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

Sat Jul 18 10:14:09 CEST 2009

to put it very simply, there are different ways in which this 'abstract
exchange' can 'concretely happen' and this depends in part on the design of
the exchange mechanism itself ...

the argument against social ties is valid, but the current reality is that
we can create not one, but multiple currency systems, which are no longer
solely created by banks, or controlled by central banks, but rather socially
produced by bounded communities ...

These multi-currencies can exists next to national general currencies or
even a global general currency, and ways can be found to make them
interexchangeable

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Stefan Merten <smerten at oekonux.de> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090718/e896620e/attachment-0001.html>