[p2p-research] engaging with the core principles

Thu May 14 07:24:56 CEST 2009

The moral ideal is the commons. But that doesn't really work
universally right now and so market dynamics enter into it but
moderated by the moral ideal, and so they become dynamics in the
service of an ideal, not counteracting it.

And the balance is where most people find comfort between the two
different worlds of the market economy and the commons.

I sort of tried to do that in the P2P Energy Economy but it was a raw
and initial attempt and more learning is to be had before something
more viable emerges.

Some people like to interrupt this process in order to hold on to the
ideal but Michel, for one, realizes that it's important to stay open
to this process of reconciliation even when it swings to extremes.

Marc

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> I'm tacking ARticle 3
>
> For me, p2p is a particular form of non-reciprocal exchange, voluntary
> contributions to a common pool which is available to all. As such it is a
> very specific system, not really barter, gift economy, or market exchange.
>
> But, it co-exists with these plural forms. What is of interest therefore is
> how it influences them and how it is influenced by them.
>
> So I would say that a specific 'p2p theory' is interested in understanding
> the specificity of p2p dynamics and how they relate with all other economic
> forms, eventually with a special interest in sustaining and promoting p2p
> dynamics in such a plural environment.
>
> In its 'strong form', the one I adhere to, it is interested in making p2p
> dynamics the core of a new type of economy and civilization.
>
> I think that perhaps these comments could trigger more specific formulations
> in article 3?
>
> Michel
>
> Article 3: Economic and Political Theories
>
> A. P2P is not associated or disassociated with any particular economic
> theory such as capitalism or socialism.
>
> B. P2P is most consistent with democratic systems where free expression and
> other human rights are respected and protected; however, no political model
> other than one that abolishes the concept of a commons is antithetical to a
> p2p ethos. It is implausible that a political system with strong
> restrictions on freedom of expression could be consistent with a p2p ethos.
> P2P is often associated with Non-Market Economics. It might also be situated
> with certain branches of Communitarianism.
>
> C. P2P may represent its own framework of economic theory most closely
> aligned with what have been considered barter and exchange economies.
>
> D. Implementations of Alternative Currencies, Open Money and modes of
> exchange that do not necessitate governments, central banks or state-based
> regulatory authorities represent core elements of a p2p ethos.
>
> E. What to avoid: P2P is not a transaction-based mode of exchange.
> Optimization of trades and exchanges for personal gain is not consistent
> with a p2p ethos. P2P is not typically national. P2P entities are perhaps
> most appropriately situated with or compared to transnational civil society
> organizations.
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I further changed Article 1 to reflect recent discussions:
>>
>> Item J is new, and the latter part of the item A is new.  No other
>> changes.
>>
>>
>> Article 1. P2P Interactions
>>
>> A. High quality P2P interactions exist between peers. Peers typically
>> recognize and interact with each other without reference to rank or
>> hierarchies. Interactions are best when cordial, tolerant, respectful and
>> made, where possible, without judgments especially regarding aspects not
>> directly relevant to the P2P domain.
>>
>> B. Peers' willingness to interact is not primarily linked to external
>> drivers. External drivers might include, for example, prestige in
>> undertaking an interaction, financial gain, or duty.
>>
>> C. P2P interactions are not amoral or value neutral. A p2p ethos embodies
>> trying to act with goodness and goodwill as well as with practical skills
>> and wisdom.
>>
>> D. Peer interactions are judged (by others who aspire to a p2p ethos) as
>> qualitatively superior if linked to contributing to a commons.
>>
>> E. Another measure of quality is the contribution to mission critical
>> functionality. For example, this might involve efforts that save lives,
>> advance learning and understanding, enable sustainable economic processes or
>> otherwise support or enable key components of the public good as openly
>> understood in free, deliberative and collaborative societies.
>>
>> F. P2P interactions attempt to minimize mediating forces or organizations.
>> Hierachies that impose governance on p2p interactions that are otherwise
>> consistent with social standards and laws are not appropriate to the ethos.
>> This is particularly true if the party imposing governance is acting with
>> some interest other than enabling smooth, stable and harmless p2p
>> interactions.
>>
>> G. A p2p ethos is inconsistent with the purposeful extraction of value
>> from interactions when no such value is contributed directly to a given
>> interaction. Simply enabling future actions is not a creation of p2p value
>> worthy of repeated compensation. That is, royalties or licensing fees are
>> not consistent with a p2p ethos.
>>
>> H. A P2P ethos is consistent with advancing the interests of the
>> underprivileged, the weak, those on the bottom of the digital divide, or any
>> who have need of a more sustaining commons provided through fair and honest
>> means.
>>
>> I. Unless dire political consequences are involved, peers should not be
>> anonymous[3].
>>
>> J. P2P interactions ought not to be used as a opening to proselytize,
>> sell, advance unrelated political, social or moral positions except when
>> such discussions are expected, invited and made welcome by other peers.
>>
>> K. What to avoid: P2P specifically does not aim to circumvent human
>> rights, democratically enacted laws, rightfully established organizational
>> controls, or legitimate claims of property in force. Rather, p2p seeks to
>> build and expand common resources that are expressly free, open,
>> collaborative and mutually beneficial.
>>
>> Ryan Lanham
>> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ryan,
>>>
>>> I think we understand each other, not sure if it is necessary to have a
>>> whole paragraph to indicate this subtle discussion ?
>>>
>>> I'll leave it up to you?
>>>
>>> (perhaps we can say that a peer project only judges persons on their
>>> voluntary participation to the common object, without requiring involuntary
>>> changes in identity in matters unconnected to the project; that
>>> differentiates with premodern communities that do require it)
>>>
>>> Michel
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Interesting Michel.  I suppose it is inevitable that someone must be
>>>> called retro by being postmodern, and I am it, it seems.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, I understand what you are saying and I agree.  Your view is
>>>> that the commons is a source of social linkage and therefore identity.  But
>>>> one would also like to avoid compulsory Nehru suits or Mao caps at the same
>>>> time.  We want an artistic freedom to express along with a willingness to
>>>> share...not an obligatory commitment to join the Borg (since Star Trek seems
>>>> vogue now.)
>>>>
>>>> One area where I think P2P is sharply in contrast with socialism is in
>>>> the fact that P2P seems to eschew any notion of obligatory participation.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we might say something like the following:
>>>>
>>>> P2P is not a framework for institutionalizing worldviews or
>>>> standardizing political wills.  It is not ideological in any strong sense.
>>>> Rather, it is a voluntary model where, even when commitment is quite high
>>>> and very deeply felt, it is inappropriate for a participant to feel bound to
>>>> a specific way of being, appearing, acting or judging in order to share in a
>>>> P2P ethos.  At the same time, destructive anti-commons actions, or highly
>>>> heterodox expressions to the point of being highly distracting and
>>>> disruptive for most participants in a sharing and trust model is
>>>> counter-productive and appropriately sanctioned by those charged to protect
>>>> a group,
>>>>
>>>> That seems overwrought and repetitive with some other sections, but I
>>>> throw it out for consideration..
>>>>
>>>> Ryan Lanham
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Michel Bauwens
>>>> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ryan,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have moved to section to.
>>>>>
>>>>> I only have one question:
>>>>>
>>>>> - (commons) is usually of low intensity in relationship to a
>>>>> participant's identity formation.
>>>>>
>>>>> hmm ... I'm actually assuming that people are more and more building
>>>>> their identities through their engagement with the commons
>>>>>
>>>>> see:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Postmodernism was all about deconstructing oppressive mental
>>>>> structures that we inherited from modernity. Amongst other things the
>>>>> Cartesian subject/object split and the alienating effects of Kantian's
>>>>> impossibility of knowing true reality; it was a necessary destructive
>>>>> passage, a cleaning out process, but it didn't, as its names "post"-
>>>>> indicate, construct anything. So in my view, if modernity was about
>>>>> constructing the individual (along subject/object divisions), and
>>>>> postmodernity about deconstructing this, then this new era, which I'ld like
>>>>> to call the era of participation, is about constructing relationality or
>>>>> participation. We are not going back to the premodern wholistic era and
>>>>> feelings, but just as modernity was about rigorously individualising
>>>>> everything, eventually reaching the current dead-end of hyper-individualism,
>>>>> we are now just as rigorously 'relationising' everything. If in premodernity
>>>>> we thought, we are parts of a whole that is one and above us, and in
>>>>> modernity we thought we are separate and unified individuals, a world onto
>>>>> ourselves, and in postmodernity saw ourselves fragmenting, and pretty much
>>>>> lamented this, then this is the mash-up era. We now know that all this
>>>>> fragments can be reconstructed with the zillions of fragment of the others,
>>>>> into zillions of commonalities, into temporary wholes that are so many new
>>>>> creative projects, but all united in a ever-moving Commons that is open to
>>>>> all of us..
>>>>>
>>>>> So the fragmentation of postmodernity is a given for us now, but we are
>>>>> no longer lamenting, we are discovering the technologies (infrastructural,
>>>>> collaborative-software-ish, political, but above all the mental and
>>>>> epistemological) that allow us to use this fragmentation to create the Great
>>>>> Cosmic Mash-Up. That is the historical task of the emerging Peer to Peer
>>>>> Era."
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michel, in order to address your concern: I added Item H below.  See
>>>>>> if that affirmation of moral action makes you more comfortable with Section
>>>>>> 1.  Also, for those new to the discussion, we are collaborating on
>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles specifically
>>>>>> Article 1 and subsequent.  Any and all comments, changes, criticisms, etc.
>>>>>> are welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [edit] Article 1. P2P Interactions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A. High quality P2P interactions exist between peers. Peers typically
>>>>>> recognize and interact with each other without reference to rank or
>>>>>> hierarchies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B. Peers' willingness to interact is not primarily linked to external
>>>>>> drivers. External drivers might include, for example, prestige in
>>>>>> undertaking an interaction, financial gain, or duty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C. P2P interactions are not amoral or value neutral. A p2p ethos
>>>>>> embodies trying to act with goodness and goodwill as well as with practical
>>>>>> skills and wisdom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> D. Peer interactions are judged (by others who aspire to a p2p ethos)
>>>>>> as qualitatively superior if linked to contributing to a commons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E. Another measure of quality is the contribution to mission critical
>>>>>> functionality. For example, this might involve efforts that save lives,
>>>>>> advance learning and understanding, enable sustainable economic processes or
>>>>>> otherwise support or enable key components of the public good as openly
>>>>>> understood in free, deliberative and collaborative societies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> F. P2P interactions attempt to minimize mediating forces or
>>>>>> organizations. Hierachies that impose governance on p2p interactions that
>>>>>> are otherwise consistent with social standards and laws are not appropriate
>>>>>> to the ethos. This is particularly true if the party imposing governance is
>>>>>> acting with some interest other than enabling smooth, stable and harmless
>>>>>> p2p interactions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> G. A p2p ethos is inconsistent with the purposeful extraction of value
>>>>>> from interactions when no such value is contributed directly to a given
>>>>>> interaction. Simply enabling future actions is not a creation of p2p value
>>>>>> worthy of repeated compensation. That is, royalties or licensing fees are
>>>>>> not consistent with a p2p ethos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H. A P2P ethos is consistent with advancing the interests of the
>>>>>> underprivileged, the weak, those on the bottom of the digital divide, or any
>>>>>> who have need of a more sustaining commons provided through fair and honest
>>>>>> means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I. Unless dire political consequences are involved, peers should not
>>>>>> be anonymous[3].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> J. What to avoid: P2P specifically does not aim to circumvent human
>>>>>> rights, democratically enacted laws, rightfully established organizational
>>>>>> controls, or legitimate claims of property in force. Rather, p2p seeks to
>>>>>> build and expand common resources that are expressly free, open,
>>>>>> collaborative and mutually beneficial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ryan Lanham
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Michel Bauwens
>>>>>> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Ryan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> only a minor remark then for this first section, I feel I agree with
>>>>>>> all your formulations
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Michel Bauwens
>>>>>>> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Ryan,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have been overwhelmed lately, but ready now to engage with your
>>>>>>>> core principles,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would it be useful for you to discuss your draft, say section by
>>>>>>>> section, starting with this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you agree, I will start commenting after receiving that reply:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Article 1. P2P Interactions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A. High quality P2P interactions exist between peers. Peers
>>>>>>>> typically recognize and interact with each other without reference to rank
>>>>>>>> or hierarchies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here a reference to Equipotentiality may be useful? see
>>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> B. Peers' willingness to interact is not primarily linked to
>>>>>>>> external drivers. External drivers might include, for example, prestige in
>>>>>>>> undertaking an interaction, financial gain, or duty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> C. P2P interactions are not amoral or value neutral. A p2p ethos
>>>>>>>> embodies trying to act with goodness and goodwill as well as with practical
>>>>>>>> skills and wisdom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> D. Peer interactions are judged (by others who aspire to a p2p
>>>>>>>> ethos) as qualitatively superior if linked to contributing to a commons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> E. Another measure of quality is the contribution to mission
>>>>>>>> critical functionality. For example, this might involve efforts that save
>>>>>>>> lives, advance learning and understanding, enable sustainable economic
>>>>>>>> processes or otherwise support or enable key components of the public good
>>>>>>>> as openly understood in free, deliberative and collaborative societies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> F. P2P interactions attempt to minimize mediating forces or
>>>>>>>> organizations. Hierachies that impose governance on p2p interactions that
>>>>>>>> are otherwise consistent with social standards and laws are not appropriate
>>>>>>>> to the ethos. This is particularly true if the party imposing governance is
>>>>>>>> acting with some interest other than enabling smooth, stable and harmless
>>>>>>>> p2p interactions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> G. A p2p ethos is inconsistent with the purposeful extraction of
>>>>>>>> value from interactions when no such value is contributed directly to a
>>>>>>>> given interaction. Simply enabling future actions is not a creation of p2p
>>>>>>>> value worthy of repeated compensation. That is, royalties or licensing fees
>>>>>>>> are not consistent with a p2p ethos.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H. Unless dire political consequences are involved, peers should not
>>>>>>>> be anonymous[3].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I. What to avoid: P2P specifically does not aim to circumvent human
>>>>>>>> rights, democratically enacted laws, rightfully established organizational
>>>>>>>> controls, or legitimate claims of property in force. Rather, p2p seeks to
>>>>>>>> build and expand common resources that are expressly free, open,
>>>>>>>> collaborative and mutually beneficial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I probably agree with does not aim, but neither would it be opposed
>>>>>>> to legimate attempts to change them, see for example the landless movement
>>>>>>> in Brazil?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>

-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi