Comments on: The basic orientation of p2p theory towards societal reform: transforming civil society, the private and the state https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-basic-orientation-of-p2p-theory-towards-societal-reform-transforming-civil-society-the-private-and-the-state/2011/07/12 Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:28:24 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.5.15 By: Poor Richard https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-basic-orientation-of-p2p-theory-towards-societal-reform-transforming-civil-society-the-private-and-the-state/2011/07/12/comment-page-1#comment-486287 Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:28:24 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=17737#comment-486287 Gary, your comment took the words out of my mouth. I don’t see the utility of drawing circles around various hunks of the economy/culture/state and calling them “sectors” any more. Speaking from a systems science approach, we need a “periodic table” of socio-economic-political elements (basic facts, rules, and tools, like your “series of statements”) and an experimental “chemistry” of hacking all these elements into appropriate, site- and situation-specific systems for getting stuff done.

PR

]]> By: Gary Lewis https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-basic-orientation-of-p2p-theory-towards-societal-reform-transforming-civil-society-the-private-and-the-state/2011/07/12/comment-page-1#comment-485487 Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:26:18 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=17737#comment-485487 Thanks, Michael, for this overview. I found it helpful as a way to “see” social reform as imagined in p2p theory.

I have 2 quick comments.
1) The basic lever for change appears to be a shift toward peer production in a “knowledge-based” economy. This elevates the importance of the commons and civil society while deemphasizing the importance of the private and state sectors as currently constituted.

Maybe. But this is awfully sketchy. I’d guess that the more likely levers will come as slaps in our collective faces as we run headlong into limitations imposed by Mom Earth.

2) I also don’t see tomorrow in quite the same way as expressed by p2p theory. For example, an “outcome” that rebalances the civic-private-state triarchy could be just as miserable as our current predicament. I suppose the presumption is that a reinvigorated civic sector and new private entrepreneurial forms that sustain the commons will guard against the negative. Maybe.

Another approach is to express an “acceptable” future as a series of statements (eg, we must live on this earth in a sustainable way). This leaves the how open to an iterative experiment-fail-learn and jerky Brownian movement forward. Things like institutional forms evolve. The presumption of a rebalanced triarchy is only a conversation starter. Experiments around money play a critical role. This approach also emphasizes the multiplicity of solutions appropriate across diverse local environments (cultural, language, geography, etc).

Thanks very much for this post. Very enjoyable.
Regards, Gary

]]>