Re: [jox] A response to Michel and Jakob
- From: Michel Bauwens <michel p2pfoundation.net>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:14:45 +0700
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
agreed with Toni ...
non-rival productions can and are, proceeding immediately in a p2p way, but
where-ever rival resources need to be allocated, an allocation system is a
necessity, and that can be 1) varieties of civic or authoritarian
decision-making 2) market mechanisms or other exchange mechanisms (again
see the very comprehensive overview in Allen Butchers life-long study of
communal ecomomics) 3) gifting mechanisms
Siefkes has an interesting vision of a p2p-like mechanism for labour, as
yet untested in the real world.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Toni Prug <tony irational.org> wrote:
good illustration why we have to transcend any kind "value" and
"accounting", thus "exchange" with coupled giving and taking:
Let us say we transcended the notions of value, accounting and exchange.
How do we run a city without accounting? A region? A state? How do we
collect contributions, as we do in the forms of tax and money today? We ask
for tax to be voluntarily donated and hope for the best?
Yet, without the day-to-day accounting (exchange dogma), how do we know
the amount of wealth contributed to a person or entity/firm (expressed in
money today)? OK, if it's all volunteer, we do not need to ask the known
quantity (tax as percentage) from everyone. Still, if not money, what do we
hope for these contributions to common funds to be?
If we drop the idea of a city budget (common funds), what do we build new
infrastructure and core services with, if not with common funds and command
Once we decided we need a new hospital, or a new school, how do make sure
it gets built? We wait for people to turn up, organize themselves on their
own (this is not a separate set of questions since in societies with
"exchange dogma" this is achieved through exchange that is accounted for
and command over labour as commodity), give "unconditional voluntary
contributions" in labour and hope that those who are giving their
unconditional voluntary contributions towards materials necessary for the
building of a new school or hospital would also contribute voluntarily
All those contributing materials would also have to hope that what they
need to reproduce and continue doing their work (food, energy, their raw
materials) would be volunatrily contributed.
All of these contributors of labour would have to hope that food producers
would also unconditional voluntary contribute to everyone - since by
contributing their labour unconditionally to building of a new school or
hospital, they cannot simultaneously grow food, they depend on division of
labour and product of labour of others.
Perhaps i'm in minority on this list, but i can't stretch my imagination
far enough to see how would above problems (developing cities, having
common funds, building hospitals and schools) be addressed with peer
production that depends on unconditional voluntary contributions and that
rejects the use of commodities, exchange and concept of labour in totality
(that is how i understood, perhaps wrongly, Pattern 1: Beyond Exchange and
bunch of other linked patterns that i read). Such total rejection could be
called p2p dogmatism.
This, of course, is a just small subset of problems that would have to be
solved to give us a system that can be postcapitalistic while maintaining
the high level of social and productive development.
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;