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

[Michel Bauwens]

hI Christian, thanks for your precisions.

I think I probably do agree with most of your arguments here,

though when you say that such trading eventually leads to capitalism, I have
to disagree, as the historical record shows that such markets  operated for
thousands of years subsumed to broader self-sufficiency oriented production
regimes, probably also regulated to stay limited in scope.

 the current context is even more important

the context is that we now have a fully capitalist system, with a
particularly dysfunctional monetary and financial system, which has an
in-built tendency towards infinite growth and accumulation

the forces that are against this state are relatively weak, and democratic
capitalism has a high degree of acceptance and legitimacy

In this context, replacing this particularly negative protocol, which one
that has much more positive outcomes, should not be judged whether such a
system in isolation would eventually lead to capitalism, but whether in this
concrete context, it leads to a situation which is more acceptable to those
using it.

My take is that taking control of the production of money, using different
design principles, is a definitive advance for a community using them.

I think that here the historical record is quite clear, as you can read for
example in the treatment by Bernard Lietaer:

- civilisations using this type of money where thriving, for example the
first medieval renaissance between the 10th and the 13th century

- cities and regions using them in times of great crisis, such as the
Depression era US, and the same era in Germany, Austria, etc... where doing
very well compared to their surroundings

- and today, the usage of the WIR by 65,000 small businesses in Switzerland
has had a proven and measurable counter-cyclical effect

Despite its marginal size, the LETS movement, and other similar experiences,
are generally producing good results in the communities using them. Despite
their limitations, the growth pattern has been steady.

I think that if we combine this empirical experience, with an integration in
a more systematic endeavour of the 'distribution of everything', in
production of software, energy grids, etc ... that these elements can be
strengthened even more.

In that way, monetary transformation becomes part of a much larger change.

So, in the current context, usage of socially produced money under different
protocols lead to a healthier economic life, is embedded in value systems
that are sympathetic to p2p evolution, and can be regulated to minimize
outcomes such as the one you describe

Finally, in the current context, the aim is not to have a system where the
market is primary, but in the process of a change towards a pluralistic
economy that has as its core the peer to peer logic of non-reciprocal
exchange.

We need to find peer-informed ways of exchange, gift, and centralized
allocation, that are congruent with the peer to peer dynamic, and the direct
social production of money is congruent with that goal.

(If your own system is a superior way to deal with the allocation of scarce
goods, it will be tried and prove itself and be emulated if workable and
succesful, and may then be one of the ways in which an alternative to the
market may emerge)

Michel



On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Christian Siefkes <christian at siefkes.net>wrote:

> 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"
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>


-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090225/107f6c45/attachment-0001.html>