[p2p-research] against human rentals

Tue Aug 10 13:23:37 CEST 2010

yes, ultimately that would be the best safety net, though I would strongly
doubt it would be enough without mutualized assistance

 but since that has not existed for a few hundred years, i.e. the direct
access, the social safety net has in practice been about redistribution

a lot less redistribution would be needed, if there would be no
disappropriation in the first place

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100810/3f10da7b/attachment.html>