Message 05295 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 10/96 L7 [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] The question of transition and the role of money



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



Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 10/96 L7 [In index]
Message 05295 [Homepage] [Navigation]