Message 00929 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00881 Message: 25/89 L8 [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

Hash: SHA1

Am 20.03.2012 05:35, schrieb Michel Bauwens:
Stefan, you make this very strong statement:

<If a society is based on voluntary contribution, aka commons
based peer production, then the entire society is organized that
way. >

so do you really believe that 'by fiat', there will be a wholesale 

By fiat? What do you mean? Do you want to become a candidate as the
benevolent p2p-dictator for a whole peer society? You will not get my
vote ;)

If you read the sentence again carefully, you have to admit, that it
is a purely logical statement with no big depth and utility. It is
always true:

"If a society is based on private commodity production and exchange,
aka capitalism, then the entire society is organized that way."


If not, there will be a transition where this is not the case, and
we are back the the reality-based discussion.

Please do no denounce discussions about the functioning of a peer
society working on its own ground as "unrealistic". Our efforts must
be twofold as explained in the response to Tony (not repeated here).
We should not play off the one with the other. This does not help.

My contention is that, like for marx, full commonism is likely to
be an end-point, not a magical transition, and this creates a
discussion around the complexity of change, from the period in
which the class dominance of capital ends, to the reallization of a
full contributory society.

According to Marx I would say: Then prehistory ends and history
begins. An end-point is only reached when human species dispear.

If you admit my point, how then is your vision of transition?

A transition needs no vision, because it is already happening. Within
this transition we have a lot of analysis in common plus some
differences. Do I need to repeat them? No, you know them well. I my
understanding these differences are part of the process, because all
possible ways of transition have be tried out. Most of them will
vanish, because they do not work, but some of them will develop to the
dominant mode of production. If you argue for using peer money, then I
argue against it, because it is a dead end. But anyway what you and me
say: It will be tried out. It is "normal" that people first are using
those means they know by only slowly lose illusions.

What needs more vision or imagination is the functioning of a peer
producing society on its own ground, because many of the rejections
(e.g. of my "strong statements") are coming from this missing insight
and imagination. If you believe that money will never disappear then,
of course, you will only focus on solutions within the monetary realm
reproducing the drawbacks as command via money as Toni points out.


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


Thread: joxT00881 Message: 25/89 L8 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00929 [Homepage] [Navigation]