Message 04422 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04118 Message: 24/27 L2 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] built-in infinite growth (was: Re: Meaning of markets, scarcity, abundance)

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:47:48 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]  Stefan Meretz wrote:


WC: Within capitalism we have M-C-M'
The really important sign here is the apostrophe ... It indicates the entirely different dynamics of pre-capitalist markets and capitalist markets. Lets look a bit into it.
I never thought of it as an apostrophe. I always read that symbol as belonging to some sort of nomenclature -- in my head, or reading out loud I would say: 

 M goes to C goes to M prime

 ... or shortening the function to M-M', i would say:

 M goes to M prime

It is the first step of the intended series M0-M1-M2 ... Mn ... Minfity
At one level of abstraction though, it´s just getting the maths wrong, or rather an inability, or reluctance to move past an approximate solution to a large set of simultaneous equations, the likes of which marx wrote upon in capital, viz: 

   "20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or
    20 Yards of linen are worth 1 coat."
In part one of capital, marx shows how money becomes the approximate solution and then in part two, how the errors in the universal equivalent, come home to haunt us as money transforms in to capital.
Wunt it just be lovely if we worked in a green field site and we could bang all these equations in to a great big matrix and flip the whole thing over with something like the simplex method rather than having the solution tied to something as ergonomically catastrophic as capital :) 

-- .


On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:47:48 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]  Stefan Meretz wrote:


Hi Michel,
I narrowed the topic just to the infinite growth question and skiped the other points here. 

On 2008-01-05 03:29, Michael Bauwens wrote:

What I'm not sure is why it is the commodity-money cycle (M-C-M) that
is responsible for infinite growth. I think this cycle was operating
in stable local markets long before capitalism.
StefanMn already answered this point, however, maybe his explanation was to short. StefanMn wrote: 


Even then there might have been elements of exchange but
- as Marx rightly says - the important point is when the markets
shifted from a "Good => Money => Other Good" logic to a "Money =>
Commodity => More Money" logic - being the basis of capitalism.
This is also the root of where the logic of infinite growth creeps
in. Infinite growth is certainly alienated from humanity.


BC: Before capitalism we have C-M-C
By using "good" instead of "commodity" (as Marx did) Stefan is more precise, because before capitalism goods had not been commodities. Being a commodity is a special societal form goods (only) get in capitalism. In the following I use "good" when talking about pre-capitalism. 

WC: Within capitalism we have M-C-M'
The really important sign here is the apostrophe, which you forgot. It indicates the entirely different dynamics of pre-capitalist markets and capitalist markets. Lets look a bit into it.
BC: Goods are generally produced for self-suffiency. To obtain goods someone is not producing, the overplus of the produced goods are brought to market: Either to exchange them directly with other goods or via money being the mediator. At the end, there is not a "surplus good", but only an "other good". There is no (effective) driver for progression. Things develop slowly and under circumstances of personal dominion.
WC: Roles and relationships of C (or G) and M have completely changed (ignoring why and how). When BC the good and thus the needs are starting and end point of the cycle, now money takes this place, and commodities are in the roles of the mean. From the standpoint of the cycle logic, the purpose concerning needs aren't of interest at all. The products may be food or bombs, it doesn't count. The only purpose is to make money. However, the purpose is not simply to make money, the purpose is to make _more_ money than invested before. This more-logic comes from competition of those producers who want to sell the same commodity on a limited market. A single capitalist can't say "my way of production is ok, I'll do it for the rest of my live", because the competitor doesn't sleep and produces the same commodities cheaper to overtake market share from the competitor. Why overtaking market share? Because of the economics of scale: On a bigger scale you can produce cheaper (more efficient in terms of value). Conclusion: All participants have to strive for increasing the productivity of work to make their products cheaper - by punishment of downfall. They have no choice if they want to stay inside.
"Having no choice" means a coercion to follow the rules of the things (the commodities). This leads to a reversal of the relationship between the social and the things. In capitalism it is no longer the case, that we organize socially what things we want to produce to satisfy our needs, it is reversed: The things seem to have a life of its own, they move and say to us, want we should do, to satisfy their "needs". They say: Produce me cheaper or you're out of the game. This really weird behavior was named "fetishism" by Marx, and this was one of his most important discoveries (and not the exploitation stuff, which of course it true anyway).
Marx in his own words: "Thus the participants in capitalist production live in a bewitched world and their own relationships appear to them as properties of things, as properties of the material elements of production."
StefanMn uses another term addressing the same topic: alienation. Production in capitalism is alienated, we don't do it for us, we do it for M' in M-C-M'. Thus the "C", the products, are only a by-product of an alienated logic, they are not the aim. Being only a by-product also means, that it cannot be controlled, what they are (food, bomb, etc.), because they all serve M'. And moreover, other externalities cannot be controlled too: CO2-emission etc. Ok, states try to implement some controllings via prices, however, this doesn't really help. Stop.
Conclusion: The built-in infinite growth feature of capitalism finally eats the planet -- and us. 

HTH,
Stefan



_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
Thread: oxenT04118 Message: 24/27 L2 [In index]
Message 04422 [Homepage] [Navigation]