[p2p-research] Request: Peer to Peer and Human Evolution

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Peter,

I'm putting Kevin Carson in cc, so he can react.

I'm still of two minds regarding internet taxation, but first hand, I don't
see why internet companies should be excempted from contributing to the
public good.

Of course, our communication should not be taxed.

I'm also not intrinsically opposed, and I think I favour, small taxes to
fund a universal license for artists livelyhoods .. but this tax can be on
physical devices for examples

I'm generally not an expert on the tax issue, but have a monitoring tag here
at
http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Taxation

Generally speaking, what makes sense to me is a radical overhaul of the tax
philosophy away from taxing productive activities, especially labour, and
replace it with taxing financial transacitons, especially the speculative
ones (tobin tax etc..)

I remember yann moulier boutang's approach made a lot of sense to me

see also the smart taxes network: http://smarttaxes.org/

you are of course right that the state (and corporate) institutions are
largely unreformable, but intense pressure from successfull social
alternatives (p2p ones), can drive the change towards more participatory
government

in the long run, my 'european' preference for a specialized sphere taking
care of the public good, should be distinguished from what we know today as
the 'state',

we can imagine a lot of different ways to take care of this, and probably
will need to create new ones, rather than reform the old ones,

I'm by all means interested in learning from your approach and cooperating,
perhaps we could set up a discussion area in the wiki, and post discussion
documents, see how we can find synergies ..

it fits with the goal of developping commons oriented policy frameworks,
which I intend to set as one of my personal goals for 2010

Michel

2010/2/18 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>

> Hi Michael,
>
> 2010/2/17 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > it all depends whom you are addressing, the p2p-f is a pluralist platform
> > with people holding different views, and kevin carson for example, may
> share
> > your position on the state (not sure, but perhaps)
>
> Thank you for the idea: could you connect us?
>
> > but as for myself, in my own formulation of a p2p theory and program and
> > vision, it's not libertarian and anti-state
> >
> > here is a short version,
> >
> http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/11/03/the_peer_to_peer_manifesto.htm
> >
> > and two longer political pieces:
> >
> >
> > P2P Politics, the State, and the Renewal of the Emancipatory Traditions.
> > Re-public, Wiki Politics issue, 2007. Retrieved from
> > http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=133. Reprint at Democracy by the People
> blog,
> >
> http://democracybythepeople.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-to-peer-politics.html
> >
> > The Political Implications of the Peer to Peer Revolution. Knowledge
> > Politics, Volume 1 Issue 2 (April 2008), pp. 1-24 . Retrieved from
> > http://www.knowledgepolitics.org.uk/kpq-1-2-Bauwens.pdf
>
> The last link is broken: could you please attach it?
>
> > In short, I consider the state inevitable in a class society, and much
> like
> > the ego, something that cannot be abolished, but must be outgrown, and
> this
> > in a probably very long historical process
> >
> > I see the state as fullfilling 3 roles: 1) protecting the system as a
> whole
> > and hence defender of the existing elite and status quo ; 2) reflecting
> its
> > own interest as a separate body; 3) reflecting the balance of power
> > resulting from social struggles and social progress
> >
> > this last characteristic makes it an object of political struggle between
> > the elite and other forces in society, which can partially use it to
> their
> > own purposes
>
> I am definitely not against the state: I think the invention of the
> state & the (originally anarchistic) interstate (=international) order
> is one of the great achievements of the humanity during the last half
> millenium (based on my theoretical considerations I won't specify
> here). From this point of view, we are living in the best of all
> possible worlds (supposed that our resources are practically not
> limited, which I think to be true, and that we survive until we
> populate at least the inner solar system, which I think to be
> uncertain).
>
> Moreover, I completely agree: "14. We need to move from empty and
> ineffective anti-capitalist rhetoric, to constructive post-capitalist
> construction. [...]"
>
> http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/11/03/the_peer_to_peer_manifesto.htm
>
> We agree (with Benkler
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks) on the significance
> of the commons...: "Indeed, from civil society emerges a new
> institutionalization, the commons, which is a distinct new form of
> regulation and property. Unlike private property, which is
> exclusionary, and unlike state property, in which the collective
> ‘expropriates’ the individual; by contrast in the form of the commons,
> the individual retains his sovereignity, but has voluntarily shared
> it."
> http://democracybythepeople.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-to-peer-politics.html
>
> ... and on their organizational consequences: "5. The creation of
> immaterial value, which again needs to become dominant in a
> post-material world which recognized the finiteness of the material
> one, will be characterized by the further emergence of non-reciprocal
> peer production system."
>
> http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/11/03/the_peer_to_peer_manifesto.htm
>
> > obviously I think p2p communities should strive for the maximal autonomy,
> > both vis a vis corporations and the state, but I believe that they will
> also
> > inevitably have to compose with them; I also think traditional political
> > struggle, for influence within the state, and molding state actions to
> one's
> > own interests, is a necessary part of the mix which will continue to be
> > needed for a long time
> >
> > however, what is new is that the sphere of autonomy can be increased
> > substantially, and that if both autonomy and political strength increase
> to
> > a certain level, we could morph the state into a partner state model,
> just
> > as the worker's movement succeeded in molding it to a welfare state model
> >
> > as we develop p2p value creation in more and more social domains and
> > activities, then the objective conditions which necessitate a state, will
> > slowly start to unravel, and more and more state functions will lose
> > legitimacy and they will be replaced by p2p processes
> >
> > I do also expect however, that no matter how much confederative processes
> > p2p communities achieve, a guarantor of the general public interest will
> > remain a necessity, but I expect this type of 'p2p state' to be totally
> > unrecognizable from the current form
> >
> > one final item is the distinction you make between bits and atoms in
> terms
> > of the state; I think this distinction is too binary and polarized, and
> that
> > the role of the state in cyberspace will similarly not be avoided, and is
> > not necessarity less legitimate
> >
> > however, we have the great opportunity to create millions of p2p
> communities
> > which will largely escape the role and control of the state, and will
> > determine more and more of their own affairs, again this is part of what
> I
> > see as the process of 'outgrowing'
>
> You say that because the state has a coordination function p2p is not
> able to fulfill...
> "It is important to distinguish the peer governance of a multitude of
> small but coordinated global groups, which choose non-representational
> processes in which participants co-decide on the projects, from
> representative democracy. The latter is a decentralized form of
> power-sharing based on elections and representatives. Since society is
> not a peer group with an a priori consensus, but rather a
> decentralized structure of competing groups, representative democracy
> cannot be replaced by peer governance."
> http://democracybythepeople.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-to-peer-politics.html
> ... we should reform/transform it into a state which absorbs the p2p
> fabric:
> "11. The role of the state must evolve from the protector of dominant
> interests and arbiter between public regulation and privatized
> corporate modes (an eternal and unproductive binary choice), towards
> being the arbiter between a triad of public regulation, private
> markets, and the direct social production of value. In the latter
> capacity, it must evolve from the  welfare state model, to the partner
> state model, as involved in enabling and empowering the direct social
> creation of value."
>
> http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/11/03/the_peer_to_peer_manifesto.htm
>
> What I say here is different: I think
> - states are intrinsically unfit to manage "bits" (however they try to
> fill the void)
> - p2p-s are potentially (but not actually) fit to manage bits
> (supposed there is an appropriate infrastructure for them)
> - state is intrinsically monopolistic organization, practically
> unreformable even in its democratic form (you know that I was a member
> of the State Reform Cabinet of the Hungarian Government when I first
> wrote you:)), and the only way to deal with it is to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast , not with voluntary tax
> cuts but by way of "driving out" unfitting taxes of intangibles (while
> giving to "Caesar what is Caesar's"
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2020:25 ), and
> attaching them to elements of an "intangible" political system we feel
> allegiance to,
> - we are both the states and the p2p kind of organizations, and as
> states we are not more fit to manage the business of our freely
> chosen, functionally alien political units, than as member of p2p
> networks to manage states.
>
> > an extra final point, I see peer governance as occuring wherever
> abundance
> > makes allocation of resources redundant, but in every area where this is
> not
> > the case, democratic decision-making will remain necessary,
>
> This could be a firm basis for a joint venture: if we agree that if
> anything, the intangibles are our abundant resources (and the natural
> scope for different kinds of commons), we are both at home:) What do
> you think?
>
>
> Peter
>
> > Michel
> >
> > 2010/2/17 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Dear Michael, Chris and Research List Members,
> >>
> >>
> >> first of all, sorry for the almost 1 month delay.
> >>
> >> The translation of the amendment is ready, we will check it, put it on
> >> our blog, I think Stefan will post you soon along with his comments
> >> and questions, and I will join the debate.
> >>
> >> As for now, I want to ask your help in a different way, concerning the
> >> core of your (our) P2P cause, more exactly, the politics of it.
> >>
> >> I wrote an article (& at last finished the proofreading and correcting
> >> today:) which, as my understanding goes, is a possible political
> >> vision of the P2P evolution.
> >>
> >> This is the link:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/states-let-them-prey-on-atoms-but-not-on-bits
> >>
> >> I think you have the experience (and the feeling in your gut:) to help
> >> me in answering my question: is it a desirable vision of the future of
> >> P2P evolution? Do we have discrepancies in our understanding of the
> >> explicite/implicite politics of P2P?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you for your help:
> >> Peter
> >>
> >>
> >> 2009/12/23 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> >> > That's fine, Peter, good timing,
> >> >
> >> > Michel
> >> >
> >> > 2009/12/23 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Michael,
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll contact you (cc Chris & the Research List) asap, I think first
> >> >> half of january. We are translating the amendment and I should clear
> >> >> some open issues for myself. I am driving to Berlin for 2 weeks,
> there
> >> >> I'll have time to think. Stef suggested we should argue on open
> >> >> standards & other stuff in english: I feel inclined to accept this in
> >> >> order to be able to have your opinion.
> >> >>
> >> >> Peter
> >> >>
> >> >> 2009/12/23 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Peter,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > thanks for the details,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > on what point exactly are you asking my opinion?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Michel
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2009/12/23 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, I think you should not refrain.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The main question is whether p2p process is a necessary condition
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> a standard to be open: based on my research in Hungarian sketched
> in
> >> >> >> English
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> http://visszaajovo.be/mazsa/the-5-and-only-5-open-standards-requirements
> >> >> >> I am not sure about it, and there is not yet an official
> standpoint.
> >> >> >> We should make it clear publicly first in Hungarian.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> However, like stef, I prefer setting standards p2p rather than g2p
> >> >> >> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1483836&cid=30495906
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This is the official formula: "Nevertheless, there is much yet to
> be
> >> >> >> done to have the specifications of sockets established in the
> future
> >> >> >> more by means of a public process rather than exclusively by the
> >> >> >> government."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> http://nyissz.hu/blog/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And this is our strategy @EU-level
> >> >> >> "In the near future, [...]
> >> >> >> in spite of EU tendencies [
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2620&blogid=14
> >> >> >> ] the Alliance seeks to make its approach – interoperability based
> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> publicly defined [!] open standards – the EU norm under the
> >> >> >> Hungarian
> >> >> >> presidency of the European Union in 2011. To that end, it will
> >> >> >> promote
> >> >> >> public collaboration – possibly between every interested party,
> >> >> >> civil
> >> >> >> and political organisation in the European Union."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> http://nyissz.hu/blog/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> About global strategy I am intended to publish later, definitely
> in
> >> >> >> spirit of p2p: i'll be interested very much in your opinion.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yours:
> >> >> >> P.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2009/12/22 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> >> >> >> > should I understand from the comments of stef in the fcforum
> list
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > we
> >> >> >> > should refrain from further publishing it?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Michel
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 2009/12/22 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I realized because we got hits from your blog. Thanks, both of
> >> >> >> >> you:)
> >> >> >> >> Yours,
> >> >> >> >> P.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 2009/12/22 chris at cataspanglish.com <chris at cataspanglish.com>:
> >> >> >> >> > ;-)
> >> >> >> >> > Cheers,
> >> >> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > On 22 Dec 2009, at 14:28, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Dear Peter,
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > by coincidence, chris pinchen just published it on our blog,
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > see:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/2009/12/22
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > 2009/12/18 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Michael,
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> could you help me to publish this article:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> http://nyissz.hu/blog/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/
> >> >> >> >> >> We have been working on this since 2007.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> And/or tweet:
> >> >> >> >> >> http://j.mp/OpenStandardsinHungary
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you:
> >> >> >> >> >> Peter
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think
> thank:
> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100220/41f8e561/attachment.html>