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/>