Message 00912 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00881 Message: 52/89 L3 [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

Thanks Mitchel,
I agree with most of what you say, except on one point which is the crux of matter. As far as the capitalist mode of production is the dominant mode of production then there is a regime of calculation, accounting and trade. But if the p2p is dominant  mode of production, and if quantity is not relevant anymore, save except for pockets of none p2p modes of production, which may include remnants of capitalism, how then trade is possible?  Trade, even when it takes place on the basis of barter, requires quantity. You pay a certain  amounts of money for a certain quantity of a particular goods, or you barter a certain quantity of a particular type of goods  for an other quantity of a different type of goods. Trade without quantity does not make sense, neither money makes sense.  Even the gift exchange does not make sense. So, if you agree with me that quantity is not relevant for the inner logic of p2p, then quantity cannot mediate between different p2p communities, though there will be exchange, but not trade. Moreover, if the p2p logic will become the dominant logic , then its relation with other modes of productions cannot be based on quantity, i.e, money and trade.
all the best

Michel Bauwens <michel> 3/19/2012 12:09 PM >>>
thanks Jakob, responding inline

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Jakob Rigi <rigij> wrote:

Now my two big questions from you and also from Michel are ? (Because Michel also thinks that we can combine p2p with trade. Michel you are perefectly right to say that trade and money existed before capitalism. But, from this, we cannot by analogy conclude that trade and money are also compatible with p2p.)

hi Jakob, the reasoning is the following

1) it is already that way, we have p2p in knowledge production AND it co-exists with markets/capitalism

2) it is unlikely, and probably unwise (understatement) to coercively abolish all existing non-p2p social modes; hence, p2p logics will have to co-exist with other modalities such as the gift economy, market allocation, and hierarchical allocation ... the issues then becomes: 1) to get rid of capitalism as an urgent necessity to protect the lifeworld and to establish the power of the commoners ; 2) to find acceptable arrangements so that the commons can be the dominant core in the new social, political and economic ordening

3) such pluralism has always been the case, the historical succession, at least in the west from communism / gift economy / hierarchical alocation / market allocation under capitalism were different series of dominance, but never exclusivities ... the tribal gift economies co-exist with communism and market exchanges; the tributary regimes had strong commons; and capitalism would not survive one day without non-market contributions; therefore, the commons period will be exactly the same, dominant, but co-existing and influencing the other modes

4) the best way to deal with markets without capitalism is to allow trading freedom within limits (regulating social and natural externalities), and so clearly subsume it under the commons; and to change the corporate formats so that profit-maximising and capital accumulation disappears; with a structure of phyles, subsumed under the commons and the civic structures, one can have a market form that uses the market to strengthen the commons

1-What is calculated in the current p2p (Are labor time, or products calculated)? 2- What are the unit of calculation?
No one get credit for the amount of time they spent on solving a problem but for the sollution itself. I may spend 40 hours solving the same problem that you solve it in 4 hours. If your sollution is more intillegent the community will go with your sollution and you receive the recognition. Where is the quantity (calculation) here? Second, there is no standard accoding to which each separate sollution and the whole product can be quantified. They only can be evaluated in term of their quality. Hence, every one can use the product as much she pleases.

there is no specific reciprocity, but there is a general reciprocity between the participating individuals and the whole ... without any commoning, the whole would cease to exist ... even if that reciprocity is not-calculated ... but participating individuals do seek a fair exchange with the whole (an assessment of the different motivations like utility, reputation/recognition, learning, ...) . But I agree with you not only that quantitative calculation is irrelevant, but even counterproductive ('crowding out' phenomenom)

Of course, as you see, I have abstracted here from the dominant capitalist environment, in asking you these questions. But methodologically this is legitimate.
If you cannot identify any quantative factor (whether in tem of use value or abstract valeue) in p2p, then p2p in contrast to all pre p2p modes of production is free from any quantative (accounting ) regime whether in terms of use value or abstract value. P2p is the realm of quality, freedom from quantity, and indeed the freedom from duty. It is the true realm of desire, i.e communism=true freedom. 

Thread: joxT00881 Message: 52/89 L3 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00912 [Homepage] [Navigation]