Re: [ox-en] Robinsonades
- From: Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz hbv.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:21:25 +0200
On 2008-08-13 01:32, Patrick Anderson wrote:
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?
Why should they trade in order to specialize? Especially in a
Robinson situation it would be crazy to implement such dump
overhead.
I do not understand what you mean by 'overhead'.
Unnecessary actions. Sorry for my poor english.
By 'Trade' I mean the exchange labor or products, even when that
exchange appears to be a gift.
Sharing is not trading. As Christian showed.
My definition of 'Trade' includes gifts, even if they appear to be
non-reciprocal. The reason this is important to me is that I am
quite sure trading itself is not the actual problem, and that the
problem has much more to do with how prices are kept above costs, and
who should optimally own the Means of Production to solve this issue.
If everything is trading, then you are unable to analyze capitalism. You
are out-defining the problem.
What you present here is the typical view of a human society:
Humans are naturally isolated atoms and they only become social by
exchange.
It is true that I look at almost all human interaction as exchange,
but I don't see anything wrong with that. It is just a more
broad/inclusive definiiton. If I spend time and money to court a
mate and she gives me a kiss, then we have made an exchange. We have
traded. And other potential mates are the 'market' for that trading.
To me an horrible view on real world. This feels to me like someone who
only knows nails, where a hammer is always the right tool.
I'm just saying I want to be able to hire a dentist in the GNU
society instead of doing that work myself, so I need specialization.
Look at the "GNU society" (aka free software): There is specialization.
Without trading, simply because people like to do their special thing
and have fun with that.
And when someone does work for me, shouldn't I compensate him?
In capitalism: Yes, you are forced to do so.
In a free society: No, why should you?
Compensating is anti-human capitalist thinking.
If not, then why in the universe would he work on my rotting teeth?
Because he or she likes to help you, is happy with fixing rotten teeth,
simply likes you personally, does his/her task with a lot of fun, has a
personal mission to free the city from rotten teeth, is working in a
cool team etc. - at least one million reasons.
Compare this to capitalism: There is only one reason - compensation. So
poor, so sad, anti-human.
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".
You are right, humans they can decide against the law. But then
they are no longer players. Seriously, there are some big players
who did this. It is a practical alternative.
By 'law' are you talking about doing something illegal?
I don't mean juridical laws, but the market rules operating as a "law".
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.
They are NOT economies exactly for the reason you describe.
I'm only claiming that Trade (according to my definition) takes place
in families too.
Why does Sally let her brother Jim borrow her bike? She may do it to
keep the relationship 'solid', and maybe even to 'payoff' a favor he
did for her earlier.
Husbands and wives do enormous amounts of trading because the
physical differences in their strengths and abilities means male
husbands generally do more of the heavy lifting while female wives
often do more of the 'fine' work.
Sounds like a horror trip from the 19th century to me.
But I'm not trying to sell Capitalism; I'm selling the notion that
Trade is required for specialization, even if that trade looks like
sharing.
Sorry, don't be angry about me: You _are_ selling capitalist logic, even
if you don't want to. I can accept this view, because it is the common
one. But not my.
Ok, this can happen in debates, that one have to assert, that the very
basic views on the things are so different, that further discussion is
useless.
Ciao,
Stefan
--
Start here: www.meretz.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de