[p2p-research] Fwd: [ox-en] No more money trickery propaganda please
Michel Bauwens
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Thu May 14 10:49:41 CEST 2009
Hi Athina,
Thanks for this, quite clarifying, I think it's certainly worthwhile trying
to keep the personal conflict out of the public debate, though not always
easy to practice.
I see you poised to become a very efficient cyber-mediator!!
Michel
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k at gmail.com>wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I just wanted to say that it seems to me here there is an interwining of
> three conflictual situations here if it helps making sense of it at all:
>
> One conflict involving *content*: the monetary debate, and this must be
> encouraged to continue and flourish whoever, and wherevever the participants
> may be in the future.
>
> A second involving *process of exchange of ideas/content*: which list is
> carrying it off, who is on it, who is leaving it and why, and for example
> why if the 'leader' of a list is not interested in a subject or is angry
> should the conversation not continue in that list, issues of censorship and
> self-censorship etc. This one has to be managed by the moderators and
> founders of the different groups publicly or not depending how they operate.
>
> Third, involves the *human relationship and the friendship*, about which I
> think Michel and Stefan can deliberate in private and not in public. It is
> their relationship and their responsibility. We should all stay out of that,
> unless we are explicitly asked to help.
>
> We are all interested in content and argumentation, and process, [more or
> less depending on how its is argued and debated], but the rest is a private
> matter, and I would suggest to continue the first two and drop the third
> conflict as one to be resolved as and when the two people see each other in
> person. We all know as users and as researchers that this kind of computer
> mediated interaction can be sometimes unessarily intense compared to
> face-to-face.
>
> Thanks
>
> Athina
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> In the coming days, I will try to process what happened at Oekonux, and I
>> will attempt to do so by writing about the social process and ideas, not
>> your person. It will be important for me to indicate which difference has
>> been crucial in creating that conflict and what the social mechanism behind
>> it is.
>>
>> But obviously I know have a problem with an environment that creates a
>> taboo around a certain topic, which for me is a sign of religious
>> functioning and not rational, and protects that taboo through the threat of
>> an accusation of a grave form of human oppression.
>>
>> It is very important to me that an open debate remains possible.
>>
>> So a few responses. Yes, I have indicated time and again, and invited you
>> to change or stop that usage. But since you don't want to accept the
>> legitimacy of monetary transformation, I can't suggest another term for you,
>> you will have to come up with one yourself.
>>
>> You confirm that you asked to not have an open inquiry about a certain
>> topic, though yes, you expressed this in a moderate manner. The closure of
>> debate is unacceptable for me, though I will refrain from participation in
>> list-en, since it is a taboo subject there, triggering outbursts and
>> personal conflicts. There are many other places where open inquiry can take
>> place without having such effects.
>>
>> This I find particulary intruguing, who could have ever said what you
>> claim, see your citation just below, since the very argument of the monetary
>> re-design communities is that it is the interest itself, which favours
>> accumulation? Surely you must know that only children can believe in the
>> tooth fairy and that money would grow under a cushion? It really baffles me
>> you could come up with something like that.
>>
>> So please if you can reference a quote of anyone on list-en having said
>> that, I would be very very curious.
>>
>> (your citation: "If someone states that you can keep money and get
>> interest for it at
>> the same time then it is absolutely obvious that this is wrong. The
>> money in my pocket does not raise any interest neither does the money
>> under my cushion. Only if I do *not* keep my money but give it away
>> then I can get interest for it.")
>>
>> Stefan, I just want to remind you how the process of dialogue went. Yes,
>> we are different in our appreciation, but those of us who have inquired into
>> monetary design issues have never used demeaning words towards your position
>> as far as I now, or at least not systematically. Using it once is very
>> different from using it systematically. Anyway, people just ignored it
>> though it did become an issue for me at the end, and I invited you to change
>> that. Then, triggered by Christian Siefkes discussion of the issue, I
>> responded by mentioning an overview of the arguments,
>>
>> This was the article:
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/there-is-such-a-thing-as-peer-money/2009/05/09.
>> This article is a reasoned overview of the arguments about why monetary
>> reform and peer-aggregated financial mechanisms. If I'm not mistaken is to
>> this article that you responded with the famous "Stop this Propaganda" and
>> your famous phrase that anyone thinking that interest can generate more
>> money must be a fool (though you are now phrasing it differently by accusing
>> your opponents of thinking that money grows out of cushions, I hope you
>> will soon realize how laughable such an accusation is).
>>
>> I don't think neither you nor me are monetary experts, we are interested
>> lay people and activist trying to make sense of the general world situation.
>> Nevertheless, I claim to have informed myself on this topic, and I claim
>> that the Peer Money article is a reasoned argument (which of course can be
>> mistaken) and not unacceptable propaganda.
>>
>> Before concluding with an interesting development on the above analysis, I
>> just want to make sure you understand my plan. I probably want to spend a
>> week or two processing what has happened, and why Oekonux seems to have
>> reached a dead end deciding that open inquiry is not acceptable. Then, I
>> want to lay the issue and our personal conflict to rest, and hopefully, time
>> will hava a 'healing' effect. But I must admit the feeling I have is like
>> one of divorce, the painful but inevitable separation. Sometimes in such a
>> process, you feel obliged to push the person a way, to sever the painful
>> emotional ties. It is sometimes necessary as a transition to move to a
>> post-divorce friendship. So let's hope for that, but realizing it may not
>> happen immediately.
>>
>> So, here is the development I wanted to conclude with, showing how serious
>> and expert neo-marxist economists are coming to the same conclusion as the
>> P2P Foundation on the topic of the importance of peer-aggregated finance.
>>
>> Here's the entry, at
>>
>>
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/peer-money-as-the-solution-for-sudden-system-stock/2009/05/14
>>
>> Peer Money as the Solution for Sudden System Stock<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/peer-money-as-the-solution-for-sudden-system-stock/2009/05/14>
>> [image: photo of Michel Bauwens]Michel Bauwens
>> 14th May 2009
>>
>> “Bank finance has nothing to do with either saving or investment. Banks
>> create liquidity ex nihilo, and the entrepreneurs’ opportunity to
>> materialize their plans is not an issue that can be decided by savers. In
>> the real world, entrepreneurial plans depend upon bankers’ choices.”
>>
>> The latest issue of the European Journal of Economic and Social Systems<http://ejess.revuesonline.com/article.jsp?articleId=13141>deals specifically with the issue of “
>> *Money and Machinery*”, i.e. *what is the role of money and finance in
>> the development of our economic system*.
>>
>> Guest editors are *Andrea Fumagalli and Stefano Lucarelli* known for
>> their work in analyzing the mechanics of cognitive capitalism<http://p2pfoundation.net/Cognitive_Capitalism>
>> .
>>
>> Their introduction<http://ejess.revuesonline.com/article.jsp?articleId=13142>is entitled,
>> *Money and Technological Change The Role of Financing in the Process of
>> Evolution*, and is very much worth reading.
>>
>> In a gist, the topic of study is:
>>
>> *“The purpose of “Money and technological change” is to collect a number
>> of papers focusing on the understanding of how credit and finance systems
>> effectively operate. At the same time, the papers address the issue
>> concerning both their role in shaping firms’ innovative strategies and
>> determining their performances. Our scope is to show that capitalism is a
>> monetary economy of production in continuous evolution.”*
>>
>> *In their introductory essay, they discuss a very important contribution,
>> that shows the crucial role that peer money will play in the next wave of
>> development.*
>>
>> The essay in question is:
>>
>> *Badalian L., Krivorotov V., “Technological shift and the rise of a new
>> finance system<http://ejess.revuesonline.com/article.jsp?articleId=13147>:
>> the market-pendulum model”, European Journal of Economic and Social Systems,
>> Vol. 21, No. 2, 2008, p. 231-264.*
>>
>> This essay is an update on the research and theories on long waves of
>> development, as developed by Schumpeter and Kondratieff, as also recently
>> updated by Carlota Perez in het book Technological Revolutions and
>> Financial Capital<http://p2pfoundation.net/Carlota_Perez_on_Technological_Revolutions_and_Financial_Capital>.
>>
>>
>> In short, capitalist development is market by long cycles of about 50-60
>> years. In the first dynamic phase, a number of combined technological
>> innovations is matched to crucial financial innovations, which provide the
>> necessary investment vehicles, so that innovation can occur. But in the
>> second phase, the very pathologies of financialization undercut growth,
>> inevitably leading to a *Systemic Sudden Stop*, i.e. the very crisis we
>> are going through.
>>
>> *For a new wave to occur, a new set of technological innovations must be
>> matched by a new finance system.*
>>
>> Here is the crucial paragraph:
>>
>> *“The authors define market equilibrium as a period when the market
>> functions at full capacity, and show that this lasts for only a few decades
>> in the mid-movement of a pendulum. As supply-demand imbalances gradually
>> increase, there is a Systemic Sudden Stop (3S), that is, a profound market
>> failure, with scenarios ranging from the stagflation of the 1980s, the Great
>> Depression of the 1930s, and similarly dramatic events in our past and
>> present. These diverse situations were united by a simple fact – purely
>> market-related forces could not resolve them on their own, starting long
>> downturns, or worse, revolutions and wars. The implementation of a radically
>> new technology able to restart growth after a 3S depends on finding a
>> brand-new Accumulation Engine. Badalian and Krivorotov’s market-pendulum
>> shows that the great historic shifts in technology and economic development
>> were caused by the exhaustion of territory under domestication and its
>> ability to feed many more people within a globalizing world. The need for
>> more supplies pushed toward the cultivation of former wastelands, by
>> developing radical technologies able to raise their output. The need in
>> scale efficiencies then flipped the situation to shortages of demand. In
>> this approach, financial systems play a crucial role. Historically, the
>> challenge of living off a much harsher environment required great
>> investments, with uncertain prospects of returns. The authors show that the
>> 2008 crisis may be indicating the upper limits of the US- style financial
>> system, overstretched to its extreme by the sheer size of the globalizing
>> world. This is causing a 3S of an immense size while calling for new forms
>> of financing, much more powerful in their capacity to raise funds and
>> motivate the population.”*
>>
>> *But where could such a new system of financing come from?*
>>
>> The answers of the authors are surprising, and create a juncture with our
>> own work investigating monetary transformation<http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Money>and peer-based
>> currency alternatives<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/there-is-such-a-thing-as-peer-money/2009/05/09%5C>
>> .
>>
>> Fumagalli does not provide details of the alternatives described but
>> quotes from Badalian and Krivorotov when they conclude:
>>
>> *“Surprisingly, these financing mechanisms, in their early form, might be
>> available already, presenting a resurrection of old communal customs. Their
>> diversity mirrors the variation of the local geo-climatic conditions
>> including Sovereign Wealth Funds, community selfhelp groups, grassroots
>> organizations, self-organizing virtual marketplaces on the Internet and
>> other self-organizing commons.”*
>>
>> I am of course heartened by these conclusions which confirm the importance
>> of continuing to monitor and study the field of monetary innovation.
>>
>> And please note that the authors make a crucial analytical step:
>>
>> *far from seeing the new monetary innovation as mere defensive measures
>> against the metldown, undertaken by local communities and affinity groups to
>> become more resilient, they are actually seeing it as a crucial step in the
>> radical reformation of the political economy, a conditio sine qua non for a
>> new long wave of development to occur.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Stefan Merten <smerten at oekonux.de>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Michel!
>>>
>>> Today Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>> > I have to my knowledge not said anyting which isn't true.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> I think I have to believe you. So ok, you did not lie. But please
>>> believe me that your knowledge is very limited here. I'll use this
>>> mail to outline this in this community because probably not all
>>> followed [ox-en].
>>>
>>> > You have consistently used the term of money trickery to demain the
>>> monetary
>>> > reform movement, true or not?
>>>
>>> I used the term "money trickery" because IMHO it describes the nature
>>> of what you are relating to very well. I have no better term for this
>>> since IMHO the term "monetary reform" is already part of the problem.
>>>
>>> If that is all you have a problem with then I'm sorry and grateful for
>>> a matching but neutral term you can accept.
>>>
>>> > You have tried to impose your diktat against this theme in the
>>> discussion on
>>> > the book, true or not?
>>>
>>> No. In fact I said
>>>
>>> > If you would be able
>>> > to omit this topic [named above] altogether I really would be grateful
>>> because this
>>> > to me is really a showstopper.
>>>
>>> I think all the victims of dictators would be glad if their dictator
>>> would have talked to them so friendly.
>>>
>>> > You have used terms like propaganda and esotericism to characterize
>>> > arguments for monetary reform, true or not?
>>>
>>> If someone states that you can keep money and get interest for it at
>>> the same time then it is absolutely obvious that this is wrong. The
>>> money in my pocket does not raise any interest neither does the money
>>> under my cushion. Only if I do *not* keep my money but give it away
>>> then I can get interest for it.
>>>
>>> If then someone continues to state obvious nonsense like this then I
>>> reserve the right to call *this statement* propaganda / esotericism,
>>> yes. As a maintainer of the Oekonux project in Oekonux it is even my
>>> duty.
>>>
>>> And no the keeping-money-and-getting-interest is not a unimportant
>>> detail in this debate. It is rather all or nothing. But since you
>>> probably did not understand all the other stuff it is really pointless
>>> to go on.
>>>
>>> Anyway I have far more important things to do than to discuss this
>>> topic any longer. I said what I think is necessary and you either take
>>> it or leave it. I can take your position though it is probably harder
>>> for me than for you to do the same vice versa. I can live with this
>>> difference and you may want to try to see it similarly.
>>>
>>> > You have hinted that talk about monetary reform is related to
>>> anti-semitism?
>>>
>>> I once said that especially the criticism on interest is in danger in
>>> inviting interpretations you probably don't want - especially
>>> anti-semitic ones. I did this in a case where the criticism on
>>> interest was accompanied by Nazi rhetoric - and I never did before. In
>>> fact there is lots of historical evidence to this and I think during
>>> the financial crisis it is easy to see how easy this connection can be
>>> refreshed.
>>>
>>> You scandalized this and still label this as tactics. I don't think
>>> such scandalization is useful in such a debate and to label this as
>>> tactics is really mean. But I believe you really did not understand
>>> the whole point.
>>>
>>> BTW: I never was an Anti-Deutscher and did not like them at all.
>>> Nonetheless there are important insights on the structure of
>>> anti-semitism in this debate. Among them is - AFAICS - that racism is
>>> different from anti-semitism - which you equated recently. As Andreas
>>> said: in the country of those who did the atrocities the Left is
>>> probably a bit more sensible about these topics.
>>>
>>> > I have said nothing else that what you yourself have stated and is
>>> easily
>>> > documented.
>>>
>>> Well, see above. I now gave my perspective on things also in this
>>> community and (I hope) this is my final word on the topic of [named
>>> above].
>>>
>>> > It is you who have stopped the dialogue at the list,
>>>
>>> That is wrong. You unsubscribed from [ox-en] while I stayed here.
>>>
>>> > so where else can I
>>> > react then on the p2p list?
>>>
>>> Feel free.
>>>
>>> > Please be responsible for your own choices and decisions.
>>>
>>> I am.
>>>
>>> > This being said, it is true I am upset and may be in a period where it
>>> is
>>> > hard to me to see the silver ligning and the future cooperation.
>>> Sometimes,
>>> > often, conflicts are more acute with people who are very similar. and
>>> this
>>> > seems what has happened to us.
>>>
>>> I don't think we are very similar. I like you as a friend but I think
>>> we are quite different in many respects. At least this is my way to
>>> explain to myself why it is so hard to agree on this topic of [named
>>> above]. But that I see as a challenge and grounds for a fruitful
>>> cooperation - which IMHO we already had and I enjoyed.
>>>
>>> > I am conflicted between the desire for cooperation, and what I think
>>> should
>>> > be demanded in civil cooperation, i.e. stopping to use demeaning terms
>>> in
>>> > the conversation.
>>>
>>> See above.
>>>
>>> > I also find it very difficult to keep an artificial boundary between
>>> > obviously related subjects, just because you are declaring them
>>> off-limits,
>>>
>>> Well, I think in the recent debate on [ox-en] it became really clear
>>> that exchange in general is opposed to openness and thus the [named
>>> above] stuff at the very least does not support peer production.
>>>
>>> So to me there is no relation. Since I'm interested in peer production
>>> (i.e. open and based on Selbstentfaltung), its embedding in existing
>>> societies and expansion of peer production to create a society based
>>> on it to me discussing exchange based systems as something you can
>>> hope for is a waste of time.
>>>
>>> > so I rather say nothing anymore than continuously impose
>>> self-censorship.
>>>
>>> Michel, this is really childish. You have so many interesting things
>>> to say beyond the [named above].
>>>
>>> > So I think it is better to aim for a pause, and let time heal the
>>> wounds,
>>>
>>> Fine with me. You know where you find me. I'll wait.
>>>
>>>
>>> Grüße
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr Athina Karatzogianni
> Lecturer in Media, Culture and Society
> The Dean's Representative (Chinese Partnerships)
> Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
> The University of Hull
> United Kingdom
> HU6 7RX
> T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790
> F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107
> http://www.hull.ac.uk/humanities/media_studies/staff/athina_karatzogianni/
>
>
>
--
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/20090514/15ad2562/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list