Marc,>> peer to peer does not exclude/disrupt the family,>> but rather than a return to premodern holism, it is based on affinity-based> aggregation around common value, on top of other existing relational modes,>> but it is indeed built on the positive achievements of western> invidiualism, while also an attempt to rectify its many weaknesses through> alternative voluntary relationality>> see http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Relational for more extensive> investigation of these aspects,>> Michel>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:51 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:>>> 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/>> >>>>>>> --> 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/>