Re: Money as a dominant social relation (was: Re: [ox-en] There is no such thing like "peer money")
- From: "Samuel Rose" <samuel.rose gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:38:24 -0400
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Well that is precisely the point. That something precedes something else,
does not mean that what came later precedes from the former. So what paul
and the chartalists are saying is that state monies were structurally
different from the early tokens; and what many historials are saying is
that
the capitalist market evolved separately from the local/regional markets
(braudel, polanyi). So you have a separate development that overtakes an
earlier one.
Example: state-introduced monies destroy and replace local currencies
through coercion; global capitalist markets replace and destroy, by
coercion, the earlier local-regional markets.
It's not a 'natural' evolution of complexity, but a structural/cultural
intervention social construct by particular human groups, whose interests
may differ from others. In that sense what is important is that complexity
theory does not become a theory to justify and explain 'everything that
happens' as inevitable 'after the fact'.
I similarly suspect that peer to peer will not naturally evolve out of
capitalism, but will require structural/cultural intervention by human
intentionality ... of course 'not only', as it is the combination between
the 'conditional inevitability' of objective conditions, and the concrete
actions and intentions, which makes the difference.
Ok, I guess I see that cultural/structural intervention is as emergent any
un-intended consequences that may emerge from deliberate action for
instance. How is it emergent? It is a pattern of actions that arises out of
comparatively simper actions. I make no distinction, both the "surprise"
and the plan that succeeds are emergent in nature, because thery are all
tied together in one complex system. What I am saying is that everything
that every living organism does, including humans, and including all of
those things that may come after, is by nature "emergent". So to is the
nature of all non-living things. This is the bias that I am looking at this
through. *All* is "natural".
However, that beign said, I now also see what you are talking about here.
How you are definining "ermegent" and "natural". So I do understand. That
there are social and political protocols that are put into state and
commerical issued and managed money, that were planned from the beginning to
accomplish what they do. That this was not an unforseen "surprise" for the
people who planned it ("surprise" being how some people use the word
"emergence", I do understand, but not its total definition as it used in
complexity theory that I am familiar with).
Please understand that I am not trying to excuse, or justify how money is
used by invoking complexity theory. But, I do strongly believe that
complexity theory does explain how it happens, and why it happens onmany
scales across time. Just because something happens does not mean that it is
acceptable or excuseable. I do understand that. However, it is correct to
say that state issued money emerged on this planet among humans. Unless you
think that actions of humans do not count as being "emergent" nor "natural"
in the scope of history and/or the Universe.
I agree that intervention is needed. But what can intervention really do? At
best, it can create the conditions to help people become ready for, and to
actually change. But the change in humans itself is emergent. The actual
change that they make from one paradigm or world view to another. And, the
development of technologies are also emergent.
That is a philosophical debate that is an aside from what I do agree with
you about, Michel. What we agree about is far more important to me than
whether you agree with my about my philosophies that I state in this email.
But, it is interesting to me to understand what others think about what I am
talking about, and why, etc
--
Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
AIM: Str9960
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samrose
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com/services
Related Sites/Blogs/Projects:
OpenBusinessModels: http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/FrontPage
http://p2pfoundation.net
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
http://www.cooperationcommons.com
http://barcampbank.org
http://communitywiki.org
http://openfarmtech.org
Information Filtering:
http://ma.gnolia.com/people/srose/bookmarks
http://del.icio.us/srose
http://twitter.com/SamRose
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de