Message 05117 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 11/46 L8 [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 Michael,
I totally appreciate your support and generous help in accomplishing myobjectives.
I think this discussion is of general usefullness so I'm going to dig deepera bit, and see what comes up.
<<> 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

It tries to use the second in the context of the first, and unfortunatelythe first is *not* possible without the second.
So what does it mean that something can only exist in a modified form?
If 5 peers were downloading a given file from 1 peer (and you can have manysuch exchanges going at the same time at the ratio of 5 downloading to 1seeding) then it would not be a "Torrent." It would be a Trickle and wouldtake much longer, during which the seeding peer is more likely to go offline. So the whole model becomes dramatically less efficient. In fact,that's why BitTorrent as a protocol became so wildly popular (because itenforced sharing of each downloading peer's upstream bandwidth.)
The question becomes idealism vs efficiency (and effectiveness), and abalance is required.
The context of "tit for tat" is very important. At its most basic level, titfor tat is "cause and effect" and while much of poetry and beauty isnon-causal, classical physics (the laws governing our physical reality)is...  Including in that is the laws of thermodynamics. So if I was to buildan energy driven economy that works in the real world (not inside anarbitrary computer model) with real people (not abstract automatons) I wouldhave to understand energy and information flows in nature (and hence, theinterest engineers and scientists have taken in thermoeconomics and, for mepersonally, the next layer of that is the models of energyminimization/simulated annealing/self-optimization found in statisticalthermodyanmics) and that is because people, goods and services, and materialbasis for the real-world economy (land, mineral mines, water, sun, wind,etc) are all subject to the laws of nature.
That does not mean that the value of a social P2P theory is less than thevalue of a thermodynamic P2P theory. Not at all. The social theory givesguidance to the model builder but without an understanding of how natureworks, we can wreck havoc on it and/or on ourselves. We are not a closedsystem. Nothing is. So we need to understand nature's own way of things notjust the social/ethical ways we espouse. There is really a need tounderstand both, not one or the other. That's my opinion.
The last thing I'd want to do is destroy the fish. They're going extinct in50 years, all species (except the mercury-laden farmed varieties)
The whole idea is to work with nature, but that takes a negotiation betweenwhat man wants (the evolved, conscious man) and how to make it work the"natural" (or nature cognizant) way.
BitTorrent works the natural way, and by doing so it leverages the power ofnatural law (in this case, "you can't create bandwidth from nothing") ratherjust the social law (in this case, content as a common pool or the seedingpeer's bandwith as a common pool). Instead it treat's the peers' upstreambandwidth as a common pool and in doing so it forces every peer tocontribute.

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> 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>> > 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>>> 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>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> 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 for more extensive>>>>> investigation of these aspects,>>>>>>>>>> Michel>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:51 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi>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> 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>>>>>>> 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<>>>>>> >article.>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> Marc>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Michel Bauwens <>>>>>> >> michelsub2004> 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>>>>>>> >> 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:>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> > (with simplified arguments and clearer construction)>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> > And here is a particularly interesting endorsement>>>>>> >> >> > <>>>>>>> >> 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> Reply-To:>>>>>> >> list-en>>>>>> >> >> > To: list-en>>>>>> >> >> > Cc: Stefan Merten <smerten>>>>>>> >> >> > 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:>>>>>> >> >> Organization:>>>>>> >> >> Contact: projekt>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > -->>>>>> > The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer>>>>>> > alternatives.>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at>>>>>> >; Newsletter, at>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Basic essay at;>>>>>> interview at>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>>>> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer>>>>> alternatives.>>>>>>>>>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at>>>>>; Newsletter, at>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basic essay at; interview>>>>> at>>>>>>>>>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer>>> alternatives.>>>>>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at>>>; Newsletter, at>>>>>>>>> Basic essay at; interview at>>>>>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>>>>>>>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>>>>>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer> alternatives.>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at>; Newsletter, at>>> Basic essay at; interview at>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>

[2 text/html]�������������������������{��0����{������jب���0����{��zK�����#zK����

Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 11/46 L8 [In index]
Message 05117 [Homepage] [Navigation]