Re: [ox-en] Response to Stefan Meretz on the social production of money
- From: Stefan Meretz <stefan meretz.de>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:46:21 +0100
Dear Michel,
thank you for your answer. I first responded to your shorter mail, but
then I saw, that you address same points in this longer mail, so some
points may be redundant.
On 2009-02-25 11:54, Michel Bauwens wrote:
We may have different premises, but since we live in a common world,
if there is to be a political dialogue, we still have to answer each
other’s objections.
Of course, I will remind you.
So, my reproach is not that you critique my support for a peer to
peer money infrastructure, but rather the lack of arguments about why
this would be bad, or at any rate worse than the current
meltdown-related-financial-system. It is the habit of ridiculing p2p
money movements and initiatives, without cogent arguments, that I
find objectionable.
Beside the tone of my critique, I find my arguments very cogent, but not
yours. Isn't that the nature of a discussion with different points of
view?
From my side I can say, that it doesn't help, when you simply ignore my
arguments instead of giving counter arguments. You prefere to reproduce
your position. Ok, then I will check your new text.
Also, let me repeat that what I find utopian is that you want a
moneyless society, but that you do not give an answer of how we get
there.
I did not give an answer, because until now, it was not the question.
Generally, it is a valid question (which I ask many people myself), but
the starting point for me was to criticize your transformation model --
not entirely, we have many points in common -- but the special "money
point". Your model must be consistent independently of me, of want I
think is the best way. So my non-answer to a non-question is no
criterion.
More then that: I do not find it convincing to say, that one has to
reject all critics without proof, because there is no better idea.
You say the same about me, but I have given you a strategy via the
Oekonux list. I.e. the integrated construction of new life practices
in all areas of human life.
Yes, thank you. Strategies can be wrong. You must be eager to get false
proofs, because you want to do the right thing and not the wrong ones.
What is absolutely clear to me is that, since currently peer to peer
only works for immaterial exchange, for for the design phase of
physical production, that we need mechanisms for physical production.
Because these cannot be the same, at least not at this stage, we need
better and more distributed financial mechanisms as well.
I do not draw the conclusion as you do. Yes, physical production is
special, no, that we need more distributed financial mechanisms being
the best way to solve the special challenges with physical goods.
You mention Christian Siefkes proposal, and imply that I have ignored
it. First this is untrue, I have about a dozen blog references and
dedicated a whole wiki section on his proposals. But second, this is
indeed an utopian proposal, in the sense that it is not being tried
out anywhere, and that I seen no concrete prospects of it being tried
anywhere.
Yes, you documented it, great, thank you, but did not integrate it in
your vision. You simply expand what is. You don't ask deeply enough, if
this is right or wrong. I can't see any concept of societal transition
according to the five step model. There are not qualitative steps, just
expansion and withering away. I don't think, that societal transitions
occur this way.
And concerning peerconomy: any new model must be tried once for the
first time. But to me the main role of peerconomy is to sharpen our
mind and to use elements or principles in our projects.
By contrasts, peer to peer money is a thriving social movement,
producing many benefits in the here and now.
So it's time to critically reflect these experiences. In my view, there
are pros and cons.
One of your key arguments is that peer to peer money would reproduce
capitalism, if I understand you correctly?
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense, that it is no escape and thus finally
will reproduce capitalism. But this can't be an important argument,
because with our daily live we reproduce capitalism all together.
No, because it is not that simple. The key critique is, that alternative
money does not solve or address the equivalence problem. More then
that: It does not see equivalence as a problem at all. I explained this
critique in my previous mails. You did not pick up this point.
But that is simply not the case. Interest and fractional reserve
banking, and other aspects of the current monetary system, are
designed as scarcity-based money, that facilitate accumulation, and
require infinite growth.
This is a mistake: Money was not "designed", it has historically
developed together with emerging capitalism. It reflects the mode
of production and is its integral part. I can't be cutted away or
replaced by voluntary mechanisms like alternative money.
Peer to peer money is designed against
accumulation, against infinite growth, to keep more streams of value
within communities, and to be under the control of such communities,
physical and virtual. So they directly contribute to more autonomous
social life, and where applied, do not reproduce the accumulation of
capital.
I share the goal, but I think, that all alternative money approaches
earlier or later must fail to prepare a commonist society, because of
the immanent blindness for the equivalence problem.
Are they sufficient to change the dynamic of the whole society, no,
of course not, but along with the other p2p infrastructures, they
create areas that are protected from its full scope, and create more
room and space for alternatives. Integrated in a full vision of
distributed infrastructures though, they play a crucial role, which
is why the Hungarian revolution wanted to adopt it.
Which case are you refering to?
But can such use of alternative money wither away? Why not. First of
all, it is used freely by associated producers, without coercion; and
is structured so as to prevent accumulation. Then to the degree that
our society finds other means to deal with scarce resources, through
resource-based economics or any other scheme, then the need to use
for such money falls way, and indeed, through such process, it can
wither away.
In most (all?) experiments we could observe, alternative money indeed
withered away by replacing it with "real" money. When the basis of
equivalence is more or less the same, why not switch to real money when
a partial function of alternative money is reached?
I think you are conflating two things:
- Markets and capitalism
And
- Unequal exchange with equal exchange
Sorry, no.
Again, you can have non-capitalist markets, and capitalism is based,
structurally, on unequal exchange, in a way that a market is not
necessarily. See Braudel and Manuel De Landa on this important
distinction.
I refer here to my previous mail.
Why is this distinction important?
If you want a fully ‘commonist’ society, only allowing peer to peer
dynamics, then I would answer a number of things:
- It is unprecedented in history to have just one mode, the four
intersubjecti ve modes have always co-existed, it’s only their
respective dominance that has changed
I don't understand, what you mean by "intersubjective modes". I am
taking about modes of production.
- Even if it were possible, you still have to explain how to get
there, and again, you do not seem to have any transitional plans
beyond waiting for the germ form process to play out?
This is another topic as said be before. The validity of a theory is
independent of the conviction of others.
Some mails ago you drew the picture of apples on the moon (and you did
not answer my question). Let me draw my picture: You want to go to the
moon and ask me, how to get there. My answer is: due to the gravitation
of earth you need to build a rocket. But you answer, this will never
happen, because a rocket is to complicated to create. And there are a
lot a alternative approaches: building towers. They are definitely some
small steps towards moon. We simply have to expand them, and if we are
high enough gravitation withers away and then some day we will reach
the moon. The rocket plan on the contrary is so stupid and silly and
utopian, and therefore building towers is must be the right thing,
because they are already there. :-)
Assuming then, that even a peer to peer society would have a
plurality of forms, and that there is a continuum of abundance and
scarcity goods that need differential treatment, then we can expect a
mixture of non-reciprocal communal shareholding, gift economics,
markets for certain types of goods, and even, hierarchical or central
allocation of certain public goods.
Well, this mixture and plurality image contadicts the understanding of a
dominant mechanism guiding all other aspects of societal live. There is
no plurality of equally relevant forms. In history there was always a
dominant societal form, while other forms were subordered. We don't
have a slavery society today, although there is slavery in the world
etc. Any vision has to show, what the new dominant form will be, how it
works and how the relationship of subordered forms is structured. You
simply collect what is.
There is also the issue of the human freedom to choose. What do you
with those that would like to have markets? Granted you could
disallow, in a certain type of society, unequal exchange, but to
outlaw freely chosen equal exchange? That can only exist in a society
based on coercion.
The freedom to choose is an individual freedom, while a market is a
societal organisation. In a society where markets do not play any role,
because the societal mediation is dominated by other principles, there
is no problem, if someone wants to exchange something -- if you find
someone to perform this exchange at all. Market does no exist by
individual will, it is a societal form. Think of free software: Nobody
hinders you to "exchange" your software with something (GPL explicitly
allows for taking a fee for instance). But in no aspect this touches
the principle of free software being a commons, which is free availble
for all.
On the other hand, you can't simply "disallow" unequal exchange if you
have markets. Markets base on equivalent exchange with due to the
different levels of productivity necessarily produce unequal exchange
(equal-equivalent difference is explained in a previous mail). _This_
could only exist and did existed in a society based on coercion (e.g.
real-socialism).
So, in a society of freely associated peer producers, there will be a
play of alternatives, and peer producers, when they see better
alternatives than the use of using money to trade certain goods, will
simply abandon it.
No, it is and will not be a thing of arbitrary choice: In a society
you always have to use the given form of social mediation. You can' t
simply "choose" another form. Exactly this is the difficulty of a
societal transition. Capitalism is relatively stable, because it is the
way we are producing our lifes by producing the social form and vice
versa, although capitalism is in crisis. There is only a societal
transformation, when a new mode of production and societal mediation is
able to replace the old form as the dominant one. There is no societal
transformation, when you are only modifying the old form, but don't
have a new form, which is able to replace the old. The new is never
simply a mixture or plurality of diverse social forms. One will
prevail, and you have to analyze, which one. Otherwise you are acting
careless, when you potentially know it better, but prefere to ignore
the difficulties.
In my eyes, you don't realize the real dimension of the problem.
Right now, certainly, we have no choice than to accept a plurality of
forms. In the context of a really-existing capitalist society, any
distributed infrastructure, which increases the economy of freely
associating producers, is to my mind a good thing.
Remember, the real choice is not between a fully commonist society,
but in this transition period, the issue is how to make steps
forward.
(this is where my correct falsity critique comes in: you are
presenting us with a false utopian choice, which does not exist for
the moment)
Well, you are presenting us steps with a delusive feeling of going
forward, which does not contain a germ form of real transformation.
So the real choice is, and through your attacks on distributed money
production you are implicitely, or even explicitely making it, is
between accepting the current monetary system, and its in-built
unequal exchange, and attempts to construct a better alternative,
that is more in tune with p2p values.
This is a false choice, there are many more options. Making views
narrow, reduces options to act. Either-or logic does not help.
So again, why are you only accepting the state and
financial-corporate creation of money, with negative protocols, and
not the social production of money, under positive protocols? You’d
have to prove me that they would indeed be worse, from a social
change point of view. Neutral is not good enough, as in that case, we
would not be worse of.
I am accepting those alternatives, which give us more room to act. No
option is excluded, no money tricks either. Yes, I am not in principle
against money tricks or money usage in general, but any money dealing
is only a dark necessity, which we can't circumvent in many cases. It
should _never_ play any central role in our concepts, because there is
no hope and no solution in it. For example: If you have a project which
need continuous monetary inbound flow, then the core operations of the
project should be decoupled from the money flow: Don't sell products,
in order to keep the project alive!
All of these being said, I do accept critique of distributed money,
as they come in very different flavours, and they may be optimal for
different things. For example, while I find social lending to a be
progress, they are still operating with a mentality based on pure
private gain, which I find limiting and objectionable. LETS may
require to high thresholds for too many people, and apparently do not
scale, etc… In Argentina, the complementary currencies were under
the control of small cliques which ‘owned’ the money, and abused it
for private gain, etc…
Some conclude: It does not work.
The truth is that we do not yet know the optimal way to socially
produce money, and that we have to experimentally try various options
out. But the situation is not different about say the distributed
energy grid, where many different configurations will play out.
Those are legitimate critiques. But overall, the use of socially
produced distributed money is part and parcel of the necessary
institution of more distributed infrastructures, all playing their
role.
By saying which are legitimate critiques, you exclude positions of basal
critique. You are saying, that legitimate critique is only critique
within your truth. Oh man. We had a dark period of "legitimate
critiques", and I thought this time is over. And I thought, that you
are really an open-minded person, which don't need to allow any kind
of "legitimacy of critique".
I think that, in the final analysis, your comments come over as
profoundly nihilist. You are counterposing a non-existing alternative
of full commonism, which does not exist as yet, to condemn a really
existing social movement that institutes real and concrete
alternatives, that function demonstrably better. And you make a real
and concrete choice to continue using, the type of money that has
been very instrumental in creating the current meltdown.
By naming my comments nihilist you are excluding other ways of thinking.
Now, I will remind you to your own introduction: "We may have different
premises, but since we live in a common world, if there is to be a
political dialogue, we still have to answer each other’s objections."
Please don't hinder yourself.
Ciao,
Stefan
--
Start here: www.meretz.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de