[p2p-research] Fwd: Launch of Abundance: The Journal of Post-Scarcity Studies, preliminary plans

[Christian Siefkes]

Michel,

Michel Bauwens wrote:
> In the argument below, you are (unwittingly?) contradicting yourself,
> 
> you say that trading would inevitably lead to all social ills associated
> with capitalism,
> 
> yet you admit very clearly:
> 
> <If they had
> some means of production, it would usually make more sense for them to
> employ these means and sell the *results of their labor*, rather than
> selling their *labor power*, since in that way they can realize the full
> value produced by their labor, not just the value of their labor power. >
> 
> which means, in plain english, that they would trade.

Yes, they would trade, and initially their trading wouldn't be capitalistic,
since labor is not available for hire. But assuming that trade/exchange is
their primary way of organizing production, capitalism would ultimately
result, since some of the producers would go bankrupt, they would lose their
direct access to the means of production and be forced to sell their labor
power. If none of the other producers is rich enough to hire them, they
would be unlucky and starve (or be forced to turn to other ways of survival
such as robbery/thievery, prostitution, or begging--which is what we also
saw as a large-scale phenomenon with the emergence of capitalism, and which
we still see in so-called developing countries where there is not enough
capital to hire all or most of the available labor power). But if there are
other producers/people would *can* hire them, the seed of capitalism with
it's capitalist/worker divide is laid.

Of course, the emerging class of capitalists won't be just passive
bystanders watching this process happen. Since they need a sufficiently
large labor force, and since independent producers are unwanted competition
for them, they'll actively try to turn the latter into the former. Means for
doing so are enclosure/privatization laws that deprive the independent
producers of their means of productions, technical progress that makes it
harder for them to compete (esp. if expensive machines are required which
they simple lack the money to buy), other laws that increase the overhead
for independent producers (e.g. high bookkeeping requirements), creation of
big sales points that non-capitalist producers don't have access to
(department stores etc.), simple overproduction that drives small-scale
producers (who can't stand huge losses) out of the market, etc. But even if
they were passive bystanders (which is an unrealistic assumption), the
conversion of independent producers into workers forced to sell their labor
power would still take place through the simple laws of the market, which
cause some producers to fail and go bankrupt.

So whenever you start with trade as the primary way of production, you'll
sooner or later end up with capitalism. It's not a contradiction, it's a
process.

> You conflate two things, trade and markets, and capitalism. I have never
> seen that Marx did that, since he explicitely defines capitalism as
> requiring the expropriation of the means of production from the majority
> of the population.

Yes, and he also says that trade (as the primary way of production) would
necessarily cause this expropriation (see above). That's why he could knew,
with absolute certainty, that a post-capitalist way of production (which he
denoted as "communism") would *not* be based on trade (or at least not
primarly). If it *was* based on trade, it would inevitable revert to
capitalism, and so it wouldn't be "post-capitalist" after all.

> Markets, outside of a capitalist framework, as they existed for
> thousands of years on a local and regional basis, did not constitute
> capitalism, and did not have the same effects.

Yes, but these markets were never the primary way of organizing production.
Markets played only a minor rule for the exchange of surplus produce and
some specialized items (e.g. luxury goods), people didn't depend on them for
their survival.

There has never been a society where production was organized *primarily*
through markets/trade/exchange, and which wasn't capitalistic (or turned
into capitalism quickly enough). Marx shows that the non-existence of such
societies is not just a historical coincidence, but a logical necessity.

Best regards
	Christian

-- 
|-------- Dr. Christian Siefkes --------- christian at siefkes.net ---------
|   Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/   |   Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
|   Better Bayesian Analysis:           |   Peer Production Everywhere:
|   http://bart-project.com/            |   http://peerconomy.org/wiki/
|------------------------------------------ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be
afraid of their people.
        -- V, in "V for Vendetta"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090225/3f905a02/attachment.bin>