Re: [ox-en] There IS such a thing as peer money
- From: "Michel Bauwens" <michelsub2004 gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:10:38 +0700
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
I would just like to clarify something, about the concept of peer money,
taking into account's Stefan's critique
First of all, I agree with Stefan that peer production should be exclusively
used to moneyless processes involving voluntary contributions and universal
availability of the resulting common value.
In this sense, peer money is contradictory.
However, at present, peer to peer dynamics exist within a broader field
dominated by market (and state) processes, and it is of interest to peer
producers that the context in which it operates is as close as possible to
the non-alienating values of p2p.
Thus it is legimate that it is our wish to move towards a peer-informed
society and context, at least until such time as a presumable fuller p2p
society would exist, in which even lots of physical resources could possible
be produced and distributed in such a way.
I think it is crucial to think about such distinctions, between peer money
and peer-informed money and processes, the latter not being a contradiction
in terms
(however, there remains a theoretical possibility of peer money: if there
were some unconditional way to reward peer producers, with some form of
value that were usable outside the peer production process itself, that
could probably be characterized as peer money?)
So, one of the questions is then, how to reform the market structures?
A crucial aspect of this reform is to reform/transform the monetary system,
to arrive at a peer-informed monetary system. This involves refusing the
built-in infinite growth protocol of existing capitalist money, and using
money and finances with value-sensitive designs.
Otherwise we arrive at the, in my opinion, absurd position of Stefan, which
basically says: until such time as we have a peer to peer society, we are
happy to let capitalist money be, 'because it's all money anyway'.
Such a position is similar as the one saying: fascism and the keynesian
welfare state are all manifestations of bourgeois society, there the same
anyway, so we don't choose one over the other.
No, they are not the same, and neither are the current system producing the
financial meltdown, and alternative value-conscious, peer-informed monetary
systems that have totally different results for social and natural
externalities.
So, in this sense, a project like Marc's called peer money for convenience's
sake, is totally legitimate and important,
Michel
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:30 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hi Stephan, Michel, Sam, others,
I tend to see Stefan's argument that there is no such thing as "peer money"
is a case of one person's operative reality versus that of another, not a
case of discourse within a globally or locally shared reality.
Here is the latest draft of the P2P Currency model I've been working on:
http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Social_Currency_Model
(with simplified arguments and clearer construction)
And here is a particularly interesting endorsement <http://gredit.org> of
the shared reality I'm working within, from a European based group
promoting
Google Credit, a project that is in the running for the Google 10^100 prize
(see Article of the Year Award on right hand side under video). I have no
relation to them and did not know they exist up till a few days ago.
There are many others who have the same operative reality as myself, in
full
or in part, when it comes to the peer money and peer credit.
I'm working on game design that would energetically align people's
operative
realities with my own, i.e. to create a locally shared reality by changing
people's perceptions through imagination.
Iff money, not just peer money, can be derived and used more intelligently,
then there is nothing in my (and other people's) operative reality against
its existence. In fact, it's existence is demanded in such scenario, partly
because of pragmatism (and knowledge of the current maturity of man, or
lack
of) and partly because such new money would enable society to take a
qualitivate step in the right direction.
I hope this enables further discussion.
Regards,
Marc
---
*From: Stefan Merten* <smerten oekonux.de> Reply-To: list-en oekonux.org
To: list-en oekonux.org
Cc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:57 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi list!
Sorry for being so quiet but - as usual - the conference preparation
eats up a lot of my free time / energy.
The following is something I promised Michel to do. It has been
triggered by the use of the term "peer money" which I think is a
contradiction in terms. This is an attempt to give reasons why I think
that money and peer production are generally in contradiction.
Having said that I should also say that they can walk together for
some time but according to germ form theory that is no contradiction
to the contradiction thesis. But one should keep in mind that to use
money for peer production projects is always a twisted approach
because of that contradiction.
The approach below is based on comparing features of money and peer
production. In that it is also a contribution to further define peer
production.
* Structural force vs. volunteering
Money is a structural force used to force your will onto others.
This is exactly what we call buying - though it doesn't sound so
nice. If you would not need to force others to do something (for
you) you don't need to pay them.
Compared to direct force like violence money is a structural force
because it is indirect. As such it needs a societal framework to be
effective at all: Payment makes no sense unless the payee can buy
something himself.
Peer production on the other hand is largely based on volunteering.
Volunteering, however, is the exact opposite of being forced to do
something. Someone volunteers for a task because it is own wish to
do something. In fact the volunteering is a central feature of
Selbstentfaltung.
* Scarcity vs. ampleness
Money is based on scarcity. In fact in a way it encodes scarcity as
a societal concept to a so-called real abstraction. In fact money
which is not scarce in some way simply makes no sense. If I am
allowed to create arbitrary amounts of money at every time why
should I require the money of others at all?
Peer production on the other hand is based on ampleness of the
product. All examples we found so far for peer production are based
on ampleness (which is simpler to have in the digital world). In
fact ampleness of the product is the typical goal of peer production
projects.
* Force needed to keep vs. built-in sustainability
I said that money encodes scarcity as a general principle of
society. However, money being an abstraction is not scarce by itself
- everybody can print more dollars. Thus scarcity must be enforced
by some external means. Typically this is done by the state. In
effect each money system needs a forceful super-structure to keep it
running.
Peer production on the other hand is based on a built-in
sustainability. A peer production project is not based on some
abstract principle but on the need for / want of a perfect solution
for a problem. It needs no external means to keep a peer production
project up. All the power comes from within.
* Abstract vs. concrete
One of the central features of money is that it is abstract. Money
is not related to any concrete thing - which you easily understand
when you look at the global flow of money compared to the global
flow of goods.
Peer production projects on the other hand are always concrete. The
goals are concrete and the effort spent is for concrete reasons.
* Reduction vs. multi-facet perspective
Money is always a reduction - which is in fact the central feature
of an abstraction. The result is that huge bunches of concrete
aspects are projected into a number.
In peer production projects on the other hand a multi-facet
perspective is the rule. Though at some times decisions need to be
made which prefer one possible way over an other possible way these
decisions are made by a complex consideration of many relevant
facets.
* Exchange value orientation vs. use value orientation
Money based production is based on a orientation on exchange value:
You produce because you want to exchange your product for money. The
product itself does not matter to you and it is totally sufficient
to produce relative quality and relative use.
In peer production projects on the other hand the very reason of a
project is producing use value. Why should a peer production exist
at all otherwise?
* Alienation vs. Selbstentfaltung
While money is based on alienation from things and humans peer
production is based on Selbstentfaltung of humans - which is the
opposite of alienation.
* Immorality included vs. no immorality
Money as an alienated principle can be used to to immoral things -
like waging wars. This is something we all know and bemoan more
often than not.
Peer production on the other hand is based on volunteering and
nobody volunteers for goals which s/he finds immoral.
I'll stop here looking forward to responses and further insights.
Grüße
Stefan
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de