Re: Role of markets (was: Re: [ox-en] Re: Fundamental text by StefanMn and StefanMz)
- From: "Patrick Anderson" <agnucius gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:03:39 -0600
Stefan and everyone,
I'm just trying to understand what is being said here (how terms are
defined), so don't be offended by my following simplistic questions.
*The open questions is therefore: can we have markets without the
unsustainability of the capitalist format and its attendent
biospheric destruction and social and psychic dislocation?*
I would answer this question with "no".
Stefan, are you saying that any trade in ANY form is always
necessarily destructive?
What if there were two people stranded on an island? Must they stay
isolated in order to preserve the biosphere, or can they get together
and trade labor and products so they can specialize without increasing
harm to the island?
My take is: Capitalists strive for scarcity and destruction not
because of specialization, nor because of trade, but because Profit
(price above cost) is treated as a reward for the current owners, and
also because it is NOT treated as an investment from the consumer who
paid it. But oh, well, that's just me...
A market in a peer to peer society would of course have to be
beneficial first of all to the peer producers themselves.
(...)
This is wishful thinking, in my view. I put a comment to your blog post:
You (following Brenner) described markets in a pre-capitalist C-M-C
(C: commodity, M: money) society, where any immanent "pressure toward
the continual revolution of the means of production" did not exist.
Ok. Then, in capitalism you have the dominant M-C-M' mode, where
making more money from invested money is the goal, which every player
have to follow. And now, you are thinking of going backwards to a
nice C-M-C-society? Did I understand you right this way? In my view,
nothing is more unrealistic than that.
I do not agree with the assertion that every player (every human on
earth?) must follow the destructive goal of "making more money from
invested money".
There are many micro-economies (such as in families or maybe in some
small communes) where action is taken (work) for the sole purpose of
PRODUCT, not for PROFIT.
But if you think none of us can ever escape such a fate, then why even
try to promote the http://Oekonux.org ideals? If we are destined to
lose, then why try?
I don't understand. If no player (human) can ever possibly do
anything beyond being a Capitalist pawn, then shouldn't we just give
up now?
This is a different question and worth to evaluate: The coexistence of
markets and local communisms/commonisms. There, the local communities
do not reproduce via market relations, but they interact with outside
markets in some way. The type of "way" is essential.
I think I know what the shape of this "way" is, and how to put it in
action, but have already outlined that solution above.
I wonder would anyone here be interested in a sort of 'simulation'
thread where we could pick apart and debug these questions by
presenting the smallest economy (2 isolated humans), and then asking
small questions about the market (trade) that occurs there?
I think we really have a chance to pinpoint the problem if we take
such an approach to keep us from getting otherwise lost in the
complexity.
Patrick
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de