[p2p-research] Remote Assembly, Economy, & Work For Its Own Sake

[Samuel Rose]

Ryan, thanks, a couple of replies...

> Here are some interesting questions for current theorists I would think:
>
> A. Money stopped functioning in Zimbabwe.  Z. still exists.  What happened
> that one can like and that one dislikes about the state of affairs there?
> B. If the question is, how do people function when there is no money, it
> seems a hyper-inflation would offer an excellent proxy.  Or would it not?
> If not, why not?  Do people need to choose no money?
> C. If the question is one of choice, do people need to continually reject
> money?  What if a token system started for whatever reason...say as a means
> of fun wagers?  Or, what if people instituted a government in a system where
> there was no money and then started using it?  Would this be somehow wrong
> or illogical?  If illogical, one needs to present to reasonable and
> open-minded persons a logic by which it is illogical, I would think.
>
> My own conclusion (which is always tentative) is that one can't envision a
> logical free choice system without value tokens in a modern society because
> money is useful.

I agree. Especially now that it is so easy to virtualize/digitize. It
is really difficult to imagine many people voluntarily casting off the
convenience of some form of money.

>
> One might however envision a system where people choose not to use money
> because the political objectives of their society reject certain aspects of
> life associated with money.   That is a political decision...like making
> certain crimes illegal that need not be to have a reasonably civil and
> functioning society...say, "vices" like smoking pot or gambling.
>

There are people making this choice for sure, and in every case it is
what you are calling political (or what I am calling "worldview")
based.


> So, my view of what answers your question, Sam, is that the process is the
> same as any politically transformative discussion.  How do you implement
> anything?  Healthcare, reduced carbon, etc.  It isn't a question of
> procedure...there is no process to design.  It is a question of political
> transformation.
>

What you see me talking about in these threads may seem like a
"process". But, what I am really talking about is creating the
conditions for emergence. There are conditions that you can foment,
implement and nurture that will create transition, and increase the
likelihood of transformation. This is not coercive, and does require
social negotiation, relationship and network building, and choosing
where to spend energies and time based on what you think is most
likely to succeed first, next etc

So, you can "seed" transitional entities, and nurture them in
conjunction with people who are genuinely interested. And/or you can
find and align with like-minded entities that are emerging around the
world, and think about how to work together in useful ways. This is
political, but there are processes which people may agree to use, to
create commons, collaborative, and cooperation based systems that can
sustain themselves over time. Have a look at everything we've
synthesized from different areas of human thinking at
http://cooperationcommons.com/summaries

One of those areas of thinking is complex systems, a science which
shows that most transformation/change tends to begin on local scales.
So, if you think about human driven processes, which are partly
political, and resepective of environment, respective of the flow of
energy on many scales, you can see that there are processes which
people as individuals can apply to begin to change how they exist on
local scales. There are many, many, many examples of this. I would say
that it is easier to change locally *without* politics. However, it is
more difficult to sustain such a change without a system of voluntary
co-governance of commons that are created by way of the changes that I
am suggesting.

One empty acre within the city of Cleveland could be a great example.
You can quickly clear out and begin to produce food on that acre, and
create technologies from discarded materials that capture rainwater,
re-use plant refuse as fertilizer, etc etc. You can gain more by
involving more people, and inviting them to contribute to the
development of the acre. Maybe you would invite schools in to teach
students how to start their own businesses, etc. But as you involve
more people, you run the risk of exceeding the carrying capacity of
the commons you have started. You have to create rules, and people
have to be willing to live by those rules. You need a system of
co-governance. Plus, you need a way to meet existing laws in regards
to food safety, quality, etc. On top of all of that, as Ryan suggests,
you can get far by pressuring for real political change (as the people
of Cleveland have done, by pressuring government to allow them to have
bees and chikens within the city, which increases the options for
people involved in small scale food production).

There is a real life example of this here:
http://localfoodsystems.org/story-10-blue-pike-farm That is a farm on
one acre of land in Cleveland, that produces a sizeable income, and
offers resources to multiple people in the local community (schools,
research universities, etc)

> Perhaps I am still off-kilter, but I am attempting a legitimate answer as I
> see it.
>

I do not think you are off-kilter. I think we are talking about the
same thing but using some different language.


> Ryan
>



-- 
-- 
Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com
http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
http://socialmediaclassroom.com
http://localfoodsystems.org
http://notanemployee.net
http://communitywiki.org

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan