Message 05129 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 24/46 L14 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

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

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Marc,

well, I actually disagree with you ...

i.e. the para below,

despite the costs, peer production can be sustainable on the basis of other
processes, i.e. they do not exist as such, but are embedded in other systems

right now, they empirically exist and are 'sustainable' within a larger
social context ...

not every social process has to be fully sustainable by itself, otherwise,
we could not rear any children for example


your para:

P2P social theories that recognize the need for energy to flow, as potential
energy, between the people, machines and infrastructure, with a non-zero
cost of energy production and distribution, must also recognize that peer
production systems cannot *sustainably* support the free "giving away" of
products, services and resources.

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 11:02 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi> wrote:

Hi Michel,

Here is the P2P Thermoeconomics theory I'm using to ground P2P social
theory (of any flavor) in physics, and, specifically, thermodyanmics.

*P2P Thermoeconomics *(Theory)

Given that human and machine processes and the communiction/transportation
infrastructure for both require energy to continue functioning and given
that this energy cannot be made from nothing or destroyed (i.e, conserved)
then, in order for human and machine processes and the
communiction/transportation infrastructure for both to continue functioning,
energy must flow, as potential energy, e.g. tokens (money) or as electric
current or fuel, between the energy sources, the humans, the machines and
the infrastructure:

1. the peers (who can then autonomously, with the help of other peers or
with the help of machines convert the potential energy in whatever form,
e.g. tokenized form, to products, services, and human creation, e.g. music,
movies, new life, etc and to other forms of potential energy, e.g.
happiness, consciousness, love, trust, wisdom, etc),

2. the machines (which can then autonomously, with other machines, or with
the help of humans convert the potential energy, in the form of electric
current or fuel, to products, services and man+machine or machine-only
creation), and

3. the infrastructure (which uses ponetial energy, in the form of electric
current, to enable the interaction of peers with other peers, using the

P2P social theories that recognize the need for energy to flow, as
potential energy, between the people, machines and infrastructure, at a
non-zero cost of energy production and distribution, must also recognize
that peer production systems cannot *sustainably* support the free "giving
away" of products, services and resources.

In other words, the energy needed by peers, machines and the infrastructure
(as described above) and everything in the universe is conserved, i.e.: it
cannot be created from nothing nor can it be destroyed.

If a peer, machine or part of the infrastructure needs to use a certain
amount of energy to continue functioning then that peer, machine or part of
the infrastructure needs to get that energy from somewhere, which itself
requires energy, and, since energy in the universe is conserved, the energy
has to flow, as potential energy, between everything in the universe,
including the peers, machines and infrstructure, and that's how anything
that is functioning can continue to function.

Traditional money cannot act as a carrier of the potential energy (in the
thermoeconomic model) because it's created from nowhere when needed and
destroyed when needed, without respect to the potential energy available to
the given economy. So if we were to make P2P money as a carrier (or
tokenizer) of potential energy then the number of virtual tokens (money)
issued must be based on the amount of potential energy available to the
economy, using a fixed ratio of tokens to potential energy, e.g. 1 token
issued per each 1000 joules in available potential energy (e.g. stored
electric energy,) and once created the virtual tokens (money) must not be
destroyed (i.e. 1 virtual token must always be redeemable for 1000 joules
and the virtual tokens cannot be taken out of circulation), but the virtual
tokens in circulation can change in dollar value based on supply and demand
of energy, so 1 virtual token (i.e. 1000 jules) can be worth 1 dollar or 70
cents etc., but must always stay above the cost of producing and storing
1000 jules to enable sustainable abundance of potential energy.


I'll integrate this with the rough section on Thermoeconomics started
already on the P2Pf wiki and then link to it from P2P Social Currency (also
on P2Pf wiki) which, as of the next 0.72.0 version, will include the
additional clarifications gained from writing this P2P Thermoeconmics
addendum regarding the fixed ratio of "virtual token to potential energy" vs
the variable price of a virtual token. It's the difference between
tokenizing energy and then giving the token a makret price vs tying the
currency to potential energy directly, which I've moved away from since I
realized the conflict between thermodynamic theory and supply-and-demand
economics, which has caused me to adapt the latter to the former, using the
virtual token to separate the concept of potential in thermodynamics from
the concept of energ-as-a-commodity in demand-and-supply economics.

The key thing with respect to your comment is:

P2P social theories that recognize the need for energy to flow, as
potential energy, between the people, machines and infrastructure, with a
non-zero cost of energy production and distribution, must also recognize
that peer production systems cannot *sustainably* support the free "giving
away" of products, services and resources.

Does this impact the current thinking as far as existing peer production



On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004>wrote:

Hi marc,

I read your 2 last messages, especially your reasoning in the previous
one, and do not disagree with your basic premise that 'near zero' is not
free, and that right incentives supports sharing choices,

I personally do not see a contradiction between social and physical p2p
theory, one being grounded in the other,

that I pay less attention to the physical does not mean I deny it,


On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:39 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi> wrote:

Hi Michel,

I do not mean to suggest that social p2p theory is any less important
than a physical theory but it means that we ought to understand real
limitations imposed on any social theory that involves physical processes
and resources, which places my side of the discussion firmly in the area of
thermoeconomic theory.

So maybe we can put P2P Theory under a stereoscope, i.e. using the social
and physical lenses rather than just the social lens.

Model Update:

1. Re-introduced Model's Scope

2. Updated "Original Idea" by removing reference to where money gets its
value today. A whole section called "Existing Model" would have to be added
that details the model of the economy in use today...  I would consider that
once the game/simulation proves the merits of the model I'm developing.

3. Under "Peer Credits" I gave a definition for "peer production value of
money", which I believe is a new phrase.

4. Clarified wording under Anti-Dumping and Anti-Monopoly Caps for Energy
Production, with emphasis on why a cap on energy production per peer, which
is calculated based on demand, is needed to sustain the abundance model (and
removed mention of price setting since it's explained under Energy Price

5. Clarified wording under: Energy Price Regulation, with emphasis on the
2-variable price regulation function

6. Added a note re: affinity matrix and current applicability (at end of
Clarification to Affinity Matrix)

7. Improved explanation under Value Creation Model (fka Value Creation

8. Introduced the concept of investing in marketing vs investing in
production as a model for lending (accumlating credit points) vs investing
in goods and services

9. Updated "Why Demurrage Is Bad"

R 0.58.0 which incorporates the above is at

Merry xmas and happy holidays to all :-)


On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:45 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi>wrote:

Hi Michel,

Bandwidth as well as energy have a cost, even if in the case of energy
it comes from the sun or the wind etc. The cost of production, while it
approaches zero (energy/hour) over time will never be zero.

So then with abundant production that "near zero" figure will rise.
There is also the cost of the distribution grid and its maintenance, just
like the telecom grid, which adds to the cost of peer energy production,
i.e. the grid's maintenance is paid for by the peers (e.g. as a tax) since
there is no concept of "state" and no one else to pay for infrastructure but
the peers themselves, collectively. This is similar to how each person now
pays a flat fee for all-you-can-eat bandwidth.

This cost of energy production that each peer carries has to be offset
so if I pump my excess energy into the grid then I'd like to get paid for it
but the money I get does not grow on its own, i.e. there is no interest and
it can't grow over time. It has to be converted to goods and services,
invested in appreciable assets (including revenue generating) or loaned
interest-free to others in return for credit points which give the lender
the ability to sell more goods and services. That's the incentive.

If I make $1M and let it sit idle while everyone else is investing their
money, using it to make products and services or lending it to others
(interest free for seller credit points), my $1M will buy less over time as
people who do all of the above accumulate greater wealth and as the prices
of appreciable assets rise with the increase in wealth generated. So my
incentive is to share (lend with zero interest) my money with others or use
it myself (for producing goods and services or investing in appreciable

The idea of money sitting idle (e.g. in a bank) and collecting profit is
eliminated so in order to grow wealth (this is the main incentive) people
have to share the money or make productive use of it, both of which spur
economic activity.

The nature of money in this model does not change. Only its behavior
changes, and that ultimately changes the nature of the society that is
largely built around it. It's almost like a way to get capitalists off a bad
drug called interest (bad for their soul, bad for society) and give them a
healthy alternative (good for their soul, relatively speaking, and good for

Despite being 20-30 years away from implementability the model is itself
a transitional one, not the model we all hope to have in 100 years. It's a
way to get society to consider thinking differently.

My gripe with idealism is that I often see ideas that conflict with
basic physical laws. How can you get energy for free? or anything for
"free"? There is an energy cost to everything including energy production. I
can invest in solar panels for my home and get "free" energy (there is a
cost which is the maintenance of those panels but that can be near zero)
However, the minute I connect my generator to the grid (to share excess
energy) I absrob a portion of the cost of the grid and its ongoing
maintenance. Entropy, in other words, makes sure that there is a cost to
keeping things in working order, and while we see the cost of creation going
to near zero (after sunk cost) the cost of transport (information or energy)
is still a very real cost. The cost of transport is connected to population
and geographic scale, so as those continue to rise the cost of transport
will continue to be a real cost, even as the cost of transport per mile
continues to drop.

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Michel Bauwens <
michelsub2004> wrote:

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,


  On 12/22/08, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi> 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

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,


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,


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

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.


On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Michel Bauwens <
michelsub2004> wrote:


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,


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
abou the individual and not abou the Family. So based on this I
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
state of renewal.

So what I'm saying is that I don't have to use the word peer in
unorthodox way to disrupt the existing P2P theory. I can offer
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:

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

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
support efforts to change the current monetary protocols ...


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
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
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
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
money (or "un-money") for the ideal p2p society would be
natural energy transfer as opposed to capturing and
transferring various
forms of energy (e.g. work energy, creative energy, emotional
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
the destination. All lanes should remain open and the various
exits on
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,
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
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
'intentional' energy, mental energy, spiritual energy, i.e.
"energy in
its forms")

In other words, the natural flow on energy in its all forms
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
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


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
taking into account's Stefan's critique

First of all, I agree with Stefan that peer production
should be
used to moneyless processes involving voluntary
contributions and
availability of the resulting common value.

In this sense, peer money is contradictory.

However, at present, peer to peer dynamics exist within a
dominated by market (and state) processes, and it is of
interest to
producers that the context in which it operates is as
close as
the non-alienating values of p2p.

Thus it is legimate that it is our wish to move towards a
society and context, at least until such time as a
presumable fuller
society would exist, in which even lots of physical
resources could
be produced and distributed in such a way.

I think it is crucial to think about such distinctions,
between peer
and peer-informed money and processes, the latter not
being a
in terms

(however, there remains a theoretical possibility of peer
money: if
were some unconditional way to reward peer producers, with
some form
value that were usable outside the peer production process
could probably be characterized as peer money?)

So, one of the questions is then, how to reform the market

A crucial aspect of this reform is to reform/transform the
to arrive at a peer-informed monetary system. This
involves refusing
built-in infinite growth protocol of existing capitalist
money, and
money and finances with value-sensitive designs.

Otherwise we arrive at the, in my opinion, absurd position
of Stefan,
basically says: until such time as we have a peer to peer
society, we
happy to let capitalist money be, 'because it's all money

Such a position is similar as the one saying: fascism and
welfare state are all manifestations of bourgeois society,
there the
anyway, so  we don't choose one over the other.

No, they are not the same, and neither are the current
financial meltdown, and alternative value-conscious,
systems that have totally different results for social and

So, in this sense, a project like Marc's called peer money
sake, is totally legitimate and important,


On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:30 AM, marc fawzi <

[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
is a case of one person's operative reality versus that
of another,
not a
case of discourse within a globally or locally shared

Here is the latest draft of the P2P Currency model I've
been working

(with simplified arguments and clearer construction)

And here is a particularly interesting endorsement
the shared reality I'm working within, from a European
based group
Google Credit, a project that is in the running for the
(see Article of the Year Award on right hand side under
video). I
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,
or in part, when it comes to the peer money and peer

I'm working on game design that would energetically
align people's
realities with my own, i.e. to create a locally shared
reality by
people's perceptions through imagination.

Iff money, not just peer money, can be derived and used
then there is nothing in my (and other people's)
operative reality
its existence. In fact, it's existence is demanded in
such scenario,
because of pragmatism (and knowledge of the current
maturity of man,
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.




*From: Stefan Merten* <smerten> Reply-To:
To: list-en
Cc: Stefan Merten <smerten>
Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:57 AM

Hash: SHA1

Hi list!

Sorry for being so quiet but - as usual - the conference
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
that money and peer production are generally in

Having said that I should also say that they can walk
together for
some time but according to germ form theory that is no
to the contradiction thesis. But one should keep in mind
that to use
money for peer production projects is always a twisted
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

* 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, 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

* 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

* 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
 - 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

 Peer production on the other hand is based on a
 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
 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

* 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
 aspects are projected into a number.

 In peer production projects on the other hand a
 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

* 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.
 product itself does not matter to you and it is totally
 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



[2 text/html]
Contact: projekt

The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at; Newsletter, at

Basic essay at;
interview at

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

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

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

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at; Newsletter, at

Basic essay at;
interview at

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

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at; Newsletter, at

Basic essay at; interview

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

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at; Newsletter, at

Basic essay at; interview at

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

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at; Newsletter, at

Basic essay at; interview at

KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,

[2 text/html]
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 24/46 L14 [In index]
Message 05129 [Homepage] [Navigation]