[p2p-research] Abstract exchange (was: Re: The difference between anarchism and libertarianism)

[Stefan Merten]

Hi Patrick!

Yesterday Patrick Anderson wrote:
>> Stefan Merten wrote:
>>>  [scarcity] is not unneccessary for an exchange based system
>>> because otherwise the exchange based system you mention
>>> would not need to protect it.
> 
> Stefan,
> By "exchange based system" are you talking about *any* form of
> trade, or are you talking about the "for-profit" subset that attempts
> to maximize "exchange value"?

Well, when I say "exchange based system" I mean a system based on
*abstract* exchange. An abstract exchange is a transaction where one
thing is exchanged for another by two independent parties [#]_.

.. [#] I.e. not "generalized exchange". I think this concept does not
       help us understanding what's going on. IMHO the concept of
       "generalized exchange" is made for people who can't grasp that
       there are flows of goods without exchange mediating the flow.

The abstraction now comes from two sources. One is the independent
parties - typically two market participants - have nothing to do with
each other beyond the exchange. I.e. they are not bound by social ties
[#]_.

.. [#] Social ties like they existed in feudal systems or they do
       exist in small groups where social ties govern even the
       exchange.

       Of course it was a major emancipatory step of capitalism to
       make these ties superfluous. In fact this emancipatory success
       is something a new society has to keep.

The second source is in the exchange itself. If two independent
parties want to exchange things then the question arises on what basis
this exchange is done. You need to have a common denominator of the
two things to make them comparable at all and for two independent
parties you have to make a comparison. However, two arbitrary things
have no concrete common denominator. Or in other words: There use
value is different. Thus they can not be compared on the basis of
their concrete features [#]_.

.. [#] That is also the point why I think "concrete exchange" is not a
       concept which makes any sense. Thus IMHO it is ok to drop the
       "abstract" in abstract exchange.

So to actually do an exchange you need a quality beyond the concrete
features of the things which are going to be exchanged. This quality
is called the (exchange) value of those things. In labor based
societies this is the dead labor contained in the two things. This
dead labor is (more or less) expressed by money [#]_.

.. [#] Please note that money is only an *expression* of the
       (exchange) value. That is why barter doesn't change the rules
       of the game - it only makes things more complicated.

The nice thing about money is that - if it shall make sense at all -
it is power: With more money you can buy more things. Or to put it in
terms of rights as Michel seemingly prefers: More money gives you more
rights (to make use of dead labor of others) [#]_.

.. [#] Obviously a situation where everyone can create as much power
       as s/he likes at any time makes power a useless concept.

Because of these two abstractions the actual exchange is only loosely
bound to both the concrete features of the thing and the exchanging
parties. Together with the power money gives you this leads to a
situation where you have a strong incentive to get the highest
possible price for your good. This is the incentive profit is based
on. And profit is - as you can easily conclude - the backing of
interest [#]_.

.. [#] As you may note you need absolutely no state for these simple
       conclusions given you understand the dynamics of abstract
       exchange.

       The state comes in after these abstractions are well
       established. In particular the state guarantees by its power
       monopoly that not everyone can create as much power / money as
       s/he wants and thus keeps money making sense.

One common way trying to break the abstractions is to make the parties
dependent on each other. Or in other words: to create social ties. If
I got you right this is the approach you are favoring, Patrick. I
simply think this doesn't work in societies of our size and given the
global interconnections between flows of goods [#]_. Humans are not
made for social ties which bind the population of a whole planet.

.. [#] Apart from that this has been tried not only in various
       alternative projects but also in former Yugoslavia. Neither of
       these examples were appealing enough to change things on a
       large scale.

       At the very least someone who favors such models needs to
       explain why these examples failed and how her model improves on
       these examples.

The other common way trying to break the abstractions is that you try
to define (exchange) value differently leading to the most confusing
concepts of value. IMHO this can only work if the basis of the society
is no longer (abstract) labor [#]_. But if this basis is removed I
wonder what abstract exchange is good for at all.

.. [#] Abstract labor is a situation where the thing you want to
       exchange is your labor power.

       In this example you can easily see how the abstractions work:
       It doesn't matter for whom you labor (independence of parties)
       and it doesn't matter what your labor actually is (abstraction
       from the thing). Especially the latter abstraction is the
       opposite of emancipation.

In fact I think the abstraction needed to make the abstract exchange
take place at all is really impossible to overcome by any means. Even
if the abstraction is based on something different than labor you
still have the incentive to maximize profit - where some forms of are
fought so fiercely in this community while others are simply accepted
as given...

If we think of emancipation - and that is what drives me here - then
the only change is to overcome abstract exchange altogether. The only
solution for this I can see is to have a flow of goods in a
generalized commons. And peer production is an important step in this
direction.


						Grüße

						Stefan