Message 05282 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 9/96 L6 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] The question of transition and the role of money



[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Dear Stefan

I guess you mean by equivalence, = equivalent exchange,

but the defining characteristic of capitalism is that, despite the liberal
claim, it is based on unequal exchange, not equal exchange.

Again, anthropologically, markets preceded capitalism, and cannot be equated
with it (see braudel, or for an update manuel delanda)

Again, anthropologically, the four modes of intersubjectivity have always
co-existed, but under the 'dominance' and influence of one key mode.

Peer to peer does not mean a totalitarian commons leaving no place at all
for other ways, but rather that the core value processes will follow that
logic.

So, even in a peer to peer dominated society, is equal exchange admissible
under a pluralist economy requiring human freedom to choose, what is not
permissible is 'unequal exchange', and infinite growth mechanisms, since
that threatens the survivability of the whole system.

Until we are there, alternative market mechanisms, based on equal exchange,
and without infinite growth mechanisms, are a way to preserve and enhance
human choice and ecologocal and economical survival, since it is empirically
determined that these other monetary mechanisms have worked rather well
whenever they have been tried sensibly.

Michel

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Stefan Meretz <stefan meretz.de> wrote:

On 2009-02-24 05:51, magius wrote:
2009/2/24 Stefan Meretz <stefan meretz.de>:
Then you would say, that "alternative money" is not that bad as
"capitalist money". This is a theoretical question. And my answer,
which I explained earlier here, is, that "money" is only the symbol
for the underlying mechanism of "equivalent exchange". Equivalent
exchange is only necessary in a society, where separated producers
have to exchange their products on markets and find a way to make
this exchange just.

Imho this approach simplifies too much the problem.

On 2003 I was a participant to an italian group of work that tried to
define a different monetary system.

I know the Gesellian approch quite well, and there is a lot to say
against it (and had already been said on this list earlier). Anyway. In
your answer, you don't deal with the key point of equivalence. Thus, I
would say, that I don't simplify the problem too much, but I brought
the problem to its very core which you miss in your answer.

AFAIK no alternative monetary system approach -- and there are lots of
them -- have awareness of the equivalence problem, or, they simply
accept it as a kind of "natural law" (of a "second nature" as I
explained). Please correct me if I am wrong.

As Marc said, agreement or consensus can not be the goal here. My only
hope is, that I could set a tiny thorn into your conviction.

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: 9/96 L6 [In index]
Message 05282 [Homepage] [Navigation]