Re: [ox-en] The question of transition and the role of money
- From: Stefan Meretz <stefan meretz.de>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:34:53 +0100
Dear Michel,
I saw, that you wrote another mail explaining you position more
lengthly. I am not so fast as you are (my admiration!). So there is
some overlapping, but I will send this mail first.
On 2009-02-24 15:25, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I guess you mean by equivalence, = equivalent exchange,
Yes, as explained in my previous mail from 2009-02-24, 0:30:38:
http://oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg05276.html
but the defining characteristic of capitalism is that, despite the
liberal claim, it is based on unequal exchange, not equal exchange.
Yes, you are absolutely right! But the weird thing is, that unequal
exchange occurs on the ground of equivalent exchange. -- How that?
[Un-]Equal exchange means, that the exchanged amounts of use value are
[not] the same on both side. [Non-]Equivalent exchange means, that the
values exchanged are [not] the same. This difference between use value
and (monetary) value was found by classical political economists, but
is completely forgotten by neo-classical economists.
Capitalism systematically produces unequal distribution of wealth
_through_ equivalent exchange due to unequal levels of productivity.
This is the real challenge of economical understanding.
Example: one person produces a shirt in one hour, the other in eight
hours. Due to global markets (neclecting all local deviations) both
are "one hour worth", because this is the level at which they are
exchanged with money. With that money the latter can acquire eight
times more wealth than the first. Conclusion: Unequal exchange (base:
goods/wealth) by equivalent exchange (base: value/money). Yes, there
are some more power related inequalities, but they can not explain the
global unequal distribution of wealth.
Any kind of money system basically presupposes or even more: tries to
guarantee equivalent exchange. But equivalence is not the solution, it
is the problem. This is the very root of my critique.
I understand your critique concerning the given unequal distribution of
wealth at the expense of the poor today. But rigid equal exchange or
distribution can only be a first step, finally it is not a wishful
solution. Free software does not implement equal distribution, but a
system of "take what you need" combined with an unlinked "give what you
can". Yes, special situation, I know.
The problem is, that any system which bases on equality does not fit to
the people and their needs, which are by far not equal. Thus, what we
need to satisfy are individual needs and not equal distribution. Rigid
equality systems necessarily generate alienation, because they have an
objective measure for "equality" apart from the people. An objective
measure comes always from outside, not from the people themselves.
Therefore, need-based distribution is always unequal and driven by the
people without any objective measure.
Again, anthropologically, markets preceded capitalism, and cannot be
equated with it (see braudel, or for an update manuel delanda)
Agreed. But read the ox archives about the difference between C-M-C and
M-C-M' markets. Capitalist markets are the latter ones, while the first
ones did nearly completely vanish.
Again, anthropologically, the four modes of intersubjectivity have
always co-existed, but under the 'dominance' and influence of one key
mode.
What do you mean by that? I didn't find explanations on P2PF website.
Peer to peer does not mean a totalitarian commons leaving no place at
all for other ways, but rather that the core value processes will
follow that logic.
Yes, of course. Commonism can only base on selbstentfaltung which is the
opposite of any coercive system.
So, even in a peer to peer dominated society, is equal exchange
admissible under a pluralist economy requiring human freedom to
choose, what is not permissible is 'unequal exchange', and infinite
growth mechanisms, since that threatens the survivability of the
whole system.
I think unequal exchange is necessary, if there is exchange at all.
Unequal, because exchange can overcome suffering only if it is oriented
at the needs of the people, and those are different. Why should you
spread goods equally if there are people who need them more than
others?
Infinite growth is the outcome of M-C-M' logic, how do you want to ban
it if you yet have markets applying this logic? Accepting markets and
money implies accepting infinite growth. You can't one without the
other. You can't simply say to markets: "Don't grow, it's not allowed!"
Until we are there, alternative market mechanisms, based on equal
exchange, and without infinite growth mechanisms, are a way to
preserve and enhance human choice and ecologocal and economical
survival, since it is empirically determined that these other
monetary mechanisms have worked rather well whenever they have been
tried sensibly.
I support this wish, but I can't see any way to implement alternative
market mechanisms which did not base on equivalent exchange, in order
to reach equal exchange (beside the problematic of equal distribution
mentioned above).
The only system I know which implements unequal voluntary distribution
based on needs is the peerconomy model.
Ciao,
Stefan
--
Start here: www.meretz.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de