The idea is to disrupt the disruptor so like surface of the ocean our> common vision is in constant renewal.>> Along these lines, I could make up the argument that P2P is too much> abou the individual and not abou the Family. So based on this I would> proceed to say that Family2Family would be a more socially fit> paradigm than peer to peer, where peer refers predominantly to a> single individual.>> Where Centralized is Parent2Child, we have moved too fast to> individualism and forgot about the social importance of family.>> Disrupting the disruptive model allows the model to be in a constant> state of renewal.>> So what I'm saying is that I don't have to use the word peer in an> unorthodox way to disrupt the existing P2P theory. I can offer another> theory such as Family2Family.>> But all change is good as long as we all derive meaning from it, as you> sated.>> On 12/19/08, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com> wrote:> > Marc,> >> > I personally do not object to your usage of peer money, as long as we> know> > what is meant, which is why I tried to clear the conceptual place.> >> > Neither my own p2p theory nor oekonux has any monopoly on the "peer"> term,> > but as you know understand, in our frame, it is somewhat contradictary,> but> > while Stefan only accepts capitalist money in the transition, I call for> > and> > support efforts to change the current monetary protocols ...> >> > Michel> >> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:48 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>> wrote:> >> >>> >> Some of you did not see this reply (came empty?), so I'm taking the> >> opportunity to send you a fuller version of it.> >>> >> --> >>> >> Thanks Michel.> >>> >> Per your articulation of "peer informed money" vs. the ideal "p2p> >> society,"> >> I now get where Stefan is coming from with his statement that there is> no> >> such thing as "peer money" ...> >>> >> Indeed, labels are often used for convenience and commonality, so> instead> >> of proliferating 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> (in> >> this case: peer informed money) would be more accurate.> >>> >> The case for standardized labeling is if we were to label the same roads> >> on> >> a map using different names then chances are people will have a hard> time> >> following us to our common destination.> >>> >> I'm going out on a limb here in saying that the penultimate replacement> >> for> >> money (or "un-money") for the ideal p2p society would be non-tokenized,> >> natural energy transfer as opposed to capturing and transferring various> >> forms of energy (e.g. work energy, creative energy, emotional energy,> >> mental> >> energy, 'intentional' energy, etc) as "tokens"> >>> >> I agree that as we drive toward the same destination, we should not> "dead> >> end" certain lanes of the highway so that only a few of us would make it> >> to> >> the destination. All lanes should remain open and the various exits on> >> the> >> way labeled in a standard way.> >>> >> And I agree that we have to recognize when we're on the road vs having> >> arrived at our destination. For now, we're definitely still on the road,> >> so> >> the concept of "no money, "which is basically moving away from tokenized> >> energy transfer, e.g. I pay $1 for a bus ride, to non-tokenized energy> >> transfer, e.g. the bus is powered by the energy of its passengers, is> >> what> >> we will ultimately end up with, IMO, but we don't have the technology> yet> >> for such universal, non-tokenized, natural energy transfer. By "energy"> I> >> mean all forms (work energy, creative energy, emotional energy,> >> 'intentional' energy, mental energy, spiritual energy, i.e. "energy in> >> all> >> its forms")> >>> >> In other words, the natural flow on energy in its all forms between> >> people> >> is the ultimate "un-money"> >>> >> I may add an addendum explaining non-tokenized energy transfer, which to> >> me, would make the ultimate "un-money" but it's so far out that it would> >> only serve the most forward looking individuals, and only on a> >> metaphysical> >> level, so it may end up in an article on its own, separate from the> ideas> >> for the near future expressed in the P2P Social> >> Currency<http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Social_Currency_Model>article.> >>> >> Marc> >>> >> >> >> > 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 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> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> > --> > The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer> > alternatives.> >> > Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at> > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at> > http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p> >> > Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at> > http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html> > BEST VIDEO ON P2P:> > http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU> >> > KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at> http://del.icio.us/mbauwens> >> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,> > http://www.shiftn.com/> >>