Message 06034 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT06018 Message: 12/34 L8 [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

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.

I criticize liberal framework in several ways

I do not think that changing names and definitions is a usefull way to
criticize, its only a way to confuse argumentations.

Changing the meaning of scarce, commons, etc, will not, by itself,
help  the people to understand what is the problem
with liberal economy.

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).


for example, do we have enough oil to continue actual consume rates?
oil prices do not reflect that?

is that a myth?

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.

we need to stop exploitation if we want to stop capitalism

peer production (common is a misname there) could help to do that.

distribution system change will be a consequence of stopping exploitation.

and off course, advancements in economy science will be based over
actual knowledge.

redefining names is not a clever way to go.

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

scarcity, as normally defined,  is the consecuence of natural limits
and social economy production/distribution system

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.

that's a very controversial problem: nature-social, more philosophical
than economic.

I do not think our differences came from that problem.

The fact is that peer production or other production system will not
put a end to scarcity, at least until will find other energy and
material sources

Peer production could reduce scarcity,  we use could generate a better
distribution system using peer production, but we could not continue a
infinite growth path.

You can call that "limits", ok, but that will  not change the fundamental fact.
You can try to change the use of the word scarcity, if you don't like
it, but the facts will continue to be there.

You can try to change the definition of commons, but the facts about
what is usually called commons will continue to be there.

Then it is usually a over-simplification.

ok, but we are talking about over simplifications.

so, you dont like scarcity definition in wikipedia?

you dont like commons definition?

Diego Saravia

Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT06018 Message: 12/34 L8 [In index]
Message 06034 [Homepage] [Navigation]