Re: [ox-en] There is no such thing like "peer money"
- From: Raoul <raoulv club-internet.fr>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:21:03 +0100
Hi Stefan (Meretz),
Thanks for the stimulants comments you made (23nov08) about my mails on
money and peer-production. I'll try to answer some of them, but, in
order to avoid a too long mail, I'll do it in different posts.
I had written:
> In order to try to understand the possible relations between
> peer-production and money, I have focused on that specific moment of
> the transition from capitalism to a fully-developed "peer-society,
> (4th step in the 5-Step theory) in which a significant share of the
> material means of production have fallen into the commons but
> ampleness of produced goods is still insufficient to allow
> distribution following the principle: "to each according to his
> needs/desires".
You wrote:
“Your description rather fits to the much more important transition from
the 3rd to the 4th step, where the peer economy becomes dominant.”
OK. That would be the a sort of beginning of the 4th step. Here
everything is “transition”: the five steps are transitional moments
within a more global transition, and one can also see transitions
between these moments. Nevertheless, points of reference are necessary.
I am not so familiar with the 5-step model. I know it essentially by the
“Fundamental text” ("Germ-form theory: Peer production in a historical
perspective") you and Stefan wrote. I find that theory very useful. I
think it is borne out by the history of the past transitions between
social systems, especially from slavery to feudalism and from feudalism
to capitalism. It should be a helpful tool for understanding the present
transition to a post-capitalist society, even if this transition is
qualitatively different from most of past ones, since its is not a
transition between two systems based on exploitation but a movement
towards the end of exploitation.
My concern was to situate in the framework of the 5-step model the
specific moment when the question of a peer distribution of material
goods is actually posed. That moment requires that an important share of
the material means of production have become collectively owned and
begin to be managed according to peer principles. You say, and I can
agree, that this corresponds to the transition from the 3d to the 4th
step "where the peer economy becomes dominant". I just want to make two
remarks about that.
1. The definition given by the text is coherent with the Marxist
concept. It reads: "Now it is its principles that determine further
development", or, "The new form (...) determining the system's direction
of development." [I suppose that in this last formulation it is
"society" which is meant by "system"].
The definition of the status of “dominant” for a mode of production is
often misunderstood. It is assimilated to a simple question of share of
people producing according to the principles of that mode. For example,
if the share is superior to a given percentage, the mode would be
dominant. In the Marxist conception, a mode of production can be
dominant without involving the majority of the producers. It is a
question of dynamic. Marx considers that capitalism becomes dominant as
early as the 16-17th century, since the further development of society
is already essentially determined by the still-young capitalist reality.
2. Considering that the beginning of the extension of peer production
principles to the "material" sphere opens the transition to the step of
"domination" constitutes an important point of reference.
This being said, I have been somewhat surprised by an aspect of the
Stefan Merten's presentation given recently at the Kerala conference,
concerning the advancement of peer principles in the 5-step model/scale.
If I understand the slides he published in the ox-en list (which are
inevitable very short) Stefan makes a distinction between two levels or
spheres: one is "software" and the other is "society". He writes that
"For software: Free Software is well in phase 3, disseminating and
expanding"; (...) "For society: Peer production is in phase 1: emerging
of the new."
I think that Stefan Merten's concern deals with an important reality. It
is true that peer principles are clearly "disseminating and expanding"
in the software sphere, The recent Study on the Economic impact of FLOSS
in the EU, confirms that clearly (see S. Merten's mail of 30dec08). We
can even see some proprietary corporations being obliged to produce
"peer products" and to adopt some aspects of peer principles for
producing them (IBM for Linux, for example). In that sphere, peer
principles of production are, as Merten says, "most developed and most
visible". In the sphere of science and culture, where most of the goods
produced are digital or information goods, this is also the case, even
if at lesser degree. But in the "material" sphere, dealing with
non-freely-reproducible goods, peer principles are hardly visible,
leaving aside the fact that material production is irreversibly and
rapidly becoming more and more dependent from software and science.
That means that the 5-step model may describe different degrees of
advancement of the SAME germ-form in different spheres/layers of social
production. But, at the same time, it should describe the whole process,
it should measure the degree of advancement at the global scale.
That may seem complex or contradictory. But that corresponds to a very
frequent reality in nature, grasped by the fractal images/equations. "A
fractal is generally 'a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be
split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a
reduced-size copy of the whole,' a property called self-similarity."
(Wikipedia in English)
We could thus say that, simultaneously, in the software layer, as in the
science and culture one (even if at a lower degree), the advancements of
peer principles is in phase 3, expanding and disseminating, and, in the
"material" sphere, it is in phase 1, emerging. Or rather in phase 2,
crisis of the old, as Merten precises. (A burning issue by these days,
when capitalism is confronted to its first really *worldwide* economic
crisis).
But what about the global, the social level? In which phase is the
germ-form "for society"? Merten seems to identify that phase with the
lowest in the partial spheres: the phase in the material sphere.
That sounds sensible, since the material layer remains the foundation of
prevailing social relationships. Also because the "visibility" of peer
production at a global level is heavily dependent of its visibility in
the material sphere.
But, if the 3d phase is strictly defined by "disseminating and
expanding" or "germ form becomes an important dimension", then we must
consider that "for society", for the whole, peer-production is in phase
3. The quality of the different spheres is not crucial here. Capitalism
expanded first in secondary sectors of production: weapons and luxury
products. Software and science are "secondary" to material production,
but they also are more and more determinant in any evolution of it.
It is always difficult to make schemes/patterns, by definition
simplistic, in order to understand a living process, which is complex
and contradictory. But they are an important tools.
Raoul
.
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de