Message 04891 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04643 Message: 156/166 L9 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Project anarchism approaches (was: Re: [ox-en] There is no such thing like "peer money")

Hi StefanMz and all!

Last month (48 days ago) Stefan Meretz wrote:
The question is: How do we conceptualize our projects?

I absolutely agree with this.

Do they base on 
money, market success, and exchange or not?

I'd go one step further: Are they based on abstract labor? To me
abstract labor is given when you start to measure concrete work and
reduce it to some abstract number. How you call the currency is

Next question: How can a project making no money survive in an 
environment, where things are bought with money?

Just take a look at the existing peer projects. They all work on this
basis. Oekonux for instance pays it's bills purely by donations which
entitle you to nothing (well the conference sponsors get something in
return - and it is a good example that you need to be careful with

Here, it is useful to 
distinguish between internal project relationships and the 
relationships to the outside world: Inside a project the relationships 
should be free of money and exchange, while it may not avoidable to 
have money-based relationships to the outside money driven world.

Well, this all has not only be thought before but even tried out. One
main current putting this forward was project anarchism. See

(German only unfortunately).

During my anarchist times back in the 1990ies I had once in a while
contact to *the* project of that sort in Neustadt/W. (Wespe). That you
probably never heard of it is a good prove that it did not change the
world - though it was one of the most promising projects and also had
really good preconditions. Try

for the initiator of that project (German only unfortunately).

Again Christians peerconomy model. We don't have that peereconomy based 
society yet. How can we start? If we want to create a peerconomy 
project (or better a bunch of), then the project need things from the 
capitalist world which we cannot produce self. Thus you need money. 
Now, this need of money *must* be decoupled from the internal 
functioning of the project in the sense, that, say, products from the 
project can not be "exported" to the money world, in order to finance 
the project. The "money interface" should be as slim as possible. For 
instance bounty-based. Or by fixed contributions by the members. Or, as 
Christian proposed, bringing money into the project is viewed as 
a "task" and accepted as a "contribution" (in the special meaning of 
his concept) like other tasks done are contributions.

In Christian's book contributions are just a sort of payment.
Otherwise I'd need nobody who accept them. I see absolutely no need in
making things more complicated without changing them really when
simple money will do as a contribution.

Etc. Assuming 
there are more peerconomy projects, then the relationships
between these projects must be as money-free as the project-internal 
relationship are. Ok, I stop here -- this needs a careful discussion 
and a lot of new ideas.

What this idea really needs is historical research. Horst Stowasser is
still alive and it could be possible that I create a connection to him.

Conclusion: We'll have to do our projects without money from the very 
start in the sense, that money must not be part of the project core 
principles. Perform this test: If you beam the project into a 
peerconomy society, then generally the project have to work the same way 
as it works being an island in the capitalist ocean.

Which implies that there needs to be external openness - thus no
inside and outside. And no abstract labor.

I resonate much more with this approach:

Charles Eisenstein:

"In a highly specialized, technological society, most of us need to
perform exchanges to live. To do so we need a medium of exchange ?
money. Some people, noting this inescapable fact, can see no
alternative but to return to a primitive society, to undo the
millennia-long course of civilization, which they quite
understandably view as an enormous mistake.

Outch, I don't want to read more of this crazy stuff. It declares 
exchange to an intrinsic human property, it identifies money with 
civilization, it lifts capitalism to heaven and so on. 

I agree with this though I would not formulate it as hefty as you ;-) .
But I want to point out the error in this quote.

Charles Eisenstein:

"In a highly specialized, technological society, most of us need to
perform exchanges to live.

Charles writes about *a* highly specialized, technological society.
But there is no natural law that in such a society anybody *needs to
perform exchange*. It is logical that there needs to be a flow of
goods - but there are lots of ways to organize this flow. Peer
projects as well as families are the observable proof that Charles'
statement is only a myth.

I think if we want to think about a new society we should be able to
leave that error behind mentally.


Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04643 Message: 156/166 L9 [In index]
Message 04891 [Homepage] [Navigation]