Message 05510 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 18/96 L5 [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 Michel and all!

2 days ago Michel Bauwens wrote:
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Stefan Merten <smerten> wrote:
 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.

agreed, this is why changing monetary protocols is so important, I'm so glad
you understand that!!

There is a misunderstanding here: Changing monetary protocols is
exactly the (pointless) human intervention I was talking of.

*But* there is hope here :-) :

        Is this acceptable to you?

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

        Is this acceptable to you?


If you agree to this then we would "only" need to clarify what is part
of the constant logic and what can be changed by human means. (Though
I'm a bit tired of this discussion. I'm discussing this for nearly 15
years now and there is a point when you just have enough...)

        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.


This is also an important point. Using scientific standards also means
that you need to take previous knowledge into account. I'm not saying
you need to swallow everything - certainly not. But you have to
consider what others did before.

This is what IMHO is lacking most in this discussion. When I see all
these people inventing just another exchange based system from scratch
I wonder whether they really studied the available sources.

I was referring to money specifically, not to capitalism as such, attempts
to coercively do away with money have not worked, as was the case in the
Soviet Union and other places; this is the argument put forward, based on
historical evidence, by raoul victor at oekonux 4

I don't think it makes much sense to talk about money as such. It has
to be considered in the historical context. A society where money is
used for minor trade is completely different from a society where all
of life is dominated by money. In short: The mode of production has to
be considered.

What peer production shows is that in this mode of production we don't
need structural force any longer to make people produce useful things.
That is the way to enhance, build upon and speed up IMHO.

the direct social production of money is the peer production of money, in a
way; while not the same as peer production, it is related as part of the
broad transformation towards the direct social production of value through
the social sphere

I have no idea what you mean by value. Unless I have a better
explanation I'll understand the weight of a product ;-) .

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.

yes, indeed, the P2P Foundation takes a broader view of social change; BUT,
the different distributed infrastructues, and the direct social production
of open money systems are definitely related to the p2p paradigm;

It would help me enormously if you could give a few definitions. For
instance I have no idea what you mean by "p2p". I just reiterated the
standard definition and unless I know what you mean I'll understand

Striving for a scientific mode of work this is indispensable and it
saves us and others from a lot of misunderstandings.


Looking forward to it. I really hope we can sort this out this time
and find a modus of vivendi regarding this topic.


Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 18/96 L5 [In index]
Message 05510 [Homepage] [Navigation]