the family is not a separate structure, there are at least seven> fundamentally different family structures worldwide, if I remember correctly> (according to Emmanuel Todd's landmark book on the topic)>> I suggest you read> http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske for a fourfold> relational grammar that includes equality matching, authority ranking,> market pricing and communal sharing.>> Peer to peer is specifically communal sharing or 'non-reciprocal exchange'> (also called generalized exchange because there is no tit for tat)>> Within the family several modalities are possible>> - when father gets more: authority ranking>> - when you compete for giving a birthday gift to another family member who> gave you one before: equality matching>> - when you sell your motorbike as second hand to your sibling: market> pricing>> - when you selflessly give to your children: communal shareholding>> P2P Theory, as I define it, is the study of communal shareholding dynamics> within distributed structures,>> Michel>>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:42 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:>>> Then that makes the case that "Peer To Peer" is a universal but>> non-trivial social theory that has many facets and that is not one theory>> but several...>>>> I understand that there is no easy way back to "family" in the old sense>> of the word and that "family" is now a group of people who have shared>> affinity to each other or certain ideals (e.g. the P2P and Open Source>> movements)>>>> Yet, someone can still argue a return to the traditional genetic family,>> which is still very alive and well in non-Westernized societies, and by>> doing so they'd emphasize Family structure over the more modern P2P>> structure with its evolved theories. I happen to dig P2P theories and want>> to challenge them at the same time, by borrowing analogies and simulations>> from statistical thermodynamics (as applied to the self-governance and>> evolution of P2P systems) which is something I started thinking about while>> working on the P2P currency model, which by the way is predicated on the>> tokenized exchange of energy, per the laws of thermodynamics, and what I was>> saying earlier re: Un-Money is that non-tokenized exchange of energy is the>> closest thing we can get to as far as removing the concept of money. Prior>> to the laws of thermodynamics people were interested in perpetual motion>> machines and "free energy" etc. These ideas are creeping back into current>> thinking on free culture. To me, p2p theory is subject to the laws of>> physics because it has real world usage. It's not merely a social theory.>>>> I don't want to go too far too soon with that thought, especially not>> before reading/understanding all the amazing work that has been done,>> including yours.>>>> Marc>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>wrote:>>>>> 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/>>>>>>>>>> --> 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/>