[ox-en] There IS such a thing as peer money
- From: "marc fawzi" <marc.fawzi gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:30:40 -0800
[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 acase 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> ofthe shared reality I'm working within, from a European based group promotingGoogle 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 norelation 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 fullor in part, when it comes to the peer money and peer credit.
I'm working on game design that would energetically align people's operativerealities with my own, i.e. to create a locally shared reality by changingpeople'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 againstits existence. In fact, it's existence is demanded in such scenario, partlybecause of pragmatism (and knowledge of the current maturity of man, or lackof) and partly because such new money would enable society to take aqualitivate step in the right direction.
I hope this enables further discussion.
Regards,
Marc
---
*From: Stefan Merten* <smerten oekonux.de> Reply-To: list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgCc: 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 preparationeats up a lot of my free time / energy.
The following is something I promised Michel to do. It has beentriggered by the use of the term "peer money" which I think is acontradiction in terms. This is an attempt to give reasons why I thinkthat money and peer production are generally in contradiction.
Having said that I should also say that they can walk together forsome time but according to germ form theory that is no contradictionto the contradiction thesis. But one should keep in mind that to usemoney for peer production projects is always a twisted approachbecause of that contradiction.
The approach below is based on comparing features of money and peerproduction. In that it is also a contribution to further define peerproduction.
* 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-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iQCVAwUBSGif3AnTZgC3zSk5AQII7gP/bxnyXcAlYRSnydPRihdIdRrTLWNtbzqVvVeqYEimMUqcf/k++zKeHelwF/E2AaTMK3y0AUnjd90NhEb8mc/b44xjcl9J6vWdMoRLmOyf33JGoxRWYRAR6guPkkSVmkyeypkByU/gQsl79IqKtsrUGy/8VEiVZadwJU8ijnJMr8Y==3Oc6-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----_________________________________Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/Contact: projekt oekonux.de
--------* From: Patrick Anderson* <agnucius gmail.com> Reply-To: list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgDate: Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:14 PM
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:
Stefan,
I agree the money we use right now is terrible.
The debt-based, fiat currencies that almost every nation rents fromthe international bankers (such as the US Federal Reserve Note) havemassive problems, but does that really mean all forms of money wecould ever devise are certain to be bad?
Money is a structural force used to force your will onto others.
Within the current situation we find ourselves, I see part of what youmean here, but could a new kind of money ever be created that remained'fair' and allowed peers to pay each other to perform specializedtasks?
Similarly, are you saying that P2P must not include barter?
Must a P2P society not allow specialization? Must we each do all workof every type for ourselves? If so, then what is the point of gettingtogether in the first place?
I'm not saying that is what you claim, I am just trying to understandwhat you mean.
* 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?
That is currently true for the international bankers who issuecurrency whenever they please, but that problem could be fixed whendesigning a new currency by backing it (issuing it against) somethingreal such as Capital or Labor.
* 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.
That appears to be true as we examine the system we currently strugglewithin, but I have some ideas (and I know others do) about how to makea currency meaningful between peers without relying upon an enforcingstate.
* 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.
That is currently true of the debt-based fiat currencies, but again,could design a new type of money without such a problem?
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.
That is true for the exchange of product, but what about the exchangeof LABOR? In other words, is specialization an important part of PeerProduction, and will it be ok to compensate each other for tradingjobs (you bake bread while I thresh the wheat)? Or must we each livea solitary existence with no exchange whatsoever? I'm not saying thatis your claim, I am asking if it is.
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?
Producing for use value is, in my opinion, the primary driving forcebehind Peer Production. I think independent Free Software developersare working because they are the initial CONSUMER of what theyproduce, NOT because they wish to donate their time and effort toothers.
They are applying their skills to scratch their own itch. Allowingothers to copy that solution is a minor factor, and is also somewhatselfish (in a good way) in that it is probably mostly to gain somefriends and fame.
Sincerely,Patrick[Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Samuel Rose* <samuel.rose gmail.com> Reply-To: list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgDate: Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:18 PM
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]Patrick, you raise some good questions. maybe you are using the Socraticmethod here. If not, then I think if we are saying "p2p must (fill in theblank here") then we are not describing a p2p system of any type, since allparticipation is voluntary in p2p systems, and all rules emerge in some wayfrom the network of peers who make up the system.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius gmail.com>wrote:[Quoted text hidden]--Sam RoseSocial SynergyTel:+1(517) 639-1552Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451AIM: Str9960Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samroseskype: samuelroseemail: samuel.rose gmail.comhttp://socialsynergyweb.com/services
Related Sites/Blogs/Projects:OpenBusinessModels: http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/FrontPagehttp://p2pfoundation.nethttp://blog.p2pfoundation.nethttp://www.cooperationcommons.comhttp://barcampbank.orghttp://communitywiki.orghttp://openfarmtech.orgInformation Filtering:http://ma.gnolia.com/people/srose/bookmarkshttp://del.icio.us/srosehttp://twitter.com/SamRose
[2 text/html][Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Michel Bauwens* <michelsub2004 gmail.com> Reply-To:list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgCc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>, Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist gmail.com>Date: Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:05 AM
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]Thank you Stefan, for initiating this important debate.
I'll participate under the caveat that I'm no expert in economics.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:
[Quoted text hidden]I would argue that there are a wide variety of degrees of coercion and thatsome forms of coercion may be arrived at through legimate consensus.
What I mean is the following: if I first expropriate farmers so they can'tmake a living, then of course they are forced to work for me, because,otherwise they starve. But if we both have a guaranteed income, and we arefairly equal, then money can be the basis of a voluntary exchange. I canexchange, but don't have to. So what I'm saying here is that we need todistinguish 'money as such', from its particular instantiation in a specificcapitalist economy.
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?
There is a difference between scarce and sufficient money as a concept, asI agree that 'abundant' money may be a contradiction in terms.
Today, if I have no money, I cannot do anything, so we have regions in theworlds with armies of unemployed but able-bodied people. Thus, we canimagine, as traditional societies did, that money is created by labouritself. The very act of work, if accepted by somebody else, creates themoney. In such a system, you would not have to wait to have money, beforebeing able to mobilize resources and energy.
I.e. "Sufficient: because based on mutual credit, i.e. there's never a lackof money since it is created upon the needs/wants streaming."(http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Money)
This is a quote from Keith Hart's book, *Reading Money in an Unequal World.New York and London: Texere, 2001,http://p2pfoundation.net/Monetary_Sufficiency_-_Non-scarcity_based_monetary_systems*:
"Money is the problem, but it is also the solution. *We have to find ways oforganising markets as equal exchange and that means detaching the forms ofmoney from the capitalist institutions which currently define them. Ibelieve that, instead of taking money to be something scarce beyond ourcontrol, we could begin to make it ourselves as a means of accounting forthose exchanges whose outcomes we wish to calculate*. Money would thenbecome multiple sources of personal credit, building on the technology whichhas already given us plastic cards. The key to repersonalisation of theeconomy is cheap information. Money was previously impersonal becauseobjects exchanged at distance needed to be detached from the partiesinvolved. Now growing amounts of information can be attached to transactionsinvolving people anywhere in the world. This provides the opportunity for usto make circuits of exchange employing money forms which reflect ourindividuality, so that money may be more meaningful to each of us as a meansof participating in the multiple associations we choose to enter. All ofthis stands in stark contrast to state-made money in the 20th century, wherecitizens belonged to one national economy whose currency was monopolised bya political class claiming the authority of representation to manage itsvolume, price and allocation." (http://www.thememorybank.co.uk/ )
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.
This is indeed crucial, who is going to the enforcing.
Today, private banks create the money, barely regulated by central banks.98% of the supply is no longer available for production. This creates theparadoxical situation that we have a *financial system which is overabundantfor those who don't need it, and scarce in those parts of the world reallyneeding it*.
I agree that peer money is a contradiction in terms if we have in mind pure'non-reciprocal' peer production as it applies to immaterial production.But, peers can also loosely be used when we talk about reciprocity - gifteconomy based systems, and in addition, when the production is done not bythe market or the state, but by civil society itself.
Therefore, peer money can be used in that context, as long as we know whatwe mean. Money can be produced by private players, can be regulated bypublic players (both are true now), can be produced by the state itself (asused to be the case), but there is clearly a third alternative: the directproduction of monetary value by civil society itself.
This is what is happening now, marginally, but could be extented in thefuture, in case of a global crisis of the capitalist system. Money would beproduced by self-regulated (self-coercing) communities, which may have asystem of exchange amongst each other.
I'm not arguing that such local/virtual currencies are sufficient bythemselves, but they could be an element of a global monetary reform awayfrom capitalist money.
Here's the vision of Bernard Lietaer, which consists of four tiers:
According to Lietaer in his influential *The Future of Money*, there is afour-tiered monetary system for the future. People and businesses willroutinely and comfortably deal in this multiple currency system, just as wetoday use all kinds of value cards, air miles, vouchers, credit and debitcards and virtual currencies in the course of our lives.
1) TIER ONE: Global
The first tier of this monetary structure would be a "global referencecurrency" that is not linked to nation states as such. This currency, whichis what the Terra is supposed to evolve into, is there to provide a steadyreliable type of money that can be used for international trade. The Terrawill be based on internationally traded items like gold, copper, and wheat.It appears that Lietaer believes this kind of new world currency could morphinto being from various corporate scrips used in cashless trade betweenbusinesses today.
(currently existing similar currencies are growing by 15% a year, 3 timesthe rate of the commercial dollar)
2) TIER TWO: SUPRAREGIONAL
A second tier in this monetary structure would be, for example, certainmultinational currencies utilized by what would be deemed as geopoliticallyclose countries. This could include, say, the NAFTA dollar, the Euro, and anASEAN (the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations) currency.
3) THIRD LEVEL: NATIONAL
On the third level, we have some remaining national currencies which runwithin or outside the multinational currency regions. But this time,individual states no longer have the monopoly in issuance of currency.
4) FOURTH LEVEL: COMMUNITY At the fourth level, we have CCs/new money as has been discussed. ToLietaer, these CCs could have an expanded role and greater influence, asthey may be widely used and exchanged through community internet clearinghouses.
It is worth knowing how the Terra might function,http://www.realitysandwich.com/a_new_kind_money_end_money:
"The Terra is a CC that would be issued by a nation's central bank. Asoutlined by Lietaer in his seminal "A 'Green' Convertible Currency", what wewill have is a "commodity-based currency, [for ] a … New Currency backed bya basket of from three to a dozen different commodities for which there areexisting international commodity markets. For instance, 100 New Currencycould be worth 0.05 ounces of gold, plus 3 ounces of silver, plus 15 poundsof copper, plus 1 barrel of oil, plus 5 pounds of wool."
This CC/new money is therefore backed by the valuation of the commoditiesin the basket at the value of the national currency of the society itoriginates from. So in the US the value of the basket, in terms of USD, willdetermine the exchange rate between those trading in USD for the Terra inAmerica.
Once again, we need to understand that the Terra works in tandem with thenational currency and is not a new money that supplants everything else inits wake. As the *Terra TRC (**Trade Reference Currency) **White Paper* byTakashi Kiuchi, Chairman of The Future 500, states:
"The Terra is designed as a complementary currency operating in parallelwith national currencies. Therefore, everything that exists today asmonetary and financial products or practices continues to exist. The Terramechanism is only one additional option available for those internationaleconomic actors who voluntarily choose to use it."
Stefan will understand that the terra is designed to be sufficient, i.e. notscarce neither abundant, and to have a objective standard.
* 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?
I agree, but the new forms of money are designed for material production andto reward work. Now peer production is sustained by capitalist money andeconomic practices, but that is clearly unsustainable. As long as we do nothave a fully abundant society which does not require a solution forscarce/rival goods, we need an alternative sustainable structure for peerproduction to operate in. This is what such a monetary reform is intended toaccomplish.
* 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.>>What I find immoral may not coincide with someone else, but the peerproduction of terrorism is clearly incompatible with my survival. Therefore,it is incorrect to put money as totally alienated, and peer production aspurely unalienated, as there are many hybrid possibilities.
Monetary transformation is intended to have less alienated money,
Michel
[2 text/html][Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Franz Nahrada* <f.nahrada reflex.at> Reply-To: list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgCc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>, Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist gmail.com>Date: Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:47 AM
list-en oekonux.org (Michel) writes:>What I mean is the following: if I first expropriate farmers so they can't>make a living, then of course they are forced to work for me, because,>otherwise they starve. But if we both have a guaranteed income, and we are>fairly equal, then money can be the basis of a voluntary exchange. I can>exchange, but don't have to. So what I'm saying here is that we need to>distinguish 'money as such', from its particular instantiation in a>specific>capitalist economy.
The specific capitalistic development of money revolves around theemergence of debt (Geld als Zahlungsmittel). Money is spent and then itbecomes the centerpiece of a constraint to pay it back. Economic activityis subdued to the absolute neccessity to re-create money. G-W-G
Of course, the constraint lies also allready in earlier functions.
If money is the Measure of Value, it means that the whole economy isallready subdued to the purpose of creating value.
If money is Means of Circulation, then there is a constraint on every needto be worthless without money.
But the Means of Payment function effectively establishes the dominance ofmoney over the whole process.
I think the dissapearance of money is a gradual process that will startwith the third function.
Capitalist production was set under the condition that production happenswhen money buys its elements. Thats why logically Zahlungsmitteldominates. The bigger the monetary investment, the more effective theconditions of repayment (by constantly conquering the market). P2Pproduction challenges this central assumption. Labour does not needcapital to associate.
But the Association of Labour, which is another term I want to give toP2P, stays extremely sensitive and vulnerable to intervention of capital.
Mutual credit is in jeopardy, when one part of producers are in danger toloose their markets because of the market conquista - and the "burden ofdead labour" has been accumulating enormpously with the unprecedentedgrowth fictitious capital - capital is constantly available in any size todestroy our peer economies by "flooding" them with "copies". (Massproduced garbage). The speculation is keeping production alive andpostponing the crisis. But what production!
Its not simply depending on who is making the money.
I agree that peer money is a contradiction in terms if we have in mind>pure>'non-reciprocal' peer production as it applies to immaterial production.>But, peers can also loosely be used when we talk about reciprocity - gift>economy based systems, and in addition, when the production is done not by>the market or the state, but by civil society itself.>>Therefore, peer money can be used in that context, as long as we know what>we mean. Money can be produced by private players, can be regulated by>public players (both are true now), can be produced by the state itself>(as>used to be the case), but there is clearly a third alternative: the direct>production of monetary value by civil society itself.
We will discover that if we really start to work for each otherconsciously, every other question (quantity, quality, timeliness,sustainability) will be more important than value. The obsession onequivalence is something alien to any rational production system. Thatssomething known inside any capitalist firm. Thats why the "profit center"idea is the death of coherence within organisations.
But as the emergence of money, its demise will be a long and painfulhistorical process.
What I find immoral may not coincide with someone else, but the peer>production of terrorism is clearly incompatible with my survival.>Therefore,>it is incorrect to put money as totally alienated, and peer production as>purely unalienated, as there are many hybrid possibilities.
Good point. But is terrorism really peer production?
Franz[Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Paul Cockshott* <wpc dcs.gla.ac.uk> Reply-To: list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.org, list-en oekonux.orgCc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>Date: Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:11 AM
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]Merten--------
* 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.
WPC--- 'Money is the power to command the labour of others.' Adam Smith
Paul CockshottDept of Computing ScienceUniversity of Glasgow+44 141 330 1629www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ <http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/>[Quoted text hidden][2 text/html][Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Michel Bauwens* <michelsub2004 gmail.com> Reply-To:list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgCc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>, Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist gmail.com>Date: Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:20 PM
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Franz Nahrada <f.nahrada reflex.at> wrote:
list-en oekonux.org (Michel) writes:>> The specific capitalistic development of money revolves around the> emergence of debt (Geld als Zahlungsmittel). Money is spent and then it> becomes the centerpiece of a constraint to pay it back. Economic activity> is subdued to the absolute neccessity to re-create money. G-W-G
But that is very much related to interest isn't it. Negative interestmonies, by making it harder and expensive to hoard, can break that logic.
See below.
But the Means of Payment function effectively establishes the dominance of> money over the whole process.>> I think the dissapearance of money is a gradual process that will start> with the third function.>> Labour does not need> capital to associate.>> But the Association of Labour, which is another term I want to give to> P2P, stays extremely sensitive and vulnerable to intervention of capital.>>> Its not simply depending on who is making the money.
Of course, but the 'who' is important as to what rules the money will be'coded' with. Civil money will have different 'protocols' than privatefor-profit money.
Thats why the "profit center"> idea is the death of coherence within organisations.>> But as the emergence of money, its demise will be a long and painful> historical process.
We need to be able to offer something specific here, not just state that itwill be a long process, how do we actually transform the situation?
What I find immoral may not coincide with someone else, but the peer> >production of terrorism is clearly incompatible with my survival.> >Therefore,> >it is incorrect to put money as totally alienated, and peer production as> >purely unalienated, as there are many hybrid possibilities.>> Good point. But is terrorism really peer production?
I'm making that point to avoid the binary distinctions made by Stefan, that'money' is all wrong, and peer production is 'all good'
Of course, full peer production needs to be good for the parties, good forthe group, and good for society at large. But non-peer inspired groups mayuse partial aspects of peer production in their own limited interest.
OK, here is the promised quotes on demurrage and monetary reform:
(if you ever have the chance, lietaer's newest book, of which I had thechance to read the manuscript, has a fascinating chapter showing how thefirst medieval renaissance was linked to such money, and broke down when itwas abolished)
*Demurrage-based currencies*
URLhttp://www.ascentofhumanity.com/book/7-02-The_Currency_of_Cooperation.html
"As a matter of fact, *there are money systems that encourage sharing notcompetition, conservation not consumption, and community, not anonymity*.Pilot versions of such systems have been around for at least a hundred yearsnow, but because they are inimical to the larger patterns of our culture,they have been marginalized or even actively suppressed. Meanwhile, manycreative proposals for new modes of industry such as Paul Hawken's Ecologyof Commerce, and many green design technologies, are uneconomic under thecurrent money system. The alternative money systems I describe below willnaturally induce the economies described by visionaries such as Hawken, E.F.Schumacher, Herman Daly, and others. They will also reverse the progressivenationalization and globalization of every economic sector, revitalizecommunities, and contribute to the elimination of the "externalities" thatput economic growth at odds with human happiness and planetary health. Giventhe determining role of interest, the first alternative currency system toconsider is one that structurally eliminates it. As the history of theCatholic Church demonstrates, laws and admonitions against interest areineffective if its structural necessity is still present in the nature ofthe currency. A structural solution is needed, such as the stamp-scripsystem proposed by Silvio Gesell in The Natural Economic Order. *Also knownas demurrage, Gesell's "free-money" (as he called it) bears a form ofnegative interest. Every week a stamp costing a tiny fraction (say 0.1%) ofthe currency's denomination must be affixed to it, in effect a "user fee" ora "maintenance cost"; another way to look at it is that the currency "goesbad"--depreciates in value--as it ages.* If this sounds like a radicalproposal that could never happen, it may surprise you to learn that Gesell'sideas were praised by no less an authority than John Maynard Keynes himself.What's more, the system has actually been tried out and it worked!
Although demurrage was applied as long ago as Ancient Egypt in the form of astorage cost for commodity-backed currency, the best-known example ofinstituted in the town of Worgl, Austria, in 1932 by its beloved mayorUttenguggenberger. To remain valid, each piece of this locally-issuedcurrency required a monthly stamp costing 1% of its face value. Instead ofgenerating interest and growing, accumulation of wealth became aburden--much like possessions are a burden to the nomadic hunter-gatherer.People therefore spent their income quickly, generating intense economicactivity in the town. The unemployment rate plummeted even as the rest ofthe country slipped into a deepening depression; public works werecompleted, and prosperity continued until the Worgl currency was outlawed in1933 at the behest of a threatened central bank.
Demurrage has a number of economic, social, and psychological effects thatare highly relevant to our discussion. *Conceptually, demurrage works byfreeing material goods, which are subject to natural cyclic processes ofrenewal and decay, from their linkage with a money that only grows,exponentially, over time*. As established in Chapter Four, this dynamic iswhat is driving us toward ruin in the utter exhaustion of all social,cultural, natural, and spiritual wealth. Demurrage currency merely subjectsmoney to the same laws as natural commodities, whose continuing valuerequires maintenance."
[edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Demurrage?title=Demurrage&action=edit§ion=3>]Discussion
*The two main planks of currency reform*, explained by Thelma Weeks:
URL = http://www.margritkennedy.de/english/articles/thelma.html
First of all the proposals address two main problems within today's monetarysystem -
1. The right that Central Banks have to issue money at will, almost withoutrestrictions and without any backing. This right, the uncovered loans andthe ensuing interest will have to go.
2. The new system will no longer be built on growth. Without the burden ofinterest companies no longer need their customers to pay for their loanrepayments (an estimated 30% on every article being bought in Europe). Thiswill get rid of inflation and companies can concentrate on production thatmeets a real need.
The new financial system incorporates the numerous complementary currencies(approximately 5000 at the last count) to sustain the co-operative tradesystem, alongside the present currencies for competitive global trade.Complimentary currencies - currencies created and issued by co-operatingpeople, used for exchange within a defined context and interest free - areto used wherever appropriate to stimulate local, regional and nationaltrade. They are seen as especially useful to achieve specific aims inspecific areas. A lot of these complimentary currencies already exist - e.g.air miles, bonus points barter schemes, LETS, Time Dollars and the JapaneseNational Health currency. It is further proposed that there is a demurrage(opposite of interest) for currency which is not in circulation('savingsaccounts') to encourage the use of currency as an active tool for trade andexchange. Money should have the same function in the societal body as bloodhas in the human body. When it gets stuck it causes problems. For thatreason the demurrage has historically proved its viability. The new systemwill address many existing challenges in our society and have an immediateeffect on poverty, starvation and inequality. Not to mention the damage toecosystems. It will be part of the present emerging paradigm/consciousnessshift from fear and insecurity to confidence and trust of a large part ofhumanity to implement these proposals. If everyone understands where thepresent system doesn't work and why and more importantly what it obstructsor undermines then we can all focus on the alternatives and the successfulexperiments that are already taking place and build on them.
[2 text/html][Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Paul Cockshott* <wpc dcs.gla.ac.uk> Reply-To: list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.org, list-en oekonux.orgCc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>, Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist gmail.com>Date: Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:05 PM
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]Negative interest money would just lead to a generalise devaluation ofmoney. The crucialthing is to restrict
a) the circulation between agents to prevent the emergence of clandestineblack markets, this can not be done with paper moneies, but could easily be done with a systemof databased social credits
b) the duration of validity of the credits, so that they expire say onemonth after they are issued
Paul CockshottDept of Computing ScienceUniversity of Glasgow+44 141 330 1629www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ <http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/>
-----Original Message-----From: owner-list-en oekonux.org on behalf of Michel BauwensSent: Tue 7/1/2008 1:20 PMTo: list-en oekonux.org[Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Michel Bauwens* <michelsub2004 gmail.com> Reply-To:list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgCc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>, Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist gmail.com>Date: Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:38 PM
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]Hi Paul,
I'm interested in two things:
1) what is your evidence that negative interest money would devaluate money,I think the historical record shows otherwise, almost all great periods ofhigh social growth used it (see Lietaer's historical evidence)
Furthermore, what you say is counter-intuitive. Since negative interestmoney restricts unproductive money supply, but increases the circulation ofalready existing money, it would seem logical to expect that there is lessinflation.
Granted you were right however, since we already have permanenthyperinflation through bubbles (and soon again in money), there could stillbe advantages despite what you say.
2) can you provide more info on your social credit proposals?
3) are 1 and 2 necessarily incompatible?
Michel
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Paul Cockshott <wpc dcs.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]>> [1 text/plain]> Negative interest money would just lead to a generalise devaluation of> money. The crucial> thing is to restrict>> a) the circulation between agents to prevent the emergence of clandestine> black markets, this> can not be done with paper moneies, but could easily be done with a> system of databased social credits>> b) the duration of validity of the credits, so that they expire say one> month after they are issued>> Paul Cockshott> Dept of Computing Science> University of Glasgow> [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]> www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ <http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/><http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/>[Quoted text hidden]--The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peeralternatives.
Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, athttp://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, athttp://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview athttp://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.htmlBEST 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/[Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Samuel Rose* <samuel.rose gmail.com> Reply-To: list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgCc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>, Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist gmail.com>Date: Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:54 PM
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]It seems like Stephan was talking about motives behind production, or maybeintended to refer to those motives.
So, production that is primarily motivated by the desire to gain more moneyor materialstic gain, vs. production that is motivated primarily by thedesire to help fellow humans solve basic problems of survival, or becauseyou enjoy it, or other non-materialistic gain motivations.
Some metric of value almost always seems to emerge among people once groupsscale up over around 12-25 people or so. So, it seems that among humans,some form of currency is almost inevitable, based on how often it tends toemerge. It serves a role, at least being representative of what some-to-allcollectively find valuable.
So, then we get into what are the best ways for people to employ thesemetrics. If the system were co-managed by participants as a commons, aresource that is respected as being a factor in the health and well being ofall humans connected to it, and other criteria for recognizing commonshttp://www.communitywiki.org/en/CommunityWikiResourcePool#RecognizingCommons
Right now, the health of money systems *is* tied to growth, andmaterialistic gain, primarily. This is destructive to the commons of peoplewho are tied to money systems, for the reasons you all have stated.Alternative money systems that are organized around the recognition thatthey are a commons, and co-governed by the people who use them stand abetter chance of being a metric of values beyond just materialstic gain, butof other *types* of wealth in human systems.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>wrote:[Quoted text hidden]--Sam RoseSocial SynergyTel:+1(517) 639-1552Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451AIM: Str9960Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samroseskype: samuelroseemail: samuel.rose gmail.comhttp://socialsynergyweb.com/services
Related Sites/Blogs/Projects:OpenBusinessModels: http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/FrontPagehttp://p2pfoundation.nethttp://blog.p2pfoundation.nethttp://www.cooperationcommons.comhttp://barcampbank.orghttp://communitywiki.orghttp://openfarmtech.orgInformation Filtering:http://ma.gnolia.com/people/srose/bookmarkshttp://del.icio.us/srosehttp://twitter.com/SamRose
[Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Michel Bauwens* <michelsub2004 gmail.com> Reply-To:list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgCc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>, Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist gmail.com>Date: Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:17 AM
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]Thanks Sam, I totally agree, and this is the background to the 'beef' I havewith the Stefan's. Granted that we 'need' money, at least in a transitionalstate (which may last forever, unless a system a la siefkes takes over),then it is just inconceivable that we would use the present capitalistprotocol for such a money. That is a very simple, and for me, irrefutablepremise.
Concerning motivation:
We have things we like to do, which are non-problematic in peer production,then we have things we do not like to do, and for which we need supportivemechanisms.
Of course, this is a continuum, and motivations should not be seen astotally binary (I'm not suggesting that this is what Stefan was pointing at)
I think the following citation is useful:
A distinction made by Heb Shepard, summarized by Rosa Zubizarreta:
*from the perspective of "primary mentality", 'individual' and 'group' areexperienced as opposite...* in order to have a strong group, it appears thatwe need to 'give up' some of our individuality; conversely, to be'individuals', it appears we need to 'distance' ourselves from the group...
*in contrast, from the perspective of "secondary mentality" 'individual' and'group' are experienced in a synergistic way*: the MORE room there is forpeople to be individual and unique and eccentric, the stronger a group wewill have; conversely, the more real support i can feel from the group, themore individual and unique and eccentric i can be...
Rosa:
so we as individuals, we can always discover or create ways to 'resist'structures that are organized along the lines of 'primary mentality', and,find ways to create forms of social interaction, that support 'secondarymentality"....
AND, at the same time, the social forms of organization, _do_ affect us...making one or another form of mentality, more likely... Our ways of talkingand thinking and organizing ourselves, tend to be rooted in one or the othermentality.....
i think it's also important to recognize, that these forms or structures,that embody and support these different kinds of consciousness can be'habitual' and 'informal', rather than 'explicit/formal'... so even when acommunity has rejected the conventional forms of organization which could beseen as embodying primary mentality (voting, majority rules, bureaucraticstructures, etc...)
it's still the case, that the community will tend to have a particular'culture', or 'way of doing things'... and that culture will not necessarilybe 'secondary' since as individuals, we still tend to carry the "primarymentality" within us, even in the absence of conventional forms oforganization...
so the desire to 'belong', to 'get along', to 'not be excluded from thegroup', along with the internalized belief, that to do so, we need to 'notmake waves', can tend to silence a lot of potential divergence and encourageconformity to the prevailing cultural norms... (the 'groupthink'phenomenon....
More athttp://p2pfoundation.net/Primary_vs_Secondary_Individual-Group_Mentality[Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Franz Nahrada* <f.nahrada reflex.at> Reply-To: list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgCc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>, Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist gmail.com>Date: Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Thanks Michel for bringing up that point!
list-en oekonux.org writes:>>i think it's also important to recognize, that these forms or structures,>that embody and support these different kinds of consciousness can be>'habitual' and 'informal', rather than 'explicit/formal'... so even when a>community has rejected the conventional forms of organization which could>be>seen as embodying primary mentality (voting, majority rules, bureaucratic>structures, etc...)>>it's still the case, that the community will tend to have a particular>'culture', or 'way of doing things'... and that culture will not>necessarily>be 'secondary' since as individuals, we still tend to carry the "primary>mentality" within us, even in the absence of conventional forms of>organization...
I have had extensive conversations about this with a friend whom I owea lot theoretically.
He brought up the issue that there are big cultural differences totallyneglected in Marxist theory, not in Marx ouvre thouh. Marx took the issuedead serious, as his letter to Vera Sassulitsch and his long preparatorystudies show.
The question is: are there some cultures habitually more prone to adaptcooperative schemes of production? Particulary in Eastern cultures.
I think this deserves very much attention from our side. It occurs to methat the Oekonux conference never dealt with that subject - "P2P traditionsand new possibilities in the information age".
Cant go more into the subject now, maybe others can pitch in.
Franz[Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Michel Bauwens* <michelsub2004 gmail.com> Reply-To:list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgCc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>, Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist gmail.com>Date: Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 7:03 AM
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]\>>> He brought up the issue that there are big cultural differences totally> neglected in Marxist theory, not in Marx ouvre thouh. Marx took the issue> dead serious, as his letter to Vera Sassulitsch and his long preparatory> studies show.
do you have any reference to that letter?
(by the way, my recent discoveries are herehttp://del.icio.us/mbauwens/P2P-Marxism)
The question is: are there some cultures habitually more prone to adapt> cooperative schemes of production? Particulary in Eastern cultures.
This is a very interesting but also complex theme. I believe that there areboth invariant structural development issues (the partial truth of systemslike Spiral Dynamics), and culturally specific social-DNA systems(marvellously explained in this key book:http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Civilization-Streams-Achievements-Differences/dp/059520550X)
For example, why is techno-savvy Japan not taking up the internet, butfocused on the mobile instead, this is a discussion by a japaneseanthropologist researcher,http://www.experientia.com/blog/mito-akiyoshi-the-digital-divide-does-not-vanish-with-the-mobile/.Similarly, why are Africans using mobile to develop an alternative currency(airtime) and Chinese workers using it to better their working conditions,http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/is-the-internet-empowering-chinese-workers/2008/07/05.These are all local adaptations that fit bot the mindsets and needs.
All this being said, if we take equipotentiality seriously, as well as theadage 'designing for convergence of individual and collective interest' andwe are open to the cultural input of all, then the quest for humanemancipation can be adaptive and find the proper forms under localizedleadership.
This is for example why the P2P Foundation is not a party or movement but apluralist network,
Michel
I think this deserves very much attention from our side. It occurs to me> that the Oekonux conference never dealt with that subject - "P2Ptraditions> and new possibilities in the information age".>> Cant go more into the subject now, maybe others can pitch in.>> Franz>> _________________________________> 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 peeralternatives.
Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, athttp://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, athttp://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview athttp://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.htmlBEST 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/
[2 text/html]_________________________________[Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Franz Nahrada* <f.nahrada reflex.at> Reply-To: list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgCc: list-en oekonux.org, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>, Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist gmail.com>Date: Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 7:42 AM
list-en oekonux.org writes:>>> He brought up the issue that there are big cultural differences totally>> neglected in Marxist theory, not in Marx ouvre thouh. Marx took the>issue>> dead serious, as his letter to Vera Sassulitsch and his long preparatory>> studies show.>>>do you have any reference to that letter?
the letter itself:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm
maybe also the extra notes, but am not sure....
lots of discussions googleable....[Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Christian Siefkes* <christian siefkes.net> Reply-To:list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgDate: Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:34 PMAttachments: signature.asc
Hi Michel, hi all,
Michel Bauwens wrote:> Thanks Sam, I totally agree, and this is the background to the 'beef' Ihave> with the Stefan's. Granted that we 'need' money, at least in atransitional> state (which may last forever, unless a system a la siefkes takes over),> then it is just inconceivable that we would use the present capitalist> protocol for such a money. That is a very simple, and for me, irrefutable> premise.
I think we'll have to do without money from the very start, otherwise thetransition simply won't take place. For the internal organization of the newmode of production, that is--it's probably possible (and indeed necessary)to collect money and use it to buy things on the market with we cannot yetproduce ourselves, but it's just using money in "pass-through" mode. The newmode of production won't produce an income for anybody, that's indeed aprecondition for its success (since otherwise the rules of marketcompetition will still govern the transactions between money owners, and thenew mode will revert into the old one).
For a successful transition to a post-capitalist way of production, aprotocol such as the one I describe has to be used from the very start.That'll require some modifications (to make it more suitable for smallergroups, for example), but it's not impossible. I'm thinking about it.
Best regards Christian
--|-------- Dr. Christian Siefkes --------- christian siefkes.net ---------| Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/| Peer Production in the Physical World: http://peerconomy.org/|------------------------------------------ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- // Nail here | // for a new |// monitor! ---> [x] |
--------* From: Samuel Rose* <samuel.rose gmail.com> Reply-To: list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgCc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>, Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist gmail.com>Date: Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:26 PM
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]Great discussion, I have a small comment below:
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]>> [1 text/plain]> \> >> >> > He brought up the issue that there are big cultural differences totally> > neglected in Marxist theory, not in Marx ouvre thouh. Marx took theissue> > dead serious, as his letter to Vera Sassulitsch and his long preparatory> > studies show.>>> do you have any reference to that letter?>> (by the way, my recent discoveries are here> http://del.icio.us/mbauwens/P2P-Marxism)>> >> >> > The question is: are there some cultures habitually more prone to adapt> > cooperative schemes of production? Particulary in Eastern cultures.>>> This is a very interesting but also complex theme. I believe that thereare> both invariant structural development issues (the partial truth of systems> like Spiral Dynamics), and culturally specific social-DNA systems> (marvellously explained in this key book:>>http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Civilization-Streams-Achievements-Differences/dp/059520550X> )>
One of the major factors in Spiral Dynamics/Clare W Graves's theories is theenvironment. Also, Graves did most of his research on people in the West(people from communist and NATO countries, Africans, and North/SouthAmerica) He did very little work with people from Asia, and it could be thathe would have come up with a different set of "levels" had he done so.
But even so, the fundamental core of his theory, which had nothing to dowith the "levels" (or"colors" as they became in Spiral dynamics), is the "inner directed/ outerdirected" focus of an individual in a complex environment. And the internalsystems/external systems. These are definitely universal among humans
For example, why is techno-savvy Japan not taking up the internet, but> focused on the mobile instead, this is a discussion by a japanese> anthropologist researcher,>>http://www.experientia.com/blog/mito-akiyoshi-the-digital-divide-does-not-vanish-with-the-mobile/> .> Similarly, why are Africans using mobile to develop an alternativecurrency> (airtime) and Chinese workers using it to better their working conditions,>>http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/is-the-internet-empowering-chinese-workers/2008/07/05> .> These are all local adaptations that fit bot the mindsets and needs.
The environment is the under-observed factor when looking through Clare WGraves's lens. Or, when looking at anything that talks about a "social DNA"etc. In organisms, as explored by Richard Lewontin, the environment is ashuge a factor as the DNA. Graves argued the same for psycho-social systems.
Also, there are clues in the work of Marshall McLuhan, too, as to why peopleare taking up and using technology in different ways. A huge part of it hasto do with the unique enviroment/local conditions.
One of the unique, directions that p2p-oriented systems seem to be movingtowards is the mimicing of biological systems in different ways. We arereally at an early stage, but I think that doing things liek employingstigmerngic collaboration, and simple rules that help self-regulate andself-assemble complex behavior are some early examples of the direction thisis going in.
When it comes to the development and deployment of mediums and technologies,humans have traditionally been surprisingly non-flexible, and have tended tomake systems that are not very adaptable. But this is changing, and I thinksome of the early changes come from human technology development areas likeF/LOSS development, plus collective action projects like Wikipedia, etc.
I think the part of the non-flexibility has come from people weighing thecosts of extendign traditional systems vs totally redesigning them. So, forinstance with software development, there often needs to be at least somerigidity in the final decision making of what goes into a software release,because of the nature of the computer itself, which cannot process code thathas even one comma misplaced. The cost of making a computer system platformthat is itself more adaptable has traditionally been too high, so opensource projects have shifted evolutions toward adaptability in computersystens to the software development process instead. People may fork thecode, patch the code, add on to the code in different ways. But there isalways a stable becasue the *computer* needs the stable release, which inturn makes people trying to do something with the computer need it.
Where an environment exists that drives down the cost of creating a wholenew computer system that is based on adaptability in the hardware, then Ithink the p2p traditions around computer software development will change. Icontend that this environment exists now, but that many people simply do notrealize it. And, that within the next couple of years if not sooner, you'llsee people exploring radical new computer designs that work more likedynamic neuronal systems ( like "Jigsaw Computing") and that these types ofcomputers will be the computers that are able to deal with the netwonianphysics limits of traditional computers. We'll use traditional computers to"teach" them, likely. We'll also use current/traditional comptuers to modeland simulate the chemical and molecular structures needed to make these"jigsaw" computers. We may also then see the utility of semantic datatechnologies (as a way to teach these new kinds of computers), and therevival of the field of semiotics, but this time as (one) way to docomputing.
I think we are at roughly the same place with money systems. The social costfor many people in totally replacing/eliminating current money systems istoo high, so to adapt, people are currently seekign ways to extend moneysystems.
I think here again, that looking at "nature", biological systems, will giveus clues about how to create conditions for change away from just extendingexisting systems. If there are ways to lower the cost for creating whole newsystems that are more flexible and adaptable, then they will begin toemerge.
But, how will these new bio-mimetic money systems work? What are "p2p moneysystems" try ing to change, extend? What problems are they trying to solve?
One of the first clues that I have come across in how biomimetic moneysystems will work (money systems that mimic biological systems) is based inthe fact that anyone can start a money system, and that anyone else canrecognize another's money system. Money is really a medium. We chooseinteract with the medium of money in the way that we currently do.
A bio-mimetic money system might actually be one where each person issuestheir own currency, and is responsible for it's value in the marketplace. Aninfinite number of factors could then determine the value of your currencyin the eyes of other people. And, those factors will differ depending onwhere you are, and what local conditions are. A group of people may thenalso decide to merge their individual currencies for certain exchanges. Innatural systems, an organism merges itself into it's environment by findingways to sustainably intake and output with the local ecology it finds itselfin, eventually adaptations emerge and one species morphs into another.
This might become more of a possibility when many people are able to producemuch of what they want and need on their own, or procure it easily locallyfor something else of value that they produce. Right now, our localecologies are like sterile deserts when compared to natural systemecologies. We are more like animals in cages than an ecology under currentconditions. So we are largely forced to use existing money systems out ofshear survival necessity. Local production of basic survival and basiccivilization needs will create the conditions that change this, and wealready have the basic building blocks to make this happen.
Current explorations of creating local production systems are proving to methat it is already possible to start creating these local conditions. Again,I think that the problem at this time is that many people are not aware ofthe possibilities that currently exist. And, I think you will see more ofthis emerge very soon.
All this being said, if we take equipotentiality seriously, as well as the> adage 'designing for convergence of individual and collective interest'and> we are open to the cultural input of all, then the quest for human> emancipation can be adaptive and find the proper forms under localized> leadership.
By creating the conditions for change, eg opening up channels ofcommunication, giving people access to new mediums, knowledge, and the timeto apply both. People then begin to gravitate towards what works best, ifall of the conditions for this type of change are met on local scales.
This is for example why the P2P Foundation is not a party or movement buta> pluralist network,
One of the expertise areas we (P2P Foundation) seem to have gravitatedtowards is the area of "literacy", helping people have a fundamental,testable, applicable undestanding of solving problems in the ways that weresearch, explore and discuss collectively.[Quoted text hidden]--Sam RoseSocial SynergyTel:+1(517) 639-1552Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451AIM: Str9960Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samroseskype: samuelroseemail: samuel.rose gmail.comhttp://socialsynergyweb.com/services
Related Sites/Blogs/Projects:OpenBusinessModels: http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/FrontPagehttp://p2pfoundation.nethttp://blog.p2pfoundation.nethttp://www.cooperationcommons.comhttp://barcampbank.orghttp://communitywiki.orghttp://openfarmtech.orgInformation Filtering:http://ma.gnolia.com/people/srose/bookmarkshttp://del.icio.us/srosehttp://twitter.com/SamRose
[Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Samuel Rose* <samuel.rose gmail.com> Reply-To: list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgDate: Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:28 PM
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]Christian,
I agree, I just spent a bunch of time typing up basically the samestatement. but you said it a lot quicker and more concisely than I.
Although, I think it will be impossible to do away with money, as it is tooconvenient of a medium for markets, so it simply won't go away. But I agreewith everything else you say below
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Christian Siefkes <christian siefkes.net>wrote:[Quoted text hidden]--Sam RoseSocial SynergyTel:+1(517) 639-1552Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451AIM: Str9960Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samroseskype: samuelroseemail: samuel.rose gmail.comhttp://socialsynergyweb.com/services
Related Sites/Blogs/Projects:OpenBusinessModels: http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/FrontPagehttp://p2pfoundation.nethttp://blog.p2pfoundation.nethttp://www.cooperationcommons.comhttp://barcampbank.orghttp://communitywiki.orghttp://openfarmtech.orgInformation Filtering:http://ma.gnolia.com/people/srose/bookmarkshttp://del.icio.us/srosehttp://twitter.com/SamRose
[Quoted text hidden]
--------* From: Christian Siefkes* <christian siefkes.net> Reply-To:list-en oekonux.orgTo: list-en oekonux.orgDate: Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:49 PMAttachments: signature.asc
Samuel Rose wrote:> I agree, I just spent a bunch of time typing up basically the same> statement. but you said it a lot quicker and more concisely than I.>> Although, I think it will be impossible to do away with money, as it istoo> convenient of a medium for markets, so it simply won't go away. But Iagree> with everything else you say below
No problem: we just have to do away with markets, too.
I have said so before, various times.(And you may, or may not, have noted that there are no markets in peerproduction.)
Money and markets are just the two sides of the same coin. Markets withoutmoney are terribly inefficient, and money without markets (without placeswere you can buy something) wouldn't be money at all.
Best regards
...
[Message clipped] View entiremessage<?ui=2&ik=6dffa01160&view=lg&msg=11e3670eca56724a>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIc17h301HxjRkUtgRAp+RAJ9zBi8naY1b9h93d9PoK/Z+io5qNACfaCSCpOfD3V/X0TcRJta969gss/c==xOmE-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[2 text/html]�������������������������{�� 0����{������jب��� 0����{��zK�����#zK����