The gamblers at the casino are all still at the table and the betting goes on even though the ‘agreed’ limits for individual indebtedness were exceeded some time ago. And though each round has a winner who collects (from the other gamblers) everyone is getting further and further into debt with the House.
But no-one leaves the table for to do so would mean acknowledging their debt to the House and repaying it. And they have no means of doing so beyond exchanging their gambling debt for a personal loan which is significantly greater than the value of all their assets. Who would offer them such a loan?
And so the gamblers gamble on oblivious to their predicament believing that it will just take one ‘big win’ and their problem will be solved.
The House watches on with a mixture of greed and alarm. The Manager wants the game to stop and debts paid off but he fears none of the gamblers can pay. He too is a gambler and he too wants to win big. And this is, he knows, the ‘big one’. But he realizes that the House too may well crash and burn in an enormous blaze of collective debt.
Meanwhile outside families of the gamblers wait oblivious to their fate, their family assets mortgaged many times over.
So, what to do? Who to save? What to save? How to save?
Great parable. The gamblers cannot leave because leaving means acknowledging the debt, and the debt cannot be acknowledged because it cannot be repaid. So they play on, and the House watches with greed and alarm, knowing that it too is a gambler. Your question (who and what to save?) is the one no economist dares to ask, because the answer is: no one. Not at this table. The only way out is to leave the casino, but the casino is all we have known for quite a while. Thank you for this. It will stay with me.
As you follow the presentation using the AI Grok you will see that the instructions given to the AI, to take advantage of the programming of the AI to be able to follow logical and provable analytical rigor, means that the AI itself concludes that ALL the so called 'higher ups' are proved to be full of nonsense, by the very AI they so highly tout!
If you do not want to use the AI conversation then you yourself take on the same instruction given to the AI and address the human leading the conversation directly. The foregoing inquiry is very directly tied to science and math and first principles logic. It is supposed to be these means by which decision making gets done...Right? So, the use of the AI is to remain within those constraints of analysis that all too often are ignored by most humans that have preconceptions that are actually wrong.
Yes, they are working a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Only the ‘energy’ (the money) it is ‘creating’ comes ultimately from the real world of finance (from the companies that go bust or the devaluation of the general money system supporting the ‘machine’) and that is finite.
Sooner or later there will be a reckoning and the machine will fall apart.
just for info, we have been analysing the seed forms of the emerging 'contributory economy' for 15 years. If you look carefully at the fragments, more can be known than generally expected (as the ancient Chinese Taoists already knew); https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Category:Mutual_Coordination
Michel, thank you for this, your wiki page is an extraordinary archive of experiments in mutual coordination, and I'm going to have a good look at it. But I want to ask you a question. Does the planned economy you describe move us beyond capital as economic value tied to labour? Or does it simply redistribute that value more fairly, more ecologically, more democratically, etc.? My worry, as you will know from my piece, is that the value-form itself is a deep structure that no amount of mutual coordination can dissolve, only reform. And beneath that, there is something perhaps even more fundamental level: the "mode of enjoyment" that subjects derive from their activity under capitalism, i.e. the unconscious attachment to competition, to accumulation, to the very forms that exploit us. A new plan that does not generate a new way of relating to what we do at the level of desires/drives might not "stick" - do you agree? I do not have the answer but I suspect that the transition you are working toward requires not just new institutions but also a new libidinal economy. This might well arise out of necessity, but was wondering if you have thought about this. I would be grateful for your reflections.
Dear Fabio, thank you so much for this stimulating reaction. I will attempt a short reply:
1) my first answer is yes: my work and research explicitely addresses the value form, and our work is centered around a shift from commodity value to contributory value. This is not something we wish for, but something we describe as it is already happening at significant scale in peer production communities. The issue is of course is that for now, this contributory value has to co-exist with the commodity economy, it is not independent of it, but our work studies on how to move from 'a commons for capital' to capital for the commons'. But just as the coloni/feudal system co-existed with the city merchant system , we believe the contributory and commodity system will co-exist for a significant time. But an accelaration of the death of the commodity system forces an acceleration of the birth of the contributory system. We have done significant thinking about transition dynamics, which is not very much removed from Marx's original phased scheme (so we do not believe in direct communlalization)
2) This being said, we are rather weak on the libidinal economy, not because we deny its importance, but lack of skills and time. But we believe that the object-oriented sociality we find in peer production communities already carries within itself a different investment of desire. My own background lies in Wilhelm Reich (long time ago), and in the discussions of the Philosophy Portal. I would welcome further conversations.
Michel, thank you for this. I really appreciate your kind and passionate reply. On your first point: I am genuinely intrigued to hear that your work explicitly addresses the value-form, and that the shift from commodity value to contributory value captures what is already happening at scale in peer production communities. I’ve started looking into real examples of peer communities like farmhack (correct?). I agree with you about parallel transition dynamics. The question is whether the new can grow fast enough, and deep enough, to survive and replace the decomposition of the old. I will follow closely your work on transition dynamics.
On your second point: instinctively, without knowing much about it, I think you are right that peer production communities carry within them a different investment of desire, i.e. an object-oriented sociality that is not reducible to exchange value. I’m fascinated by potential outcomes and would welcome more conversations on this too. Thank you again.
Dear Fabio, I welcome more conversation and exchange, perhaps via a podcast conversation, or in some written form (that I could publish on my substack).
I want to specifically address this remark :
<mmunities like farmhack (correct?). I agree with you about parallel transition dynamics. The question is whether the new can grow fast enough, and deep enough, to survive and replace the decomposition of the old. I will follow closely your work on transition dynamics.>
So yes, farmhack, ateliers paysans, are the kind of projects I have in mind. But to your fundamental question, the answer is no, the new will not grow fast enough, and historically, never has. It's during the disintegration phase of the old model that a first wave of exit occurs, with those with anticipatory consciousness trying out many seed forms that exemplify potential new value logics. (see the chapter on christian monastics' role in ben suriano's 'from mode of production to the ressurection of the body'). Later still, mass exodus necessarily occurs and by that time, alternatives are already available as more or less integrated sub-networks. The last phase is then political realignment, when a shift in social and political power occurs (the Clovis moment for the Church in the Frankish kingdom). I have a theory of the Pulsation of the Commons based on my reading of various macro-historians, but with many examples of relatively successfull 'regenerative jurisdictional alliances' drawn from Mark Whitakers book, 'Ecological Revolutions' which looks at ancient China, medieval Japan, and post-Christian Europe.
The thing is that the 'complexity' of today's economies is driven by the same old instability that the present model cannot shed. There is no real case to be made that "modern" society should subject itself to this Ancient Mathematical Illiteracy and all its ramifications! Too many hold a similar mythical vision about today's systems being categorically different from these same practices of ages ago. But "neo-isms" are pretty much the same as the original-isms just at larger scale!
Abstract:
“This document is the result of a rigorous control system theory stability analysis of the current world de facto standard currency system and identifies a root instability in the form of the growth component of Debt associated with the money creation process. It first establishes the inherent instability of Common Lending Practices (application of interest). Then the analysis further charts the logical consequences of said root instability as it affects the economy as a whole and identifies how it provokes a systematic divergence between debt and value attributed to wealth in past cycles with the minimum value required in current and future cycles as those incorporate past unpaid debt i.e. systematic compounding of debt. It also identifies how the only means available within the system design for staving off inflation is through the continued contribution of collateral wealth as guaranty for the creation of new principal debt money commensurate with past debt growth. Finally it illustrates that compounding debt inevitably leads to a point where an inability to provide new wealth to guaranty new money to keep up with debt growth becomes chronic at which point either runaway inflation or a definitive collapse of the system inevitably ensues.”
The gamblers at the casino are all still at the table and the betting goes on even though the ‘agreed’ limits for individual indebtedness were exceeded some time ago. And though each round has a winner who collects (from the other gamblers) everyone is getting further and further into debt with the House.
But no-one leaves the table for to do so would mean acknowledging their debt to the House and repaying it. And they have no means of doing so beyond exchanging their gambling debt for a personal loan which is significantly greater than the value of all their assets. Who would offer them such a loan?
And so the gamblers gamble on oblivious to their predicament believing that it will just take one ‘big win’ and their problem will be solved.
The House watches on with a mixture of greed and alarm. The Manager wants the game to stop and debts paid off but he fears none of the gamblers can pay. He too is a gambler and he too wants to win big. And this is, he knows, the ‘big one’. But he realizes that the House too may well crash and burn in an enormous blaze of collective debt.
Meanwhile outside families of the gamblers wait oblivious to their fate, their family assets mortgaged many times over.
So, what to do? Who to save? What to save? How to save?
Great parable. The gamblers cannot leave because leaving means acknowledging the debt, and the debt cannot be acknowledged because it cannot be repaid. So they play on, and the House watches with greed and alarm, knowing that it too is a gambler. Your question (who and what to save?) is the one no economist dares to ask, because the answer is: no one. Not at this table. The only way out is to leave the casino, but the casino is all we have known for quite a while. Thank you for this. It will stay with me.
Here's the thing, the system cannot fix itself. Because it is premised on illiterate and mathematical nonsense.
It does not have to be like this.
Here is a conversation with the IA, Grok, that addresses the question:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_6ed64a55-dd77-4dd5-832e-2fbadea4c532
As you follow the presentation using the AI Grok you will see that the instructions given to the AI, to take advantage of the programming of the AI to be able to follow logical and provable analytical rigor, means that the AI itself concludes that ALL the so called 'higher ups' are proved to be full of nonsense, by the very AI they so highly tout!
If you do not want to use the AI conversation then you yourself take on the same instruction given to the AI and address the human leading the conversation directly. The foregoing inquiry is very directly tied to science and math and first principles logic. It is supposed to be these means by which decision making gets done...Right? So, the use of the AI is to remain within those constraints of analysis that all too often are ignored by most humans that have preconceptions that are actually wrong.
Yes, they are working a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Only the ‘energy’ (the money) it is ‘creating’ comes ultimately from the real world of finance (from the companies that go bust or the devaluation of the general money system supporting the ‘machine’) and that is finite.
Sooner or later there will be a reckoning and the machine will fall apart.
just for info, we have been analysing the seed forms of the emerging 'contributory economy' for 15 years. If you look carefully at the fragments, more can be known than generally expected (as the ancient Chinese Taoists already knew); https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Category:Mutual_Coordination
Michel, thank you for this, your wiki page is an extraordinary archive of experiments in mutual coordination, and I'm going to have a good look at it. But I want to ask you a question. Does the planned economy you describe move us beyond capital as economic value tied to labour? Or does it simply redistribute that value more fairly, more ecologically, more democratically, etc.? My worry, as you will know from my piece, is that the value-form itself is a deep structure that no amount of mutual coordination can dissolve, only reform. And beneath that, there is something perhaps even more fundamental level: the "mode of enjoyment" that subjects derive from their activity under capitalism, i.e. the unconscious attachment to competition, to accumulation, to the very forms that exploit us. A new plan that does not generate a new way of relating to what we do at the level of desires/drives might not "stick" - do you agree? I do not have the answer but I suspect that the transition you are working toward requires not just new institutions but also a new libidinal economy. This might well arise out of necessity, but was wondering if you have thought about this. I would be grateful for your reflections.
Dear Fabio, thank you so much for this stimulating reaction. I will attempt a short reply:
1) my first answer is yes: my work and research explicitely addresses the value form, and our work is centered around a shift from commodity value to contributory value. This is not something we wish for, but something we describe as it is already happening at significant scale in peer production communities. The issue is of course is that for now, this contributory value has to co-exist with the commodity economy, it is not independent of it, but our work studies on how to move from 'a commons for capital' to capital for the commons'. But just as the coloni/feudal system co-existed with the city merchant system , we believe the contributory and commodity system will co-exist for a significant time. But an accelaration of the death of the commodity system forces an acceleration of the birth of the contributory system. We have done significant thinking about transition dynamics, which is not very much removed from Marx's original phased scheme (so we do not believe in direct communlalization)
2) This being said, we are rather weak on the libidinal economy, not because we deny its importance, but lack of skills and time. But we believe that the object-oriented sociality we find in peer production communities already carries within itself a different investment of desire. My own background lies in Wilhelm Reich (long time ago), and in the discussions of the Philosophy Portal. I would welcome further conversations.
Michel, thank you for this. I really appreciate your kind and passionate reply. On your first point: I am genuinely intrigued to hear that your work explicitly addresses the value-form, and that the shift from commodity value to contributory value captures what is already happening at scale in peer production communities. I’ve started looking into real examples of peer communities like farmhack (correct?). I agree with you about parallel transition dynamics. The question is whether the new can grow fast enough, and deep enough, to survive and replace the decomposition of the old. I will follow closely your work on transition dynamics.
On your second point: instinctively, without knowing much about it, I think you are right that peer production communities carry within them a different investment of desire, i.e. an object-oriented sociality that is not reducible to exchange value. I’m fascinated by potential outcomes and would welcome more conversations on this too. Thank you again.
Dear Fabio, I welcome more conversation and exchange, perhaps via a podcast conversation, or in some written form (that I could publish on my substack).
I want to specifically address this remark :
<mmunities like farmhack (correct?). I agree with you about parallel transition dynamics. The question is whether the new can grow fast enough, and deep enough, to survive and replace the decomposition of the old. I will follow closely your work on transition dynamics.>
So yes, farmhack, ateliers paysans, are the kind of projects I have in mind. But to your fundamental question, the answer is no, the new will not grow fast enough, and historically, never has. It's during the disintegration phase of the old model that a first wave of exit occurs, with those with anticipatory consciousness trying out many seed forms that exemplify potential new value logics. (see the chapter on christian monastics' role in ben suriano's 'from mode of production to the ressurection of the body'). Later still, mass exodus necessarily occurs and by that time, alternatives are already available as more or less integrated sub-networks. The last phase is then political realignment, when a shift in social and political power occurs (the Clovis moment for the Church in the Frankish kingdom). I have a theory of the Pulsation of the Commons based on my reading of various macro-historians, but with many examples of relatively successfull 'regenerative jurisdictional alliances' drawn from Mark Whitakers book, 'Ecological Revolutions' which looks at ancient China, medieval Japan, and post-Christian Europe.
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Political_Origins_of_Environmental_Degradation_and_the_Environmental_Origins_of_Axial_Religions / https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/From_Modes_of_Production_to_the_Resurrection_of_the_Body
The thing is that the 'complexity' of today's economies is driven by the same old instability that the present model cannot shed. There is no real case to be made that "modern" society should subject itself to this Ancient Mathematical Illiteracy and all its ramifications! Too many hold a similar mythical vision about today's systems being categorically different from these same practices of ages ago. But "neo-isms" are pretty much the same as the original-isms just at larger scale!
Abstract:
“This document is the result of a rigorous control system theory stability analysis of the current world de facto standard currency system and identifies a root instability in the form of the growth component of Debt associated with the money creation process. It first establishes the inherent instability of Common Lending Practices (application of interest). Then the analysis further charts the logical consequences of said root instability as it affects the economy as a whole and identifies how it provokes a systematic divergence between debt and value attributed to wealth in past cycles with the minimum value required in current and future cycles as those incorporate past unpaid debt i.e. systematic compounding of debt. It also identifies how the only means available within the system design for staving off inflation is through the continued contribution of collateral wealth as guaranty for the creation of new principal debt money commensurate with past debt growth. Finally it illustrates that compounding debt inevitably leads to a point where an inability to provide new wealth to guaranty new money to keep up with debt growth becomes chronic at which point either runaway inflation or a definitive collapse of the system inevitably ensues.”
http://bibocurrency.com/images/pdfdownloads/Formal%20Stability%20Analysis%20and%20experiment%20%28final%29%20rev%203.4.pdf