Hi Marc,>> I think that Bittorrent works best because it recogniwed bandwidth scarcity> even within the context of abundance, but it still seems to me that the> incentive is between the individual and the system, not tit for tat between> individuals; hence the logic is one of managing the commons, rahter than a> gift economy logic ...>> To the degree a system moves to the scarcity continuum, it needs management> of the commons to incentive participation and discourage free-riding, to the> degree it moves to real abundance; it needs those less ...>> So as you are dealing with physical constraints, such as finite energy,> your research on incentives is more crucial,>> Michel>> On 12/22/08, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>> Hi Michael,>>>> I totally appreciate your support and generous help in accomplishing my>> objectives.>>>> I think this discussion is of general usefullness so I'm going to dig>> deeper a 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 unfortunately>> the 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>> many such exchanges going at the same time at the ratio of 5 downloading to>> 1 seeding) then it would not be a "Torrent." It would be a Trickle and would>> take much longer, during which the seeding peer is more likely to go off>> line. So the whole model becomes dramatically less efficient. In fact,>> that's why BitTorrent as a protocol became so wildly popular (because it>> enforced sharing of each downloading peer's upstream bandwidth.)>>>> The question becomes idealism vs efficiency (and effectiveness), and a>> balance is required.>>>> The context of "tit for tat" is very important. At its most basic level,>> tit for tat is "cause and effect" and while much of poetry and beauty is>> non-causal, classical physics (the laws governing our physical reality)>> is... Including in that is the laws of thermodynamics. So if I was to build>> an energy driven economy that works in the real world (not inside an>> arbitrary computer model) with real people (not abstract automatons) I would>> have to understand energy and information flows in nature (and hence, the>> interest engineers and scientists have taken in thermoeconomics and, for me>> personally, the next layer of that is the models of energy>> minimization/simulated annealing/self-optimization found in statistical>> thermodyanmics) and that is because people, goods and services, and material>> basis 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 the>> value of a thermodynamic P2P theory. Not at all. The social theory gives>> guidance to the model builder but without an understanding of how nature>> works, we can wreck havoc on it and/or on ourselves. We are not a closed>> system. Nothing is. So we need to understand nature's own way of things not>> just the social/ethical ways we espouse. There is really a need to>> understand 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>> in 50 years, all species (except the mercury-laden farmed varieties)>>>> The whole idea is to work with nature, but that takes a negotiation>> between what 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>> of natural law (in this case, "you can't create bandwidth from nothing")>> rather just the social law (in this case, content as a common pool or the>> seeding peer's bandwith as a common pool). Instead it treat's the peers'>> upstream bandwidth as a common pool and in doing so it forces every peer to>> contribute.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> 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/>