Re: [ox-en] There is no such thing like "peer money"
- From: "Patrick Anderson" <agnucius gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:14:23 -0600
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:
Stefan,
I agree the money we use right now is terrible.
The debt-based, fiat currencies that almost every nation rents from
the international bankers (such as the US Federal Reserve Note) have
massive problems, but does that really mean all forms of money we
could ever devise are certain to be bad?
Money is a structural force used to force your will onto others.
Within the current situation we find ourselves, I see part of what you
mean here, but could a new kind of money ever be created that remained
'fair' and allowed peers to pay each other to perform specialized
tasks?
Similarly, are you saying that P2P must not include barter?
Must a P2P society not allow specialization? Must we each do all work
of every type for ourselves? If so, then what is the point of getting
together in the first place?
I'm not saying that is what you claim, I am just trying to understand
what you mean.
* Scarcity vs. ampleness
Money is based on scarcity. In fact in a way it encodes scarcity as
a societal concept to a so-called real abstraction. In fact money
which is not scarce in some way simply makes no sense. If I am
allowed to create arbitrary amounts of money at every time why
should I require the money of others at all?
That is currently true for the international bankers who issue
currency whenever they please, but that problem could be fixed when
designing a new currency by backing it (issuing it against) something
real such as Capital or Labor.
* Force needed to keep vs. built-in sustainability
I said that money encodes scarcity as a general principle of
society. However, money being an abstraction is not scarce by itself
- everybody can print more dollars. Thus scarcity must be enforced
by some external means. Typically this is done by the state. In
effect each money system needs a forceful super-structure to keep it
running.
That appears to be true as we examine the system we currently struggle
within, but I have some ideas (and I know others do) about how to make
a currency meaningful between peers without relying upon an enforcing
state.
* Abstract vs. concrete
One of the central features of money is that it is abstract. Money
is not related to any concrete thing - which you easily understand
when you look at the global flow of money compared to the global
flow of goods.
That is currently true of the debt-based fiat currencies, but again,
could design a new type of money without such a problem?
Money based production is based on a orientation on exchange value:
You produce because you want to exchange your product for money. The
product itself does not matter to you and it is totally sufficient
to produce relative quality and relative use.
That is true for the exchange of product, but what about the exchange
of LABOR? In other words, is specialization an important part of Peer
Production, and will it be ok to compensate each other for trading
jobs (you bake bread while I thresh the wheat)? Or must we each live
a solitary existence with no exchange whatsoever? I'm not saying that
is your claim, I am asking if it is.
In peer production projects on the other hand the very reason of a
project is producing use value. Why should a peer production exist
at all otherwise?
Producing for use value is, in my opinion, the primary driving force
behind Peer Production. I think independent Free Software developers
are working because they are the initial CONSUMER of what they
produce, NOT because they wish to donate their time and effort to
others.
They are applying their skills to scratch their own itch. Allowing
others to copy that solution is a minor factor, and is also somewhat
selfish (in a good way) in that it is probably mostly to gain some
friends and fame.
Sincerely,
Patrick
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de