Message 05274 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 3/96 L2 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

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



[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Stefan,

Sorry, but I have not heard any consistent arguments about why it is better
to keep using 'capitalist money' in the transition.

The direct mediation of peers in free software works, but is only an
insufficient start, as long as the material means of production are not in
the hands of producers.

As we discussed often here, it needs to be complemented with a direct link
with material production, and while we are making advances, we are not there
yet, and the ultimate solution, or phase transition, may (will) not come
without accompanying political change.

Do I have a full strategic answer, no, but who has?

So. my provisional conclusion is to work 'integrally' on different fronts at
the same time, building the alternative social life, based on direct
mediation between peers as much as we can, while also building the
underlying infrastructures: ICT for communication, distributed grids for
energy, distributed material production facilities, new forms of ownership,
distributed capital formation through mutual credit and social lending, but
also, "peer to peer money", i.e. a financial infrastructure that is not
under the control of capital, but of the associated producers themselves.

Neither of these partial aspects is sufficient by itself, and all of them
will not be sufficient without access to the material means of production,
but as we prepare for the phase transition, strengthening these
interconnected aspects of alternative social life, is all we can and must
do.

Changing all the aspects, but leaving capital in the hands of Finance,
doesn't sound like a sensible thing to do.

Changing different aspects of protocollary power, but leaving the central
one intact ...

Now, as long as you use pejorative words like 'money juggling' and 'money
trickery', to intervene in a serious debate, you will understand that I fail
to see serious arguments.

Innuendo will not do.

I seriously propose you and Stefan would produce a FAQ like document laying
out your argumentation.

In particular, you need to explain the transition strategy between the
situation today, and full mediation between peers that should include
material production.

Should that transition use capitalist monetary systems, or not.

If not, if immediate and total direct mediation is not possible, what
exactly will you use for exchanges that take place?

My reference to Pol Pot is not gratuitous: if you do not respect the freedom
of those who do not want, or cannot, enter into direct mediation, you can
only use coercion. If you do not want to use coercion, you need a means of
exchange. Which will that be?

Michel

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Stefan Meretz <stefan meretz.de> wrote:

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




-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/


[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 3/96 L2 [In index]
Message 05274 [Homepage] [Navigation]