Certainly agree that it is time to advance this work. I think the working on such exercises and ideas on developed protocols on an open page, may be including interested from lists and networks on the topic, sounds like a good idea. In tandem with the debate on licences and partner state, it would be very complementary. So I would be happy to collaborate on that.
May be an idea to have one page for inner-governance, one for between p2p governed distributed networks, and one between distributed/p2p and vertical agency interactions? Orsan On 28 July 2014 08:01, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Orsan, > > it is precisely for this reason that we parted with flok > > in the longer term, we need to find and focus on the protocols that are > necessary to retain equipotentiality in a network ... > > perhaps we could work together on identifying those rules ? > > it has been on the back of my mind for a few years, see > http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:P2P_Hierarchy_Theory and > http://www.diigo.com/user/mbauwens/Protocollary-Power .. > > It seems to me that the work of Stephen Downes would be a great starting > point .. > > http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:P2P_Hierarchy_Theory?search=stephen+downes&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 > > for example: > > http://p2pfoundation.net/Democratic_Institutional_Design / > http://p2pfoundation.net/Knowing_Networks > > so my proposal is to have a joint page where we can jot down the rules that > maintain true distribution of power > > Michel > > <<>From the communist manifesto to first international, from Erfurt and > Gotha to Comintern the discussion between theses and factions, being > formed among groups of friends, based on one important but small > faction or an entirely new frame of theoretical-analytical > abstraction, took the conflicts between individuals and caused strong > and irreversible demarcations between sppousedly emancipatory visions > and energies.. May be most of the time very stupid reasons, like > money, girl, ego casued these we can't now... Then we (emancipatory > peopel) had reproduced the power games of rulers -can be traced easily > in the tone of writings of Marx, Engels, Luxembourg, Kautsky, Lenin, > Proudhon, Bakunin,... the spirit of the time is gaining respect and > authority for argument was full fledged attacks on personality.. plus > whatever possible, as may be a result of structural possibilities > limiting communication. It killed the true spirit of > revolution/emancipation as well as prevented prefigurative ethical > politics as such. In my opinion this made it possible for the rulers > to survive and evolve into capitalist class agency for itself and gave > them advantage. Since they saw that their grave digger were also like > them.. since we did reproduce the capitalist form of power > accumulation. It is not possible in the same way today, p2p mode of > communication allows more open confrontations and conflict resolution > processes, egalitarian and ethical - prefigurative relationships, as > well as checks and balances. Still there are ways and tricks to gain > network power and use it against the 'lower order' nodes? so on these > weaknesses there is a work to do. Yet the structurally speaking it is > not impossible to solve these problems today>> > > -- > Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record > of previous communication, proposals, etc .. > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > _______________________________________________ > NetworkedLabour mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
