Re: [ox-en] There is no such thing like "peer money"
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:36:14 +0200
Hi Patrick and all!
Phew - this is really a long thread I started there ;-) . I start
replying while not being finished with it. Please excuse me if I miss
points in my reply made later.
Last month (56 days ago) Patrick Anderson wrote:
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?
Yes. As Franz' tried to point out the problem is not the money itself
but the underlying societal structure being based on exchange. Money
is just an expression for this and it is totally irrelevant how you
call it - state based money, community based money, weighed labor, ...
The fundamental point is that of exchange - or to put in terms
developed in Oekonux: the lack of external openness. This lack of
external openness coerces you to do things you would not do in
Selbstentfaltungs-mode. You have to contribute as Christian calls it
to get the product. Whether you contribute state based or community
money, (abstract) labor or weighed labor via an distribution pool is
just irrelevant. The effect is the same.
May be there is one very general point here. I firmly think that the
capitalist world we live is the exact result of these principles. I
think it is even not thinkable that there are similar systems which do
*not* end up in this nightmare - if you do it in a scientific fashion.
This is because the basic mechanisms of exchange systems work *beyond*
human intervention. That is what Smith called the invisible hand and
why Marx mentioned political economy in his main work.
All these alternative money systems seem to think: "No, wait, there is
some minor aspect wrong here and if we correct that then it will
work." If it would be that way I think we would have had that
correction long ago. People are not stupid.
And no, I don't think there are some secret conspiracies controlling
everything. Capitalism does not need conspiracies to work. It's basic
principles are strong enough to work without human intervention of
that sort. But I think peer production is at least just as strong.
That said I'd like to answer your questions.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:
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?
No. "Payment" is the very expression of that structural force I
mentioned. If you need to pay someone then s/he did abstract laber /
alienation and the opposite of Selbstentfaltung - or may be someone
down the production process if you pay only for the input material.
Similarly, are you saying that P2P must not include barter?
Yes. Barter is also based on exchange. It makes things only more
complicated.
Must a P2P society not allow specialization?
Now you are kidding. Free Software is *full* of specialists and
experts of all kinds. In the contrary: Specialization is a
prerequisite for any post-capitalist society which differs from a
nightmare.
Must we each do all work
of every type for ourselves?
This is of course a nightmare. Is that what you experience when using
Free Software - or Wikipedia for that matter or Jamendo or ...?
* 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.
The global money system was backed by gold until the early 1970's.
There are reasons that the USA broke the last link to a fixed amount
of dead labor (aka gold). No money system is immune to these reasons.
* 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.
Sorry but I doubt that. Either your system works on some close peer
group where you have close social control. In such a peer group where
the governance level is high already I don't see a need for money.
Or you employ one of the basic features of money - and that is that it
abstracts from human relationships. BTW: In fact this abstraction from
human relationships is one of the biggest emancipatory advantages of
money. But in such an abstract world because more money gives you an
advantage you always will be tempted to produce some more - unless you
are forced not to do so.
* 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?
Well, abstraction makes money useful. It makes things comparable which
are not comparable otherwise. It does this by reducing concrete work
to abstract labor. If you don't want abstract labor then you don't
need money at all.
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?
An exchange based system always exchanges dead labor - regardless of
how you call it.
In other words, is specialization an important part of Peer
Production,
Yes.
and will it be ok to compensate each other for trading
jobs (you bake bread while I thresh the wheat)?
That is something I really do not understand: Compensate for what?
When I'm in Selbstentfaltungs-mode what is there you could even
compensate me for? Having fun? How do you compensate me for having
fun? By hitting me in the face?
You talk of labor. Abstract work I do not because I love that work but
because I receive compensation for it. This is indeed the core of an
exchange based system.
Or must we each live
a solitary existence with no exchange whatsoever?
Of course not. In the contrary: If we have more external openness than
today the flow of goods and ideas between people will be even bigger -
without exchange.
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.
I'm not so sure about this. It is of course true for many projects but
then there are these projects where someone just wanted to try out
some technology.
They are applying their skills to scratch their own itch.
Yes - that's part of Selbstentfaltung. But what *is* their itch
actually is a highly individual thing and may include many reasons
beyond creating use value for your own consumption.
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.
Sorry, but the "friends and fame" thing to me more looks like a myth
then reality for most Free Software developers. May be friends or
rather co-Selbstentfalters.
Grüße
Stefan
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de