Message 04728 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04643 Message: 121/166 L24 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: Money as a dominant social relation (was: Re: [ox-en] There is no such thing like "peer money")



[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose gmail.com> wrote:

[Converted from multipart/alternative]



So, it looks like you agree with me that neolithic tokens are used for
exchange, not "barter". I think I started using "barter" when Paul tried to
explain to me that the ancient currency that I was referring in previous
emails  to was really "barter" -based system. For the sake of trying to
establish a shared meaning, I adopted this moniker, becasue this discussion
is really getting confusing and trapped in semantics that I am convinced
are
not significant to the central points being amde.


thanks for all your clarifications on barter. I guess exchange is based on
pricing in a dynamic around comparison of some common value, and that money
has a lot of additional functions, especially storage of 'value', that
barter systems couldn't have

From what I've read, a lot of these tokens were used separately from the
gift and barter systems, in the tribal societies, but I haven't read up on
the cities and towns era.






Money precedes states. So too did local, and regional markets. So, a state
the creates a new money to control local and regional markets is using what
for it's prototype/model....?



Well that is precisely the point. That something precedes something else,
does not mean that what came later precedes from the former. So what paul
and the chartalists are saying is that state monies were structurally
different from the early tokens; and what many historials are saying is that
the capitalist market evolved separately from the local/regional markets
(braudel, polanyi). So you have a separate development that overtakes an
earlier one.

Example: state-introduced monies destroy and replace local currencies
through coercion; global capitalist markets replace and destroy, by
coercion, the earlier local-regional markets.

It's not a 'natural' evolution of complexity, but a structural/cultural
intervention social construct by particular human groups, whose interests
may differ from others. In that sense what is important is that complexity
theory does not become a theory to justify and explain 'everything that
happens' as inevitable 'after the fact'.

I similarly suspect that peer to peer will not naturally evolve out of
capitalism, but will require structural/cultural intervention by human
intentionality ... of course 'not only', as it is the combination between
the 'conditional inevitability' of objective conditions, and the concrete
actions and intentions, which makes the difference.


[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT04643 Message: 121/166 L24 [In index]
Message 04728 [Homepage] [Navigation]