Message 05166 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05101 Message: 8/14 L3 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: Goal of a money reform? (was: Re: [ox-en] There IS such a thing as peer money)



Here are the goals for the model I'm working with.
All of these goals (or propositions) are provable based on thenon-universal axioms and the deductive logic given in the model, usingcommon rules of inference.
--
1. Convert surplus energy, generated by peers and stored in a commongrid, to a new kind of currency (defined under this model as atokenizer of energy and information) having an absolute value inenergy, which does not increase or decrease over time.
2. Direct the flow of "money," as defined under this model (see:Model's Axioms,) using the aforementioned new kind of currency,towards socially, ecologically and environmentally intelligentproducers of goods and services.
3. Enable a model of the economy where in order for peers to growtheir wealth (comparatively speaking) they have to share it (bylending their money to others.) In other words, "the more you share,the more you have."
4. Enable a model of the economy that promotes sustainable abundancein P2P energy and minimizes the deficit/surplus mismatches betweenpeers in both money and energy.
--
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:> Hi Michel and all!>> 2 weeks (20 days) ago Michel Bauwens 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.>> Good that we agree on this :-) .>>> However, at present, peer to peer dynamics exist within a broader field>> dominated by market (and state) processes,>> Yes. Because peer production is still in its `expansion step`_.>> .. _expansion step: http://www.oekonux.org/texts/GermFormTheory.html#expansion-step-the-germ-form-becomes-an-important-dimension>>> 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.>> Yes.>>> 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 I understand what you mean by 'peer-informed society' - an> intermediate society between capitalism and a peer production based> society in its `dominance step`_. But is it possible to find a better> wording? May be I'm also just lacking some common English phrase here.>> .. _dominance step: http://www.oekonux.org/texts/GermFormTheory.html#dominance-step-the-germ-form-becomes-the-dominant-form>> Anyway, this is a very difficult question. Not that this is legitimate> wish - of course such a wish is legitimate. But such a move implies> difficult questions.>> Foremost I'd like to ask: What is the goal of such a move(ment)?>> I thought a bit about this question and the following possible answers> came to mind - more of course are welcome.>> * I would like to live in a *future* peer production based society as>  soon as possible and therefore I want to accelerate this historical>  movement.>>  If that is the goal then it is likely but not automatically given>  that some intermediary societal change will help. In earlier times>  people would have said that we need a revolution for that change ->  though in germ form thinking a revolution AFAICS is at best a small>  part of the whole change process.>> * I would like to benefit from peer production processes *now* as much>  as I can and that is why I want to live in such a context as much as>  possible.>>  Then it must be clear what in peer production is beneficial for you>  and what can be done to help you to get as much of this benefit as>  possible now. Then such an peer-informed context needs to implement>  these benefits for you. And you should have an idea of what is>  beneficial for you actually.>> * I have a nice life now but it is part of my Selbstentfaltung to>  think about society and I like the idea of being a obstetrician for>  a new society.>>  In this case an intermediary context makes only sense if it helps>  the birth of a new society. However, the time scale doesn't matter>  much.>> I think that the goal of such a move(ment) is important and implies a> lot. To everyone with that wish: What is your goal?>> The question then is how to accomplish such a move(ment). This> question is worth a couple of more too long posts ;-) . However, I> tried to start that discussion with the topic of current limitations> of peer production.>>> I think it is crucial to think about such distinctions,>> Absolutely. Clear concepts - implying clear distinctions - and good> questions are absolutely crucial for a deeper understanding. In that> sense I want to emphasize that it is all but nitpicking to insist on> clear concepts - as I often do ;-) .>>> between peer money>> and peer-informed money and processes, the latter not being a contradiction>> in terms>> Yes.>> But I guess you agree that the current money system co-exists with> peer production. Funnily the same saying Marc used - "don't fix it> unless it's broken" - came to my mind some days ago when I thought> about these things.>> For nearly all goals a move towards a peer production based society> IMHO should *improve* the conditions for peer production. And here I> can not see what's wrong with the current money system *for peer> production*. Regardless whether some money trickery would work or not> I'd like to know what problems of *peer production* a reform in the> money system solves.>>> (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?)>> You don't need to reward peer producers. They do it because they like> it. They are rewarded by what they do already. We need to be careful> here.>> Apart from that I'd say that in this case the meaning of the money> "outside the peer production process" dominates. It makes sense in> this "outside" and thus is clearly a part of it. For the peer> production process itself it is thus also something outside. Therefore> I would not call it peer money.>>> So, one of the questions is then, how to reform the market structures?>> To accomplish what for peer production?>>> A crucial aspect of this reform is to reform/transform the monetary system,>> to arrive at a peer-informed monetary system.>> See above. Unless it is shown that the current monetary system is a> problem for peer production processes I do not see the improvement. So> why bother?>>> This involves refusing the>> built-in infinite growth protocol of existing capitalist money, and using>> money and finances with value-sensitive designs.>> I often argued that in the sentence above the words "existing> capitalist" are superfluous making your whole point absurd. The> essence of money is to be abstracted away from real society and *that*> is the problem you are trying to deal with. You either need to destroy> that abstraction - and then it is no longer money you are talking of -> or accept the same problems - and then it makes no sense.>>> 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'.>> Well, you know that I would have omitted "capitalist" in the sentence> above which makes it a trivial sentence and not absurd. IMO it's all> about>> * What is money?>> * Are the characteristics of money we observe inalienable features of>  money or can things be changed to result in something different?>> I and others argued over and over again that money is based on labor> and abstraction and that the abstraction lives a life of it's own and> *this* is the problem. You seem to deny that. However, I can not> remember one case where you said why. Why?>> But see this post for a couple of other points - especially: Where> does peer production benefit from a money reform?>>> 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.>> Well, let me say it this way. I'd be glad if someone would be able to> "fix" the money system - or at least make a money based economy a> safer and more humane place. *But* even if this is possible I can not> see what this has to do with peer production! Not even remotely!>> IMO you could equally well argue that everybody has to become a> Christian/Hindu/Moslem/Buddhist/... or wear blue shoes or ... and that> this would help peer production.>> Any money reform of the sort you are suggesting all the time is at the> very best an internal change inside the money system.>> The only thing I can see why this could be useful for peer production> is that peer production still needs some time to take over. In *this*> sense it would be useful if capitalism / money based systems could> still wait some decades until they finally break. If some money reform> can help here that's great.>>> 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.>> I'm sorry but so far this is pure theory. Or even worse: Where these> models have turned into practice - such as Argentina - they failed> miserably. And for exactly those reasons I'm pointing out all the time> [1]_. The hype about LETS_ also came down during the last few years> and today I think it is clear to everyone that LETS_ are no real> alternative.>> .. [1] In Argentina it was foremost the lack of a power monopoly (aka>       state) preventing counterfeit money.>> .. _LETS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LETS>> Peer production on the other hand emerged as a *practical phenomenon*.> It is not born from some theorists and is growing since 30 years. This> convinces me.>> The money trickery stuff you are suggesting is at least a hundred> years old and it is really boring to hear it over and over again.>> I can also not think of a single instance where a peer producer> concerned with real production thought about this or even asked for> that type of money reform. Therefore it seems to me that this whole> discussion is completely alienated from real existing peer production.>>> So, in this sense, a project like Marc's called peer money for convenience's>> sake, is totally legitimate and important,>> Well, I think Marc's project ignores a lot of important insights and> absolutely resembles the patterns of (capitalist) money. But of course> I might be wrong and in ten years time I can see that>> * the model works and>> * while being on a large scale avoids the same problems of standard>  money.>> So go ahead. After all meanwhile there are lots and lots of people> saying very similar things so it should be easy to make a start. I'd> love to see them being successful so we can watch things in practice> instead of discussing things which IMO are at best not thought> through.>> In any case I can not see what Marc's project has to do with peer> production. In the contrary: As Patrick found and I emphasized in my> last post Marc's project is obviously opposed to common peer> production practices such as making competition superfluous. So I> guess you'll have a hard time to explain why such a model is helpful> for peer production processes.>>>                                                Grüße>>                                                Stefan> _________________________________> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/> Contact: projekt oekonux.de>�������������������������{��0����{������jب���0����{��zK�����#zK����


Thread: oxenT05101 Message: 8/14 L3 [In index]
Message 05166 [Homepage] [Navigation]