[p2p-research] labour, capital and p2p

[Wittel, Andreas]

This is an attempt to revive the debate without using the poisonous apple tree metaphor any longer. Let's start instead with the sun and earth example used by Christian. In his reply Michel says:

 

'This means that the financial and monetary systems have a real relative autonomy and a real influence on behaviour and choices. If this is true then financial and monetary regulations and design make a difference, both in observable reality and in the unseen structural rules.'

 

I would argue that this is what we all thought before the crash. We all thought that financial markets are (1) relatively autonomous from the realm of real production, and (2) anyway much more powerful than real production.

 

But the financial markets crashed and suddenly it becomes clear that both, their strength and their autonomy was a bit of an illusion, similar to the idea of the sun turning around the earth. Financial markets proved to be unsustainable on their own. In order to avoid the collapse of global finance, taxpayer's money is needed. Suddenly capital seems to be very dependent on labour.

 

The question is how this illusion has been created. In my view Richard Wolff comes up with a convincing explanation. http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=139 <http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=139> 

For those who don't want to see the full video, this is what Wolff says in a nutshell (focusing on the US but this would also be true for large parts of Europe): This crisis did not start with banking, but with something else. From the 1820s until the 1970s the workers enjoyed a rising standard of living, meaning: rising real wages. For these 150 years the growth of productivity corresponded with the rising level of real wages. This changed in the early 1970's, when a steadily increasing gap opened between these two graphs. Real wages stopped rising, while productivity continued to rise. Consequently workers had to borrow money and accumulate debts. The workers were given loans. For business however the last few decades have been like paradise. The gap between rising productivity and stagnating wages created spectacular profits. These profits were the precondition for financial markets becoming increasingly powerful. At some point interests from loans became financially more productive than the production of commodities, and so on.

 

If we accept this story, we have to conclude that the increasing domination and independence of the financial market has one main cause: the exploitation of labour power. 

 

So why tinkering at the edges of a monetary system, why creating new ones? How could new monetary systems stop or even diminish the exploitation of labour power? If they can't, why bother? Of course I am not suggesting that work towards a new monetary system should be abandoned in the p2p community. I just don't see the point. I would like to focus my inquiries on the question how the p2p community can contribute to a fairer system of monetary exchange for labour (= value)

 

I don't have any ideas at the moment (or better, I have abstract ideas, e.g. basic income for everybody, e.g. ownership of organisations by the workers and not the shareholders, but don't have a clue how to work towards realising these ideas). I hope that other people in this list have a lot to say about this.

 

To be completely honest, I have some doubts that this goal (a fairer system of exchange) can actually be tackled in the p2p world alone. Open source and p2p communities have achieved mind-blowing results, but so far these are limited to non-rival goods (the digital stuff, software, music, ideas, news and so on). These achievements have been possible because open-source and p2p communities were able to operate largely outside the economy. Two reasons for this: (1) the means of production and distribution for non-rival or digital goods are available to many. (2) So all that is needed to produce and distribute digital things is the value of labour (Marco I know you disagree, I am merely simplifying this to illustrate the difference with material things). Open source and p2p communities are full of enthusiasts who are willing to contribute with their labour to the changes we have experienced, social changes, economic changes, political changes. This labour mostly is free labour.

 

But how far can we go with free labour? As soon as it comes to the housing market, we can't do open source and p2p any more. We need to approach banks and ask for loans and live with debt and pay them back. 

 

I am not really sure where I am going with this: For me open-source and p2p represents a new form of resistance, a very constructive resistance, one that is not any more defined by public protests, and banners, and strike and opposition lone, but simply by doing things without asking anyone for permission and thus changing the world. (This would be my contribution to Ryan's p2p manifesto). But, as said above, this mostly refers to non-rival goods. A fairer exchange system for labour power, I believe, cannot be achieved with a new piece of software and a p2p community of several hundred (or even thousand) enthusiasts that uses this new software tool. For this to happen we need to develop strategies which are aimed at societies at large. Actually this comes across far too opinionated. It really is a question.

 

Andreas

 


This email is intended solely for the addressee.  It may contain private and confidential information.  If you are not the intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone.  In this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error.  Opinions and information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University.
Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free.  This is in keeping with good computing practice.