Comments on: Is p2p/commons theory to economistic?

By: david ronfeldt

david ronfeldt — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:01:16 +0000

kevin — i quite agree that “it is time for a lot of associations to arise” — good point. and i hope some strategizing gets underway on that — both to stimulate the formation of new such associations, and also to network them together. — onward, david

By: kevindoylejones

kevindoylejones — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:34:29 +0000

Would it be helpful if a U.S. chamber of commons were created? yes, but also some associations around other things. i think it’s time for a lot of associations to arise, industry networks in fisheries, etc. polycentric centralizers, i think. overlapping loyalties like bandwidth in the sky. i am kevindoylejones on twitter, engage there and id be glad to give you my email.

By: Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:31:28 +0000

In reply to david ronfeldt.

you’re welcome David … I hope Kevin will see this, but I do not have his email,

Michel

By: david ronfeldt

david ronfeldt — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 01:41:24 +0000

kevindoylejones – i’d like to inquire: do you think it would be helpful from your viewpoint if a u.s. chamber of commons were to be created? as i’ve speculated elsewhere, it might be organized partly like the u.s. chamber of commerce, but be very different in orientation and objectives. might such an organizational innovation help foster the “greater cultural diversity” you refer to?

michel — I think we are largely in agreement about the roles of the various forms. also, many thanks for your interest in my recent postings.

By: kevindoylejones

kevindoylejones — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:45:42 +0000

I think the concept of blended value fits here. We create undifferentiated value. Some of it is financial, some of it is social; the relationships in which we are embedded, some of it is environmental; the clean water in our rivers that allows trout to spawn because we are handling agricultural effluent well. Some of is in the enhanced productivity and value creation that comes from living in the p2p network commons you are describing. I think evolution that allows for greater cultural diversity and biodiversity is the evolution i am trying to cooperate with.

By: Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 13:29:23 +0000

I agree with your integral/integrative interpretation, when I say dominant however, in my own writings, I mean, ‘the most important’, the form that infuences the others most, the core of the social logic but not the only one …

By: david ronfeldt

david ronfeldt — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 18:49:06 +0000

from a TIMN perspective, yes, network/p2p/commons (N) theory is headed toward creating an evolutionary step beyond market/pricing theory. much as market (M) theory posed a step beyond hierarchical institutional (I) thinking centuries earlier, and the latter was a step beyond ancient tribal (T) thinking that preceded the rise of formal institutions. even so, as societies advance, the earlier TIMN forms of theory/thinking are still needed and persist alongside the newer, albeit in ways that get modified with the rise of each new form. my view remains that balance among the forms is advisable, that no single form should get to dominate over the long term.

By: Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:10:48 +0000

In reply to kevindoylejones.

I would say yes, but perhaps in the sense of ‘transcend and include’ ? My personal belief is that global mutual coordination will bypass much of the necessity to choose between market pricing and central allocation as key distribution mechanisms.

Michel

By: kevindoylejones

kevindoylejones — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 03:42:16 +0000

is p2p network commons theory an evolutionary step beyond market thinking?