Message 00900 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00881 Message: 47/89 L2 [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

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
I really like to approach and indeed it is very important to stress the
universal apart from recognizing difference .. unfortunately, it's really
like tilting at the windmills in contemporary academia ... but I believe
the coming world crises will once again impress the need for human unity,

I really like your approach on recognition and quality ...

I'm just reading Pierre Clastres, Societies against the State ... he
distinguishes 3 modalities (circulations) of value amongst the forest
indians of south amercia: semantic, goods, and women, and explains how this
is related to their choice of a system of 'chiefs without power' ..


On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Jakob Rigi <rigij> wrote:

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 <michel> 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 <rigij> wrote:

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

Stefan Meretz <stefan> 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]

P2P Foundation:  -

Connect:; Discuss:


[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00881 Message: 47/89 L2 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00900 [Homepage] [Navigation]