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 gmail.com> 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>> machines)>>>> 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>> theories?>>>> Thanks,>>>> Marc>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>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,>>>>>> Michel>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:39 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>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 Regulation)>>>>>>>> 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>>>> Process)>>>>>>>> 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>>>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Social_Currency_Model>>>>>>>> Merry xmas and happy holidays to all :-)>>>>>>>> Marc>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:45 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>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>>>>> assets)>>>>>>>>>> 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>>>>> society)>>>>>>>>>> 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 gmail.com> 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,>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>> 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/>