On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Michel,

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Michel Bauwens
<michel@p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm thinking about Ackerman's ideas about "a form of socialized finance
>> which would respect the autonomy of the firm." I think it might help, but I
>> don't know how we would get it to happen. Which is the problem with a lot of
>> "good ideas", including those of the P2PF. They would require a non-existent
>> organization to take over from our present rulers. (P2PF is a bit more
>> realistic than Ackerman, but still...)
>
> I am puzzled by your point here. I think the logic is very different. The
> proposal of Ackerman are a proposal for a political program that needs to
> win power first, but the great majority of the proposals of the p2p
> foundation are already working (it's the rule for the wiki, it has to
> exist), though they may need politics to be scaled and generalize.
>
> Of course, i have a few proposals which call for new institutions, but they
> are happening as well (phyles, assemblies and chambers of the commons);
> stigmergy and transparency between entrepreneurial coalitions is happening
> as well
>
> so which proposals do you mean exactly, dear Bob ?

Partner state, in particular.

but this is probably the most realistic of all, since prefigurative experiences, like the very mature project in Brest, is already going on for ten years or more; and the new slate of co-cities in Italy are getting significant traction, especially Bologna

let's not forget we are not utopians, but seek significant and realistic shifts and especially, prefigurative experimentations
 

I agree that many of the new institutions are starting to happen, but
they are weak and often disconnected from one another. But the fact
that they are happening at all makes them more realistic than
Ackerman's proposal or any one-swell-foop transformation. Although
once the separate threads cohere, the transformation could happen
fast.

> see above, if you give an expanded definition of stigmergy, which I think is
> appropriate, then yes. COULD YOU PLEASE write a full article on this !! We
> really need to make that argument formally as part of our mutual
> coordination proposals. Can you educate us about this path forward.

I'll do it in conjunction with more study in relation to that other
article you are working on. I need to catch up a bit on the more
recent developments.


ok super 

> ok, to help you write that article, see:
> http://p2pfoundation.net/How_Current_Supply_Chains_Can_Serve_Broader_Mutual_Coordination

I assume I can change the title, too?

I changed it following your instructions on the talk page 



--