[p2p-research] Fwd: [Commoning] Re(monolithic concepts?): Re(exchange versus market-s): Re(market-as-place, exchange, value, state): Re(markets w

[Michel Bauwens]

documentation for a debate on the commoning list, on markets without
capitalism

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Commoning] Re(monolithic concepts?): Re(exchange versus
market-s): Re(market-as-place, exchange, value, state): Re(markets w
To: Andreas Exner <andreas.exner at chello.at>
Cc: commoning at lists.wissensallmende.de, m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk


some added documentation on the debate:

http://p2pfoundation.net/Self_Managed_Market_Socialism

http://p2pfoundation.net/Market_3.0

http://p2pfoundation.net/Market_Socialism

http://p2pfoundation.net/Market

http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_-_Market_Aspects
http://p2pfoundation.net/Non-market_Activities

http://p2pfoundation.net/Market_Anarchism

http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Market_Economy

http://p2pfoundation.net/Non-market_Economics

http://p2pfoundation.net/Non-capitalist_Markets_-_Sylvio_Gesell

http://p2pfoundation.net/Non-capitalist_Markets

http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism


from the last entry:


Following the relational typology of Alan Page Fiske, there are four
intersubjective modes which have existed cross-culturally and historically:
equality matching (gift economy), authority ranking (feudal-type
structures), market pricing, and communal shareholding (according to us:
P2P). Societies have always been a mix, but it can be argued that
historically we have seen a succession of dominant forms: the gift economy
in the tribal era, authority ranking in feudalism, market pricing in
capitalism, and my hypothesis is that communal shareholding forms may
dominate in a future 'P2P-oriented era'.

But if they have always co-existed, it may be illusory to aim for a
stateless and marketless society, rather, we should expect states and
markets informed and dominated by P2P principles. A current example is fair
trade, a form of market that aims to become independent of pure power
relations by negotiating with both producers and consumers.

The open questions is therefore: can we have markets without the
unsustainability of the capitalist format and its attendent biospheric
destruction and social and psychic dislocation?

To answer this question, we can also look to theoreticians of the past, such
as Sylvio Gesell, or to more contemporary thinkers such as Erik Olin Wright
and the tradition of left libertarianism represented by Kevin Carson at
Mutualist.org.



   Contents[hide]

   - 1 Silvio Gesell<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism#Silvio_Gesell>
   - 2 Eric Olin Wright's Market
Socialism<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism#Eric_Olin_Wright.27s_Market_Socialism>
   - 3 Discussion<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism#Discussion>
      - 3.1 Kevin
Carson<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism#Kevin_Carson>
         - 3.1.1 A proposed market strategy against corporate
capitalism<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism#A_proposed_market_strategy_against_corporate_capitalism>
         - 3.1.2 Free-Market Policies for
Development<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism#Free-Market_Policies_for_Development>
      - 3.2 Roderick
Long<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism#Roderick_Long>
         - 3.2.1 Semantic Difficulties with the use of concepts like Markets
         and Capitalism<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism#Semantic_Difficulties_with_the_use_of_concepts_like_Markets_and_Capitalism>
      - 3.3 Dmytri
Kleiner<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism#Dmytri_Kleiner>
         - 3.3.1 A Proper Place for
Markets<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism#A_Proper_Place_for_Markets>
      - 4 More Information<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism#More_Information>

[edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism?title=Markets_without_Capitalism&action=edit&section=1>
] Silvio Gesell

*Silvio Gesell* is one of the main thinkers of this tradition. Gesell was
briefly finance minister in Karl Liebknecht’s German-soviet republic and was
greatly appreciated in his time by figures as Keynes and Martin Buber.

“In 1891 Silvio Gesell (1862-1930) a German-born entrepreneur living in
Buenos Aires published a short booklet entitled Die Reformation im Münzwesen
als Brücke zum sozialen Staat (Currency Reform as a Bridge to the Social
State), the first of a series of pamphlets presenting a critical examination
of the monetary system. It laid the foundation for an extensive body of
writing inquiring into the causes of social problems and suggesting
practical reform measures. His experiences during an economic crisis at that
time in Argentina led Gesell to a viewpoint substantially at odds with the
Marxist analysis of the social question: the exploitation of human labour
does not have its origins in the private ownership of the means of
production, but rather occurs primarily in the sphere of distribution due to
structural defects in the monetary system. Like the ancient Greek
philosopher Aristoteles, Gesell recognised money's contradictory dual role
as a medium of exchange for facilitating economic activity on the one hand
and as an instrument of power capable of dominating the market on the other
hand. The starting point for Gesell's investigations was the following
question: How could money's characteristics as a usurious instrument of
power be overcome, without eliminating its positive qualities as a neutral
medium of exchange ? He attributed this market-dominating power to two
fundamental characteristics of conventional money: Firstly, money as a
medium of demand is capable of being hoarded in contrast to human labor or
goods and services on the supply side of the economic equation. It can be
temporarily withheld from the market for speculative purposes without its
holder being exposed to significant losses. Secondly, money enjoys the
advantage of superior liquidity to goods and services. In other words, it
can be put into use at almost any time or place and so enjoys a flexibility
of deployment similar to that of a joker in a card game.

Gesell's theory of a Free Economy based on land and monetary reform may be
understood a reaction both to the laissez-faire principle of classical
liberalism as well as to Marxist visions of a centrally planned economy. It
should not be thought of as a third way between capitalism or communism in
the sense of subsequent "convergence theories" or so-called "mixed economy"
models, i.e. capitalist market economies with global state supervision, but
rather as an alternative beyond hitherto realized economic systems. In
political terms it may be characterised as "a market economy without
capitalism"…Gesell's alternative economic model is related to the liberal
socialism of the cultural philosopher Gustav Landauer (1870-1919) who was
also influenced by Proudhon and who for his part strongly influenced Martin
Buber (1878-1965). There are intellectual parallels to the liberal socialism
of the physician and sociologist Franz Oppenheimer (1861-1943) and to the
social philosophy of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), the founder of the
anthroposophic movement…An association called Christen für gerechte
Wirtschaftsordnung (Christians for a Just Economic Order) promotes the study
of land and monetary reform theories in the light of Jewish, Christian and
Islamic religious doctrines critical of land speculation and the taking of
interest. Margrit Kennedy, Helmut Creutz and other authors have examined the
contemporary relevance of Gesell's economic model and tried to bring his
ideas up to date." (http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/onken/engl.htm)


*Books to explore this tradition:*


Silvio Gesell, The Natural Economic Order (translation by Philip Pye).
London: Peter Owen Ltd., 1958. Dudley Dillard, Proudhon, Gesell and Keynes -
An Investigation of some „Anti-Marxian-Socialist“ Antecedents of Keynes’
General Theory, University of California: Dr.-Thesis, 1949. Hackbarth Verlag
St.Georgen/Germany 1997. ISBN
3-929741-14-8<http://p2pfoundation.net/Special:BookSources/3929741148>.


Leonard Wise, Great Money Reformers - Silvio Gesell, Arthur Kitson, Frederic
Soddy. London: Holborn Publishing, 1949.

International Association for a Natural Economic Order, The Future of
Economy – A Memoir for Economists. Lütjenburg: Fachverlag für
Sozialökonomie, 1984/1989. (P.O. Box 1320, D-24319 Lütjenburg)

Margrit Kennedy, Interest and Inflation Free Money - Creating an Exchange
Medium That Works for Everybody and Protects the Earth. Okemos/Michigan,
1995.


[edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism?title=Markets_without_Capitalism&action=edit&section=2>
] Eric Olin Wright's Market Socialism

*Eric Olin Wright's explorations in 'Market Socialism'*

Erik Olin Wright has written a series of remarkable essays and book.


*Equal Shares: making market socialism work*, by John Roemer, with
contributions by Richard J. Arneson, Fred Block, Harry Brighouse, Michael
Burawoy, Joshua Cohen, Nancy Folbre , Andrew Levine, Mieke Meurs, Louis
Putterman, Joel Rogers, Debra Satz, Julius Sensat, William H. Simon, Frank
Thompson, Thomas E. Weisskopf, Erik Olin Wright. Edited and introduced by
Erik Olin Wright (Volume II, Real Utopias Project Series, London: Verso,
1996)

*Recasting Egalitarianism: New Rules for Accountability and Equity in
Markets*, States and Communities, by Sam Bowles and Herbert Gintis with
contributions by Daniel M. Hausman, John E. Roemer, Erik Olin Wright, Karl
Ove Moene, Michael Wallerstein, Peter Skott David M. Gordon, Harry
Brighouse, Elaine McCrate, Andrew Levine, Paula England, Steven N. Durlauf,
Ugo Pagano, Michael R. Carter, and Karla Hoff. Edited and Introduced by Erik
Olin Wright. (Volune III, Real Utopias Project Series, London: Verso, 1999)

Deepening Democracy: institutional innovations in empowered participatory
governance, by Archon Fung and erik Olin Wright, with contributions by
Rebecca Neaera Abers, Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Joshua Cohen, Patrick Heller,
Bradley C. Karkkainen, Rebecca S. Krantz, Jane Mansbridge, Joel Rogers,
Craig W. Thomas, and T.M. Thomas Isaac. (Volume IV of the Real Utopias
Project Series, London, Verso, 2003)

*Redesigning Distribution: basic income and stakeholder grants as
cornerstones of a more egalitarian capitalism*, by Bruce Ackerman, Ann
Alstott and Philippe van Parijs, with contributions by Barbara Bergmann, Irv
Garfinkle, Chien-Chung Huang , Wendy Naidich, Julian LeGrand, Carole
Pateman, Guy Standing, Stuart White, and Erik Olin Wright (Volume V of the
Real Utopias Project Series, London: Verso, in press 2005)


[edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism?title=Markets_without_Capitalism&action=edit&section=3>
] Discussion [edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism?title=Markets_without_Capitalism&action=edit&section=4>
] Kevin Carson

Below two citations from Kevin Carson of Mutualist.org, who contrasts
'genuinely free market policies', from neoliberalism. Carson is part of the
left-libertarian 'individualist anarchism' tradition.

Kevin sends us the following contextual info to link the two articles
together:

"The only thing I would add, to flesh it out: the two pieces you quote from
involved dismantling the infrastructure of state capitalism from the top
down. The other side of the strategy is the kind of stuff I talked about in
the "Building the Structure of the New Society Within the Shell of the Old"
post--building counter-institutions from the bottom up to fill the void.
It's a sort of dialectical strategy, with the agenda you quoted providing
political cover and room for the alternative economy to grow.


[edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism?title=Markets_without_Capitalism&action=edit&section=5>
] A proposed market strategy against corporate capitalism

(Note that I find most of these proposals very sensible, with the exception
of having tolls for the public highway infrastructure; this in effect limits
the use of roads by those with financial means - Michel Bauwens)

Kevin Carson [1]<http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/04/strategic-green-libertarian-alliance.html>:



"1) eliminate all corporate welfare spending, and translate this and all
other budget savings (e.g., a radical scaling back of the drug war) into
income tax cuts on the lowest brackets; eliminate all differential corporate
income tax benefits, including deductions and credits, and lower the
corporate income tax rate enough to make it revenue neutral;

2) eliminate all credit union regulations more restrictive than those on
ordinary commercial banks; eliminate capitalization requirements and other
entry barriers for banks engaged solely in providing secured loans against
property;

3) fund federal highways and airports entirely with tolls and other
user-fees, with absolutely no subsidies from general revenues, and no use of
eminent domain;

4) repeal Taft-Hartley, all legislation like the Railway Labor Relations Act
which restrains specific categories of workers from striking, and all legal
restrictions on minority unionism in workplaces without a certified union;

5) repeal all food libel laws, liberalize or eliminate restrictions on
alternative medicine, and radically scale back or eliminate the so-called
"intellectual property" of the agribusiness, infotainment, and drug
industries; radically scale back or eliminate patents in general;

6) devolve control of federal land to states, counties and municipalities,
with those governments replacing much or all taxation of income and sales
with severance and resource extraction fees as a source of revenue;

7) restore the common law of liability to its full vigor, in preference to
the regulatory state, as a way of forcing pollutors and other corporate
malefactors to internalize the costs they impose on society; make civil
damages directly proportional to the harm done;

8) at the state level, drastically scale back the drug war and translate the
savings into eliminating the sales tax and cutting income taxes on the lower
brackets; at the state and local levels, eliminate all corporate tax
incentives, public spending on industrial parks, and the like, and reduce
income taxes on the lower brackets accordingly; at the local level, shift
all current taxes on buildings and improvements and personal property, and
all sales taxes, onto the unimproved site value of land;

9) at the local level, accept some portion of taxes in LETS notes and other
alternative currencies;

10) eliminate all local zoning restrictions on mixed-use development like
neighborhood grocers in subdivisions, and walkup apartments downtown; fund
all urban freeway systems with tolls; require real estate developers to pay
the full cost of extending roads and utilities to new subdivisions, instead
of passing on the cost to tax- and ratepayers in old neighborhoods." (
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/04/strategic-green-libertarian-alliance.html)



[edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism?title=Markets_without_Capitalism&action=edit&section=6>
] Free-Market Policies for Development

Kevin Carson[2]<http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/05/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-xvii.html>:



"So what kinds of genuinely free market policies could the West undertake to
promote prosperity in the Third World? Here are a few, for starters:

1. *Western governments should support genuine property rights in the land.
That is, they should stop siding with the Latifundistas and other landed
oligarchies against land reform*, and support strengthening of the
peasantry's traditional tenure rights in the land. The history of American
foreign policy in the Third World, unfortunately, is pretty accurately
symbolized by its intervention on behalf of United Fruit Company in
Guatemala: decades of collusion between landlord and general oligarchies,
American agribusiness interests, and the U.S. national security
establishment. Murray Rothbard, a libertarian considerably less prone than
the Catoids to confuse "property rights" and the "free market" with
plutocratic interests, acknowledged that most "property rights" in the Third
World were really what Thomas Hodgskin called "artificial" and Albert Jay
Nock called "law-made" (see "Rothbard on Feudalism and Land Reform") Such
property claims, descended largely from state grants of land under colonial
regimes, came at the expense of the legitimate property rights of the
peasants who had appropriated the land through their own labor.

One reason Third World labor is willing to work in sweatshops as their "best
available alternative" is that they've been forcibly deprived of any better
alternative. If the countless land expropriations of recent decades had not
taken place, if the property rights of peasant cultivators had been upheld
against quasi-feudal property rights based on state land grants to absentee
landlords, if hundreds of millions of now landless laborers still had
independent access to subsistence farming, the bargaining position of labor
against Wal-Mart's suppliers would be considerably different. As was the
case with the enclosures in Britain, employers find it a lot harder to get
cheap labor when workers have independent access to the means of production.
Some factual questions were recently raised about Ellennita Muetze Hellmer's
JLS article "Establishing Government Accountability in the Anti-Sweatshop
Campaign," but that shouldn't obscure the validity of her central point:
it's disingenuous for sweatshop employers to congratulate themselves on
providing crutches to destitute Third World laborers when they've colluded
with government in breaking their legs in the first place.


2. *Repudiate international "intellectual property" accords*. The central
motivation behind the GATT intellectual property regime was to permanently
lock in the collective monopoly of advanced production technology by TNCs,
and impede the rise of independent competition in the Third World. It would,
as Martin Khor wrote, "effectively prevent the diffusion of technology to
the Third World, and would tremendously increase monopoly royalties of the
TNCs whilst curbing the potential development of Third World technology."
The developed world pushed particularly hard to protect industries relying
on or producing "generic technologies," and to restrict diffusion of "dual
use" technologies. Not to put too fine a point on it, the aim of
international "intellectual property" law is to lock the Third World into a
permanent status of global sweatshop, hewers of wood and drawers of water
for Western capital [Martin Khor, The Uruguay Round and Third World
Sovereignty (Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network, 1990); Chakravarthi
Raghavan, Recolonization: GATT, the Uruguay Round & the Third World (Penang,
Malaysia: Third World Network, 1990)].


3. *Replace the phony neoliberal version of "privatization" with the real
thing--that is, privatization based on respect for the property rights of
the taxpayers whose sweat equity is embodied in the assets*. Murray Rothbard
argued that state property should be treated as "unowned" in the Lockean
sense, and subject to homesteading by those actually mixing their labor with
it ["Confiscation and the Homestead Principle," Libertarian Forum June 15,
1969]. In the case of public utilities, that means organizing them either as
producers' co-ops under the control of workers' syndicates, or consumer
cooperatives owned by the ratepayers. All state property and services
should, in some similar fashion, be returned directly to the people. The
state has no right to sell, to its favored cronies, property that was
originally paid for with money looted from the taxpayers.


4. *More generally, the U.S. should abandon the Palmerstonian model of fake
"free trade" for the genuine article, as conceived by Cobden*. According to
Oliver MacDonough ["The Anti-Imperialism of Free Trade," The Economic
History Review (Second Series) 14:3 (1962)], the Palmerstonian system was
utterly loathed by the Cobdenites. The sort of thing Cobden objected to
included the "dispatch of a fleet 'to protect British interests' in
Portugal," to the "loan-mongering and debt-collecting operations in which
our Government engaged either as principal or agent," and generally, all
"intervention on behalf of British creditors overseas" and all forcible
opening of foreign markets. Cobden opposed, above all, the confusion of
"free trade" with "mere increases of commerce or with the forcible 'opening
up' of markets."

Real free trade policy, on the other hand, doesn't require multilateral
bureaucracies like the WTO. It simply requires eliminating U.S. trade
barriers, and allowing Americans to trade or invest anywhere they want to in
the world on whatever terms they can negotiate--provided that they also
internalize all costs and risks of doing business overseas, without the U.S.
government subsidizing their operating costs, insuring them against
nationalization by hostile governments, and suchlike. It's that simple." (
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/05/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-xvii.html)



[edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism?title=Markets_without_Capitalism&action=edit&section=7>
] Roderick Long
[edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism?title=Markets_without_Capitalism&action=edit&section=8>
] Semantic Difficulties with the use of concepts like Markets and Capitalism

Roderick Long [3] <http://mises.org/story/2099>, cited by Kevin Carson:

"Libertarians sometimes debate whether the "real" or "authentic" meaning of
a term like "capitalism" is (a) the free market, or (b) government
favoritism toward business, or (c) the separation between labor and
ownership, an arrangement neutral between the other two; Austrians tend to
use the term in the first sense; individualist anarchists in the Tuckerite
tradition tend to use it in the second or third. But in ordinary usage, I
fear, it actually stands for an amalgamation of incompatible meanings.

Now I think the word "capitalism," if used with the meaning most people give
it, is a package-deal term. By "capitalism" most people mean neither the
free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system
simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by "capitalism" is this
free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short,
the term "capitalism" as generally used conceals an assumption that the
prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in
fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the
term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government
favoritism toward business.

And similar considerations apply to the term "socialism." Most people don't
mean by "socialism" anything so precise as state ownership of the means of
production; instead they really mean something more like "the opposite of
capitalism." Then if "capitalism" is a package-deal term, so is "socialism"
— it conveys opposition to the free market, and opposition to
neomercantilism, as though these were one and the same.

And that, I suggest, is the function of these terms: to blur the distinction
between the free market and neomercantilism. Such confusion prevails because
it works to the advantage of the statist establishment: those who want to
defend the free market can more easily be seduced into defending
neomercantilism, and those who want to combat neomercantilism can more
easily be seduced into combating the free market. Either way, the state
remains secure." (
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/04/roderick-long-rothbard-memorial.html)


The following quote is alo of interest, to disentangle libertarian and left
approaches to the market, capitalism, and the state:

"*Ever since libertarians and leftists went their separate ways back in the
19th century, libertarians have specialized in understanding governmental
forms and mechanisms of oppression, and the benefits of competitive,
for-profit forms of voluntary association; while leftists have specialized
in understanding non-governmental forms and mechanisms of oppression, and
the benefits of cooperative, not-for-profit forms of voluntary association.*
*"* (http://mises.org/story/2099#9)


[edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism?title=Markets_without_Capitalism&action=edit&section=9>
] Dmytri Kleiner
[edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism?title=Markets_without_Capitalism&action=edit&section=10>
] A Proper Place for Markets

"I believe that we must use money and markets in building the new society in
the shell of the old, I do not however hold them as an ideal.

I fully believe that specialization of labour implies exchange, however
exchange does not need to be money-denominated itemizedi, transactions, but
can be significantly more fuzzy.

Until Capitalist social relations where imposed on society, money and
markets functioned quite differently than they do today. Actual specie was
rarely used in "market" transactions, even though money has existed as long
as writing, it's use was mostly limited to paying tribute and for prestige
(usually imported) goods. Most other goods where either traded on account or
ad-hoc, this is certainly exchange and certainly reciprocial, but the
valuation was not done on each item and not denomonated in money, but rather
value was attributed to the relationship, not the transaction or the item.
Markets formed on periphery of communities, not at their core, to dispose of
surplus.

The more distant the relationship the more formal the accounting of the
transaction, ad-hoc for close relations, on account for more distant
relations, and actual negotiated trade of specie or good for other goods
only when there is no relationship, whith distant trading partners or the
State.

It is neither nuetral or natural to have markets central to communities, to
have all sharing transformed into itemized transaction, but rather these
social relations where imposed as a prerequisite of Capitalism, and are a
symptom of the degree to which Captalism has destroyed human community, now
limited only to the "Nuclear" family, and even this paltry and normalized
vestige of human community is breaking down.

The uquiqity of money and markets is very much a feature of capitalism that
was, like the rest of system, systimaticaly and forcefully imposed.

I agree with Kevin that Markets do not cause exploitation, but feel that the
degree to which they permeate communities is a symptom of exploitation, and
thus money and markets may, once again, play a vastly diminished role in the
new society, once broken out of the shell of the old." (p2p research list,
June 2009)
[edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Markets_without_Capitalism?title=Markets_without_Capitalism&action=edit&section=11>
] More Information

To investigate: the conception of Fernand Braudel and Manuel de Landa on
anti-markets

The reform movement of Natural
Capitalism<http://p2pfoundation.net/Natural_Capitalism>

Market anarchism: "Francis Tandy’s 1896 book Voluntary Socialism is one of
the classics of market anarchism." See at http://praxeology.net/FDT-VS.htm

The blog on *Uncapitalism*, at http://uncapitalist.com/blog/about.php

Our entries on Monetary Reform
<http://p2pfoundation.net/Monetary_Reform>and Taxation
Reform <http://p2pfoundation.net/Taxation_Reform>

See also our entry on Self Managed Market
Socialism<http://p2pfoundation.net/Self_Managed_Market_Socialism>

  On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Andreas Exner <andreas.exner at chello.at>wrote:

> Hi Martin, hi Silke, hi all
>
> Well, I guess I come to some "concluding remarks" of my personal
> impression of the discussion.
>
> First of all, we have indeed some very different theoretical cultures
> at work.
>
> So, for instance, when I am talking about private property, I am NOT
> talking about "exclusive use" - commons are also used exclusively,
> that is often true and in certain cases necessary. This is NOT the
> differencia specifica of private property.
>
> Private property is, in my understanding, the juridicial term for
> value (or value, in its abstract economic sense as expressed by money,
> is the economic expression of private property).
>
> Another example is the issue of competition. Yes, of course it might
> be nice etc. to compete for better apples, better theories, longer
> hair, better songs etc. p.p.
>
> That is NOT the question. Again, the question is the concrete
> historical form of competition. On markets, competition is for
> value, not for better apples. Better apples for a higher degree of
> concrete satisfaction are a means for achieving something else:
> more exchange value, i.e. money. And that's the problem.
>
> We need a better understanding of social form, i.e. objectified
> social relations which limit the range of possible individual actions.
> Such a form is the commodity and its "developed forms" such
> as money, capital etc.
>
> How one might change reality by merely interpreting it differently,
> well, I don't know... in this way, we could also say that everything
> is fine in this society and that would be enough.
>
> Yes, Martin, I wanted to say that commons ARE preceding
> capitalism (I made a mistake in expressing my view).
>
> So, to sum it up (from my point of view): we do not really bring
> together a structural analysis of capitalism with an analysis
> of limits and - much more important - potentials of
> breaking/transforming these logics.
>
> This, however, would in my view be urgently needed in order
> to prevent mistakes as former "marxism" et al. made extensively.
>
> Those social movements just replaced "accumulation of capital" by
> "socialist
> accumulation", the "capitalist market" by "socialist markets", the
> "capitalist
> state" by - of course - "the socialist state", "capitalist law" by
> "socialist law",
> "the capitalist law of value" by - guess it... - "the socialist law of
> value"
> etc. p.p.
>
> Anything, so was the saying, could be changed just by the "revolutionary
> will of the masses"...
>
> Well, this obviously did not change much to capital, accumulation, state,
> law, value and markets...
>
> Note: this is not polemics, but the way things were indeed discussed a
> few decades long.
>
> Where is our progress in this respect?
>
> We are starting to talk about "commons-markets", "commons-exchange",
> "commons-business", "commons-value", "commons-everything", "new
> contracts between the state and the commons"...
>
> We are starting to talk about "imagine what you want and you will get it".
>
> We are starting to talk about "name something differently and it will
> be another world".
>
> Is it that simple?
>
> Personally, I see no other way than refining structural analysis and
> developing a precise concept of "commons". Otherwise, this results
> in a "buzz of words" where we start everything we find "nice" to
> name "commons-this-and-commons-that".
>
> Only then one could start - and this would be the most interesting
> part - to look at concrete social praxis and how institutions are
> developed that expand commoning (as, in my view, opposed
> to market exchange and the state). First, one would have to know what
> commons "are" as different to non-commons, otherwise such an attempt
> would not make much sense.
>
> Why free software shows characteristics of markets remains
> unclear to me. In the same way liberals might argue that
> stone age-people acted according to "market laws"...
>
> Actually, I know understand better why Ulrich Brand made
> critical remarks on the "liberal bias" of the whole commons-debate...
> (and why Elinor Ostrom got the Nobel Prize - which of course helps
> our cause, but only when deepening critical thinking, I suppose
> personally).
>
> If someone "likes markets as places of buying and selling",
> well, then there is not much need for "conscious action"
> to transform society indeed.
>
> best, Andreas
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, March 31, 2010 07:32, Andreas Exner wrote:
> > > 1) I know Massimos position on the commons - (but you and me do not
> > > know each other) - so let me quickly say that it is of course out of
> > > the question that commons precede the capitalistic mode of
> > > production.
> >
> > I assume that you mean the opposite of what you say here??? ("out of
> > the question" means "NOT" rather than "unquestionable")
> >
> >
> > > 2) You confuse exchange and markets, I think. And you do not make
> > > clear why a flee-market or a "traditional" (which means: originating
> > > in 19th century capitalism) market-place of farmers is something
> > > superior to a supermarket as a market-place or a stock-exchange.
> > > This is not a mere provocation but the question, which exactly makes
> > > specific market-places better than others (besides the absence of
> > > muzak-music in farmers markets)? Do farmers on farmer markets NOT
> > > compete? Do farmers on farmer markets do NOT employ wage labor if
> > > they can? Do farmers on farmer markets do NOT try to grow their
> > > output if they can and are forced to by competition?
> >
> > Well, this is a problematic conversation, because it is fuelled with
> > presumptions on all sides. Competition within capitalism is a
> > particular kind of competition. Competition is a term that makes no
> > real meaningful sense unless you unpack it. So, in capitalism it is
> > configured by way of a very specific kind of, or rather _set of_
> > slightly varying private property rights, profit seeking etc. that
> > gave rise to a very specific kind of wage relations. I have no problem
> > with competition as such, it can be a very mutually beneficial thing
> > if configured in ways with that intention. Competition can be social -
> > or, say, those who take their things to the market can agree on
> > setting a price for their things, in which moment the competition is
> > shifted to terms of quality, personal relations with customers, sheer
> > luck and the way the wind blows. And so on.
> >
> > I don&#180;t think that I confuse exchange and market - exchange is
> > something that goes on in a market.
> >
> > > 3) The underdeveloped differentiation between exchange as social
> > > metabolism in a non-market-form and markets is shown by your
> > > examples, I think.
> > >
> > > - Farmers markets for instance are a sign that agricultural
> > > production takes place in a capitalistic environment (the
> > > supermarket is only bigger, more diverse and lower quality than a
> > > "simple" farmers market - no essential difference exists).
> >
> > This is a gross reducion of what a farmers&#180; market is and can be.
> > So many different realities can co-exist in such a market place. From
> > anarchistic permaculture eco-villages that consist of three families
> > to differently organised ones where 12 families live together and
> > produce more substantial amounts, maybe even using petro-chemnical
> > pesticides. Neither of these have to be capitalist, for example
> > because they do not accumulate any capital and because they do not
> > employ any labour - and if they do pay someone to work for them, it
> > might be under very different conditions than a capitailst factory or
> > when, say, Monsanto pressure a farmer into a tight spot. The scope -
> > the space between what constitutes the one farmer and what constitutes
> > the other - is enormous, so it makes no sense to treat the terms
> > "farmers" + "markets" as monolithic concepts respectively, nor when
> > combined.
> >
> > I think we are at cross-purposes: what you call differentiation
> > between "exchange as social metabolism in a non-market-form and
> > markets" is probably what I call the scope of how markets can be
> > configured differently. Because capitalists have monopolised and
> > reduced the concept of markets to something so narrow (and horrible)
> > that you do not want to have anything to do with it, simply shows the
> > power of the linguistic trick they have pulled. I would rather subvert
> > the meaning of "market" and give it a new meaning to organise around
> > and upon, than try to convince the wider public that we should not
> > have a market, but opt for "exchange as social metabolism in a
> > non-market-form". Instead of going technical and specialist to avoid
> > certain associations with what is considered wrong, I want to change
> > realities, stimulate imagination and shift terms.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > - in the  realm of free software there is no market exchange at all
> >
> > Of course there is. Sourceforce is a market place where people
> > exchange bits and bytes. The merits - hence the hierarchy of the group
> > and the quality of the code - of each software project are negotiated
> > and contracted through mailing lists that establish who is, who can,
> > and who will be contributing to the project. Social capital - as much
> > as i detest the term - for want of a better term - is part of the
> > exchange in that market.
> >
> > > - community supported agriculture is not based on market exchange
> > > (at least in the examples I know), but on conscious cooperation
> > > (exchange being the opposite of cooperation).
> >
> > I do not follow _at all_ that exchange is the opposite of cooperation.
> > (Perhaps I should note that I have no, absolutely no training in
> > Marxian let alone Marxist thought, which is why - on the one hand - I
> > have admittledly very naive ideas about some of these issues, while on
> > the other it allows me to think more freely, I believe).
> >
> > > But what is a market without private property? What is market
> > > exchange without private property? The answer is that market
> > > exchange presupposes private property - within commons, one does NOT
> > > exchange (besides "giving/taking"), because commons are the opposite
> > > to private property, at least in the strict sense. What else would
> > > be commons?
> >
> > Strict sense? I don&#180;t understand? Private property is not at all
> > a monolithic concept and, for instance, Free Software is based on
> > private property (a configuration of private property called
> > copyright). In contemporary legal contexts private property is
> > probably the best way to organise a commons. It is legally sanctioned,
> > well known. That is why the GPL is upheld in court, or rather that is
> > why the GPL does not have to be upheld in court, since it is in a
> > sense a mere contract that is sanctioned by the private property
> > rights that underpin copyright, upon which copyleft rests. So a breach
> > simply means a reversal to the original setup: private property.
> >
> > In other words, private property is not the opposite of commons.
> > Historically, there is an unquestionable case to be made that the
> > _imposition of private private property rights as an element of the
> > transition into capitalism_ destroyed commons, for sure, but that
> > doesnt make them opposites. It just means that they are old
> > acquaintances.
> >
> > > It does not make any essential difference if you have 10 or 1000 or
> > > 1 million owners of private property or just 1. (Take the capitalist
> > > company as an example; or take the real socialist state as another
> > > one; or the cooperative competing on the market...)
> >
> > I do not understand. I think you reduce private property in general to
> > the specific set of capitalist varieties of it.
> >
> > > So, the CORE QUESTION remains to be how to regulate social
> > > production in a CONSCIOUS way. This cannot be done by markets in any
> > > way, since a market is the opposite of a conscious regulation of
> > > social metabolism.
> >
> > I don&#180;t see markets like you do and find it difficult to do so. I
> > suspect that there are two conflations going on: markets in general
> > are conflated with capitalist markets in particular, and private
> > property in general is conflated with one particular configuration of
> > capitalist private property rights (of which there are many).
> >
> > The major task before us to redefine these terms and leave behind
> > received wisdowm - change common sense, reclaim certain terms,
> > concept, reconfigure others and so on. A market can be a nice thing -
> > people gather, bring things, sell them, barter, exchange, compete in
> > certain ways that are not capitalistic - and thay is where I&#180;d
> > like to go.
> >
> >
> > > I do not hear anything about institutions structuring conscious
> > > human action in our debates on "markets existing for thousands of
> > > years".... however, this would be a debate where the real issue
> > > would come to the agenda.
> >
> > What is conscious action? This is a whole other territory of thought
> > that would require a lot of unpacking....
> >
> >
> > > The view of "self-regulating" markets is the core view of
> > > liberalism, and, I am sorry about that, I do not see where our
> > > debates really go beyond this liberal view of a harmonious market
> > > world (connecting "commons", which we obviously more feel than
> > > understand to be something "nice" and "beautiful" - or am I wrong? -
> > > because.... well, why, actually?).
> >
> > So many details are undefined and generalised in some of the terms
> > used here, and they can be (re-)configured in so many ways. The future
> > is ours and we have to make it in our own image, not let received
> > wisdom determine what exchange and market places can, are and should
> > be. We can make it what we want and I for one really like to gather
> > with people and buy and sell things to each other.
> >
> > Obviously a better technology than capitalist interest/debt based
> > money is needed, but, again, I know nothing of this, but it
> > doesn&#180;t change the fact that I like the idea of markets as places
> > of exchange and buying, selling bartering and so on. The one example I
> > have heard of is money that instead of accumulating value, decreases
> > in value over time, - I believe it was a Bavarian project once upon a
> > time?!?
> >
> >
> >  - Happy Easter Bunny,
> >
> > martin
> >
> > PS: yes, these are difficult things to discuss via email between
> > people with significantly different assumptions, backgrounds and
> > training. I am also travelling, or rather with family for once in a
> > long time, so will also not be able to participate further. I hope,
> > however, that we have managed to highlihgt a few points of difference
> > and convergence.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Commoning mailing list
> > Commoning at lists.wissensallmende.de
> > http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commoning mailing list
> Commoning at lists.wissensallmende.de
> http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
>



-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens







-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100402/cef38331/attachment-0001.html>