[p2p-research] member managed web service

[Patrick Anderson]

> Patrick Anderson wrote:
>> Are you interested in considering an online community in which the
>> members are the actual and only owners (...)?

Matt Cooperrider wrote:
> I think that is exactly what I'm looking for: a community in which everyone
> who is a member has some voice input into the evolution of the site itself.


Matt,

Since communities are dynamic* across time, insuring members remain
the "actual and only owners" of the Material Means of Production needs
a non-static solution.

This temporal complexity requires we consider factors that are
traditionally outside the scope of limitations for simple property
ownership.  While regular property ownership can be a stepping-stone
toward such an organization, there is also a 'bad' side to ownership
that we must guard against lest we arrive in the typical centralized
configuration...


I have identified the primary factor in need of adjustment, and credit
most of that 'generalizing' the concepts of User Freedom as outlined
by Richard Stallman, and specifically the requirement that Object
Users (Product Consumers) gain "at cost" access to the Sources
(Material Means) of that product even when they do NOT know how to
'operate' those Sources.

Observe that 'Profit' (literally "Consumer Price" - "Owner Costs")
arises only when the Consumer does not yet have enough Ownership.  For
example: when you own an apple tree, you might pay workers to tend it,
but those wages are but a cost that any Owner must pay.  But every
Owner is able to 'escape' the payment of profit - for who would they
pay it to?

So, when a current Owner/Member sells something to someone else that
has insufficient ownership, that Owner has the 'opportunity' to charge
a price above cost (to profit).  [[remember, Wages are not Profit,
Wages are a Cost of production]].

But if such a community allows Profit to be treated as a 'reward' for
that current owner (as Capitalism does), then that current owner will
aquire even *more* property as he invests that profit into more
Material Means of Production, while the Consumer who made that
overpayment will be left with nothing but the product he overpaid for.

Profit can be thought of as a "plea for growth" from the Consumer who
paid it.  It is the Consumer's dependence upon the current Owners.

He is saying "look, I'll pay you more than it really cost (costs
include wages) to make this beer because I don't own the equipment,
and am not organized enough to hire those with the skills - otherwise
I could get it "at cost"".

I'm not saying we shouldn't charge Profit (for to do so would stop
growth altogether), but only that profit should be understood as a
measure of consumer dependence that needs to be 'balanced' if we are
to remain "Member Managed" - for otherwise only the originators will
Own (and therefore manage), while the latecomers will be a dependent
group that can only beg for recognition.

In conclusion: While real property ownership appears to be a direct
solution to "Member Managed" problem, it is incomplete unless "price
above cost" (profit) is treated as an investment from the Consumer who
paid it.


----
(*) Some of the dynamism we must consider:
1.) The total number of members grows and shrinks as members join or leave.

2.) Members desire different *types* of "goods and services" which may
require the purchase of different (more) Material Means of Production.

3.) Members desire different quantities of "goods and services" which
requires their ownership rise and fall to match their consumption.