Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] built-in infinite growth (was: Re: Meaning ofmarkets, scarcity, abundance)
- From: graham <graham theseamans.net>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:45:24 +0000
Gregers Petersen wrote:
Dmytri Kleiner wrote:
Hi Gregers, my impression from Mauss, etc, is that Potlatch created a cycle
of reciprocal ritualized gift exchange in which each cycle required more
production than
the previous.
<snip>
In both cases there is a lack of accumulation of capital (or similars,
which then would need to be converted into a more "storable" form =
money) in the hands of individuals, resources are either re-distributed
across the tribe as a whole or destroyed ...
There's a book I like which particularly highlights this difference
between gift exchange and accumulation - The Gift, by Lewis Hyde.
This whole idea of fitting pre-capitalist societies into a capitalist
mould of 'production maximizing' I find a bit weird; similarly with
Michel's approach to the collapse of the classical economies as being
due to finding more efficient social ways to increase production.
Basically I don't believe it. The rich trying to screw the poor more is
not the same as production maximisation.
btw, another book about the slavery/serfdom transition: The Class
Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, G.E.M. de Ste. Croix. But it's big
and harder to get hold of than the Anderson book. Michel, can you get
booksellers from any other country to post to you? If so, the cost of
books on Abebooks.com is often (including the Anderson one) is often
close to the cost of postage alone...
Do you disagree with the claim that money originates in tribute and
prestige exchange and not exchange among
direct-producers?
The devil is in the detail - and I just stated that you should not use
'kula' as an example of 'money' (because it simply undermines your
argument). I'm in doubt about your claim that money originates in
tribute and prestige exchange, though it would tie well into the
emergence of the state structure as form of social organization ...
For Europe, money started in 5th century BC Anatolia, long long after
the emergence of the state structure. None of the early states had money
(Sumer, Egypt, the Hittites, etc). I guess it's more likely to have
something to do with the emergence of independent farmers (not simply
part of a village, or as people owned by a pharoah-god figure) and the
resulting increase in trade by individuals. There must be theories of
this somewhere...
Cheers
Graham
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de