Re: [ox-en] The question of transition and the role of money
- From: Stefan Meretz <stefan meretz.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:44:23 +0100
On 2009-02-24 05:51, magius wrote:
2009/2/24 Stefan Meretz <stefan meretz.de>:
Then you would say, that "alternative money" is not that bad as
"capitalist money". This is a theoretical question. And my answer,
which I explained earlier here, is, that "money" is only the symbol
for the underlying mechanism of "equivalent exchange". Equivalent
exchange is only necessary in a society, where separated producers
have to exchange their products on markets and find a way to make
this exchange just.
Imho this approach simplifies too much the problem.
On 2003 I was a participant to an italian group of work that tried to
define a different monetary system.
I know the Gesellian approch quite well, and there is a lot to say
against it (and had already been said on this list earlier). Anyway. In
your answer, you don't deal with the key point of equivalence. Thus, I
would say, that I don't simplify the problem too much, but I brought
the problem to its very core which you miss in your answer.
AFAIK no alternative monetary system approach -- and there are lots of
them -- have awareness of the equivalence problem, or, they simply
accept it as a kind of "natural law" (of a "second nature" as I
explained). Please correct me if I am wrong.
As Marc said, agreement or consensus can not be the goal here. My only
hope is, that I could set a tiny thorn into your conviction.
Ciao,
Stefan
--
Start here: www.meretz.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de