[ox-en] Re: Raoul Victor * Money and Peer Production
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:08:40 +0100
Hi Raoul and all!
4 minutes ago Stefan Merten wrote:
3. Another possible solution
----------------------------
As far as there is still not a sufficient ampleness of goods and
capacities of production in order to allow free and unlimited
distribution, how to restrict the consumption to the prevailing
possibilities of production? If we abandon the wage principle: "*to
each according to the value of his labor force*"; if we refuse the
principle: "*to each according to his work*", what principle to use?
I agree that this is the question.
I
only see one possibility: *to each according to the social
possibilities*. It is a sort of "*to each according to his
needs/desires*" but limited, restricted by what is really possible, as
in the household/domestic economy,
This is a nice idea. However, it is probably hard to accomplish. For
"To each according to his work" you described how difficult an
accounting would be. I wonder whether this is any different here.
After all you have the same distribution problem only seen from
different perspectives. "To each according to his work" needs to
measure the work as input while "to each according to the social
possibilities" needs to measure the work as output.
or as in a fishers village where
after drawing collectively the net, fishes are shared between the
population.
This is a bad example insofar, that in this case those who work for a
product are the same who benefit from this very product. This doesn't
work under division of societal useful activities (in the alienated
form known as labor).
This is a conscious, direct way of dealing with
limitedness in terms of use-value. It is the logic consequence of the
fact that the means of production are collectively possessed (in the
Commons). If we participate to production as collective possessors,
production can be distributed collectively, taking into account
permanently and dynamically what is possible and what is needed. As
already said, P2P networks make possible instantaneous and ubiquitous
availability of the necessary information for such a system.
But it brings with it the problem I pointed out recently: You have to
assess need and compare different needs with each other which doesn't
work without a measure alienated to the needs. At the very least I'd
say this is a extremely hard problem.
To make an example: I think we all know situations when we are torn
between two options we would love to take but they exclude each other
for instance because you can't take them both at the same time. I for
one more often than not have a hard time to decide in such situations.
If you project this difficulty in my own mind to a societal mechanism
I think it gets even more complicated.
The question is then: will consumers respect voluntarily the
restrictions when they exist? Is not such a system going to collapse
because of multiple abuses?
The question is whether abuses are possible at all. They are clearly
possible if you can abuse the system to get more than you actually
need and then have the ability to sell some way. This would open the
door for black markets again.
As a consequence you could forbid trade by non-authorized persons
altogether.
Such a system means a great degree of
collective consciousness, of self responsibility.
Or of force - especially when the limited goods are really basic.
That may seem
wishful thinking when envisaged from the point of view of the
capitalist social jungle. But we should not underestimate the change
in mentalities which would be induced by a society where production is
oriented directly and exclusively towards human needs, where
orientation of production is permanently collectively agreed.
Well, I'm always sceptical with concepts needing improved
consciousness...
Grüße
Stefan