From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I think we shall have problems if we try to overemphasize the monetary measurement. It's catch 22 - if you put a price tag on the common, it is not a common anymore. We should probably distinct between the resource and the benefit we can get from it.It's like a forest and the berry, or wood. For the culture, science and knowledge, if we properly define the relationship between the resource and benefits, we are halfway done. We keep resources under our care, available to others, according to rules of governance, and for doing that we are entitled to certain benefits. But out of these three magic elements, the community is the key. SO perhaps, the whole discussion should be about communities? --FreeLab Org PL (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I see this differently. The commons is by definition outside of the monetary relationship, there can be no commons without the cardinal rule of 'communal shareholding', 'to each according to his needs, from each according to capabilities'. But the commons doesn't exist alone, when conditional exchange is needed, for example for a scarce or depletable resource, different solutions are needed, for example 'to each according to his contribution'. This can be a gift economy, a market, or any other mechanism for regulated allocation, such as also moneyless resource-based economics. In any case, you can't just decree coercively the abolishing of money (it was tried, catastrophically). Allen Butcher's Communal Economics studies, available on our wiki's main page (right hand column) is the most extensive overview of the practices of moneyless communities that are not individualistically oriented, and he has outlined the different allocation mechanisms that they have experimented with historically.

My hope is that with open book management and open supply chains, the networks around commons will be able to switch to resource-based economics, i.e. apply the stigmergic techniques that already work in the immaterial sphere, to the sphere of material production, but I expect with a lot more 'conditionalities' as argued before. --MIchel Bauwens (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Michel, I agree as long as it concerns benefits - It is ok for me to put them on the market or through any other distribution system. However, the resource being in custody should not be priced - and it has nothing to do with abolition of money. There are values in our life we do not monetize and no one has a problem with it. To me the commons is a group value of this kind. And that is why I believe the distinction between the resource (non-monetizable) and benefits (monetizable) is so crucial. Once we are done with it, the rest will be easy/boring. :-) --FreeLab Org PL (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, the core commons resource should be inalienable!

--MIchel Bauwens (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

wiki page names

Support team and deep dive participant pages start with EEC rather than ECC, which is a bit confusing.

It seems the conference name has replace "of" with "and".

All of these might call for page moves (redirects would be left in place, so existing links would work). Mike Linksvayer (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This was already applied. --Yaco (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Commentaries on Conference Streams

I am wondering if it would be best to post a link to a commentary on a conference stream at the bottom of that stream or as a "side event" invitation? -- Sandwichman

sorry I don't understand the question; I propose you do as you think best, we see from there. Also copying mediawiki expert franco on this. --MIchel Bauwens (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I am contacting this user by mail because the proposal isn't clear to me either. --Yaco (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Change of website

I notice that has been taken over by an advertising site.

I will go through and delete links to that site. Simon Grant (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)