Message 05493 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 15/96 L4 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: The nature of apple trees

Hi Sefan and all !

you can't say that P2P  means illegal copying of digital products.

It's a way to exchange digital information (not necessarily illegal)
in a decentralized form.
Instead of everybody getting the information from a central points, each peer
makes available the parts it already got, and gets what it lacks from
other peers.

I wonder if p2p systems can work with anything else than digital information.

I think part of the economical troubles might come as well from the
difficulty to give a
price to digital products.
For a manufactured product, you can add the cost of the goods you used
to make it
+ electricity + shipment + cost of labor + whatever_you_think_is_right
and that for
each and everyone of the products you will ship.

For a digital product, you have an initial cost, and copying it costs
virtually 0.
How much should one pay for it ?

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Stefan Merten <smerten> wrote:
Hi Michel and all!

BTW: I stop cross-posting.

@Michel: Well, may be I'm writing Chinese but from your answer you
        seemingly did not get my point. Please let me try to make
        things clearer step by step.

        In short: A system of small innocent ingredients can develop
        an own logic. This logic can be stronger than any human
        intervention - regardless how well-meaning you are.

        Is this acceptable to you?

        Exchange based systems in the given historical circumstances
        are one example of such systems.

        Is this acceptable to you?

        In addition: To recognize the interrelation of small innocent
        ingredients and to recognize how they build a powerful system
        can well be a scientific endeavor and your all-day
        consciousness might not be helpful here. Systems like that
        *are* powerful because they are in a way self-organizing.

Yesterday Michel Bauwens wrote:
stefan wrote
There are those apple trees (aka captialism or any exchange based
system) and these apple trees have lots of drawbacks. Those advocating
money trickery basically say: Well, though the apple trees are bad
there are these apple tree seeds (aka exchange). If we modify the
seeds somehow the problems with the apple trees will vanish.

let's stay with your metaphor; let's assume we have an apple tree, not all
trees are created equal and same for the apples. Therefore, does it make
sense or not, to improve the tree and its apples, given that for a long
time, we'll depend on the apple tree,

When I say

 2 days ago Stefan Merten wrote:
 > IMHO every person has to make a choice. Either to engage in the
 > classical political movements fighting for more money with some hope
 > to be effective.

then I'm saying exactly that. Right?

and that historically, those that try
to cut down the tree, saw it grow somewhere else.

Well, in fact historically the opposite is true. There were several
attempts for an apple tree system (aka abstract labor / capitalism)
like in the late Roman Empire or in the North Italian cities during
around the 13th century. But only in the 18th / 19th century (aka when
the means of productions had developed enough) it gained momentum
(germ form theory: expansion step). Before that the germ form vanished
again and again.

So it's not at all about
'vanishing' all the problems, but about lessening them For example, in a
time of hyper-inflation, to protect the local community from its devastating

Fine with me. attac and meanwhile standard politicians are doing that.
It's classic social democrat business. I'm glad they do because during
the decline of the money system there need to be some people which
prevent the worst things - but it has nothing to do with peer
production. Well, it can damage peer production for instance if
scarcity needs to be improved for the sake to uphold the exchange

In any case: Peer production is what Oekonux is about. More and more
this seems to me like the big difference between P2P Foundation and
Oekonux: P2P Foundation does not limit itself to peer production but
includes lots of other, basically unrelated topics.

Why do you keep using 'money trickery', would you appreciate it if I said
software trickery for free software?

Sorry, but you are confusing categories here. Money is a mechanism of
an economy. Software - Free or not - is a product. In fact the
products of Free Software and proprietary software are not very
different in technical terms. They are both written in the same
programming languages for instance.

What *is* different is the underlying economy - and because of this
there are even some technical differences like stronger modularization
in Free Software. So if you want to use the word trickery you could
say "economy trickery". However, it does not match very well because
Free Software economy is not playing tricks with an existing
economical system but sets up a new one beyond the old.

The peer production advocate now would continue: What we want to
arrive at is a world where apple trees play a minor role - if at all.
What we want is a world where we have lots of different fruits but
also vegetables, meat, fish, honey and so on. For this we already have
a couple of examples like pork (aka Free Software).

Exactly, that is exactly the pluralist economy preference of the P2P
Foundation, to reduce the role of exchange to a minor subsystem. One of the
ways of doing that, is by minimising the harm that the current ill-designed
format has.

See at the top: It is not ill-*designed* but there are mechanisms

If it would be ill-designed you would have to assume that we are in
the current situation because

* either people are just too stupid so far

* or there is a conspiracy putting all these ill design elements in
 because THEY profit from it

Of course none of them is true. People did well under the given
conditions. At all times there were bright people. It's the logic of
the system they can not counter. And as far as the conspiracy is
concerned: I strongly hope we don't need to discuss this...

If you don't assume that you are the first bright person on this
planet - which by the way you are not because the money trickery stuff
is more than 100 years old - then you have to agree that there must be
forces which led to the current situation. These are the systemic
forces I'm talking of.

In fact there are many systems working that way. Capitalism - or
rather any exchange based system on an interesting scale - is not the
only one. Life itself is an example which probably is impossible to
eradicate from this planet completely by human means. This can not be
sooo hard to understand.

The peer production advocate continues: For this goal to reach any
modification of an apple tree seed is not useful because in any case
you just end up either in apple trees or nothing at all. You simply
can not modify an apple tree seed to become a pig.

we agree, we stay within the exchange mechanism, to make it better as long
as we have to partially or majorly rely on it, it's part of the panoply of
measures and constructions we undertake.

It does not support peer production any more than any other endeavor
including war, hunger and bringing people to Mars and it might be
harmful for peer production. I prefer to put my energy in supporting
peer production because it's more promising for general human
emancipation. And if more people do that we are faster there than you

It is in fact you who is ignorant because you continue to say that you
can modify the apple tree seed to deliver pork or at least help the
production of pork.

never said that, anywhere, you're either imagining or creating a strawman
that is easy to counter; that's bad debating style

I'm sorry. I thought I understood that. I'm actually glad that I'm

So to make this clear: Your attempts to remedy exchange based systems
are not related to peer production. It would be great if I got you
right this time because I can finally stop discussing this and in
Oekonux we can go back to more important things.

while we improve the alternatives, we remove the most toxic forms of money,
at the same time,

You *attempt* to do this. So far there is not a single example on an
interesting scale. For more than 100 years now...

there is no contradiction, both strategies are congruent
and complementary

More or less: Yes.


Contact: projekt

  Amine Chadly
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 15/96 L4 [In index]
Message 05493 [Homepage] [Navigation]