[p2p-research] against human rentals

Tue Aug 10 13:09:50 CEST 2010

I would say your interpretation rewords mine.  The social safety net
is the direct access of owner/users to productive capital.

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I heard Orlov  years ago and remember hearing the point that the USA was
> much less prepared than the USSR,
>
>  This could be for many reasons, though I have doubts about the reason given
> below,
>
> I think the issue is less about abstract ownership and more about where
> decisions are made,
>
> neither US nor russian workers have or had direct control, but it seems to
> me the USSR was more centralized, and therefore 'less' in the hands of
> workers; while the U.S. corporate owners, though there are many big MNO's
> are also in the hands of many smaller SME's who can take decisions closer to
> the ground
>
> but I think another issue is the social safety net, which existed in Russian
> and is quasi inexistent in the U.S. .. this means people are pushed in
> desperation much more quickly ...
>
> In general, I think the dislocation of the Soviet Union and the
> extraordinary regression that took place amongst nearly all indicators of
> quality of life, is a damning indictement not only of the previous regime,
> but also of the successor neoliberal shock therapy capitalism that succeeded
> it ...
>
> Ryan has recently shown enthusiasm for the evolution, which surprises me,
> given what I heard from Russians and their desperation, though the last few
> years have been better,
>
> It was also surprising that ryan is so scathing about Venezuela, which has
> had extraordinary achievements in poverty reduction, literacy, etc ... and
> enthusiastic about the oil-based mafia capitalism in Russia, while it seemed
> to me the latter is even more problematic than chavez' caudillismo
>
> Michel
>
> Michel
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've been listening to the Dmitry Orlov talk from LongNow.
>>
>> http://fora.tv/2009/02/13/Dmitry_Orlov_Social_Collapse_Best_Practices#fullprogram
>>
>> I would say, from my listening, that Dmitry's comparison of the
>> structure of the collapses between the US and the USSR places useful
>> emphasis on the resilience of the USSR production systems.
>>
>> The USSR systems were more directly in the hands of users.  Systems
>> that were in the hands/control of workers/owners that relied on the
>> abstracted use-value were more subject to the super-system
>> failure(currency, oil, etc).   These systems held in this fashion
>> sometimes went unproductive or were poorly maintained.
>>
>> The USA systems are not, primarily, in the hands of users.
>>
>> This could be interpreted to mean that from a long term perspective
>> workers claims are less important if their use value is for
>> abstraction or trade, something they could do under the class of
>> owner/user.  Workers might exploit the production operation to the
>> detriment of user/owners with direct needs.
>>
>> Losing access to food, shelter, and transportation were the examples
>> he made.  How could workers sabotage the provisioning of these
>> production systems through abstraction?  One way is to demolish the
>> systems and become capitalists who invest in China or other non-local
>> systems.  Failing to source parts or manufacture locally would be
>> another way.  Using oil to build remote production systems that rely
>> on heavy oil-based transport would be another.
>>
>> A
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Smari shared some interesting insights with me the other day, a sort
>> > of treatise on empire as a mathematical construct.  Here is an example
>> > of a partial extension.
>> >
>> > No matter what else is happening, the deepest and widest commons is
>> > always the most inclusive.  It rejects nothing.  At all.  It also has
>> > no externalities from this perspective.
>> >
>> > Every system can attempt to approach this, and the closer a system
>> > gets the more alike it is to others that reach for the same goal.
>> > Many systems lose all structural historical identification with their
>> > origin through the process of ever widening embrace.
>> >
>> > P2P is very much like a set of cellular automata that is present all
>> > the way up the value chain.  P2P is not necessarily ambiguous or
>> > ideological, and some would say that a non-ideological P2P, or a more
>> > ambiguous and more inclusive P2P is no P2P at all.
>> >
>> > Jaap would do well to read some Ken Wilber as his description is very
>> > close to the complexity systems proposed there, and that work informs
>> > my own work in complexity, too.  I don't say Wilber's work is
>> > definitive.  I do say that the issue is to match based on complexity
>> > of operations, and that little else is of sufficient import to require
>> > technical implementation or even documentation.
>> >
>> > A
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Michel Bauwens
>> > <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi Alex,
>> >>
>> >> I'm selecting a part of your response to Patrick, see below,
>> >>
>> >> Though it is a complex issue and necessarily uses complex language, I
>> >> think
>> >> what you are hinting at is really the key issue for p2p in the physical
>> >> economy, i.e. in the realm of rival goods, equality has to co-exist
>> >> with
>> >> diversity, conditional returns, and merit-based allocation as well as
>> >> equal
>> >> share, at least for a foreseeable future.
>> >>
>> >> Could you perhaps write an extra into paragraph, for publication in our
>> >> blog, otherwise, I can think of one,
>> >>
>> >> I do have an issue with the idea of a unified commons,
>> >>
>> >> I think that people still have widely different worldviews, and so
>> >> there is
>> >> the isssue of realization, but also of social acceptance,
>> >>
>> >> this is why I always see the commons in the context of a pluralistic
>> >> economy
>> >> with plural modes of governance, even while wishing the commons would
>> >> be the
>> >> core of it,
>> >>
>> >> I think this is also expressed in the Trias Internetica page by Jaap
>> >> van
>> >> Till, http://p2pfoundation.net/Trias_Internetica
>> >>
>> >> Another way to express it is that is imaginable that even p2p becomes a
>> >> totalitarian mode without checks and balances and that a plural economy
>> >> and
>> >> governance would provide it .. of course that doesn' t mean that the
>> >> vision
>> >> or expectation is not attractive, but it has its dangers
>> >>
>> >> Michel
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> quote:
>> >>
>> >> For example, if consumers own a common resource, under what agreement
>> >> could they simultaneously operate as common equal-share
>> >> equal-authority governors, and yet still individually derive differing
>> >> amounts of asset-based value units from the same common pool?  If this
>> >> was possible it would mean that each owner can somehow make a play to
>> >> gather more asset-backed value units from the operation than another
>> >> owner.    Let's call this asymmetric gain, for short.  Because the
>> >> attempt to derive asymmetric gain is subject to the common-governance
>> >> of the equal-share equal-authority owners group, let's say, for short,
>> >> that the means by which co-owners decide the rules by which asymmetric
>> >> gain is derived is called the owner protocol.
>> >> So, to restate, what is the text of the owner protocol that would
>> >> allow an owner to derive asymmetric gain?
>> >> If you can answer this, then what is the reason for adding an
>> >> additional stakeholder group for workers to the mix?
>> >> The short "solution" (is it incomplete?) might be:
>> >> Owners and workers operate as common equal-share equal-authority
>> >> governors under owner protocol.   An owner wishing to derive
>> >> asymmetric gain is subject to owner protocol.  Additionally, workers
>> >> who wish to engage in the trade of asset-backed value units may do so
>> >> subject to owner protocol in as much as they wish to derive gain or
>> >> asymmetric gain from the common resource in order to trade the
>> >> asset-backed value units for other, different, asset-backed value
>> >> units.  Once in possession of asset-backed value units owners may
>> >> trade these as they wish.
>> >> The difference is that workers are not always interested in the direct
>> >> asset-backed value units that are produced by a certain resource.  In
>> >> some cases workers are interested in the trading value of the
>> >> asset-backed value units, or the use of units as leverage.  All
>> >> workers have needs, and some workers have skills that are necessary
>> >> for the operation of many different forms of common resources.  All
>> >> owners have needs, and from the perspective of a global commons they
>> >> have a stakeholder interest in all productive assets.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Patrick's understanding of profit is rather nuanced.  Patrick I
>> >>> applaud your efforts at creating stories and analogies that help us
>> >>> all to understand the nuances that you have discovered.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am under the impression that many folks would agree that it would be
>> >>> really neat if all the planet, all the material resources, were a part
>> >>> of a single unified commons where every human (and perhaps even all
>> >>> sentient) beings was considered a stakeholder.  This would mean, at
>> >>> the very least, that each stakeholder would have a say in things.
>> >>>
>> >>> If this was the case, this would be a window into a situation where
>> >>> all users where owners.
>> >>>
>> >>> >From this point on, things get more complicated.
>> >>>
>> >>> >From talking with Patrick on another thread recently, we found a line
>> >>> of inquiry where we were looking at what the reasons were for worker's
>> >>> and owner/users(hereafter owners) to set themselves up as separate
>> >>> stakeholder groups.
>> >>>
>> >>> The obvious answer is not so obvious.  It's a complex diagram already
>> >>> with at least 3 perspectives - owners, workers, and a commons of some
>> >>> sort that contains productive resources.
>> >>>
>> >>> If you add multiple currency commons on top of this, it gets more
>> >>> complicated yet.  For example, sovereign currency and "asset backed"
>> >>> currency like "milk units" or something.
>> >>>
>> >>> One rationale for workers and owners to have separate groups is:
>> >>>
>> >>> They want different things.
>> >>> Workers want ... more milk, and owners want less.
>> >>> Workers want one currency type and owners want another different type.
>> >>>
>> >>> The recent discussion about protocol and networks that was blogged
>> >>> about brought up some of the reasons why, for me, P2P is a great set
>> >>> of tools and understandings for picking apart this set of
>> >>> relationships.
>> >>>
>> >>> That said, the "solution," if there is such a thing, might include
>> >>> quite a bit of diligence and definition.
>> >>>
>> >>> For example, if consumers own a common resource, under what agreement
>> >>> could they simultaneously operate as common equal-share
>> >>> equal-authority governors, and yet still individually derive differing
>> >>> amounts of asset-based value units from the same common pool?  If this
>> >>> was possible it would mean that each owner can somehow make a play to
>> >>> gather more asset-backed value units from the operation than another
>> >>> owner.    Let's call this asymmetric gain, for short.  Because the
>> >>> attempt to derive asymmetric gain is subject to the common-governance
>> >>> of the equal-share equal-authority owners group, let's say, for short,
>> >>> that the means by which co-owners decide the rules by which asymmetric
>> >>> gain is derived is called the owner protocol.
>> >>>
>> >>> So, to restate, what is the text of the owner protocol that would
>> >>> allow an owner to derive asymmetric gain?
>> >>>
>> >>> If you can answer this, then what is the reason for adding an
>> >>> additional stakeholder group for workers to the mix?
>> >>>
>> >>> The short "solution" (is it incomplete?) might be:
>> >>>
>> >>> Owners and workers operate as common equal-share equal-authority
>> >>> governors under owner protocol.   An owner wishing to derive
>> >>> asymmetric gain is subject to owner protocol.  Additionally, workers
>> >>> who wish to engage in the trade of asset-backed value units may do so
>> >>> subject to owner protocol in as much as they wish to derive gain or
>> >>> asymmetric gain from the common resource in order to trade the
>> >>> asset-backed value units for other, different, asset-backed value
>> >>> units.  Once in possession of asset-backed value units owners may
>> >>> trade these as they wish.
>> >>>
>> >>> The difference is that workers are not always interested in the direct
>> >>> asset-backed value units that are produced by a certain resource.  In
>> >>> some cases workers are interested in the trading value of the
>> >>> asset-backed value units, or the use of units as leverage.  All
>> >>> workers have needs, and some workers have skills that are necessary
>> >>> for the operation of many different forms of common resources.  All
>> >>> owners have needs, and from the perspective of a global commons they
>> >>> have a stakeholder interest in all productive assets.
>> >>>
>> >>> Our current economy puts us in the poorly defined middle ground most
>> >>> of the time.  We use sovereign currency units to trade value between
>> >>> small owner-stakeholder groups.
>> >>>
>> >>> A
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > Samuel Rose wrote:
>> >>> >> If a worker cannot accumulate what they earn,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Nobody can 'earn' Profit!
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Profit only occurs when Consumers lack ownership.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Consider this scenario:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Let's say I'm good at jack-hammering, but am sick
>> >>> > and tired of my boss being paid more than it really
>> >>> > costs him to supply the tools and to pay my wage.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > After many years of saving I finally have enough to
>> >>> > buy my own jack-hammer.  So I quit my job as a
>> >>> > wage-slave and advertise my services as an
>> >>> > entrepreneur.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Soon I have many clients and things are going quite
>> >>> > well.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > One day a wealthy so-and-so suddenly decides he is going to open a
>> >>> > tool-rental business with a strange goal:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The terms of operation for this business is to "Break even, but do
>> >>> > not
>> >>> > charge enough to Profit."
>> >>> >
>> >>> > So now everyone in the area is able to rent jack-hammers and pay
>> >>> > exactly the same amount it
>> >>> > costs me in oil, repairs, extra parts, etc.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Now whenever someone needs such work done, I
>> >>> > can only charge the real Costs plus Wages - where
>> >>> > Wages are determined on the "open market".
>> >>> >
>> >>> > This, by definition, means I will no longer be able to
>> >>> > collect Profit because competition in that field is now
>> >>> > under perfect competition.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > In other words, competition reduces Profit and perfect competition
>> >>> > *eliminates* profit.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The reason for this is that before the tools were available
>> >>> > to the Consumers "at cost", I was able to keep other
>> >>> > workers from competing against me because the
>> >>> > barrier-to-entry was the initial expense of the Means
>> >>> > of Production (the jack-hammer).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > This shows that Profit has nothing to do with Work, but
>> >>> > is only a result of Consumers lacking at-cost access
>> >>> > to the Sources of Production - and where the *ultimate*
>> >>> > guarantee of at-cost access is through real ownership.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>> >>> > p2presearch mailing list
>> >>> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> >>> >
>> >>> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> p2presearch mailing list
>> >>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> >>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
>> >> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>> >>
>> >> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> >> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>> >>
>> >> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>> >> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>> >>
>> >> Think tank:
>> >> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> p2presearch mailing list
>> >> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> >> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
>
> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>