The idea is to disrupt the disruptor so like surface of the ocean our
common vision is in constant renewal.
Along these lines, I could make up the argument that P2P is too much
abou the individual and not abou the Family. So based on this I would
proceed to say that Family2Family would be a more socially fit
paradigm than peer to peer, where peer refers predominantly to a
single individual.
Where Centralized is Parent2Child, we have moved too fast to
individualism and forgot about the social importance of family.
Disrupting the disruptive model allows the model to be in a constant
state of renewal.
So what I'm saying is that I don't have to use the word peer in an
unorthodox way to disrupt the existing P2P theory. I can offer another
theory such as Family2Family.
But all change is good as long as we all derive meaning from it, as you
sated.
On 12/19/08, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com> wrote:
Marc,
I personally do not object to your usage of peer money, as long as we
know
what is meant, which is why I tried to clear the conceptual place.
Neither my own p2p theory nor oekonux has any monopoly on the "peer"
term,
but as you know understand, in our frame, it is somewhat contradictary,
but
while Stefan only accepts capitalist money in the transition, I call
for
and
support efforts to change the current monetary protocols ...
Michel
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:48 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>
wrote:
Some of you did not see this reply (came empty?), so I'm taking the
opportunity to send you a fuller version of it.
--
Thanks Michel.
Per your articulation of "peer informed money" vs. the ideal "p2p
society,"
I now get where Stefan is coming from with his statement that there is
no
such thing as "peer money" ...
Indeed, labels are often used for convenience and commonality, so
instead
of proliferating and splintering ad infinitum we tend to use common
labels,
e.g. peer money, to refer to a common context, even where a new label
(in
this case: peer informed money) would be more accurate.
The case for standardized labeling is if we were to label the same
roads
on
a map using different names then chances are people will have a hard
time
following us to our common destination.
I'm going out on a limb here in saying that the penultimate
replacement
for
money (or "un-money") for the ideal p2p society would be
non-tokenized,
natural energy transfer as opposed to capturing and transferring
various
forms of energy (e.g. work energy, creative energy, emotional energy,
mental
energy, 'intentional' energy, etc) as "tokens"
I agree that as we drive toward the same destination, we should not
"dead
end" certain lanes of the highway so that only a few of us would make
it
to
the destination. All lanes should remain open and the various exits on
the
way labeled in a standard way.
And I agree that we have to recognize when we're on the road vs having
arrived at our destination. For now, we're definitely still on the
road,
so
the concept of "no money, "which is basically moving away from
tokenized
energy transfer, e.g. I pay $1 for a bus ride, to non-tokenized energy
transfer, e.g. the bus is powered by the energy of its passengers, is
what
we will ultimately end up with, IMO, but we don't have the technology
yet
for such universal, non-tokenized, natural energy transfer. By
"energy" I
mean all forms (work energy, creative energy, emotional energy,
'intentional' energy, mental energy, spiritual energy, i.e. "energy in
all
its forms")
In other words, the natural flow on energy in its all forms between
people
is the ultimate "un-money"
I may add an addendum explaining non-tokenized energy transfer, which
to
me, would make the ultimate "un-money" but it's so far out that it
would
only serve the most forward looking individuals, and only on a
metaphysical
level, so it may end up in an article on its own, separate from the
ideas
for the near future expressed in the P2P Social
Currency<http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Social_Currency_Model>article.
Marc
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Michel Bauwens <
michelsub2004 gmail.com> wrote:
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
--
The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
alternatives.
Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview
at
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
BEST 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/