[p2p-research] quote on early history as gift economies

[marc fawzi]

Hi Michel,

I will go over this with my eyes wide open for anything new and
different than my set of assumptions.

However, for now I want to highlight a few things:

<<
You look for mutual empowerment but this is rarely the case in market
society, where the unequal relationship of having access to capital,
or not, is structurally embedded.
>>

I was making my comment in the context of the P2P Energy Economy model.

It does enable equal empowerment but in the given context of the
model, where everyone is a producer with skills in many areas, which
is also an end state that the model encourages.

Where that end state is not reached, the model will harbor injustices.
Its core assumption is that people can empower of disempower
themselves with their own choices but that such choices are NOT the
negative choices we have today but positive choices such as sharing
revenue in order to grow (rather than hoarding it and using it
exclusively for one's own growth), becoming more efficient over time,
and learning more skills and turning those skills into higher
productivity. It's life as I would live it, not as any person would
live it. That's what I realized eventually and as a result I decided
it was time to change course and scope down the ambition (by starting
with a specialized economy) as well as make the model much simpler and
lighter with far fewer assumptions.

Having said that, the P2P Energy Economy model also treats the
hierarchy exactly as stated in the following statement from what you
wrote:

"(4) The sole role of hierarchy is in its spontaneous emergence in the
initiation and continuous flowering of autonomy-in-co-operation in all
spheres of human endeavor"

But it does not permit the hierarchy to set in place because that is
seen as creating single points of failure. The solution I had come up
with for making sure the hierarchy does not set in place is impersonal
in that it is prevents the accrual of dependency and accrued trust
does not factor in anywhere in the model.

:-)

My smile indicates that I realize what I have done wrong.

I think in deciding to change course and taking time to think of it I
will be able to come up with a model that is better.

What I have learned is that the design of a socio-economic system
requires a level of consciousness (understanding of myself in whole)
and a moral intuition that seems always a step beyond my reach, but
I'm sure I'll grasp it one day.

However, the way peer production theory is today is also very lacking
in terms of the scalability and efficiency of its generalized exchange
model, and where you don't have scalability and efficiency you don't
have sustainable abundance.

So I'm going to think about a very thin kind of economy (much thinner
than P2P Energy Economy) that will not deal with moral and social
aspects at all and that will focus on scalable and efficient exchange
model, in a the specialized economy of open software and open software
development, where this statement of yours is certainly true: "I think
this mostly works in areas where freelancers have coveted rare skills,
but that is rarely the case."

So I think we are converging at one level.

Thank you.

Marc





On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Michel Bauwens
<michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> your example is almost an extreme of market theory, and totally impersonal.
>
> now what I like about peer to peer dynamics, as opposed to pure market
> dynamics, is that it extends trust towards strangers, which through p2p
> interaction become more related.
>
> I think it is a legitimate option and your experience, but I see many other
> players, having build successfull institutions based on accrued trust.
>
> I think these choices will have different advantages/disadvantages,
>
> for example, what's better, many current companies, where people change all
> the time, and have no loyalty at all (works both sides of course), or a more
> traditional system like the Japanese, where you can feel fairly certain that
> the company will keep you for a long time, even in bad sides.
>
> I think by no means is it sure that the first system is better.
>
> You look for mutual empowerment but this is rarely the case in market
> society, where the unequal relationship of having access to capital, or not,
> is structurally embedded. I think this mostly works in areas where
> freelancers have coveted rare skills, but that is rarely the case.
>
> This is why crowdsourcing approaches, despite their benefits, also have
> serious drawbacks in a capitalist society, where they may create structural
> precarity (in crowdsourcing, all the risk of failure is shited from capital
> to workers).
>
> In a true peer to peer dynamic, where there is no dependency, I would call
> it peer governance, whereby leaders can self-select the responsiblities, as
> long as the consensus accepts them, have to behave in community-compatible
> ways, because they have no other way to lead without losing consensus, and
> forking is the ulitmate 'exit' in cases where things do get wrong...
>
> You could call it a peer hierarchy, peer leadership?
>
> see:
>
> Please read the following excerpts of David Ronfeldt on the Evolution of
> Governance
> You may want to read this important discussion document by Erik Douglas,
> Peer to Peer and the Four Pillars of Democracy, which examines the
> relationship between Peer Governance and representative democracy.
> Henry Mintzberg's Taxonomy of Organizational Forms, is good as backgrounder.
> Billy Matheson's graphical representation on how relationality may or will
> affect governance
> Felix Stadler insists: The Governance of Peer Production is Meritocratic,
> not Egalitarian
>
>
> I always return to the scheme of John Heron:
>
> The key question is: do the centralized and hierarchical elements in the
> protocol, enable or disable participation? This is shown in the following
> account of the development of the theory and practice of hierarchy,
> submitted to us by John Heron in a personal communication. In true peer to
> peer, the role of hierarchy is to enable the spontaneous emergence of
> 'autonomy in cooperation':
>
> "There seem to be at least four degrees of cultural development, rooted in
> degrees of moral insight:
>
> (1) autocratic cultures which define rights in a limited and oppressive way
> and there are no rights of political participation;
>
> (2) narrow democratic cultures which practice political participation
> through representation, but have no or very limited participation of people
> in decision-making in all other realms, such as research, religion,
> education, industry etc.;
>
> (3) wider democratic cultures which practice both political participation
> and varying degree of wider kinds of participation;
>
> (4) commons p2p cultures in a libertarian and abundance-oriented global
> network with equipotential rights of participation of everyone in every
> field of human endeavor."
>
> Heron adds that "These four degrees could be stated in terms of the
> relations between hierarchy, co-operation and autonomy.
>
> (1) Hierarchy defines, controls and constrains co-operation and autonomy;
>
> (2) Hierarchy empowers a measure of co-operation and autonomy in the
> political sphere only;
>
> (3) Hierarchy empowers a measure of co-operation and autonomy in the
> political sphere and in varying degrees in other spheres;
>
> (4) The sole role of hierarchy is in its spontaneous emergence in the
> initiation and continuous flowering of autonomy-in-co-operation in all
> spheres of human endeavor
>
> From all of the above, we can conclude that hierarchy does not disappear in
> peer to peer processes, but that it changes its nature. Hierarchy, or
> authority ranking as it is called by Alan Fiske, takes on new forms such as
> peer governance, servant leadership, multistakeholdership.
>
> Here is how Joseph Rost defines leadership in the new collaborative era:
>
> "The first is that the activities be influential, that is, noncoercive. The
> second is that the activities be done by people in a relationship. The third
> is that the activities involve a real significant change. And the fourth
> element is that the activities reflect the purposes of the people in the
> relationship, not just a single person. All of these standards insure
> collaboration rather than the notion that leadership is a great leader doing
> great things ."
>
> Similarly, another author on leadership, Jeffrey S. Nielsen distinguishes
> 'rank thinking', from 'peer thinking':
>
> "I define rank thinking as the belief that only a few in any organization
> should be given special privilege to monopolize information, control
> decision-making, and command obedience from the vast majority either through
> coercive or manipulative power. Peer thinking, on the other hand, is the
> belief that everyone in the organization should have equal standing to share
> in information, participate in the decision-making process, and choose to
> follow through persuasive means. Peer thinking assumes that we each have
> equal privilege to speak and an obligation to listen. Peer-based
> organizations create a space--an arena--where we come to recognize and
> respect one another as equal participants in organizational life ."
>
> See also, in our wiki:
>
> Informal leadership models that are pragmatically used to govern such
> projects: what is the nature of leadership and hierarchy in peer production?
>
> See Hierarchy, Leadership, Benevolent Dictator, and search for these
> concepts as well as "Authority" in the wiki's search box.
>
> The use of formal management models.
>
> See Chaordic Organizations - Characteristics , Consensus , Consent vs.
> Consensus , Coordination Format , Council Ceremony , Harmonization
> Governance , Heterarchy , Holacracy , Horizontal Accountablity , Leaderless
> Organizations , Open Organization , Sociocracy
>
>>
>> So that's why I had resorted to picking a new contractor for every new
>> project, after years of working on the basis of accrued trust, i.e.
>> sticking with one contractor.
>>
>> The Internet has given me this option.
>>
>> The kind of hierarchy that emerges from such model is one where both I
>> and the contractor are equally empowered and where neither of us have
>> a dependency on the other.
>>
>> What would this kind of hierarchy be called to distinguish it from
>> hierarchies that develop built-in dependencies and power imbalances
>> (in either direction) over time?
>>
>> I'm asking Michel as well as asking openly.
>>
>> If anyone has a suggestion as to how to categorize this kind of
>> hierarchy, please feel free to state it.
>>
>> I do feel it's different enough than the type pf hierarchies that
>> exist in today's economy, but that may be changing as more people take
>> advantage of the Internet and abundance of qualified suppliers to
>> isolate themselves from dependence, while at the same time being
>> empowered by a high degree of transient interdependence in their
>> production network.
>>
>> Marc
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Michel Bauwens
>> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Marc,
>> >
>> > I wonder if your example is a good one,
>> >
>> > what you describe has high transaction and uncertainty costs, and I
>> > think
>> > this is why people rely on trust networks, or on hierarchical
>> > recommendations or filtering systems, etc ...
>> >
>> > But I think that ancient and medieval systems of democracy relied on
>> > random
>> > elections, as schemes to make sure that power would not accrue,
>> >
>> > however, I'm not an expert in these alternative schemes
>> >
>> > Michel
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:56 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As always, very thoughtful analysis Michel. Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> I just want to add a note on hierarchies....
>> >>
>> >> You can have a functional hierarchy (not a political one that keeps
>> >> power at the top) between equally empowered peers where the structure
>> >> of the hierarchy is known but where the nodes are occupied by randomly
>> >> picked peers from a set of all peers that meet a given functional
>> >> criteria.
>> >>
>> >> In such a hierarchy, all the peers are equally empowered AND no
>> >> built-in dependency is created on any peer in particular.
>> >>
>> >> What would such hierarchy be known as?  It exists today due to Search
>> >> technology. When someone running some business goes out to find
>> >> suppliers they go to Google and search for e.g. Python developer. They
>> >> find tons of links. They pick one or pick one that leads them to
>> >> another search engine which ultimately leads them to some supplier.
>> >> Now we have a hierarchy of two levels: the business owner and the
>> >> supplier. If the business owner repeats this every time she needs a
>> >> Python developer, which some people do, and uses the same criteria but
>> >> picks another supplier from the range of all potential suppliers
>> >> (those matching the criteria) then that is power to the business owner
>> >> and power to the developer. Neither is stuck with each other, and
>> >> neither develops a dependency on each other. I ran a number of
>> >> projects like that in the past with higher reliability than depending
>> >> on the same developer for all projects. Every developer had to prove
>> >> themselves and I had to prove my ability to manage the project.
>> >>
>> >> Marc
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Michel Bauwens
>> >> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > thanks David,
>> >> >
>> >> > David Graeber has written a whole book examining 'value' throughout
>> >> > different (anthropological) societies.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think the other David must have had the same experience as me
>> >> > during
>> >> > my
>> >> > university years, I was explicitely taught the barter-leads-to-market
>> >> > story,
>> >> > with no mention at all of the gift economy, a notion I only
>> >> > encountered
>> >> > years ago. Perhaps neoclassical economists have evolved over time,
>> >> > integrated other types of knowledge ..
>> >> >
>> >> > Still, there is a difference between saying, early economies had
>> >> > barter,
>> >> > which was complicated, so they invented tokens which became money and
>> >> > ultimately resulted in capitalism and the other story which is: we
>> >> > had
>> >> > gift
>> >> > economies, but when force intervened, we created debt, which
>> >> > eventually
>> >> > resulted in the necessity of inventing money ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Whether force is constituent to the human experience, even before the
>> >> > advent
>> >> > of unequal class societies, is  perhaps difficult to resolve, but I
>> >> > tend
>> >> > to
>> >> > believe that it is inherent to the human condition; this is why I
>> >> > think
>> >> > the
>> >> > state cannot be simply abolished, and I'm not an anarchist.
>> >> >
>> >> > You are right about 'economies' being a misleading term, and I have
>> >> > read
>> >> > remarks of Graeber in the same sense, it's an industrial concept we
>> >> > are
>> >> > projecting backwards, but perhaps also a distinction we have learned
>> >> > to
>> >> > see;
>> >> > so I think it is okay to use by analogy, as long as we know its
>> >> > limitations.
>> >> >
>> >> > This brings me to the crux of the debate: the role of networks.
>> >> >
>> >> > Like hierarchies, and markets, I do not see them in a univocal way.
>> >> > Rather,
>> >> > hierarchies can be feudal, or meritocratic; markets can be
>> >> > capitalist,
>> >> > or
>> >> > not; and similarly for networks: they cannot be divorced from the
>> >> > class
>> >> > structure of society, even as they have their own 'independent'
>> >> > effect
>> >> > of
>> >> > society which adapt these forms. But these forms will be thoroughly
>> >> > adapted
>> >> > and changed through the process of differential adoption.
>> >> >
>> >> > So, my view is the following: networks first arose for the privileged
>> >> > elite
>> >> > through private networks (multinationals and such), then became
>> >> > democratized
>> >> > and peer to peer. This leads to widespread adoption of new economic,
>> >> > political and social practices, which are more productive in many
>> >> > ways
>> >> > than
>> >> > the earlier modes. Hence, peer production, governance and property,
>> >> > as 3
>> >> > new
>> >> > modes. As more productive ways of doing things, they are not only
>> >> > practiced
>> >> > by the bottom of society, but by all sectors, which initially use
>> >> > them
>> >> > within the existing dominant mode, just as early capitalist practices
>> >> > were
>> >> > used to strengthen an ailing feudal order. But as it is adapted it
>> >> > also
>> >> > changes the order, and new social forces are organizing around it.
>> >> > Chiefly,
>> >> > the knowledge workers and other associated producers on one hand, but
>> >> > also
>> >> > what I call 'netarchical capitalists', who created new forms of
>> >> > activity
>> >> > and
>> >> > business based on 'enabling and empowering social production'.
>> >> >
>> >> > As our infinite growth mechanism is hitting its limits, it is groping
>> >> > for a
>> >> > change towards markets which include former externalities (green
>> >> > capitalism), but also realizing it can't be done, or much less
>> >> > effectively,
>> >> > without adopting much wider participatory practices (co-creation,
>> >> > co-design,
>> >> > crowdsourcing, peer production and sharing modes of all kinds),
>> >> > hence,
>> >> > the
>> >> > force of the new modes of peer production, governance and property
>> >> > are
>> >> > growing, from emergence to eventual equivalence.
>> >> >
>> >> > If the current infinite growth system succeeds in being a natural
>> >> > capitalism, that may be the end of the story, otherwise, a phase
>> >> > transition
>> >> > will eventual occur, with the former core mode becoming a subsystem
>> >> > in a
>> >> > new
>> >> > meta-system based on peer to peer dynamics.
>> >> >
>> >> > Will this totally eliminate force? I do not think so, but it may
>> >> > significantly reduce their centrality to social life. But we can
>> >> > already
>> >> > see
>> >> > that successful networks or peer production efforts also deal with
>> >> > threats
>> >> > to their existence, i.e. to violence directed at them (even if
>> >> > through
>> >> > spamming, trolling, etc...). So there are three elements to network
>> >> > production: 1) enabling participation; 2) finding mechanisms for
>> >> > selection
>> >> > of excellence that are no threat to that universal participation and
>> >> > availability; and 3) defense against threats.
>> >> >
>> >> > Michel
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:15 AM, David Ronfeldt <ronfeldt at mac.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> many thanks, michel, for including me on this.  but i find it
>> >> >> confusing.
>> >> >>  i also find it confused, for i think the author is conflating.  i'm
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> aware that any major social theorist has grandly claimed that
>> >> >> societies
>> >> >> once
>> >> >> had economies based solely on barter.  that barter may have been an
>> >> >> important element, yes.  and that barter preceded money, yes.  but
>> >> >> that's a
>> >> >> narrower and different kind of claim.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> perhaps there are economists who claim that barter came first, but
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> conceptual hinge for them may be that, from their perspective,
>> >> >> economies do
>> >> >> not exist unless material trade is taking place.  however, the
>> >> >> economists i
>> >> >> happened to see at lunch today, though not historians, saw no
>> >> >> particular
>> >> >> reason to start economic history with barter, and a couple thought
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> could
>> >> >> start with gifts, esp if the gifts had an exchange aspect.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> but that raises another matter.  early tribes depend significantly
>> >> >> on
>> >> >> gifting.  we've agreed on that before, citing mauss in particular,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> graeber seems to be in agreement too.  but are we really talking
>> >> >> about
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> "gift economy" with ancient tribes.  not exactly.  especially not if
>> >> >> there
>> >> >> is no economy per se that is separable from what else goes on in a
>> >> >> tribe.
>> >> >>  and particularly not if the purpose of the gifting is to create
>> >> >> honorable
>> >> >> relationships and social solidarity, rather than just to engage in
>> >> >> potentially equal material exchanges.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> but perhaps i'm not seeing the point you wanted me to see.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> in any case, i took a look at his long article and something else
>> >> >> caught
>> >> >> my eye:  he claims that "neither states nor markets can exist
>> >> >> without
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> constant threat of force."  he repeats this at various points, once
>> >> >> or
>> >> >> twice
>> >> >> referring to "societies" instead of "states" since "Societies' are
>> >> >> really
>> >> >> states."  i'd question this, but i'd rather raise another point:
>> >> >>  tribes
>> >> >> also have not existed without the threat of force.  tribes often get
>> >> >> idealized, perhaps especially by people fed up with
>> >> >> states/hierarchies
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> markets.  but tribes can turn out to be as based on force and
>> >> >> violence
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> other forms of organization.  if the author were to add this to his
>> >> >> analysis, i wonder where it would lead.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> which leads to a question:  what about the kinds of information-age
>> >> >> networks that you and i are hopefully counting on?  as an emerging
>> >> >> form
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> organization, they look marvelous and necessary (in my timn view, as
>> >> >> much so
>> >> >> as tribes, hierarchies, and markets).  but their present-day
>> >> >> emergence
>> >> >> is,
>> >> >> in many areas, tied to the nature of force.  and some networks may
>> >> >> turn
>> >> >> out
>> >> >> in practice, once embedded in future multiform societies, to reflect
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> roles of force, even though many networks will be directed at the
>> >> >> public
>> >> >> good.  does this end up meaning that all forms of societal
>> >> >> organization
>> >> >> depend, to some extent, on the possibility of force?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> just a thought.  and i'm not entirely sure about it.  but it relates
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> some propositions for the timn framework i'm trying to develop.
>> >> >>  i'll
>> >> >> eventually get around to elaborating.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> meanwhile, i'll leave you with two quotes i happen to have handy
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> relate a bit to all this and get at contrasting dynamics that
>> >> >> underlie
>> >> >> civilization (though i'm not sure the author above approves much of
>> >> >> what
>> >> >> others know as civilization):
>> >> >>
>> >> >>        "All great civilizations, in their early stages, are based on
>> >> >> success in war."  (Kenneth Clark, Civilisation: A Personal View (New
>> >> >> York:
>> >> >> Harper & Row, 1969, p. 18)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>        "Every living culture must possess some spiritual dynamic,
>> >> >> which
>> >> >> provides the energy necessary for that sustained social effort which
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> civilization."  (Christopher Dawson, Progress and Religion: An
>> >> >> Historical
>> >> >> Inquiry (London: Sheed and Ward, 1929; reissued: Washington, D.C.:
>> >> >> The
>> >> >> Catholic University of America Press, 2001, pp. 3-4)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> enough.  onward.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ===
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Feb 18, 2009, at 11:46 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Dear friends,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> this is a quote from anthropologist david graeber, that has a
>> >> >>> bearing
>> >> >>> on
>> >> >>> our earlier discussions on how to characterize tribal societies:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> "One of the traditional roles of the economic anthropologist is to
>> >> >>> point
>> >> >>> out that the standard narrative set out in economic textbooks – the
>> >> >>> one we
>> >> >>> all take for granted, really, that once upon a time there was
>> >> >>> barter;
>> >> >>> that
>> >> >>> when this became too inconvenient, people invented money; that
>> >> >>> eventually,
>> >> >>> this lead to abstract systems of credit and debt, banking, and the
>> >> >>> New
>> >> >>> York
>> >> >>> Stock Exchange – is simply wrong. There is in fact no known example
>> >> >>> of
>> >> >>> a
>> >> >>> human society whose economy is based on barter of the 'I'll give
>> >> >>> you
>> >> >>> ten
>> >> >>> chickens for that cow' variety. Most economies that don't employ
>> >> >>> money
>> >> >>> – or
>> >> >>> anything that we'd identify as money, anyway – operate quite
>> >> >>> differently.
>> >> >>> They are, as French anthropologist Marcel Mauss famously put it,
>> >> >>> 'gift
>> >> >>> economies' where transactions are either based on principles of
>> >> >>> open-handed
>> >> >>> generosity, or, when calculation does take place, most often
>> >> >>> descend
>> >> >>> into
>> >> >>> competitions over who can give the most away. What I want to
>> >> >>> emphasise
>> >> >>> here,
>> >> >>> though, is what happens when money does first appear in something
>> >> >>> like
>> >> >>> it's
>> >> >>> current form (basically, with the appearance of the state). Because
>> >> >>> here, it
>> >> >>> becomes apparent that not only do the economists get it wrong, they
>> >> >>> get it
>> >> >>> precisely backwards. In fact, virtual money comes first. Banking,
>> >> >>> tabs, and
>> >> >>> expense accounts existed for at least 2 thousand years before there
>> >> >>> was
>> >> >>> anything like coinage, or any other physical object that was
>> >> >>> regularly
>> >> >>> used
>> >> >>> to buy and sell things, anything that could be labeled 'currency'.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> (http://www.metamute.org/en/content/debt_the_first_five_thousand_years)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University
>> >> >>> -
>> >> >>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> >> >>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> >> >>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> >> >>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> >> >>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>> >> > http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> >> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >> >
>> >> > Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> >> > http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> >> > http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> >> >
>> >> > Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>> >> >
>> >> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> >> > http://www.shiftn.com/
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > p2presearch mailing list
>> >> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> >> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>> > http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >
>> > Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> > http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> > http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> >
>> > Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>> >
>> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> > http://www.shiftn.com/
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>