Message 05273 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 2/96 L1 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

money jugglers (was: Re: [ox-en] apples and moonfruits)



On 2009-02-23 14:02, Michel Bauwens wrote:
An answer to Stefan Meretz at
http://www.keimform.de/2009/02/23/open-design-and-open-manufacturing/
comment-page-1/#comment-15800

The following response is related to this paragraph:

   Bauwens extends his picture to peer energy and peer financing. He is
   an adherent of local currencies, which is one of the weird points in
   his peer conviction. It seems that he wants to reproduce the money
   system forever while replacing the capitalist production system,
   which, for me, is completely inconsistent. Using money, which is
   unavoidable under given capitalist dominance, must include an
   integrated perspective of replacing money logic with direct societal
   mediation between the peers — or the holy shit we want to get rid off
   starts again.

I'm paraphrasing his argument: "pesticide-laden apples are bad, we
have to abolish them and eat pure moonfruit". I say, why not eat
organic pears in the meantime. Stefan answers, no, that would just
reproduce the fruit-eating we want to get rid off ... Pesticide-laden
apples and organic pears are just the same, I want moonfruit .. The
only problem is of course, there is no moonfruit

Taking this paraphrase seriously, then would you say: There is no 
money-free society? So, is my provocative proposition true, that you 
want "to reproduce the money system forever"?

and on and on it goes, so here is my response to his very superficial
critique (it is strange that both Stefan's never ever want to engage
in a simple argument about what they reject about the transformation
of the means of exchange ...)

This is simply not true, and you know that. We had discussions about 
that topic here bringing us quite near, I thought. But maybe this was a 
wrong impression.

Here's the counter-argument:
(...)

So, here's my answer from the blog:

@Michel: I find your answer quite unfair to allege that I want to 
immediate abolish money at a stroke in a kind of Pol-Potianism. I 
explicitly wrote the contrary. Please read again: »Using money, which 
is unavoidable under given capitalist dominance, must include an 
integrated perspective of replacing money logic with direct societal 
mediation between the peers«.

This is what I stand for and what I criticize is, that you have 
forgotten this insight. Did you? Or do you really want an everlasting 
money system? Are you money-blind? I can't believe that.

   »Who sincerely believes that you can institute, ‘right now’, direct
   social mediation between peers?«

You. But you should not »believe« it, you should _know_, that free 
software did exactly establish this direct social mediation between 
peers. Or Wikipedia. Of course, there is money involved, but this does 
not constitute the social mediation between the peers, because neither 
free software nor Wikipedia is a commodity. I thought, this was clear.

And btw. the »holy shit« is a paraphrase of Marx who was afraid, that an 
inconsequent transformation of the society which does not transcend 
market, money and state brings back the »old shit«. This was indeed 
true for real-socialism. Do we want to learn from it?

So, my question is: Do you integrate your »money-juggling« with a 
perspective of getting rid of it? And if yes: how? This is what I am 
missing from your side.

Ciao,
Stefan

-- 
Start here: www.meretz.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 2/96 L1 [In index]
Message 05273 [Homepage] [Navigation]