[P2P-F] Nondominium

Sat Sep 24 13:55:58 CEST 2011

Regarding non-dominium, I mentioned once before the early establishment of  
various network nations at least in the early history of the Mediterranean  
et al. The same dynamic appears to have existed in the Indian Ocean region  
at least through the European Dark/medieval Ages and probably earlier. The  
Phoceans and the Phoenicians were both merchant network nations who  
established both home ports usually on islands. This pattern has been  
covered over by the framing of the development of the immediate region and  
beyond as "Greater Greece." There has been a severe distortion of the  
history confusing the later concept of territorial sovereignty with the  
process as it seemed to occur. Both Phoceans and the Phoenicians seemed to  
have originated our the Black Sea area as goddess or god/goddess cultures,  
What became identified as the Greek alphabet, was more likely the product  
of the needs of their mercantile basis for communication and record  
keeping.

The nominal Grecian/Persian wars was caused by the clashes between the  
Mycenaean Greek/palatial economy which operated in a gift/tribute economy  
and was based upon land ownership and slavery. This sort of gift economy  
was less than benign, and was essentially oligarchic/feudal. The response  
of that culture to the merchant networks cast the merchants as thieves  
diverting wealth from its accumulative patterns. The Persian empire of  
Cyrus and thereafter seems to have been more about controlling and  
protecting the Silk Road against bandits, for which the merchants were  
quite willing to pay taxes. The navies of Samos and Lesbos were  
extraordinarily large for small island city states except that they most  
likely operated as escorts to the merchant traffic and may well have been  
more directly offshoots of the merchant network nations. the attack by  
Persia upon the Mycenaean/Palatial Greeks was punitive and based upon the  
economics. The wide variety of allies involved in that punitive attack  
speak to its representation of a wide field of interests, see Herodotus's  
narrative. The Macedons were allies to the Persian Empire to such a degree  
that as the Persian Empire faded, Alexander and the Macedons were prepared  
to takeover and conduct that "empire" on a very similar basis. Describing  
Alexander as "Greek" seems to be another conflation by the Mycenaean  
Greeks, and their Eurocentric acolytes thereafter.

The Persian Empire was the primary stimulus to the cultural ascendancy of  
the Greater "Greek" and Ionian "Greek" cultures. Merchants after all and  
particularly in these examples brought ideas as well as goods to the  
scattered populations.

The Dhow cultures of the Indian Ocean represent another open  
seas/non-dominium sort of process. China's recent economic development  
seems to embrace this dynamic in part through recognition of the legacy of  
the mercantile history of the Han Dynasty. At this point PR China seems to  
be less about sovereign territory and projecting the threat of direct  
occupation, and more about setting up the infrastructure to facilitate  
global trade. The current domination of the commons by imperial militarism  
seems to repeat this conflict. The imperial cultures seem to have great  
difficulty operating outside of the bounds of threat and control. The  
creole-ization by language and by trade in this region has a long history.

simplistic labeling tends to distort the details of history. I am not  
quite to the point of putting together a more formal article on all of  
this. The Hanseatic league is similar example in its origin, though it  
seemed to redefine itself as a military force in response to operating  
against territorial. The effect of the Papal declaration of terra nullius  
was little more than another piece of cultural narcissism.

The virtual organization seems to be a more modern application of the same  
sort of dynamic.

for now, Tadit

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 04:28:26 -0400, Michel Bauwens  
<michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:

> thanks Chris, I really need you to write something on stewardship ... or
> point me to some good article on this by someone else?
>
> Michel
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Chris Cook  
> <cjenscook at googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Michel
>>
>> I hope your travels are productive.
>>
>> You'll find this concept - Nondominium - relevant in respect of the  
>> Commons
>>
>> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MI24Dj01.html
>>
>> You'll see, once again, my view that custody/stewardship is  
>> preferential to
>> Trusts, which I reckon were probably invented BY lawyers FOR lawyers ;-)
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
>