Re: [ox-en] Response to Stefan Meretz on the social production of money
- From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:19:02 +0700
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hi Stefan,
see inline for different responses
You mention Christian Siefkes proposal, and imply that I have ignored
it. First this is untrue, I have about a dozen blog references and
dedicated a whole wiki section on his proposals. But second, this is
indeed an utopian proposal, in the sense that it is not being tried
out anywhere, and that I seen no concrete prospects of it being tried
anywhere.
Yes, you documented it, great, thank you, but did not integrate it in
your vision. You simply expand what is. You don't ask deeply enough, if
this is right or wrong. I can't see any concept of societal transition
according to the five step model. There are not qualitative steps, just
expansion and withering away. I don't think, that societal transitions
occur this way.
Dear Stefan,
I simplify the five-step model to a 3-step one of emergency, parity, phase
transition, now we are in emergence, but with a good chance of substantially
increasing it, up to eventual parity level.
So, I'm focusing on the here and now of that phase, but not ignoring the
long term. I look for really occuring human practices that are going in the
right direction, looking at how they can be strengtened and interconnected.
I do not think building a counter-society is enough, so that existing
institutions have to be challenged, or replaced. So, I leave space for the
political, while I have the impression that you said 'that it is not the
right place'.
However, I do believe in the distributed creativity of the 'multitudes', as
to how to find the right political responses to challenges. This in a way,
precludes presenting fully thought-out strategic proposals. Again, here also
we have to carefully observe real trends and victories, to see what works
and not.
And concerning peerconomy: any new model must be tried once for the
first time. But to me the main role of peerconomy is to sharpen our
mind and to use elements or principles in our projects.
By contrasts, peer to peer money is a thriving social movement,
producing many benefits in the here and now.
So it's time to critically reflect these experiences. In my view, there
are pros and cons.
This is great Stefan, finally, let's move to that space, instead of using
'money trickery' to evade that work of critical reflection. So, if this is
the only thing that comes out of the debate, we will have made substantial
progress.
One of your key arguments is that peer to peer money would reproduce
capitalism, if I understand you correctly?
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense, that it is no escape and thus finally
will reproduce capitalism. But this can't be an important argument,
because with our daily live we reproduce capitalism all together.
No, because it is not that simple. The key critique is, that alternative
money does not solve or address the equivalence problem. More then
that: It does not see equivalence as a problem at all. I explained this
critique in my previous mails. You did not pick up this point.
I think I do take it up. Imagine a polarity between very unequal and more
equal exchange. Value-sensitive design is part of the methods we have to
move from one polarity to another.
But that is simply not the case. Interest and fractional reserve
banking, and other aspects of the current monetary system, are
designed as scarcity-based money, that facilitate accumulation, and
require infinite growth.
This is a mistake: Money was not "designed", it has historically
developed together with emerging capitalism. It reflects the mode
of production and is its integral part. I can't be cutted away or
replaced by voluntary mechanisms like alternative money.
This is not true Stefan. Money does not just 'naturally' evolve, it is a
human project that is the product of conscious and unconscious struggles.
What is true is that humanity was not very cnscious of these invisible
infrastructures, but now we are. For example, in the current debate about
the financial meltdown, analysts are pointing to a mathematical formula for
risk management, and a deregulation meeting of the SEC, as key inflection
points creating the current fiasco.
Part of the social struggle is to become more aware of the importance of
these hidden mechanisms, and to become aware of how determining they are to
steer social relationships in one direction or another.
Peer to peer money is designed against
accumulation, against infinite growth, to keep more streams of value
within communities, and to be under the control of such communities,
physical and virtual. So they directly contribute to more autonomous
social life, and where applied, do not reproduce the accumulation of
capital.
I share the goal, but I think, that all alternative money approaches
earlier or later must fail to prepare a commonist society, because of
the immanent blindness for the equivalence problem.
please re-explain that equivalence problem .. remember my point about
polarities and moving in the right direction; also remember that as long as
some form of exchange is necessary or inevitable, it matters a lot what kind
of exchange is imposed.
Are they sufficient to change the dynamic of the whole society, no,
of course not, but along with the other p2p infrastructures, they
create areas that are protected from its full scope, and create more
room and space for alternatives. Integrated in a full vision of
distributed infrastructures though, they play a crucial role, which
is why the Hungarian revolution wanted to adopt it.
Which case are you refering to?
The russian-revolution inspired uprising in Hungary, in 1918, instituted a
new currency system, but the revolution failed very quickly. But what is
important is that the radical labour movement was open to these ideas. Sorry
that I forgot the name of the minister, I couldn't refind it through google.
But can such use of alternative money wither away? Why not. First of
all, it is used freely by associated producers, without coercion; and
is structured so as to prevent accumulation. Then to the degree that
our society finds other means to deal with scarce resources, through
resource-based economics or any other scheme, then the need to use
for such money falls way, and indeed, through such process, it can
wither away.
In most (all?) experiments we could observe, alternative money indeed
withered away by replacing it with "real" money. When the basis of
equivalence is more or less the same, why not switch to real money when
a partial function of alternative money is reached?
That depends. I think alternative currencies suffer from the same problem as
cooperatives, i.e. the enormous pressure of mainstream society to be
competitive on its terms. This is a very familiar problem. For example, we
know small scale organic agriculture is substantially more productive than
industrialized toxic and unsustainable agriculture, yet it often 'loses'.
Another factor is that successfull alternative currencies, with demonstrated
social success, where forcibly suppressed by the state in Germany, Austria
and the US. Some of them survived and thrived, like WIR and the Jak bank,
with some degree of accomodation.
The thing is to learn from our mistakes in this area as in others.
Another important factor is the internet, i.e. the ability to turn
complementary currencies, which were high treshold activities, into low
treshold activities due to the facilitation of online software. That may be
a big change affecting the success rates of such projects.
I don't understand, what you mean by "intersubjective modes". I am
taking about modes of production.
see the relational grammar of fiske: equallity matching = gift economy,
authority ranking = hierarchical allocation, market pricing = capitalism,
communal shareholding = peer production
each mode of relating is linked to particular expressions of modes of
production that are based on them
no time to look up but see 'Fiske' on the p2p wiki
Well, this mixture and plurality image contadicts the understanding of a
dominant mechanism guiding all other aspects of societal live. There is
no plurality of equally relevant forms. In history there was always a
dominant societal form, while other forms were subordered.
this is exactly what I'm saying to
got to go, my wife is picking me up in this cybercafe, hope to return to
this mail soon,
Michel
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de