Message 00897 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00881 Message: 45/89 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [jox] A response to Michel and Jakob

Hi Stefan and Michel,

I have read Graber`s book and taught it in a course, I called from Gift to Spectacle. The trouble with Graber`s book is that it takes the word value as a generic concept and find many different instances. And finally decends into a type of post/modernist cultural relativism, which is indeed typical of contemporary anthropolgy. Actually in all ecomomies upon to p2p there have been regimes of value. The precapitalist regimes were concerned with two things:
the distribution of labour and means of production on the one hand and distribution of use values on the other. These has been a universal law regardless of cultural particularities. Of course cultural values attached to gift, reciprocity, and labor are different in different societies, but this should not n prevent us from seeing the universal. The same is true of capitalism, except that now the distribution of use values is a by product of the distribution of abstract value, i.e, money. In all pre p2p modes of production quantity (quantities of means of production, labor and products) and management of quantiies have been central factors of regimes of values. 
Now, in the current stage of p2p means of productions are stll subjected to the abstract law of value, but the voluntary contribution of labor and products are not. You contribute as much as you want and can use the product regardless of contribution. But, we have the factor of recognition. Recognition is a qualitative value, and cannot be quantified, though we may get a better job through it. With p2p we move for the first time in history to a regime of value iwhich is dominated by quality not quantity. peer producers constantly evaluate each other work, and this evaluation (assining values) is the basis of recognition and the formation of singular social individualities, association of which is nothing but communism. Elegance, beautry, creativity, desire and recognition are major values of p2p. Whille these may appear as artistic or moral, they are inherent to p2p.

all the best
Michel Bauwens 03/16/12 12:57 PM >>> 
[Converted from multipart/alternative] 

[1 text/plain] 
David Graeber wrote a long trans-historical anthropological examination of 
value .. his answer ... there is nothing that we can consistently call 
value that exists over time across all cultures ... it has always been 
contextual .. so stefan, yes, when I say use value, I mean utility as in 
'valuable' to someone 

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jakob Rigi wrote: 

InMarx, value, of course not use value, is congealed energy. 

Stefan Meretz 03/15/12 7:34 AM >>> 
Hash: SHA1 

Am 15.03.2012 11:51, schrieb Michel Bauwens: 
so even as we work with a new conception of value as peer 
producers contributing to our commons, we are embedded in a 
capitalist logic where capital is extracting their kind of value 
from our work, and as I argued in Al Jazeera, the feedback loop 
between the two kinds of value is broken, hence both a crisis of 
capital accumulation and a crisis of precarity 

If not metaphorical speeking, but stricly in the Marxian: Capital is 
not extracting "value", because value is not an essence which can be 
extracted like sucking soda from a bottle. Capital is extracting our 
energy and creativity to privatly produce a commodity, which it then 
traded on markets has a value (be it a material product or offering an 
advertisement platform like Facebook as you mentioned). 

So I would always prefer to says: Capital is turning human energy and 
creativity into value. But reading your usage of the term "value" more 
metaphorically I am fine with your description. 

so, by talking about the marxian theory of value, or any other one, 
we are describing one aspect of these social processes .. but this 
does not mean that "we" are re-importing the logic, it's the 
'reality' we are facing 

There are two realities: the capitalist to get rid off, and the p2p to 
get flourished. They have qualitatively different logics, but today 
they necessarily always appear in mixed modes. Marxian theory made for 
the old does not apply to the new. The new quality needs new notions 
and theory. Thus I see and observe the danger of re-importing old 

so the real problem remains, i.e. insuring the social reproduction 
of the commoners, 'outside' or 'in parallel' with, the processes of 
capital accumulation? 

Yes! We do not get rid of real problems by only creating nice new 
theories ;) 


- -- 
Start here: 
OpenPGP-ID: 0x1D4BB160 
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) 
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - 


P2P Foundation: - 

Connect:; Discuss: 


[2 text/html] 

Thread: joxT00881 Message: 45/89 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00897 [Homepage] [Navigation]