[p2p-research] the connective

[Michel Bauwens]

hi patrick,

I never had a problem withu user-ownership as one possible peer-property
format in a diversity of them,

I only have a problem with posing user-ownership, which excludes workers, as
universal solution,

the p2p foundation coop will be a worker coop,

but theoretically, I'm for stakeholder-structures, which combine the
interest of various stakeholders in one structure,

see the 6-stakeholder model of the riversimple car for example,

Michel

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello Michel Bauwens,
>
> Do you remember telling me User Ownership has a potential problem of
> Worker exploitation?
>
> I'm just trying to understand if that position has changed, and if
> not, how that perceived problem will be solved.
>
> Your suggestion was to make sure the Workers had part ownership in the
> Means of Production.
>
> Does that mean private ownership of devices such as the PlugComputer
> must be shared with those who manufacture, configure and/or maintain
> those devices?
>
> If not, then maybe you can help me see past my confusion?
>
> Thanks,
> Patrick Anderson
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I wonder how this is differs from http://P2PFoundation.net/User_Owned
> >>
> >> Specifically, I've been told Workers will be exploited if the Users
> >> are the Owners.
> >>
> >> Will The Connective be able to avoid Worker exploitation?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I was not privy to the apparent previous discussion you mention where
> > you were  "told Workers will be exploited if the Users are the
> > Owners."
> >
> > Is it plausible to discuss these scenarios in a way that seems to
> > indicate something will happen in all cases, when likely it would only
> > happen under certain conditions? Do people really believe that in call
> > cases of user ownership that workers will be exploited? If not, then
> > why are we even framing discussion in this way. It seems to me to be
> > destructive to useful dialogue to frame discussion in extremes where
> > one declares that everything will or will not be a certain way if we
> > do a certain thing. Reality bears out different results in practically
> > every case. It's rarely "either this way, or that way". It is usually
> > that things are either one way, or many other ways.
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Sam Rose
> > Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
> > Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> > Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> > skype: samuelrose
> > email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> > http://forwardfound.org
> > http://futureforwardinstitute.org
> > http://hollymeadcapital.com
> > http://p2pfoundation.net
> > http://socialmediaclassroom.com
> >
> > "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
> > ambition." - Carl Sagan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20101212/aa6d5efc/attachment-0001.html>