Hi Michel,>> Here is the P2P Thermoeconomics theory I'm using to ground P2P social> theory (of any flavor) in physics, and, specifically, thermodyanmics.>>> *P2P Thermoeconomics *(Theory)>> Given that human and machine processes and the communiction/transportation> infrastructure for both require energy to continue functioning and given> that this energy cannot be made from nothing or destroyed (i.e, conserved)> then, in order for human and machine processes and the> communiction/transportation infrastructure for both to continue functioning,> energy must flow, as potential energy, e.g. tokens (money) or as electric> current or fuel, between the energy sources, the humans, the machines and> the infrastructure:>> 1. the peers (who can then autonomously, with the help of other peers or> with the help of machines convert the potential energy in whatever form,> e.g. tokenized form, to products, services, and human creation, e.g. music,> movies, new life, etc and to other forms of potential energy, e.g.> happiness, consciousness, love, trust, wisdom, etc),>> 2. the machines (which can then autonomously, with other machines, or with> the help of humans convert the potential energy, in the form of electric> current or fuel, to products, services and man+machine or machine-only> creation), and>> 3. the infrastructure (which uses ponetial energy, in the form of electric> current, to enable the interaction of peers with other peers, using the> machines)>> P2P social theories that recognize the need for energy to flow, as> potential energy, between the people, machines and infrastructure, at a> non-zero cost of energy production and distribution, must also recognize> that peer production systems cannot *sustainably* support the free "giving> away" of products, services and resources.>> In other words, the energy needed by peers, machines and the infrastructure> (as described above) and everything in the universe is conserved, i.e.: it> cannot be created from nothing nor can it be destroyed.>> If a peer, machine or part of the infrastructure needs to use a certain> amount of energy to continue functioning then that peer, machine or part of> the infrastructure needs to get that energy from somewhere, which itself> requires energy, and, since energy in the universe is conserved, the energy> has to flow, as potential energy, between everything in the universe,> including the peers, machines and infrstructure, and that's how anything> that is functioning can continue to function.>> Traditional money cannot act as a carrier of the potential energy (in the> thermoeconomic model) because it's created from nowhere when needed and> destroyed when needed, without respect to the potential energy available to> the given economy. So if we were to make P2P money as a carrier (or> tokenizer) of potential energy then the number of virtual tokens (money)> issued must be based on the amount of potential energy available to the> economy, using a fixed ratio of tokens to potential energy, e.g. 1 token> issued per each 1000 joules in available potential energy (e.g. stored> electric energy,) and once created the virtual tokens (money) must not be> destroyed (i.e. 1 virtual token must always be redeemable for 1000 joules> and the virtual tokens cannot be taken out of circulation), but the virtual> tokens in circulation can change in dollar value based on supply and demand> of energy, so 1 virtual token (i.e. 1000 jules) can be worth 1 dollar or 70> cents etc., but must always stay above the cost of producing and storing> 1000 jules to enable sustainable abundance of potential energy.>>> --->> I'll integrate this with the rough section on Thermoeconomics started> already on the P2Pf wiki and then link to it from P2P Social Currency (also> on P2Pf wiki) which, as of the next 0.72.0 version, will include the> additional clarifications gained from writing this P2P Thermoeconmics> addendum regarding the fixed ratio of "virtual token to potential energy" vs> the variable price of a virtual token. It's the difference between> tokenizing energy and then giving the token a makret price vs tying the> currency to potential energy directly, which I've moved away from since I> realized the conflict between thermodynamic theory and supply-and-demand> economics, which has caused me to adapt the latter to the former, using the> virtual token to separate the concept of potential in thermodynamics from> the concept of energ-as-a-commodity in demand-and-supply economics.>> The key thing with respect to your comment is:>> P2P social theories that recognize the need for energy to flow, as> potential energy, between the people, machines and infrastructure, with a> non-zero cost of energy production and distribution, must also recognize> that peer production systems cannot *sustainably* support the free "giving> away" of products, services and resources.>> Does this impact the current thinking as far as existing peer production> theories?>> Thanks,>> Marc>>>>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>wrote:>>> Hi marc,>>>> I read your 2 last messages, especially your reasoning in the previous>> one, and do not disagree with your basic premise that 'near zero' is not>> free, and that right incentives supports sharing choices,>>>> I personally do not see a contradiction between social and physical p2p>> theory, one being grounded in the other,>>>> that I pay less attention to the physical does not mean I deny it,>>>> Michel>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:39 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:>>>>> Hi Michel,>>>>>> I do not mean to suggest that social p2p theory is any less important>>> than a physical theory but it means that we ought to understand real>>> limitations imposed on any social theory that involves physical processes>>> and resources, which places my side of the discussion firmly in the area of>>> thermoeconomic theory.>>>>>> So maybe we can put P2P Theory under a stereoscope, i.e. using the social>>> and physical lenses rather than just the social lens.>>>>>> Model Update:>>>>>> 1. Re-introduced Model's Scope>>>>>> 2. Updated "Original Idea" by removing reference to where money gets its>>> value today. A whole section called "Existing Model" would have to be added>>> that details the model of the economy in use today... I would consider that>>> once the game/simulation proves the merits of the model I'm developing.>>>>>> 3. Under "Peer Credits" I gave a definition for "peer production value of>>> money", which I believe is a new phrase.>>>>>> 4. Clarified wording under Anti-Dumping and Anti-Monopoly Caps for Energy>>> Production, with emphasis on why a cap on energy production per peer, which>>> is calculated based on demand, is needed to sustain the abundance model (and>>> removed mention of price setting since it's explained under Energy Price>>> Regulation)>>>>>> 5. Clarified wording under: Energy Price Regulation, with emphasis on the>>> 2-variable price regulation function>>>>>> 6. Added a note re: affinity matrix and current applicability (at end of>>> Clarification to Affinity Matrix)>>>>>> 7. Improved explanation under Value Creation Model (fka Value Creation>>> Process)>>>>>> 8. Introduced the concept of investing in marketing vs investing in>>> production as a model for lending (accumlating credit points) vs investing>>> in goods and services>>>>>> 9. Updated "Why Demurrage Is Bad">>>>>> R 0.58.0 which incorporates the above is at>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Social_Currency_Model>>>>>> Merry xmas and happy holidays to all :-)>>>>>> Marc>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:45 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>wrote:>>>>>>> Hi Michel,>>>>>>>> Bandwidth as well as energy have a cost, even if in the case of energy>>>> it comes from the sun or the wind etc. The cost of production, while it>>>> approaches zero (energy/hour) over time will never be zero.>>>>>>>> So then with abundant production that "near zero" figure will rise.>>>> There is also the cost of the distribution grid and its maintenance, just>>>> like the telecom grid, which adds to the cost of peer energy production,>>>> i.e. the grid's maintenance is paid for by the peers (e.g. as a tax) since>>>> there is no concept of "state" and no one else to pay for infrastructure but>>>> the peers themselves, collectively. This is similar to how each person now>>>> pays a flat fee for all-you-can-eat bandwidth.>>>>>>>> This cost of energy production that each peer carries has to be offset>>>> so if I pump my excess energy into the grid then I'd like to get paid for it>>>> but the money I get does not grow on its own, i.e. there is no interest and>>>> it can't grow over time. It has to be converted to goods and services,>>>> invested in appreciable assets (including revenue generating) or loaned>>>> interest-free to others in return for credit points which give the lender>>>> the ability to sell more goods and services. That's the incentive.>>>>>>>> If I make $1M and let it sit idle while everyone else is investing their>>>> money, using it to make products and services or lending it to others>>>> (interest free for seller credit points), my $1M will buy less over time as>>>> people who do all of the above accumulate greater wealth and as the prices>>>> of appreciable assets rise with the increase in wealth generated. So my>>>> incentive is to share (lend with zero interest) my money with others or use>>>> it myself (for producing goods and services or investing in appreciable>>>> assets)>>>>>>>> The idea of money sitting idle (e.g. in a bank) and collecting profit is>>>> eliminated so in order to grow wealth (this is the main incentive) people>>>> have to share the money or make productive use of it, both of which spur>>>> economic activity.>>>>>>>> The nature of money in this model does not change. Only its behavior>>>> changes, and that ultimately changes the nature of the society that is>>>> largely built around it. It's almost like a way to get capitalists off a bad>>>> drug called interest (bad for their soul, bad for society) and give them a>>>> healthy alternative (good for their soul, relatively speaking, and good for>>>> society)>>>>>>>> Despite being 20-30 years away from implementability the model is itself>>>> a transitional one, not the model we all hope to have in 100 years. It's a>>>> way to get society to consider thinking differently.>>>>>>>> My gripe with idealism is that I often see ideas that conflict with>>>> basic physical laws. How can you get energy for free? or anything for>>>> "free"? There is an energy cost to everything including energy production. I>>>> can invest in solar panels for my home and get "free" energy (there is a>>>> cost which is the maintenance of those panels but that can be near zero)>>>> However, the minute I connect my generator to the grid (to share excess>>>> energy) I absrob a portion of the cost of the grid and its ongoing>>>> maintenance. Entropy, in other words, makes sure that there is a cost to>>>> keeping things in working order, and while we see the cost of creation going>>>> to near zero (after sunk cost) the cost of transport (information or energy)>>>> is still a very real cost. The cost of transport is connected to population>>>> and geographic scale, so as those continue to rise the cost of transport>>>> will continue to be a real cost, even as the cost of transport per mile>>>> continues to drop.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Michel Bauwens <>>>> michelsub2004 gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marc,>>>>>>>>>> I think that Bittorrent works best because it recogniwed bandwidth>>>>> scarcity even within the context of abundance, but it still seems to me that>>>>> the incentive is between the individual and the system, not tit for tat>>>>> between individuals; hence the logic is one of managing the commons, rahter>>>>> than a gift economy logic ...>>>>>>>>>> To the degree a system moves to the scarcity continuum, it needs>>>>> management of the commons to incentive participation and discourage>>>>> free-riding, to the degree it moves to real abundance; it needs those less>>>>> ...>>>>>>>>>> So as you are dealing with physical constraints, such as finite energy,>>>>> your research on incentives is more crucial,>>>>>>>>>> Michel>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/08, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Michael,>>>>>>>>>>>> I totally appreciate your support and generous help in accomplishing>>>>>> my objectives.>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this discussion is of general usefullness so I'm going to dig>>>>>> deeper a bit, and see what comes up.>>>>>>>>>>>> <<>>>>>>> does bittorrent follow the principle: voluntary participation,>>>>>>> available to all: to that degree it is peer to peer, to the degree it does>>>>>>> introduce conditionality it is not; but it tries to use the second in the>>>>>>> context of the first>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It tries to use the second in the context of the first, and>>>>>> unfortunately the first is *not* possible without the second.>>>>>>>>>>>> So what does it mean that something can only exist in a modified form?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If 5 peers were downloading a given file from 1 peer (and you can have>>>>>> many such exchanges going at the same time at the ratio of 5 downloading to>>>>>> 1 seeding) then it would not be a "Torrent." It would be a Trickle and would>>>>>> take much longer, during which the seeding peer is more likely to go off>>>>>> line. So the whole model becomes dramatically less efficient. In fact,>>>>>> that's why BitTorrent as a protocol became so wildly popular (because it>>>>>> enforced sharing of each downloading peer's upstream bandwidth.)>>>>>>>>>>>> The question becomes idealism vs efficiency (and effectiveness), and a>>>>>> balance is required.>>>>>>>>>>>> The context of "tit for tat" is very important. At its most basic>>>>>> level, tit for tat is "cause and effect" and while much of poetry and beauty>>>>>> is non-causal, classical physics (the laws governing our physical reality)>>>>>> is... Including in that is the laws of thermodynamics. So if I was to build>>>>>> an energy driven economy that works in the real world (not inside an>>>>>> arbitrary computer model) with real people (not abstract automatons) I would>>>>>> have to understand energy and information flows in nature (and hence, the>>>>>> interest engineers and scientists have taken in thermoeconomics and, for me>>>>>> personally, the next layer of that is the models of energy>>>>>> minimization/simulated annealing/self-optimization found in statistical>>>>>> thermodyanmics) and that is because people, goods and services, and material>>>>>> basis for the real-world economy (land, mineral mines, water, sun, wind,>>>>>> etc) are all subject to the laws of nature.>>>>>>>>>>>> That does not mean that the value of a social P2P theory is less than>>>>>> the value of a thermodynamic P2P theory. Not at all. The social theory gives>>>>>> guidance to the model builder but without an understanding of how nature>>>>>> works, we can wreck havoc on it and/or on ourselves. We are not a closed>>>>>> system. Nothing is. So we need to understand nature's own way of things not>>>>>> just the social/ethical ways we espouse. There is really a need to>>>>>> understand both, not one or the other. That's my opinion.>>>>>>>>>>>> The last thing I'd want to do is destroy the fish. They're going>>>>>> extinct in 50 years, all species (except the mercury-laden farmed varieties)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole idea is to work with nature, but that takes a negotiation>>>>>> between what man wants (the evolved, conscious man) and how to make it work>>>>>> the "natural" (or nature cognizant) way.>>>>>>>>>>>> BitTorrent works the natural way, and by doing so it leverages the>>>>>> power of natural law (in this case, "you can't create bandwidth from>>>>>> nothing") rather just the social law (in this case, content as a common pool>>>>>> or the seeding peer's bandwith as a common pool). Instead it treat's the>>>>>> peers' upstream bandwidth as a common pool and in doing so it forces every>>>>>> peer to contribute.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can it paradoxically enhance the sharing, sometimes it can, but at>>>>>>> other times it can't and produces crowding out effects>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think the important thing is to see what is primary and>>>>>>> secondary>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for example, ITQ fishing permits are a market based system but placed>>>>>>> in the context of a commons so that fish cannot be destroyed ..>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the bittorrent case I would argue that the tit for tat is a>>>>>>> secondary incentive, so I agree with you that tit for tat depends on context>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all this being said, I fully support what you are trying to achieve,>>>>>>> and hope it will work as this is indeed a very important protocol you are>>>>>>> working on,>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is also useful to distinguish sharing from a real commons>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:13 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get the part about no "tit for tat" but the most successful P2P>>>>>>>> model in practice, i.e. bittorrent/file sharing, forces a tit for tat for>>>>>>>> practical reasons (e.g. to make sure every peer downloading a given file is>>>>>>>> contributing to the common bandwidth for that file). If there was no tit for>>>>>>>> tat the sharing model simply stops working.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the model I'm working on in order for someone to have more wealth>>>>>>>> they have to share some of their money (i.e let others use some their money>>>>>>>> for free and the more they share of their money the more money they can>>>>>>>> make, without punishing the borrower with interest.) If I was to design it>>>>>>>> so that people can get wealthy without sharing their money, i.e. if remove>>>>>>>> the tit (sharing money) for tat (making more money, building wealth), then>>>>>>>> the model of "the more you share, the more you have" would not exist.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "tit for tat" in itself is not bad. It's a tool. It all depends on>>>>>>>> how it's used.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I'm building is a P2P economic model predicated on the>>>>>>>> tokenized exchange of energy, where "the more you share, the more you have">>>>>>>> is enabled by a form of "tit for tat" that does not punish and only rewards.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as the family types, as you pointed out, all 7 types may have>>>>>>>> some or all of the relationships (per Fisk's definition) but what I'm saying>>>>>>>> is that, in a P2P economy, a family can interact with another family through>>>>>>>> a single point of contact (e.g. a trading interface) rather than having each>>>>>>>> member of the family interact with individual peers out there. It may work>>>>>>>> for some families some of the time, as it does in today's society. For>>>>>>>> example, the Jones family has a common budget that they use to buy>>>>>>>> groceries. Any member of the family can use that budget to buy food items.>>>>>>>> If they use a single ID/interface then they will appear as a single peer to>>>>>>>> the rest of the network. In some exising non-affluent communities, where>>>>>>>> there is a single bread earner the family may have just one account on the>>>>>>>> p2p transaction network and so in such a community there may be more family>>>>>>>> (as peer) to family (as peer) interactions (for local trading) than>>>>>>>> individual peer to individual peer.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Michel Bauwens <>>>>>>>> michelsub2004 gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the family is not a separate structure, there are at least seven>>>>>>>>> fundamentally different family structures worldwide, if I remember correctly>>>>>>>>> (according to Emmanuel Todd's landmark book on the topic)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest you read>>>>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske for a>>>>>>>>> fourfold relational grammar that includes equality matching, authority>>>>>>>>> ranking, market pricing and communal sharing.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peer to peer is specifically communal sharing or 'non-reciprocal>>>>>>>>> exchange' (also called generalized exchange because there is no tit for tat)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the family several modalities are possible>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - when father gets more: authority ranking>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - when you compete for giving a birthday gift to another family>>>>>>>>> member who gave you one before: equality matching>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - when you sell your motorbike as second hand to your sibling:>>>>>>>>> market pricing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - when you selflessly give to your children: communal shareholding>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P2P Theory, as I define it, is the study of communal shareholding>>>>>>>>> dynamics within distributed structures,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:42 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then that makes the case that "Peer To Peer" is a universal but>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial social theory that has many facets and that is not one theory>>>>>>>>>> but several...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that there is no easy way back to "family" in the old>>>>>>>>>> sense of the word and that "family" is now a group of people who have shared>>>>>>>>>> affinity to each other or certain ideals (e.g. the P2P and Open Source>>>>>>>>>> movements)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, someone can still argue a return to the traditional genetic>>>>>>>>>> family, which is still very alive and well in non-Westernized societies, and>>>>>>>>>> by doing so they'd emphasize Family structure over the more modern P2P>>>>>>>>>> structure with its evolved theories. I happen to dig P2P theories and want>>>>>>>>>> to challenge them at the same time, by borrowing analogies and simulations>>>>>>>>>> from statistical thermodynamics (as applied to the self-governance and>>>>>>>>>> evolution of P2P systems) which is something I started thinking about while>>>>>>>>>> working on the P2P currency model, which by the way is predicated on the>>>>>>>>>> tokenized exchange of energy, per the laws of thermodynamics, and what I was>>>>>>>>>> saying earlier re: Un-Money is that non-tokenized exchange of energy is the>>>>>>>>>> closest thing we can get to as far as removing the concept of money. Prior>>>>>>>>>> to the laws of thermodynamics people were interested in perpetual motion>>>>>>>>>> machines and "free energy" etc. These ideas are creeping back into current>>>>>>>>>> thinking on free culture. To me, p2p theory is subject to the laws of>>>>>>>>>> physics because it has real world usage. It's not merely a social theory.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to go too far too soon with that thought, especially>>>>>>>>>> not before reading/understanding all the amazing work that has been done,>>>>>>>>>> including yours.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marc>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Michel Bauwens <>>>>>>>>>> michelsub2004 gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marc,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peer to peer does not exclude/disrupt the family,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but rather than a return to premodern holism, it is based on>>>>>>>>>>> affinity-based aggregation around common value, on top of other existing>>>>>>>>>>> relational modes,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is indeed built on the positive achievements of western>>>>>>>>>>> invidiualism, while also an attempt to rectify its many weaknesses through>>>>>>>>>>> alternative voluntary relationality>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Relational for more>>>>>>>>>>> extensive investigation of these aspects,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:51 AM, marc fawzi <>>>>>>>>>>> marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>>>>>>>>>> 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/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>>>>>>>> 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/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>>>>>> 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/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>>>> 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/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->> 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/>>>>