These are great arguments, I will respond later, but I agree with you
that
one does not need Marxism to become a communist or cammonist. Marxism
is
atheory, communism is a form of production and distribution. Anyone who
contributes to this form is a communist, regardless of her theoretical
and
ideological orientations.
Jakob
Michel Bauwens **02/28/12 8:36 AM >>>
thanks Jakob ...
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Jakob Rigi <rigij ceu.hu> wrote:
Michel Bauwens <michel p2pfoundation.net> 02/25/12 4:00 PM >>>
[Conve
Hi Muchel.******
Thanks for the reply. Actually, our difference is a difference on
the
nature of money and commodity, i.e, the theory of value. I hold to
Max's
theory of value, in which money is the universal form which expresses
the
abstract labor congealed in commodities. Trade is the exchange of
these
values in the market by means of money. If commons (the products of
peer
production), will replace the commodity form, then money, trade and
market
will have no relevance.
Hi Jacob, I'm partial to, but ultimately agnostic to Marx' value
theory,
because whatever its truth, it is not necessary to adhere to it to
reject
capitalism. I agree with the statement, 'if the commons replaces the
commodity form, money will have no relevance'.... But if commons is
communism, and it is, do you really think that one day we will wake up
with commonism? If you are a marxist, then you know that Marx himself,
and
all important marxists after him, all agreed to the necessity of
transition, the one they called socialism ... and as long as not
everything is 100% commons, then you need reciprocity, and means to
account
for the reciprocity ... this does not have to be capitalist money, nor
capitalist market, but certain forms of trade and exchange are very
likely
to be part of the mix. And the existence of non-capitalist markets,
both
in
the past and in the present, are well documented, and recognized by
people
like David Graeber, Kleiner and many others. This is why the debate to
transform money, in myriad ways, is important, because we will need
practical implementation of such alternatives to accompany
non-capitalist
practices. The transition will be impossible if we retain capitalist
money
as it is designed now. Please also note that the revolutionary regimes
after WWI, such as in Hungary, did exactly that, and perhaps you know
more
about this than me. Otherwise, I think you will benefit from studying
Allan
Butcher's detailed studies of communal economics and how intentional
communities have dealth with reciprocity-based arrangements without the
use
of classic money. See
http://p2pfoundation.net/****Category:Community_Economics<http://p2pfoundation.net/**Category:Community_Economics>
<h**ttp://p2pfoundation.net/**Category:Community_Economics<http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Community_Economics>
Now we have people like Keith Hart (see his Memory Bank) who claim
that money and market can be decoupled from capitalism and articulated
to a
new mode of production. Actually Dimtri Kleiner in his Manifesto
seems
to
have a similar theory of money, though he does not spell it out
clearly.
Now Hart's theory of money comes from Keynes, not Marx. I think the
fact
that commons have put the revisiting of the theory of value/money on
theoretical agenda is a great thing, and I hope we will be able to
open a
constructive debate on this matter. I really look forward to debating
this
with you. Perhaps we will propose to JOPP to devote a special issue to
this
matter.****
Concerning the transition period, although its necessity seems
logical,
I have strong doubt about such a necessity. It is again a major issue
and
indeed related to the previous issue. Whether the transformation to
peer
production will happen though a gradual evolutionist path or a social
revolution is an open question. But I tend to think that without a
social
revolution the overthrow of capitalism is impossible.
I agree about the social revolution, but that doesn't mean it will
irrupt
tomorrow and immediality install a fully functioning 100% commons
regime.
So we need to live, resist, and construct living alternatives that can
create the structures that will be able to flower more rapidly after
the
social revolution. This was the tactic and strategy of the labor
movement
which along with parties and unions created a vast ecology of life
forms
for social reproduction ... yes they were ultimately incorporated in
the
welfare state, but that was also because the capitalist 'could' do this
...
A coopted solution within capitalism is increasingly unlikely. And my
proposition does not concern such cooptation but rather the
strengthening
of autonomous institutions within the actual world and the creation of
integrated logics for a counter-economy that can exist alongside the
social
movements.
Knowledge can be transformed to commons without a social revolution
but
land and strategic natural resources which are the basis of any
production
are already monopolized by private capitalists and their right are
protected by state apparatuses of violence. We cannot establish a peer
production society without transferring the strategic natural
resources
into commons. For this we confront the private ownership over nature
and
the violence of state. Hence, the necessity of social revolution. I
may
be
wrong, again this can be a fertile ground for an open debate. After a
social revolution we may need a historical period for overcoming
national
claims on strategic natural resources. But we do not market and money
for
this.
Again agreed in theory. The phase transition will be necessity involve
a
fundamental change in power. But this is not a all or nothing
proposition.
In the meantime, do you just remain a wage worker and acquisce with the
dominant logic, or do you create the seeds of the future in the
present.
Though the power over these resources is tremendous, it is never
absolute,
and the emerging distributed infrastructures can and should be used to
create counter-economic institutions and counter-power.
****
By communism, I mean a form of social relations in which the state and
division of labor have vanished. The division between manual and
intellectual labor has vanished too. Moreover, there is no difference
between the fulfilling individual?s desires and performing social
duties.
You serve others by doing things that gives you pleasure and develop
your
own individuality. Social individual, to borrow a term from Marx, or
social
individualism is the corner stone of communism. Communism means the
proliferation of singular individualities. This is what is already
happening, though in embryonic form, in peer production.
Yes, and it is what marx saw occuring both at the beginning of human
history, and at the end of it. It is not something he surmised would
happen
fully fledged after a hypothetical red dawn. So my proposition is this:
create real counter-practices in the actually existing world, and seek
to
strenghten them; deal realistically with a largely hostile
institutional
world; 2) when the possibility arises, create the true democratic
structures that abolish the hostility of the institutions; 3) with the
new
institutions in place, and relying on the social force of the counter
world
which is now the mainstream world, establish the path forward. Most
likely,
this will take the form of civic institutions which will decide
democratically on the most appropriate provisioning systems that marry
maximum freedom with progress towards social equality.
****
This is also Marx's original understanding of communism. Stalinism has
given bad associations to the name communism. Whether we shall invent
a
new
name or keep the name but wash the Stalinist stain is an open
question.
In
the absence of any better name I still use it. Others seem to do the
same
thing, for example Richard Barbrook, Eben Moglen, and Dimytri Kleiner.
Yes, t his is appropriate, though I choose the path of a new
vocabulary
which can more precisely reflect current conditions.
****
I think both peer production and ******Occupy Wall Street**** have a
communist core to the extent they promote social individuality.
Capitalistic individuality is atomistic and egoistic. Communism is the
voluntary cooperation among individuals for both social good and for
their
own pleasure and development. Indeed capitalism and Stalinism both
atomize
the individual; Communism creates and manifests true and singular
individualities. So it is far from being totalitarian. It dissolves
both
Stalinist and capitalist form of totalitarianism. Market, in spite of
its
appearance, and semblance of choice is the most effective totalitarian
force history has ever seen. It levels all differences to money. In
the
market?s view all different qualities are reduced to same substance
abstract value and its manifestation money. From the market point of
view
the objects, and this applies to people too, because people are
objectified, are different only to the extent that they are different
quantities of the same things, namely money.
What you say about markets is not necessarily true. Pre-capitalist
market
forms, such as those in western medieval times, used 'just price'
governance, and the same was true in the Hindu villages.
Here is a possible transition scenario. You have a world of increasing
commons construction. These commons use peer production licenses which
share with other commons institutions, but make for-profit firms pay.
The
commons workers create physical commons stock phyles based on worker
equality and the socialist principles of to each according to his
contribution, and use cooperative, nonprofit, low profit and other open
company formats. These phyles use integral open book management and
open
supply chains, increasingly rending moot the necessity of market
mechanisms
to regulate supply and demand mechanics.
This world co-exist with democratic civic governance institutions which
decide which provisioning system is the most acceptable. Imagine three
concentric circles, the commons sphere, the private mutualist phyle
sphere,
the governance sphere .. where they intersect you have the civic sphere
which determines the overall structure of society ...
In this scenario you have a expanding 'communist' sphere, co-existing
with
a gradually declining reciprocity/exchange sphere and a gradually
declining
common governance sphere. The key is that generalized non-reciprocity
cannot be imposed by any top-down force, however benign, but must by
necessity mature in the real society as people can gradually move
towards
it as sufficiency and abundance replace scarcity dynamics.
****
All the best Stalinist totalitarianism was more transparent while the
market hides its totalitarianism behind a mask of choice and
diversity.*
***
Jakob****
Ps: As our exchange put forward some key theoretical problems of p2p
I
suggest it will not be a bad idea, if you post, of course if you
agree,
please my initial posting, your response and my response on p2p
Website.
** **
** **
** **
** **
** **
rted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hi Jacob,
interesting point, though I guess my approach is quite different, i.e.
by
divorcing the idea of the market from capitalism (i.e. defend the
freedom
of trade and enterprise within a civic and commons-oriented economy)
one
allays the fears that communism would mean an authoritiarian
imposition
of
collectivism ... that does not mean however, any compromise with
informational capitalism ... actuallty, if one talks with occupy and
indignados one quickly discovers the prevalence of libertarian
impulses,
this is in no way a 'communist' movement ... but one can accompanty
and
speed up the maturation of awareness that happens through resistance
and
social creation.
I personally believe that the full phase transition is indeed a few
decades
away still, but that depends less on 'our' persuasion than on equallly
important objective evolution, such as the inability of the mainstream
system to deliver, the violence of their assault, the maturity of
alternatives and yes the awareness and organisation of the workers,
Michel
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Jakob Rigi <rigij ceu.hu> wrote:
I agree,
Actually the unity and difference between knowledge workers who
perform
universal labor and other workers is both the main resource for the
movement and is its main fault line at the same time. Lenin and
Kautsky
argued that the working class needed bourggeosie intellectuals who
adpoted
the ideological stance of the working class to theorize and
universalize
the goals of working class revolution. Whether this theory was
correct
in
the past is a matter of debate. Today, the very fact that a
considerable
section of working class, namely, knowledge workers perform
cognitive
work,
make the class self sufficient in term of intellectual resources.
But
we
need to fight hard in order to nuietralize the influence of
information
capitalism among knowledge workerss. It would not be an exageration
to
say
that in this stage the winning of knowledge workers over the cause
of communism is the most important task of the movement. And indeed,
there
are already very good news on this front, P2P debates and
pubications,
occupy wall street, indignado, wikiliks, anonzmous.... But, there is
no
place for complacency, because, if the informational capitalism will
succeed in corrupting knowledge workers then the cause of communism
will
be posponed for decades.
cheers
Jakob
<orsan tie-netherlands.nl> 02/24/12 5:04 PM >>>
Hi Jakob, Michel and all,
Since personally i think this discussion is touching the key issue
for
instance the possible solidarity between movements so building up
widest 'counter heand difference gemonic historic orgnet', it would
worth
to
continue. It is featured on my blog. When your contribution is ready
Michel would be good to add here too. It can also be added on the
p2p
- Marxism discussion?
best,
orsan
Citeren Michel Bauwens <michel p2pfoundation.net>:
are you on any social network where it could be linked and where
you
could
react?
Orsan in cc already copied the debate on his blog,
Michel
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Jakob Rigi <rigij ceu.hu> wrote:
Thanks a lot michel.
Jakob
Michel Bauwens **02/23/12 11:01 PM >>>
Dear Jakob, I have not seen your contribution on the p2p blog,
but
I
have
reposted it, along with a response of mine, to our Ning Forum,
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/****profiles/blogs/is-facebook-****<http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/**profiles/blogs/is-facebook-**>
exploiting-workers-a-response-****from-jacob-rigi<http://**
p2pfoundation.ning.com/**profiles/blogs/is-facebook-**
exploiting-workers-a-response-**from-jacob-rigi<http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/is-facebook-exploiting-workers-a-response-from-jacob-rigi>
,
and already tweeted/facebooked it with cc to Stephen.
I'm also asking Franco to repost this dialogue to our regular
blog
whidh
gets more traction, (thanks Franco, any day with less than four
contributions is good, earlier better than later!)
I'm going to discuss this controversy on al jazeera (writing this
weekend,
they asked me for contributions but i have as yet offered them
anything)
Michel
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Jakob Rigi <rigij ceu.hu>
wrote:
Hello Michel,
I wrote a critical response to Land's and Bohm's short essay on
facebook. I tried to post on p2p foundation, but I am not sure
that
it
went
through. It is just one page but it propose a major thesis. I
attached
it
here. I will be grateful if you will post it if my own effort to
post
it
was not successful.
Meanwhile, I will be great if you, and you Orsan and Mathieu
too,
respond
to it. I want to know your points of views.
all the best
Jakob Rigi
Michel Bauwens <michel p2pfoundation.net> 11/04/11 3:19 AM
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
I have a 10 day period after nov 6 to write this!!
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Mathieu ONeil
<mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>****wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hi all
In addition to the Debate section by Meretz et al, (hi
Maurizio!)
the
following people agreed to write short contributions to the
next
general
issue on peer production, to be released in December:
-Michel Bauwens
-Christian Siefkes
I have not heard anything from them so far - how goes it?
In addition Andreas Wittel volunteered to do a review of a
recent
Christian Fuchs book - would it be possible to know how that
is
going?
Finally an SC member agreed to provide informal advice on a
short
contribution on Bitcoin - any news on that would be much
appreciated...?
cheers,
Mathieu
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/****cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-**
** <http://lists.ourproject.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-**>
foundation<http://lists.**ourproject.org/cgi-bin/**
mailman/listinfo/p2p-**foundation<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens;
http://friendfeed.com/**mbauwens** <http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens**>
;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/****
mbauwens <http://www.facebook.com/**mbauwens><http://www.facebook.**
com/mbauwens <http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>>
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/****cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-***
* <http://lists.ourproject.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-**>
foundation<http://lists.**ourproject.org/cgi-bin/**
mailman/listinfo/p2p-**foundation<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens;
http://friendfeed.com/**mbauwens** <http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens**>
;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/****
mbauwens <http://www.facebook.com/**mbauwens><http://www.facebook.**
com/mbauwens <http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>>
--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/****cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-****<http://lists.ourproject.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-**>
foundation<http://lists.**ourproject.org/cgi-bin/**
mailman/listinfo/p2p-**foundation<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens;
http://friendfeed.com/**mbauwens** <http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens**>
;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/****
mbauwens <http://www.facebook.com/**mbauwens><http://www.facebook.**
com/mbauwens <http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>>
--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/****cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-***
*foundation<http://lists.ourproject.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-**foundation>
<http://lists.**ourproject.org/cgi-bin/**mailman/listinfo/p2p-**
foundation<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/**
mbauwens** <http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens**>;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/****mbauwens<http://www.facebook.com/**mbauwens>
<http://www.facebook.**com/mbauwens<http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/****cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-***
*foundation<http://lists.ourproject.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-**foundation>
<http://lists.**ourproject.org/cgi-bin/**mailman/listinfo/p2p-**
foundation<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/**
mbauwens** <http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens**>;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/****mbauwens<http://www.facebook.com/**mbauwens>
<http://www.facebook.**com/mbauwens <http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>