[p2p-research] The difference between anarchism and libertarianism

[Kevin Carson]

On 7/16/09, Stefan Merten <smerten at oekonux.de> wrote:

>  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 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.

I think you're getting the causality backward here.  The
exchange-based system isn't created to "protect" or "lock in"
scarcity; it is also a way of dealing with scarcity when it exists by
nature.  The prior question is whether the scarcity is natural or
artificial.

>  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?

I generally bristle at talk of "turning back the clock" because it
presupposes, at least tacitly, a sort of chronological chauvinism or
"Whig Theory of History":  that what came earlier is outmoded by the
progressive march of history, and that what came later must be more
"advanced."

But a great deal of progress is rediscovering what worked earlier,
after it was buried in a state capitalist interlude.  For example
raised bed horticulture of John Jeavons, the most efficient form of
food production ever invented in terms of output per acre, is an
improved version of the eotechnic horticultural techniques of market
gardeners in NW Europe.

And money is a logical way to deal with scarcity, in the sense that
replication of goods carries a labor cost, in an economy of
worker-owned production.


>  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.

>  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.

Probably not.  But if there's no use repeating the debate, then
there's no use getting in your own opening shot from the original
debate, and then cutting it off with "but there's no use in repeating
all that."

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

Because there is not a simple dichotomy between scarcity and
abundance.  There are degrees of scarcity.  Reduced physical outlay
costs for physical production, more efficient ways of using spare
cycles, and reduced transaction costs of aggregating small capitals to
buy expensive producer goods mean that "free speech," in the realm of
physical production, also involves making the beer at least a lot
cheaper if not free.

And if markets (not capitalism!) coexist with peer production in your
hybrid situation, it's better they be markets that reflect only
natural scarcity, without artificial scarcity making them worse.  If
money must exist in a hybrid situation, it's better that it be money
that isn't artificialloy scarce and doesn't carry a monopoly charge
for its use.

You seem to be arguing that all money is equally bad, and all markets
are equally bad, and therefore there's no reason to try to make them
better in hybrid situations where they must exist.

But of course I keep forgetting:  arguing that some money rules are
better and less exploitative than others, and that money rules are not
simply neutral, is dangerously close to anti-Semitism.

-- 
Kevin Carson
Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
Mutualist Blog:  Free Market Anti-Capitalism
http://mutualist.blogspot.com
Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html
Organization Theory:  A Libertarian Perspective
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html