[p2p-research] The difference between anarchism and libertarianism

[Stefan Merten]

Hi Michel!

Last month (28 days ago) Michel Bauwens wrote:
> 2009/6/17 Stefan Merten <smerten at oekonux.de>
>> Well, I'd go one step further: Money *encodes* scarcity (where
>> scarcity means a man-made limitation). If you want to end up at
>> commons (i.e. absense of scarcity) you have simply no more use for
>> money.
> 
> 
> Hi Stefan, this means that you disagree with the thesis of Raoul Victor,
> based on historical research, that money re-appeared even when there were
> attempts to abolish it, in order to deal with scarcity .. see for example
> the situation in prisons, where cigarettes are used as currency

Well, first it doesn't matter much to me with whom I agree or
disagree. I see all this as a processof learning and who learns
something earlier is rather irrelevant here.

Second I do not see that I do actually disagree with what you
paraphrased. When I say that money encodes scarcity then it is quite
logical that in situations where scarcity is created - may be using
limitations - then it is quite logical that money comes up as a form
to encode this scarcity. But money is of course not the only form. For
instance open force can be used to encode scarcity instead of a
structural force like money.

> I would rather take the position of Roberto Verzola, i.e. there is a
> polarity  between abundance/non-rivalry and scarcity/rivalry, whereby money
> encodes unneccessary scarcity and whereby the current market mechanisms
> actively create and protect scarcity even where it is not necessary.

I don't understand what unneccessary scarcity is. If you say
unneccessary then the question is unneccessary for whom? In particular
it is not unneccessary for an exchange based system because otherwise
the exchange based system you mention would not need to protect it.

As often before the words you are using are puzzling me because IMHO
they are not precise enough creating unnecessary confusion.

>> 5 days ago Sm ári McCarthy wrote:
>> > Usury, or interest, creates an interesting situation in the monetary
>> > system.
>> 
>> Here your analysis starts to get wrong. Interest does not create a
>> situation in the monetary system but is created by a monetary system.
> 
> 
> This is historically incorrect, most historical currencies had negative
> interest rates. In the West, there was a long fight, from the 12th century
> onwards, to legitimize interests and usury, a fight only 'won' after the
> Reformation and Calvin's re-interpretations

Well, that is a point I thought we clarified back on [ox-en]. You have
to take into account historical conditions and in particular for money
the historical conditions changed massively with capitalism - and the
ideological tunes accompanying this move you are mentioning.

Put simply: If we think of a post-capitalist society then there is no
use in relating to pre-capitalist money. You can not turn back the
clock of history. And frankly I do not wish to turn back the clock to
a situation where pre-capitalist money makes any sense. Or would you
agree with a society dominated by Christianity?

>> But then: What do we need money for at all?
> 
> There are many situations in which alternative allocation methods may not be
> possible, may not be socially accepted, and as Raoul Victor argued, 'money'
> would appear

May be. But the same goes for warlords in so-called failed states.
They also apply an alternative allocation method. I'd agree, however,
that the rule of warlords has the same use as money.

>>   I wholeheartedly suggest that you just look at peer
>> production. Scarcity is no part of peer production. And thus money is
>> not missing.
> 
> yes, but then it only exists, so far, for immaterial production ... I'm sure
> Smari is very aware of that .. so he's talking about situations where that
> doesn't apply (yet)

I don't think that immaterial vs. material production puts it right.
If this distinction would be true then it must apply to all
information products. But in fact there are lots and lots of
information products which are expensive to create - for instance near
distance pictures from a planet in the solar system.

The relevant question seems to me whether the necessary means of
production for a certain product are available.

>> By using computers you move the authorities into the machine. Code is
>> law - already forgotten? You can not remove authorities by moving them
>> into a computer program.
> 
> No, but you can make rule or code-making democratic, either outside or
> within computers ...
> 
> This is what protocollary power and value-conscious design is about. When
> you design free software or network services, you implicitely encode  values
> and rules; you can now understand why this is also the case with money. This
> is why we need free software, open standards, data portability, privacy
> protections etc...

To paint the right picture: You can modify an apple tree - sure. But
an apple tree stays an apple tree and if you want pork then an apple
tree doesn't help you. We had that debate in depth on [ox-en] and
there is no use in repeating it here.

>> Money is either scarce or it makes no sense. It follows that if you
>> want to overcome scarcity money makes no sense.
> 
> Again, there is no black and white separation between abundance and
> scarcity, so you necessarily have to deal with hybrid situations

I still have no idea why in hybrid situations a simple co-existance of
peer production and capitalism doesn't suffice.

>> No. Anarchism is a concept related to capitalism. For instance
>> equality is a fundamental value in capitalist societies. Equality is a
>> concept to deal with scarcity and limitations. The future is peer
>> production. Equality will simply be no topic any more in peer
>> production.
>> 
>> 
> There is some truth to that assertion, but then only some. Capitalism is
> theoretically based on an equality of rights, but not on its realization in
> practice. So the social movements of the 19th century arose, promising to
> turn the legal fiction into an actual reality.

As a supporter of money you should know that this is weird to say the
least. To a large degree money determines what rights you have and as
long as you want money you are not ready to change exactly this. If
you remove this feature from money it is again pointless.

> But peer production today is arising as an emergent phenomena within a sea
> of scarcity and inequality, and by itself, though it practices
> 'equipotentiality' (not equality), it does not care and does not offer any
> solution to the really existing inequalities, it simply ignores
> them.

And that is fine by me. Why should the next mode of production solve
the problems of the current mode of production *inside* the old mode?
If it does then fine but the real obligation for a new mode of
production is to come about and overcome the old system.

> If you
> are starving, you can't rely on any peer producing community to assist you,
> unless it is allied with a cooperative or other production system that also
> insures social reproduction of peer producers lives.

As long as most of life is based on non-peer-production you have to
have success in this system - sure. Peer production is not a facility
to solve all the problems of the world right now and I doubt that such
a magical device you seem to look for can exist.

> So, more in general, your attitude is problematic, you are generalizing from
> a marginal (though important and bound to grow) practice, pretending as it
> is the whole of society, so that we can simply ignore all existing problems,
> you are asking us to 'open your eyes' to an utopian possibility, at the
> price of denying complex realities.

Sorry, Michel, but this is not true. I just say that these are
separate things and you should not confuse one with the other. IMHO it
is in everyone's discretion to engage in this, that or in both. But
confusing separate things helps nobody.

> The reality is that we have to seek solutions, practical solutions for
> social reproduction and survival, in a hybrid reality, and find either a
> solution within the existing capitalist market (as you are doing in your own
> life), or in counter-hegemonic alternatives, that either already exist or
> should be created.

Well, though you are free to seek solutions of all kinds I don't have
to (though I did quite actively for 10+ years). I'd appreciate if you
could accept my decision.


						Grüße

						Stefan