Message 05116 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 10/46 L7 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] Re: The Future of Un-Money // was "Re: There IS such a thing as peer money"

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Marc,

does bittorrent follow the principle: voluntary participation, available to
all: to that degree it is peer to peer, to the degree it does introduce
conditionality it is not; but it tries to use the second in the context of
the first

can it paradoxically enhance the sharing, sometimes it can, but at other
times it can't and produces crowding out effects

but I think the important thing is to see what is primary and secondary

for example, ITQ fishing permits are a market based system but placed in the
context of a commons so that fish cannot be destroyed ..

in the bittorrent case I would argue that the tit for tat is a secondary
incentive, so I agree with you that tit for tat depends on context

all this being said, I fully support what you are trying to achieve, and
hope it will work as this is indeed a very important protocol you are
working on,

Michel

I think it is also useful to distinguish sharing from a real commons

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:13 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:



I get the part about no "tit for tat" but the most successful P2P model in
practice, i.e. bittorrent/file sharing, forces a tit for tat for practical
reasons (e.g. to make sure every peer downloading a given file is
contributing to the common bandwidth for that file). If there was no tit for
tat the sharing model simply stops working.

In the model I'm working on in order for someone to have more wealth they
have to share some of their money (i.e let others use some their money for
free and the more they share of their money the more money they can make,
without punishing the borrower with interest.) If I was to design it so that
people can get wealthy without sharing their money, i.e. if remove the tit
(sharing money) for tat (making more money, building wealth), then the model
of "the more you share, the more you have" would not exist.

"tit for tat" in itself is not bad. It's a tool. It all depends on how it's
used.

What I'm building is a P2P economic model predicated on the tokenized
exchange of energy, where "the more you share, the more you have" is enabled
by a form of "tit for tat" that does not punish and only rewards.

As far as the family types, as you pointed out, all 7 types may have some
or all of the relationships (per Fisk's definition) but what I'm saying is
that, in a P2P economy, a family can interact with another family through a
single point of contact (e.g. a trading interface) rather than having each
member of the family interact with individual peers out there. It may work
for some families some of the time, as it does in today's society. For
example, the Jones family has a common budget that they use to buy
groceries. Any member of the family can use that budget to buy food items.
If they use a single ID/interface then they will appear as a single peer to
the rest of the network. In some exising non-affluent communities, where
there is a single bread earner the family may have just one account on the
p2p transaction network and so in such a community there may be more family
(as peer) to family (as peer) interactions (for local trading) than
individual peer to individual peer.






On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>wrote:


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/







-- 
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/


[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 10/46 L7 [In index]
Message 05116 [Homepage] [Navigation]