[ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Commons in a taxonomy of goods
- From: "Ludger.Eversmann t-online.de" <Ludger.Eversmann t-online.de>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:34:31 +0200
[Converted from text/html]
Hi all,
let me add some comments to this discussion:
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.
I very much agree with that. There are some well established economic
terms which should be used in a way and with a meaning that is well
known and introduced all over the world. Changing definitions and
names truly cant help to change anything in this world. Sometimes i
have the impression that Stefan wants to change economic conditions
and furtheron the human conditions of living by changing some
definitions and meanings.
I think in generall it would help to understand that the underlying
problems with capitalism we have in the presence is a problem of
MATURITY of capitalism, of overflow of producing capacity (each
industry nation of the world is trying to be export champion), and in
the core not so much a lack of legitimation (allthough there is lack
of legitimation, but if there is no real viable ALTERNATIVE, it is
use- and hopeless to point to that. BUT: capitalism is incubating
this alternative, as we all know and discuss here).
It was clear to Marx that the development of productive ressources are
the key to a new formation of society, as he pointed out in the
foreword to the "Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie": "No social
formation disappears before its productive forces are fully developed
and no new and more advanced production relations emerge before the
material conditions for their existence have matured within the old
society."
So - we cant get new productive ressources and new MATERIAL conditions
for more advanced production relations by only changing definitions
ore changing the understanding of property or even change political
rights of property: if the production means itself, technically, are
not developed in a way that thay can effectively be used as common
goods, it doesn't help to change property at all, as well shown
throughout all this 70-year experiment of real existing socialism in
this world.
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).
why?
for example, do we have enough oil to continue actual consume rates?
oil prices do not reflect that?
is that a myth?
In my view it's not a myth at all, oil prices and prices of different
raw materials clearly reflect the demand and the scarcity of these
things; the ugly fact that in some cases these prices are speculative
and obviously not justified should not be mixed with attributing
semantics to words.
Homo economicus: this in economy is a pragmatic assumption. Behaviour
of economic actors is more often explainable assuming the benefit-
seeking actor, who is usually suffering from labour and considers
sparetime a benefit! and what about all the volunteers creating
wikipedia and all the other peer products? as fare as i know wikipedia
fore instance has only 2 or 3 percent of constantly contributing
users, isn't it?
I think it still would be better to assume the - throughout all
history of mankind up to now not yet changed - selfish, lazy and
benefit seeking homo economicus, when designing a new economy with a
new social formation: i would propose that it must be sufficient to
assume well educated and skilled and responsibility loving members of
any kind of new society, but better not hoping that they all over
sudden all become unlimited altruistic and work all day long because
they discovered their Selbstentfaltung and never ask if there will be
any kind of return.
Serious ecenomic reflections can't rely on that, and can't take
psychological dispositions like "Selbstentfaltung" as a generalized
precondition. Do we have to wait until all the world has read 50 pages
of Holzkamp? in my view in this subject Marx was right, when seeing
clearly those fully developed productive ressources as a precondition
to take this historical step to higher deleloped production relations
and living conditions. I would like to add, that in the presence these
productive ressources are still in their children's shoes, and need a
lot of high skilled development to get to a point where a whole
society can make it's living based on these material conditions.
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.
yes
what's an unequal distribution system? we can have a distribution
system, that distributes equal portions of something that it
distributes, or unequal portions. We can have this in a family: each
child gets 2 chicken wings, or 1 apple. Obviously this is not a
distribution SYSTEM: this would be a distributor, with something in
his hand to distribute, and with a feeling of justice. But can we have
in an economic system or a society such an intitution? that collects
ressources, and redistributes them? the taxes system in a certain way
can be considered like that, or could be if it is designed for that
(tax progression e.g.). But that is something outside of economy.
Inside of ecenomy, we don't have a distribution system: the market is
no distribution system, the market is an allocation system. We don't
have a central collection station for apples, and from there the
apples are distributed, 5 apples a week for everyone in the country.
We either can have a collection station for money: everybody gives all
the money he has, then all the money is divided into equal portions,
and than redistributed. Thats not the new higher social formation Marx
was thinking of, this was tried several times in history, and ended up
in a disaster every time.
I think what peer production is aiming at should not be sort of equal
distribution system, but a production system that is able to allocate
goods and ressources wihout market.
And we can reduce a lot of poverty if we can change that
distribution system, but we cannot have a production system
without
limits.
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.
Like i said: history showed that changing a distribution system (or
creating a distribution system) is impossible in a longer run. I agree
with that: we need a new way of production, peer-production in entire
society - OK. But the conditions how this can be developed to stable
functioning are not clear yet, to me.
Using these new production ressources we are thinkin of here,
exploitation is no longer possible, since the productive capital
(mashines, the net, software) has to be in common property. But: this
raises some questions too! Anyway: there won't be no factories, no
factory owners and no exploited factory workers any more. Thats for
shure.
Redefining names: i agree, like i said.
...
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.
We can not continue infinite growth path of material goods, true. But
in spite of that we possible can get rid of scarcity, at least with
respect to some kind of industrialized augmentable goods, so that
everyone can live with the feeling: some goods are there and available
for free, or as good as free. This is principially possible, if goods
can be produced very highly automated, and with little usage of raw
material, ore raw material wich is not scarce itself, and consuming
little energy for production, or cheap (renewable) energy. Maybe some
day societies have to take their choice, which goods they want to
concentrate on that they are made available for free. This would mean
to put some effort in developing products and production systems and
production ways to get these things produced as fully automated as
possible.
Maybe someday e. g. mobility is free (at least local), maybe housing
some day can be free too: possibly building houses can be made that
easy and cheap (possibly by contour crafting etc.), that there can be
given a public garantee ore promise, that everone who wants to can get
a living room ore house for free. But: not everyWHERE he wants! Living
at certain places can't be augmented industrially, so this will be
scarce for all times to come ever.
There are a lot of things which can't be produced using programmable
mashines, and so they will remain to be scarce. Also a lot of
qualifications and abilities will remain scarce, which means: here is
a person who is able to perform certain tasks, an there is a person
which cannot do this itself, and therefore wants this other person to
do it. So there will still be exchange of work, a medicinist goes to
psychologist, or wants handmade shoes, and the person who likes to
make shoes has stung in his finger, or has to see the doctor for some
other reason. So they have to exchange their performed works. How will
they do that?
I personally came to the conclusion that there will be no other
possibility than to have an means of exchange for that, like - money.
But: in spite of that capitalism will be over, because all these kinds
of work and professions that will remain scarce in this sense and that
we can think of and can imagine, have naturally to be performed by
single skilled persons, not by big capitalized companies.
Regards,
Ludger
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de