On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>wrote:>>
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 beexclusively>> used to moneyless processes involving voluntary contributions anduniversal>> 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 possibleto>> 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 couldpossible>> be produced and distributed in such a way.>>>> I think it is crucial to think about such distinctions, between peermoney>> and peer-informed money and processes, the latter not being acontradiction>> 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 monetarysystem,>> 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 producingthe>> financial meltdown, and alternative value-conscious, peer-informedmonetary>> systems that have totally different results for social and natural>> externalities.>>>> So, in this sense, a project like Marc's called peer money forconvenience'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 "peermoney">> > is a case of one person's operative reality versus that of another, nota>> > case of discourse within a globally or locally shared reality.>> >>> > Here is the latest draft of the P2P Currency model I've been workingon:>> >>> > 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 10^100prize>> > (see Article of the Year Award on right hand side under video). I haveno>> > 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 bychanging>> > people's perceptions through imagination.>> >>> > Iff money, not just peer money, can be derived and used moreintelligently,>> > then there is nothing in my (and other people's) operative realityagainst>> > 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>