people to do things a better way.

No banning them out right is pretty much the answer. In the past for different violations different projects have been banned for various reasons. Jim Tananbaum should be banned, and should resign as a board member. I am so UNIMPRESSED with the non-profit board and what they are doing. I think in the default world it is called networking and making money.

[goathead]

What Trilo said!

send you key back then.

[Jackass]

angry-mob-playset.jpg