Message 04958 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04171 Message: 21/40 L6 [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] Material peer production (Part 4: What Difference Does It Make?)



Hi all!

7 months (214 days) ago Christian Siefkes wrote:
This part concludes my series. Thanks for your patience.

Though my reply probably doesn't make any sense to Christian it makes
sense to me. May be it make sense to others, too.

Because this is a general point I mention it here: I don't share
Christian's perspective of capitalism. Instead I think Christian's
perspective of capitalism is rather distorted considering only the bad
extremes. I'll point this out below here and there.

At this point, the reader might be inclined to ask: So what? So we can
either have an economy based on markets (a _market economy_, a.k.a.
_capitalism_) or an economy based on peer production (a _peer economy_),
but, in the end: what difference would it make?

I refer to "Christian's system" instead of peer economy to separate a
real economy based on peer production from Christian's core ideas in
the book.

The core difference is that the peer economy _directly_ achieves the goal
which the market achieves only _indirectly_ (if at all): fulfilling
people's _needs and desires,_ making it possible for them to get what they
want to have and to live the way they want to live.

This is basically the difference between use value based production
and exchange value based production. A peer production based economy
would exhibit this indeed.

In Christian's system I have to do abstract labor to get the products
I want and to live the way I want to live. I can not see why this
should be less indirect than in capitalism.

In the peer economy,
you cooperate with others to get the goods you like to have,

In the peer economy, yes. That is you do useful things based on your
Selbstentfaltung.

In Christian's system the abstract labor you do is as much or as
little cooperation with others as in any capitalist job. Frankly I do
not understand how someone can think that in capitalist jobs there is
no cooperation. If you are lucky there are even degrees of
Selbstentfaltung possible - though there is a limit.

while in the
market economy you produce one thing to get money which _then_ allows you
to get other things.

In Christian's system you do abstract labor to get weighted hours to
get other things. Besides money being replaced by the concept of
weighted hours - which is essentially only another type of currency -
I can see no difference.

_Peer production cuts out the middle layer--the need
to sell so you can buy._

In peer production yes. In peer production you can take without
giving.

In Christian's system you need to give before taking.

This change goes very deep, since in capitalism
the apparently harmless middle layer (the need to make money) takes over
and becomes the primary goal of production, shifting the original goal
(fulfilling people's needs and desires) into the background.

I can see not one reason why in Christian's system this mechanism
should not take place. All the ingredients are there and unless
Christian's system is thought for a New Human (TM) the same as in
capitalism will happen.

In the market, you need money to get the goods you like to buy. If you
don't have enough money, you need to sell something, and if you don't have
anything else, you need to sell your own labor power. But if nobody wants
your labor power, you are out of luck. You are _unemployed_ and will
generally remain poor and unable to get most of the things you would like
to have.

This is something I did not understand. Are the projects *required* to
accept every contribution? I think I did not read this anywhere. If
so: Who forces them to accept every contribution?

If not then the projects decide which task completion they accept and
which not. Or rather: Which worker they accept for fulfilling a task
and which worker they don't accept. You will probably have things like
job interviews and the like. I mean the project doesn't want some
bloody beginner ruin their means of productions.

So if you are not skilled enough for the tasks offered you may not be
unemployed. But since your labor is not accepted you won't get the
products you want. For people who are subject to such deficiencies I
can see no difference between capitalism and Christian's system.

In peer production, _there is no exchange, and hence no need to have
anything to sell._ You will often be expected to spend some effort to get
the things you like to have,

This sentence is somewhat strange. I'm only expected? So I can bypass
the whole weighted hour stuff and just take the things I need? That
would be of course a completely different thing and real peer
production. However, as far as I understood Christian's system you are
really required to work - though Christian omits the question who
enforces this.

but this is only to _contribute_ your share to
the overall effort.

In capitalism I contribute my labor power to the overall effort just
as well. A neutral definition may help to blow the magic dust away:

  Main Entry:
    con·trib·ute

  [...]

  transitive verb
    1. to give or supply in common with others <contribute money to a
       cause>

  -- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contribute

They even use "contribute money" as an example so there is no special
magic in the word "contribute".

If there is nothing left to do, there is no reason to
work, hence the term "unemployment" does not even make sense in the context
of a peer economy.

The more intelligent criticizers or capitalism know that not the
unemployment is the problem but the lack of money resulting from
unemployment. In Christian's system you may have the lack of products
resulting from the lack of money just as well.

People might _expect_ you to contribute (in order to
reduce their own workload), but they will also _allow_ you to contribute
(for the very same reason).

With exchange, you must have something to sell that others want to buy
(your labor power, if nothing else), and you have to _compete_ with others
who have to do the same.

Competition is a result of an exchange based system only under certain
conditions. To compete you / the product needs to be similar enough to
others / other products. If you are unique you don't need to compete.
This is why capitalist products try to be unique so much - regardless
of how mediocre they really are. Also there must be a space in which
all the other products are available just as yours. A classic village
market fulfills this condition already - though on a small scale.

So what you need for competition are similar others in the same domain
- and the desire that your offer is accepted by someone else. In
Christian's system I found no limitation of the domain inside of a
distribution pool. Since we are talking of abstract labor many workers
will have a hard time to make their labor power unique so they are
similar to each other. So these two preconditions for competition are
present. As a result if there is a situation where you need your labor
to be accepted by someone else you quickly compete with others.

But in a contribution-based economy, you don't
have to out-compete your co-contributors:

In capitalism you don't have to out-compete anyone. Unless you / your
product is unique enough you just have to compete.

instead, they will just "move
over" to let you take your part of the overall effort, because it makes
sense for them to do so.

Not if there acquiring of products depends on their labor getting
accepted.

I stop here and close with "Read my review".


						Grüße

						Stefan
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT04171 Message: 21/40 L6 [In index]
Message 04958 [Homepage] [Navigation]