Comments on: Bifo: “So far, the result of the collapse of neoliberal politics has been its consolidation”

By: Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:29:39 +0000

In reply to Arasmus.

One more thing, we have sections on open business models (http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Business_Models) and peer funding (http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Peerfunding), containing information about what can be done to obtain a sustainable living. Should more be done to present this in easier and digestable ways, yes absolutely, but remember this is a volunteer effort, and we do what we can within constrains of time and availibility.

By: Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:27:47 +0000

In reply to Arasmus.

Dear Arasmus,

I think it is best to see the overall change effort as an ecology of complementary efforts. At the P2P Foundation, we are observers of currenct concepts and practices, look at what works and not, bring the debates in the open, and try to create various bridges and connections that did not exist before, for example through the 7 conferences we co-organized in the past. Our aim is to increase understanding and mutual alignment. But many of our members are already active in their own projects, many of them practical in the sense you suggest. And through the creation of our own P2P Cooperative, we aim to apply our understandings in the concrete world. Even the construction of the p2p knowledge itself, is actually a peer production of knowledge, so we practice, and this our practice. Can we do more, certainly, but that also depends on the ability to draw in more support, it happens, but organically and slowly … Now, all the things you mention, are covered in our wiki, we have a section on ecology, agriculture and food, cooperatives, making and manufacturing, so that anyone who wants to concretely act, can find out what is already happening, and this may inform their own actions. Of course, this is not enough, but we are not alone and many in the p2p and commons movement are acting and creating as well. The new world however, is also constructed through new cultures and perspectives which inform action, and this I would say, is ‘our’ specific approach.

By: Arasmus

Arasmus — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 00:06:34 +0000

Thank you for this blog entry. I’d like to add a thought. At this stage in our discourse I think that many reasonable people, and certainly those inclined to P2P projects, find themselves nodding their heads in agreement at the overall analysis, though obviously not without reservations to various parts here and there. But now what? The above commentary ends with a pointer in the direction of “unfolding the power of collective intelligence.” Now, imagine standing outside the unemployment office and saying that. I don’t mean to be flippant, but rather to underline the ultimate test with a degree of dramatic effect. What P2P projects can be started now to provide a decent living to the ordinary citizen? How can we use P2P to provide homes, food, electricity (the base of Maslow’s pyramid rather than the apex) and jobs to people? It is irrational to expect a human being to walkout on an economic methodology that provides for a meagre existence for the sake of one that provides for none. Some in the P2P community know about these projects – intentional housing, kit houses, open ecology, Mondragon, shared workshops etc. But why are they not our focus? Why in fact are we not devoting our time to bringing them all together into a manual, and a culture. I think we will move forward more in the direction of “unfolding the power of collective intelligence” more persuasively if we speak at the level of specificity that we see in say MAKE magazine for example – practical step-by-step tried-and-tested methodologies. As always Michel, I will be interested to heer your thoughts.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:05:57 +0000

Reminds me of an interesting talk I heard not long ago by Karl Sigmund, a leader in game theoretic research. He was observing the behavior of systems based on iterated prisoners dilema. In the basic game he noted that once defectors start taking over the system, there is no escape from that basin of attraction.

He then adds another option to the game called “nonparticipants”, who basically refuse to play. They go pick pick mushrooms in the forest, as he put it. Now when the defectors take over, players begin to opt-out, and the defectors starve. The system now oscillates between the various basins of attraction, but never gets permanently stuck in any one of them.

These results are summarized in a June 2007 article in Science called “Via Freedom to Coercion: The Emergence of Costly Punishment”.