New_home_view_civilization

What is a Civilisation? And what are the links between COOPERACTIVE ASSETS and Civilisation?

As you may have already read, the long-term objective of ALPHARIS, through COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, is to contribute to the creation of a new Human Civilisation.
This new Civilisation will be based in part on the very concepts and notions of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS which are seen as a Tool, a Method, a Knowledge and a Value.

And it is in this context and objective, to better understand the contributions of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, that it is important to describe what a Civilisation is. So if we need the shortest, most comprehensible and broadest possible definition to cover all types of Civilisation, we can propose the following formula:

A Civilisation is a choice of human values, organized in priority and hierarchy, configuring a Social, Economic, Technological and Educational context.
These values are based on beliefs, which in turn are conditioned by the Resources and Knowledge available.

At this point, it should be noted that the word “beliefs” is taken in the broadest sense of the term. These may be religious, human, philosophical, scientific beliefs. Even not believing is believing in not believing. We use the word Belief because as long as the stage of ultimate and absolute Knowledge is not reached, there is no certainty about anything. We see this every day with the different scientific evolutions or theories that often complement old knowledge but sometimes contradict it completely.

In relation to the proposed definition, the contributions of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are therefore as follows:
– COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are based on “beliefs”: Importance of the Human, of the act of creation, of sharing, we always reap what we sow, do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you, the possibility of abundance in respect of Nature etc….
– COOPERACTIVE ASSETS is a choice of Human values concerning the creation and distribution of resources.
– COOPERACTIVE ASSETS prioritize Human values (Creation goes with sharing, common ownership of natural resources, etc…)
– COOPERACTIVE ASSETS is also Knowledge about a type of Economic and Social organization.
– The knowledge of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS is transmitted through Education. And Experience.

We can thus better see the theoretical links and intrications between COOPERACTIVE ASSETS and Civilisation.
But the most important thing is the Practice!
It is therefore up to us to set it up!

Philippe AGRIPNIDIS

Private Property Sign

What form of Legal Property for COOPERACTIVE ASSET?

The Spirit of the Ownership of COOPERACTIVE PROPERTY is as follows:
“COOPERACTIVE ASSETS PROPERTY belongs to its Actors”.

So, all that remains is to define what a COOPERACTIVE ASSET Actor is.

A COOPERACTIVE ASSETS Actor is a person who is:

  • Participates in the creation of the COOPERACTIVE ASSET
  • Participates in the Creation of Resources produced by the COOPERACTIVE ASSET
  • Contribute to the preservation of the Production capacities of the COOPERATIVE ASSET
  • Use this COOPERACTIVE ASSET
    • Yes, even users of Cooperactive Assets are also creators! Consider, for example, the use of a huge 3D printer that can create a house. The Printer is in itself a COOPERACTIVE ASSET. But the one who uses it also creates something, in this case his/her house.

It is obviously possible for a person to act on his 4 levels, either at once, in part or successively.

Now it is necessary to define how these people, these actors, can be grouped in a Legal structure.

To begin with, by contrast, it is necessary to set a limitation in the Legal Entities of groupings. Private Companies of Shareholders (Multiple or single) must NOT be part of a part [and even less of the totality:-) ] of a COOPERACTIVE ASSET PROPERTY.

In the end, the real and sole holders of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS PROPERTY are individuals, persons, Citizens who are Actors (See above) of the COOPERACTIVE ASSET. There is no longer any notion of Shareholders

We then find ourselves in four possible scenarios. Either:

  1. The COOPERACTIVE ASSET is a grouping of individuals, or families, linked together in the form of an agreement or contract without any other form of collective legal organization. This is most often the case of the “historical” type of Commons Property, which has existed for centuries and is part of local traditions and customs.
  2. The COOPERACTIVE ASSET is a formal collective legal organization. This organization represents the grouping of persons in the legal and declared form of an Association, Cooperative, Foundation, corresponding to the legal standards in force at the time of creation.
  3. COOPERACTIVE PROPERTIES belong to the legal entities that represent Citizens, namely in priority for the local, Communes or agglomerations of Communes, and for the National level, the State. It is currently the most practical, and most democratic, way to quickly set up COOPERACTIVE ASSET.
  4. COOPERACTIVE ASSET Property is in a new Legal Form of Ownership which is specific to it. This does not exist at the time of writing. But it must come into being as other legal forms of “companies”, in France and elsewhere, have gradually been invented. (Who will be the first country to recognize this value and its potential by creating this legal form 😉 ?) It is up to us to act!)
    1. The double KEY of understanding and structuring COOPERACTIVE ASSET is the change of perspective on the Ownership of the Means of Production and on the remuneration of the real actors in the creation of a Company’s wealth.
    2. This new specific and appropriate legal form will therefore be based on one integration and two exclusions.
      1. The integration of the fair valuation of the contributions of “OPERATORS”. Operators are those persons who, at a given time, have worked physically, intellectually or through the time spent, to create the COOPERACTIVE PROPERTY, and/or to preserve it; and/or to create the Resources produced by the COOPERACTIVE ASSET. These are the first 3 cases of the actors of a COOPERACTIVE ASSET (See above). They are the real creators of wealth in a collective action; Who are they? What are their roles?
        1. First are the Designers. They are the ones who imagine, more or less precisely, the products or services of a Company. They can be engineers, designers, marketing people and of course creators, founders, initiators of the COOPERACTIVE ASSET.
        2. Producers” who are those who create,produce, the Good or Service.
        3. The Maintainers are those who are in charge of the maintenance of the Means of Production.
        4. Sellers are those who participate in the distribution of the Product or Service. In a COOPERACTIVE ASSET, where the approach is not Capitalist or Neo-Liberal, the importance of this role should be less important.
      2. The first exclusion, as a reminder (see above) is the possibility of private ownership of the Means of Production. In a genuine [Beware of imitations and counterfeits:-) ] COOPERACTIVE ASSET, in no event may a Private Commercial for-profit and/or Shareholder-based structure hold part or, even less, all of the ownership of a COOPERACTIVE ASSET.
      3. the second exclusion is that in no case can the ownership of the Means of Production give rise to remuneration in the form of dividends from these same means of Production. The “rental” or “use” of these means of Production is based on the actual and ‘real’ costs of maintaining, and/or repaying the loans necessary to purchase these means of Production, and/or financing the future means of Production that will replace those in progress. Of course, the spirit of this ‘rent’ could be diverted by an over valuation of maintenance costs, by obscure arrangements of costs associated with loans, by interest rates outside the real level of the market. This will be part of the necessary and constant vigilance to be applied when setting up and operating each COOPERATIVE ASSET. It is a mission that each actor of COOPERACTIVE ASSET must take on to ensure that the spirit of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS is not diverted.

In addition, COOPERACTIVE ASSET may be “held” by alliances, temporary or definitive, between several of these forms of Property. Only the first, through its structure of a private contract or moral commitment (pact) is technically more difficult to integrate in combinations with other legal forms of ownership. But this is still possible.

Here is the first simplified scheme [Understand incomplete:-)] of Knowledge Models on the structuring of the means of creation/Production in a COOPERACTIVE ASSET.

KNOWLEDGE MODEL MENTAL map

Warning: If you click on a “Bubble” comment (Yellow dot), the drawing display disappears 🙁
You need to go back in the Navigator history to return to the map display. It’s a Bug, a feature!

At the time of writing this Knowledge Model, this Triptych is valid for all types of existing COOPERATIVE PROPERTY.
On the one hand because the 5 Types of “Operators” are found in all possible sectors of COOPERACTIVE ASSET.
But also because the definition of the Means of Production is, voluntarily, left very broad, because in the end all the means of Production are only types of Equipment in the broad meaning of the term. We do not need a more precise definition to date. Because this clarification would not be relevant. If we take this way, to illustrate this notion of Means of Production, 3 very different types of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, we have for a COOPERACTIVE ASSET:
– of the Natural type (Fisheries) of the means of production of the boats, nets, sheds, fish processing machines, packaging machines
– Type UBER©, mainly a car, owned by the taxi driver [We can imagine a COOPERATIVE ASSET of this type where taxis belong to the Legal Structure of the same COOPERATIVE ASSET. But let us remember that COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are there to exalt and exhort each of us by being the creator of our activities. This implies that this type of Property must be able to choose its vehicle to operate its activity within the framework of this Property. And to be fully responsible for the maintenance and longevity of this vehicle, if only for ecological reasons of durability]
– of the IT type where the Means of Production are mainly Servers and PCs. Means of Production which, moreover, can be rented, at market price, without any financial arrangement of convenience, to private actors or to other COOPERACTIVE ASSETS [ 😉 ]. This is to ensure the best possible efficiency of services.

We can see that the precision on this element of the Knowledge Model does not bring any interest and that it is better to leave it at a broad and flexible level of definition.

This is also the case for the notion of CONSUMABLE which also does not need to be further clarified.

On the other hand, the precision on the identification of Operators is essential to be able to define in a fair and adapted way the “Creators” working in a COOPERATIVE ASSET. Because as the Spirit of COOPERACTIVE ASSET seeks to ensure that each participant is paid as fairly as possible, the detection of all actors is essential for the successful deployment of COOPERACTIVE ASSET.

Philippe AGRIPNIDIS

aluminum foil

COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are like Aluminium! Let’s give them some time to develop. And money too!

Overall, we can say that on a global scale almost everyone knows and uses Aluminium. It is a material that has become common and commonplace in its use. However, its use in everyday life has not been obvious because its discovery, unlike gold and copper, is quite recent in Human Civilization. It was only in the 19th century that it was first discovered, then exploited and produced. And yet, in its raw state, it exists in abundance, because it is in quantity the first of the Materials present in the Earth’s crust! This means that what is most present on Earth has only been exploited for less than 2 centuries. It was only in 1807 that Humphry Davis suspected, without really discovering and demonstrating it, the existence of this material. But the discovery is generally attributed to Pierre Berthiez in 1821.

It identifies a type of ore that contains 50 to 60% aluminum oxide. But this is only the beginning of the history of aluminium mining. In terms of appellation, in 1847, under the impetus of Armand DUFRENOY, this ore was given the name Beauxite to refer to the place where Pierre BERTHIEZ found the ore (Les Baux-de-Provence. To see if you visit the region). Then in 1861 Henri Sainte-Claire Deville gave it the name on which it is now best known, Bauxite.

But it is especially on the level of Processes that the history of Aluminium is interesting.
A first production method, impurity of Aluminium, was developed in 1825 by Hans Christian Ørsted. Improved method in 1827 by Friedrich Wöhler.

Method itself improved in 1846 by Henri Sainte-Claire Deville who, as we have seen above, gave the final name to the ore. This is the first method of industrial production. But it remains extremely expensive. Aluminium was then worth as much in the 1860s as gold (. So much so that Napoleon III used aluminium tableware and cutlery to impress his distinguished guests (the other guests have Vermeil) and show the power of France and the Empire (the two being confused, in every sense of the word, during his reign).

It is necessary the progress brought by Electricity, not only with electric motors but also with the Electrolysis process so that finally, in 1886, by the HĂ©roult-Hall technique (It is two independent inventors, one French, the other American, who found at the same time, without knowing it and consulting each other, the same type of technique!), so that we reach a satisfactory production capacity and cost.

So you may say, Come on!  What does this have to do with COOPERACTIVE ASSETS?

In fact, the discovery and exploitation of Aluminium, on both spirit and substance, has everything to do with the establishment of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, the new COMMONS, in the 21st century. Indeed:

The Aluminium component had first to be identified, researched, sorted and separated from the existing one. Like what is currently happening with COOPERACTIVE ASSETS.
Its Properties, capabilities and advantages over other metals have been defined. As is currently happening with COOPERACTIVE ASSETS in relation to other economic modes (Capitalism, Ultra Capitalism, State Capitalism, Socialism, Communism)
It was necessary to test, invent and develop at least 2 different methods to achieve a correct extraction of the metal. Then two other techniques to reach, in 1886, an industrial exploitation in only a few countries. The contributions of electrolysis have been decisive for this production on an industrial scale. The arrival of the Digital has exactly the same potential as the arrival of electricity in industrial production. It makes it possible to create services and products whose design was previously either impossible or unimaginable. With the Digital, COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, have found their catalyst.
More than a century after its discovery, it was not until the 1950s that the capacity to produce aluminium became more democratic in countries other than the great powers of the time. The COOPERACTIVE ASSETS will do the same. They will first develop in some countries with more favorable soil. But not necessarily first in the major economic powers. Then they will spread across the Planet. First in local and national COOPERACTIVE ASSETS. Then comes the Time of Universal COOPERACTIVE ASSETS.

Conclusion: COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are like the discovery of Aluminium. You have to give yourself

– Time to define them.
– Time to test and improve them.
– Identify, train, educate Researchers who will refine and improve COMMONS as they go along.
– Provide the means to test and implement COOPERACTIVE ASSETS. As presented above, the most well-known process for manufacturing Aluminium is that of HĂ©roult-Hall. And he didn’t come by chance. It took some investment to determine the process first. It’s the same for COOPERACTIVE ASSETS. They won’t fall out of the sky. We’ll have to create them. Forge them. By spending time and money.
Take for example the development of the TESLA car models. The Financial Market has allowed Elon MUSK to “burn” money (see the operation of the meter that is activated as soon as the article is read) to be able to develop his cars. It would be more rational, on a Humanity scale, to invest the same amount of money to develop COMMONS whose processes, operations, rules, experiences would be shared, freely and gratuitously, in all countries of the World.

Philippe AGRIPNIDIS

 

P.S. May we also, whenever we use a sheet of aluminium roll, grasp, even if only a little, the “miracle” that this possibility of use represents in our daily lives. It took a lot of effort to develop this material and to make it available “democratically” to a large number of households on Earth. So let’s enjoy this technological gem, and recycle it carefully. And better yet, let’s use it sparingly.

P.S 2 : The article was inspired to the author during his fourth visit to the Beaux-de-Provence site. It really takes a lot of work to refine the Brut into a more or less exploitable material!

Kindergarten Students Mixing Solution in Science Experiment Labo

How do we create COOPERACTIVE ASSETS ? With 4 Major ingredients. Including Love!

Let’s say you are totally convinced that COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are good for Humanity and Planet (How right are you 🙂 ! ). So you can wonder yourself but if COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are for us, beneficial in a large way, how do we create the New COOPERACTIVE ASSETS (New COMMONS) of the XXIth Century?

With three major Human ingredients, with Love, Knowledge, and Patience.
And One major Financial ingredient, Investment.

We can find these ingredients, even Love, in the making of the Internet, which is a great new (Digital) COOPERACTIVE ASSETS. Yes, even Love. Knowledge, for technical research, is obvious. Patience a little bit less. We want, in our times, an immediate return. We do not Plan research on the next 50 years. And even less in the next Century. So Patience is sometimes lost of view in the ingredients we need. But Love is even more barely seen or recognized as an ingredient. Yes, Love. Because it was Love. Love of Science, Love of Knowledge, Love of Human evolution, Love of working for other people benefits, Love of technical and intellectual challenges. Love is a motor for creating COOPERACTIVE ASSETS.

The other ingredient is the Financial one. Creating COOPERACTIVE ASSETS incredibly pays off! It’s so much worth it. When you realize the benefits for Community, People, individual, you know what COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are worth the shot to be created. But, in order to create one, you need time. Time for people to search elaborate, test, modify, change, search again, new test, corrections and so on. This Time implies money. Some money. Like on the INTERNET and the GPS system. Money was spent, let’s say rather, invest, by US Administrations, including and mainly Army, to get Brain’s Time of Engineers,  searchers, inventors, “crazy” Out-of-the-box people.

Who could have predicted the potential and benefits of the Internet? And no one did it!
A company (AMAZON) operating on the Internet is worth 1 000 Billion at the Stock exchange! And plenty of other companies are worth of hundred Billions of $.
The Internet is now everywhere, every time, for (almost) every people. It is the new common road of the Planet, potentially accessible to all its inhabitants.

By using the 4 major ingredients listed above we can create new COOPERACTIVE ASSETS. Some would be of course, less fruitful than the Internet. Some as fruitful as the Internet is. And some even more (Medical field)!
So organize ourselves to set, create, develop and spread the COOPERACTIVE ASSETS!

 

P.S1. We are here generically talking about the concept of the Internet. Not some of its misuses or misappropriations. The INTERNET will bring us more creativity, prosperity, and knowledge as soon as we will better know how to use it.

Started on March 20, 2019.

Philippe AGRIPNIDIS

Group of people around the world

Why are COOPERACTIVE ASSETS the best of the New Civilization?

Of course, most of the time, once the first notions on the subject have been integrated, we quickly understand the relevance of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS for the Collective part. Whether for contributions to our City, Region, Country in general or for the actors concerned in the sense of the collective, all persons, groups, the Community.

But we must NOT reduce the impact of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS to this aspect of the Collective alone!
This would suggest that COOPERACTIVE ASSETS do not profoundly influence the lives of all of us as individuals.

Currently, for the best to set up and build, COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are the most appropriate and relevant form for the creation of a New Civilization. Because the most appropriate economic and social organizations for one era are not the same as those for another, which will itself have its own context and developments to put in place. It just so happens that at this particular moment, at this particular crossroads of evolutions, or possible regression [In case of doubt about this eventuality, refresh your News feeder!], COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are the most relevant way.

Because not only do they allow a better Collective, but also (and I am even trying, or even forcing to write) and above all, they allow the best for individuals in their own lives. The strength of the Collective is of no interest if it does not lead to a better for each individual. That is the very purpose of this Collective. It only makes sense if it permits to set up, for each individual, the Best of him/herself. Everyone has its own better specific. Some may call it career objectives, personal development, life choices, others Destiny. It doesn’t matter what the word means or is spelled as long as the reality of the individual’s achievement of the best is there. And COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are the best way to allow and facilitate this personal accomplishment. And this in three ways:

First, everything that is a Commons, shared services; whether at the local, National or Universal level; is an additional layer of resources, well-being, easiness, civilizational evolution for each and every one of us. Whether it is the invention of electricity, or even older, of tap water (which, in countries that are equipped with it, we no longer perceive the “magic” that allows us to have abundant water in our homes with a simple gesture), all inventions (Automobile, refrigerator, vacuum cleaner, washing machine, television, computer, telephones, Internet etc……) passed into the Public Domain (in the sense that no Company has a monopoly on the manufacture of the type of object or service) allow an improvement in the life of all human beings who use them. Whether it is time saved, less physical energy spent, more efficiency, tasks that could not be done before, and so on…. COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, COMMONS of this type have made it possible to improve Human Civilization in general. And likewise all the norms of safety, social minimums (Pensions, paid leave, medical insurance, …) are also forms of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS and COMMONS (Even if we have not yet understood much that these Norms, Laws, decrees, are indeed COMMONS of Civilization).

It is clear from these examples that the individual impacts of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are real and relevant. But they are made possible through the benefits that come from the Collective, from COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, from which everyone benefits. But the presence and existence of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS will also, in the long term (because it has to be implemented), allow each individual to participate differently in the Goods and Services Production process.

Because secondly, in addition to the individual benefits of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, in a world where they prevail over other kind of organizations, there are opportunities for each individual to realize his or her full creative potential. The existence of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS or the possibility of creating them will make it possible for each of us to better express and live our creative potential by allowing a better compensation (Fair and equitable) for our actions. Indeed, if the individual carries on his activity within the framework of a COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, he does not carry it out for the (too often alone) benefit of one or more shareholders. But for his own sake. In the context of a COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, a new COMMONS, the benefits of a person’s activities are proportional to his or her efforts and creative abilities. Let us take the example of a fishing area dedicated in a COOPERACTIVE ASSETS with very precise operating rules, in particular to ensure the renewal of natural resources by setting maximum catch limits. Any individual with a fishing concession in this COOPERACTIVE ASSET will be able, depending on his/her work, to obtain a share of the resources, and the income that goes with it, in proportion to his efforts. If s/he fishes a little, s/he will get few fishes and therefore a little income from the sale. If the individual fishes moderately, it will get an average income. If it fishes as much as possible of what is allowed, without exceeding the quota (remember that one of the first objectives of Physical COMMONS is to manage natural resources over time), it obtains the maximum possible income.

{One could argue that this limitation of income, due to the preservation of natural resources, would be an obstacle to maximizing possible income per individual.} Let’s say that the maximum fish quota is 100 Units per year (no matter what the unit, 1 fish, 1 quintal, 1 ton) and that a talented, self-motivated fisherman reaches this quota in 3 months. Wouldn’t be there then, by the very form of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, a limitation on income per person? A type of organization that would limit genius and individual work capacity? To this 3 answers.


1) Isn’t it better to focus on the sustainability of a Resource rather than its hasty plundering in the short term? As we have seen before, this is precisely one of 
COOPERACTIVE ASSETS‘ objectives. Some behaviors are antagonistic to this functioning and must therefore be blocked.


2) Moderate, or at least regulated, disparities (because what does it mean to be moderate? a differential of 1 to 3, 1 to 10?) in income between the parties involved is it not desirable in terms of justice, ethics and social issues?


3) The contribution of 
COOPERACTIVE ASSETS is decisive in the argumentation of this question. If the individual in question feels frustrated or limited by not having the maximum earnings he or she thinks he or she can have in a COOPERACTIVE ASSET because of the intrinsic regulations present there, nothing prevents this individual from participating in MORE than one Commons 🙂 ! Whether it is other Natural COMMONS, such as forests or mining operations. Or COMMONS of other types such as Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS. We will give an example of this type of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS below. Thus, if its strength, ability, genius, allows him to quickly reach a quota in a Natural COOPERACTIVE ASSET nothing will prevent him from exercising its talent in another one or in several others.

So the Commons allow each individual to express their creative abilities and to reap the benefits.

 

To illustrate this point, we will take two other examples; the first will be dedicated to Vegans who do not feel concerned by the example of the fishing area. Let’s take a COMMONS which is a territory made up of different fields. Each of the surfaces, on the basis of a call for tenders, is allocated to a Concessionaire (Alone or in association, cooperative), for a sufficient number of years (5, 10 or others, to be seen according to each context) which must also respect precise specifications. In particular in terms of soil and plant treatment. Thus this Territory is a COMMONS whose overall surface area does not change. But whose distribution (such lot, such field), can vary in the different calls for tenders. The first call for tenders in year 0 will have 10 lots, each of which will be made up of 2 fields of 1 hectare. The second call for tenders, in year +5, will still have 10 lots but some will have a single field of one hectare and others 2, and some 3. It is also possible to modify the surface area of the fields (reduce, aggregate,…) between each call for tenders. When it comes to COMMONS, it is easy to see that you can have a lot of flexibility and diversity. In any case, on the basis of the lots allocated, the Concessionaire will then be able to work with the intensity it wants on its Concession to obtain, or not, the maximum possible. And it can also claim to have other lots to earn even more income from these activities.


COMMONS are therefore not obstacles to maximization


1) If some are surprised at the lack of land ownership by the Farmers who would exercise in this Type of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS and at the relevance of this mode of operation, let them take the time to learn about the Tragedy (on all levels, including first, at a human level, by the number of suicides in recent years among Farmers) of Land Transfer in the Peasants (At least in France.) The reason why this is so surprising is the fact that there has been an increase in the number of people killed over the past several years, which has been a result of this tragedy in many countries in France and the world. But it seems to be a global phenomenon. But for different reasons such as the purchase of the Lands by Multinationals or Countries).


2) In the context of such an 
COOPERACTIVE ASSETS it is also possible to consider an auction system at Tibor LISKA’s way. But that is not the main point of the article.

The second example will be a Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSET. Let’s imagine, which is desirable, a Spotify or a Deezer COMMONS. On the one hand, the artists in COOPERACTIVE ASSETS would certainly receive a higher remuneration than they currently have. But it is also very clear that, unlike Physical COMMONS, this remuneration has no limit or cap in a Digital COMMONS. Not only, the more successful the artist will be for a song, the more she or he will receive. But he or she could also make other songs and then other albums. Then Lives performances. And/or songs with other artists …. COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are therefore not a limitation on individual income. But on the contrary, they can be maximized in relation to the current yield between Work and Wage.

The third form is the Social form. As a result of the fact that we are now moving to a new economic and social form, we are de facto going beyond the main redistribution of benefits that was organized in the form of Capitalist dividends. There is, either no longer any dividends or no longer any separation between the “Workers” and the shareholders. We are in another situation where the individual’s potential and responsibility can be better expressed. With COOPERACTIVE ASSETS we change the type and forms of the mechanism between work-creation and output. More fundamentally, some of the mechanisms, of gears, are even being eliminated. We’re no longer in direct contact.

These are the first elements in this first version of the article (May 2019) to demonstrate the positive impact of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS. Whether at the level of the Group as well as at the level of individuality. They’re the best match between the two!

Philippe AGRIPNIDIS
Creator of Commons

Concentric Circles

The 4 Concentric Circles of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS – Degrees and zones of influence.

The existence and degrees of influence and impact of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS/COMMONS are on a 4 degree scale. We will use these scales and denominations to categorize the studies and proposals of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, Natural or Digital, that will be discussed on this site. This allows us to have a common vocabulary and references during the exchanges and thoughts that will be conducted.

  • LOCAL
    • By definition, all Natural COMMONS, are local. They are always anchored in a territory. It can have a radius of influence on humans living near it from a few hundred meters (Pond) to several kilometers (Lake). The geometric notion of a circle represents this sphere of influence.
    • For Production COOPERACTIVE ASSETS (shared 3D printer for example), the local area, by its proximity to the inhabitants, producers and consumers of the goods produced by these COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, is the ideal and sought-after size.
    • There may be digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS only local. But their influence is by nature limited. And their existence is less relevant than, at least, National Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS.
  • NATIONAL
    • The area of influence of such Natural COMMONS is the country in which they reside, in whole or in part. The RhĂŽne is a national resource for Switzerland. But also for France. So is the Nile for Egypt and Sudan. In this level of influence, the geometric area is more a rectangle (for instance the edges of a river along its course) than a circle.
    • This is the level at which digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are beginning to have a strong impact because they potentially address all the inhabitants of a country, without limitation of use due to a particular geographical presence (Excluding the problem of Internet connection)
  • CONTINENTAL
      • They are COOPERACTIVE ASSETS whose influence is at the size and scale of one of the 7 continents known as Africa, North America, South America (separated by the Panama Canal), Asia, Europe, Oceania and Antarctica. The 7 continents can be reduced to 6 or 5. The important thing is to understand the size and influence that COOPERACTIVE ASSETS in this category must have. The IguazĂș Falls can be considered as a Natural COMMONS of Continent. Whether it is only for South America or for an American Continent including the South and the North.
  • UNIVERSAL
    • This is the COOPERACTIVE ASSET stage that potentially concerns all the inhabitants of the Earth. And the Planet.
    • More than in previous degrees, Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS take all their usefulness and power from this Universal level. These are all the tools and services that can be used by all the inhabitants of the Earth in a digital and virtual form, with all the advantages of the Digital. Knowledge, shared and evolving, at the service of all, diffused by the Digital is a form of Universal Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS. But we are not yet at this stage. The concept of a Library and the presence of “Text” are completely outdated in relation to the issues and needs. But this example is typically a Universal COOPERACTIVE ASSET. It should be noted that this Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSET of Knowledge is to be distinguished from a Universal COMMONS of the History of Humanity, civilizations, countries, regions, cities, families. This can be done now with the available tools and in a more classic library concept. Another possible Universal Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS is that of Inventions and Patents to be shared among all the inhabitants of the Earth.
    • Universal levels of Natural  COMMONS are of key importance to Humanity. Note that for Natural COMMONS, the size of Universal COMMONS is not identical to the size of the Planet. But they are, for different reasons, and on different levels, of vital importance to Human Civilization. We can take the example of Amazonia as a universal COMMONS, with the clichĂ©, of the Earth’s green lung. But Greenland, Antarctica and their masses of glaciers, and therefore of fresh water, can also be considered as Universal COMMONS. But rare metal nodules found, in particular, in the South Pacific, can and should be considered as Universal COMMONS. It is neither prudent nor appropriate to let them be managed solely by the Private Sector.  Also, all Oil and Gas resources outside the territorial waters of the countries must be considered as Universal COMMONS. And moreover, all Raw Materials Resources in the broadest sense of the term, present on Earth (and in space) must be considered as Universal COMMONS to be exploited for the greater good of the greatest number.

P.S. There is no Regional scale because it is not, in any case, currently relevant, in the degrees of impact and influence of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS and Natural COMMONS. A Regional Natural COMMONS does not really exist. And a digital regional is also not relevant because of its potential to move to a national impact.

Pumpjack Oil Pump Fracking Equipment Natural Resource Extraction

Limitations of the “Physical” Commons ? – There are the same limitations with Capitalism!

All the limitations attributed to the classical Commons, those based on resources, natural and physical goods, including the so-called Commons Tragedy with the over-exploitation and disappearance of these resources,[a so-called tragedy that never actually existed because the People in charge of COMMONS have (almost) always had the wisdom to exploit their COMMONS over time. And the Tragedies that have arrived in the Commons have often been due rather to natural disasters or caused upstream by Humans outside the Commons],
ARE also absolutely present in the current CAPITALISM, NEO LIBERALISM.

BUT it doesn’t bother anyone that Capitalism has such Limitations!

In an even more certain way and so many times verified, Capitalism has over exploited, plundered hundreds of millions of animals and millions of tons of natural resources, to the smallest drop or parcel, and we are not talking about Tragedy!We are only talking about the form of management of COMMONS which, by far, currently represents only a tiny portion of the management of current Resources.

This does not mean that some companies or people with a capitalist approach cannot intelligently manage resources over time either. But this is far from being the norm.

It is therefore quite extraordinary, and very amazing, that the notion of Commons is associated with any notion of Tragedy while Neo Liberalism would be exempt from this Tragedy and weakness!

For the establishment of the New Commons for a New Civilization, it is important to re-establish the Axes of Truth in COMMONS and to affirm and repeat that:
– The so-called Commons Tragedy has never existed
– That Neo Liberalism practices this Tragedy of overexploitation and loss of sight in the long and medium term, permanently and on a large scale.

Consequently, if there is a tragedy, it is right to allow Neoliberalism to over-exploit the Earth’s natural resources and/or by not equitably distributing the fruits and harvests of this over-exploitation with those who truly operate it.

IT consultant connects a network cable into switch in datacenter

Why are the Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS totally immune to the Tragedy of the Commons?

First of all, it is worth recalling what the notion of Tragedy of the Commons is, which was popularized by Heller and Eisenberg, and which is based mainly on the notion of Natural Resources.
Who says Natural Resources means exploitation and therefore, in the long term, the possibility of the end of exploitation. However, in the case of a Commons (badly exploited by a Community, an over Exploitation (Heller and Eisenberg use the term “Overuse”) leads to the disappearance of the Commons, but why this risk does not exist in the Digital Commons? or at least weakly and it can be weakly circumvented.

Because the very essence of the Digital, the possibility of copying WITHOUT depriving the original user of his ORIGINAL, carries in itself another dimension that exceeds the limits and usual structures of physical productions in the real world.
In the real world, what is given to one no longer exists for the other. The transaction of an object is at the expense of the ownership and physical possession of that object.

However, in the Digital era, one can entrust an “object”, i.e. a file (word processing, music, video) or data-information (databases in all forms of content and formats) WITHOUT the “original” being destroyed by the original owner. Thus the two possible limits of a misuse of Commons;
– A “good” exists in a single copy and if I give it to someone else I no longer have it.
And
– an overuse of a place of resources (Wood, pond, etc…) brings the disappearance of all “goods”
no longer exist in this New World that is the Digital.

And so all the limitations of COMMONS that existed in the Physical World are no longer present in the Digital World. The bad ratings and weaknesses of physical COMMONS are no longer possible in Numerics!
There are only the good sides of COMMONS left:
– Fair Sharing
– Accountability
– Creation-User Action for the exploitation of Commons.

Thus, in evolution, replacement, or joint existence with Capitalism, COOPERACTIVE ASSETS , the new COMMONS, can make it possible to create a New Civilization, based on the creation of and by everyone with equitable distributions (which does not mean egalitarian). This possibility is based on us and our actions. But we can build it, together, now.

Let us also add that to the specificity of the Digital and the Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS: the non-destruction of the original in a transfer; it is necessary to add other factors specific to the Digital as, at this moment:
– either the continuous decrease in the costs of storage equipment such as hard disks,
– or their increases in storage capacity (Note that these two capacities are not linked to the current trend (March 2019) of increasing invoicing prices by major cloud companies 🙁 but this does not reflect the structural trend of falling prices coupled with an increase in capacity).
– We will also add the increase in the speed of information transfer, which can be summarized by the Internet pipes, with the same double characteristic as for storage, increased capacity and structural cost declining in the long term..

There is therefore basically with:
– The very essence of the Digital, the infinite duplication of an “object” without loss of information
– The storage capacity increasing at constant cost
– The transmission capacity increasing at constant cost
The possibility, real and within reach of our actions, of creating, by the Digital COMMONS, a new Civilization reflecting our profound and structuring choices of life.

Philippe AGRIPNIDIS