Message 06030 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT06018 Message: 11/34 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] Commons in a taxonomy of goods

On 2010-06-19 00:32, Diego Saravia wrote:
Goods are not scarce by its nature (like having a temperature).

They are scarce by its economic nature

They are scarce by commodity production treated as "nature".

ok, we can define such a property "limitedness"

but it is not obvious than you can produce more apples, you need
trees,  land, work, etc

If you take a simple model without thinking about capital, you need
to work to get apples, and if you
put work in apples you will not get all the oranges you need, so, the
scarcity cames from other place in that case: work

Same applies here: Work (labor power) is only scarce if being a 
commodity. Otherwise it may be limited.

The other points you gave are repeatings of classical liberal framework, 
which I well know. If you don't feel to criticize the liberal framework, 
then ok. I do.

On 2010-06-19 16:43, Diego Saravia wrote:
However, satisfying needs is only a secondary effect of producing
goods as commodities, the first and alien goal is to make money.
In order to make money goods must be scarce. Thus scarcity is a
defect by design, because due to being a precondition of selling
commodities scarcity can never be overcome.

Production  system reflects the fact that economics goods are scarce

This is a myth used by liberal economic theory in order to legitimate 
capitalism (there are two: the other myth is the homo economicus).

Off course we have a very unequal distribution system, that was
correctly described and explained by Marx.

Marx wrote a critique of entire political economy, not only of a single 
aspect like distribution.

And we can reduce a lot of poverty  if we can change that
distribution system, but we cannot have a production system without

A change solely of the distribution system would only be a minor one (as 
history showed), because capitalism remains what it is. What we need is 
a new way of production, e.g. common-based peer production in entire 
society. This process can not be thought in old categories of 
traditional liberal economy.

what you call limits is usually called scarcity

It may seem to be only a problem of words, but it isn't. Limitation is a 
natural phenomenon (the earth is limited), scarcity is social 
phenomenon, is a consequence of a historically special way of 
production. Saying that scarcity is a natural thing (of economy) 
implies to ignore this difference, is to reverse a social into a natural 
phenomenon. This exactly is my critique of liberal economic theory.

what you call scarcity is usually called unequal distribution

Then it is usually a over-simplification.


Start here:
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT06018 Message: 11/34 L7 [In index]
Message 06030 [Homepage] [Navigation]