Re: [ox-en] There IS such a thing as peer money
- From: "marc fawzi" <marc.fawzi gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:03:46 -0800
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]Thanks Michel. Per your articulation of "peer informed money" vs. "ideal p2psociety," I now get where Stefan is coming from.
Indeed, labels are often used for convenience and commonality, so instead ofproliferating and splintering ad infinitum we tend to use common labels,e.g. peer money, to refer to a common context, even where a new label (inthis case: peer informed money) would be more accurate.::The case for this is that if we keep giving different labels to the roadsleading to our common destination then we will never get there::
I'm going out on a limb here in saying that the penultimate replacement formoney (or "un-money") for the ideal p2p society would be non-tokenized,natural energy transfer as opposed to any tokenized energy transfer(including people tokenizing emotional energy with words as a method oftransferring that energy to others.)
I agree that as we drive toward the same destination, we should not "deadend" certain lanes of the highway so that only a few of us would make it tothe destination. All lanes should remain open, and all lanes should belabeled the same, i.e. "peer money", "peer dollars", "peer currency."
And I agree that we have to recognize when we're on the road vs havingarrived at our destination. For now, we're definitely still on the road, sothe concept of "no money, "which is basically moving away from tokenizedenergy transfer, e.g. I pay $1 for a bus ride, to non-tokenized energytransfer, e.g. the bus is powered by the energy of its passengers.
I may add an addendum explaining non-tokenized energy transfer, which to me,would make the ultimate "un-money." Yet it's a fresh idea in my mind, so I'mgoing to sit with it for a while...
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>wrote:
[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>