[Converted from multipart/alternative]>> [1 text/plain]> 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.>> However, at present, peer to peer dynamics exist within a broader field> dominated by market (and state) processes, 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.>> 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 it is crucial to think about such distinctions, between peer money> and peer-informed money and processes, the latter not being a contradiction> in terms>> (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?)>> So, one of the questions is then, how to reform the market structures?>> A crucial aspect of this reform is to reform/transform the monetary system,> to arrive at a peer-informed monetary system. This involves refusing the> built-in infinite growth protocol of existing capitalist money, and using> money and finances with value-sensitive designs.>> 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'.>> 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.>> 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.>> So, in this sense, a project like Marc's called peer money for> convenience's> sake, is totally legitimate and important,>> Michel>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:30 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:>> > [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 a> > case 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>> of> > the shared reality I'm working within, from a European based group> > promoting> > Google 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 no> > relation 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> > full> > or in part, when it comes to the peer money and peer credit.> >> > I'm working on game design that would energetically align people's> > operative> > realities with my own, i.e. to create a locally shared reality by> changing> > people'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> against> > its existence. In fact, it's existence is demanded in such scenario,> partly> > because of pragmatism (and knowledge of the current maturity of man, or> > lack> > of) and partly because such new money would enable society to take a> > qualitivate step in the right direction.> >> > I hope this enables further discussion.> >> > Regards,> >> > Marc> >> >> > ---> >> >> > *From: Stefan Merten* <smerten oekonux.de> Reply-To: list-en oekonux.org> > To: list-en oekonux.org> > Cc: 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 preparation> > eats up a lot of my free time / energy.> >> > The following is something I promised Michel to do. It has been> > triggered by the use of the term "peer money" which I think is a> > contradiction in terms. This is an attempt to give reasons why I think> > that money and peer production are generally in contradiction.> >> > Having said that I should also say that they can walk together for> > some time but according to germ form theory that is no contradiction> > to the contradiction thesis. But one should keep in mind that to use> > money for peer production projects is always a twisted approach> > because of that contradiction.> >> > The approach below is based on comparing features of money and peer> > production. In that it is also a contribution to further define peer> > production.> >> > * 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>>> [2 text/html]> _________________________________> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/> Contact: projekt oekonux.de>