[p2p-research] The nature of apple trees (was: Re: [ox-en] apples and moonfruits)

[Stan Rhodes]

Exchange of rival goods works best with ownership, because fair
exchange depends on ownership.  BUT, the more equitable (not equal,
but equitable--fair) the ownership among people, the better.  Not all
ownership is the same.  At the very least ownership varies by the
thing owned, and the laws and norms that establish, maintain, and
evolve that schema of ownership.  So, how we define ownership types in
a model makes a huge difference.

We can't equivocate non-rival (free software, free design docs) and
rival (land, fruit, a laptop) goods when saying this, because they are
fundamentally different.  Goods ideal for peer production--and thus
where nearly all peer production occurs--are almost entirely
non-rival.  E.g. FLOSS.  In the few cases where rival goods are
involved, they're "practically non-rival" within the peer population.
E.g. Rock Horror Picture Show, Burning Man.  I think these
distinctions warrant rigorous discussion and classification, but I
hope this provides enough of my perspective to get back to the "geist
of capitalism."  So, the types of goods we're discussing in a model
makes a huge difference.

I think behavioral and experimental economics provide strong support
for the factors of equity as make-or-break components of any real or
proposed socioeconomic system (and the one most often ignored).  As
near as I can tell, no one's built that case academically without
making libertarian or socialist assumptions... although some have
arrived at it more intuitively (e.g. Chris Cook).  That's why I'm
working on building that case.

Kevin, to clarify, you're talking about "actually-practiced
capitalism" or theoretical capitalism (i.e. the general definition a
place like wikipedia might give it--essentially, private ownership
with a market economy)?  The rest of this email is still a general
reply to the thread, btw.

If we (we being everyone here, not just Kevin) are talking theoretical
captialism, absent are the defining factors that make all the
difference--the legal and social norms (monitoring, enforcing, etc)
that establish equitable ownership.  Those premises are the societal
"context," and without them the discussion is too abstract--without
those essential premises, the conclusion will be one of two extremes:
it will be invalid because it assumes more than its premises state; OR
it will be valid, but so abstract that its validity isn't important.

To predict and acknowledge a fair criticism:  we can't lay out ALL
premises when analyzing something complex, we have to simplify.  I
agree completely, but I think either
1) the important factors of equity are left out entirely from much of
the discussion I see, rather than represented in a simplified form, or
2) they assume agent behavior that is not scientifically recognizable
as human behavior.

In other words, I think equity--parameters of fair ownership between
humans, from individuals to the world as a whole--isn't weighed
heavily enough or carefully enough in analysis, if it's present at
all.  To avoid it is to talk past one another, because so many
assumptions hide deep within it.

I also think the tree metaphor(s) just confuse the issue more.  I
appreciate everyone trying to work with a metaphor for continuity's
sake, but in this case it strikes me as worse than using no metaphor
at all.  (Absolutely no offense meant to those giving it a try, I just
notice that people in general don't abandon metaphors as soon as they
probably should.)

-- Stan

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Kevin Carson
<free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/22/09, Stefan Merten <smerten at oekonux.de> wrote:
>
>>  There are those apple trees (aka captialism or any exchange based
>>  system) and these apple trees have lots of drawbacks. Those advocating
>>  money trickery basically say: Well, though the apple trees are bad
>>  there are these apple tree seeds (aka exchange). If we modify the
>>  seeds somehow the problems with the apple trees will vanish.
>>
>>  Someone who does not believe in money trickery now says: Well, that
>>  position ignores the nature of the apple trees.
>
>>  In short: It is the nature of the apple tree seed (aka exchange) to
>>  end up in an apple tree (aka given the historical circumstances:
>>  capitalism). You are either unable to hinder the nature of the apple
>>  tree seed to become an apple tree or you destroy it altogether.
>
> This contention, that the "tree" of markets and exchange contains
> capitalist DNA, and that exchange will inevitably develop into
> capitalism, has been disputed on this list before--by myself, among
> others--and I don't think you've proven your case.  You have yet to
> demonstrate, IMO, that capitalism is inherent in markets rather than
> being a perverted form of the market that arises from massive state
> intervention on behalf of privileged classes.  And I think the term
> "money trickery" is quite prejudicial, and hardly appropriate for
> describing exchanges between equal producers.
>
> --
> Kevin Carson