Message 00938 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00881 Message: 28/89 L11 [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]
<"If a society is based on x then the entire society is based on x"

Please criticize me about the void in this statement.>

well either it is a tautology and therefore not interesting, or you mean
that the entire society is x; the latter I would dispute; that a society is
based on something, doesn't mean there is only that.

This means you have to deal with plural forms. How does a commons-based
society deals with the need for reciprocity and calculation in
non-abundant, rival resources,


On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Stefan Meretz <stefan> wrote:

Hash: SHA1

Am 20.03.2012 13:52, 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 transition?

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 ;)

you are asking us to imagine a wholly p2p/commons society, so the
question how we get there is entirely legitimate, if you don't have
a transition strategy, then how will it come into being if not by
fiat? It was a question by the way ...

Omg. I meant: You cannot ask this seriously, because a transition
cannot be done by fiat. Isn't this obvious?

All we talk here is about how we get from here to there. Most debates
in Oekonux and around are about transition, it is the purpose of the
project since 1999. So why this question?

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."

it's not logical at all, neither one nor the other ...

"If a society is based on x then the entire society is based on x"

Please criticize me about the void in this statement.

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.

back to square one ... it IS legimate, but if it consistently fails
to offer a vision on the transition, it becomes less than useful
after a while

Any question about transition is legitimate. Even in forms of diverse
visions. Some visions can be dangerous, if they narrow the view, they
are good, if they enhance imagination and promote practical experiences.

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

may be true, but it doesn't invalidate the other point ...

There is no other point.

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.

we will see if the transition can work with purely capitalist
money, or that the transition will need different currencies ...

Yes, I said the same.

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.

that is of course NOT what I believe, I merely believe that you
cannot make money disappear via fiat, and that many other
conditions are necessary for its functions to be superseded ... in
the meantime, you need to deal with it ...  the real issue how to
make the other spheres work with and for the commons ..


of course if you believe that a pure commonist society will
suddenly appear fully formed, you don't need to deal with such
issues ..

Never said this, and I cannot remember that anyone said this at all.


- --
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: 28/89 L11 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00938 [Homepage] [Navigation]