Re: [ox-en] There is no such thing like "peer money"
- From: Paul Cockshott <wpc dcs.gla.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:32:55 +0100
Raoul wrote:
Electronic aside, Paul's answer takes up the same principle than Marx
and Engels and which could be summarized by the formula: "to each
according to his work". Marx's famous "Critique of the Gotha Program"
reads: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)
Yes it is consciously modelled on this.
Marx shows also how that system is unequal at another level: "Right,
by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal
standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different
individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal
standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view
(...) Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more
children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal
performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption
fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer
than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of
being equal, would have to be unequal."
In modern capitalism, "Welfare state" systems have created some
mechanisms that take into account the differences between individual
situations (child or household benefits, unemployment benefits, etc.)
If strictly applied, the system described by Marx, in some aspects,
would be less "fair" than some aspects of capitalism.
I agree with this, and we have made the same point ourselves.
About the practicability. In order to function, that system needs a
complex and huge effort of measuring. On the one hand it must measure
the value of each producer's "contribution", calculated in
abstract/simple-labor hours. On the other hand, the value/price of
each product . That poses difficulties at a qualitative and a
quantitative level.
We discuss the practicality of this in Alternativen Aus Dem Rechner, and
in other publications. It is a problem of less than N^2 order. Probably
between NlogN and N^{1.5}
At a quantitative level, measuring how many hours everyone is working
and on the other side what is the "value" of each product and each
service, but also what are the values of all the "funds" that must be
deducted from each labor-voucher, etc., all that implies a quantity of
effort which one can wonder if its not a hindrance rather than a
factor of fluency.
This relates to the question of what form of taxation should be
operated. I personally favour a duty to perform an agreed number of
hours of labour for the common good each week, either directly, or
commuted into hours of labour at your normal job.
Who would have said only 20 years ago that products like Linux or
Wikipedia, representing millions of hours of "work", could be realized
without any economical coercion? Why would it not be the case with
material production? The social atmosphere created by the fact that
the means of production are on the hands of society, in the commons,
should engender an enthusiasm and a collective spirit which could be
the most powerful motivation to participate to production, without
individual economic coercion. What about the idlers? Even in birds
groups there are "idlers" who, when the group are eating in the
ground, eat all the time, instead of keeping regularly an eye on
possible predators, as the majority of the group does. They are not
condemned by the others to starvation for that.
But most important: in a society where the means of production are not
privately owned any more, the organization of production in every
place can be the task of the producers themselves. Further, the design
of the produced means of production can be essentially specified
according to the pleasure they can offer to their users. Transforming
the world of production in order to make it a pleasant one should be a
top priority since the beginning of a post-capitalist transition. As
far as things will depend on humans will, we should rather bet on such
a method than on individual economic coercion as an incentive to
participate to production.
I think what you have to keep in mind is that any given society will
have several forms of production relation at once. The production of
free software like linux is to my mind an instance of higher communist
production embeded in capitalism. What I am proposing is to replace the
capitalist portion of production with what marx called lower communist
production, but one would leave the higher communist production unaltered.
They specify that these vouchers "are not money. They do not
circulate." "They are no more 'money' than a ticket for the theater"
(Engels, Anti-Duhring).
Same point is made by Marx in Capital, and we endorse it in our writings.
Paul's proposition differs from that vision for some specific kind of
consumption goods. He sees two types of distribution according to the
kind of good, one is free distribution, the other through markets:
"I specified that I thought that the role of a consumer goods market
was limited to
those goods whose labour of reproduction remained considerable, and
for which no objective assessment of need can be arrived at.
Where either of these criteria are absent, a market is not appropriate.
(...) Goods that require substantial labour input but for which need can
be objectively assesed, should be free but not ad libitum..."
Graham, objected: "Who would the people be doing this 'objective
assessment' of my needs if not a new set of rulers? (...) This kind of
separation of 'need' and 'want' is only possible by sleight of hand:
take current family, number of tvs per head, cars per family etc as
given, and you can claim that this presupposed existing system shows
what people objectively 'need', and anything else is just 'desire'.
The British will then have lots of needs, and most of Africa mere
desires." (26aug08)
I agree with Graham that the distinction between needs ans desires is
dangerous, especially if its evaluation is made by a "set of rulers".
What is required for objectivity is that the decisions are made by
somebody other than the person who will benefit. I gave the example of
the provision of free healthcare in the UK.
But the question remains: is a market, and thus money, necessary
during such a period of transition?
In order to justify the need of markets concerning some consumer
goods, Paul writes: "If we assume generalised public ownership the
issue arises whether markets can be completely abolished. I think no.
I think that some residual indicative function remains for certain
consumer goods markets in order to match output to community tastes."
(13aug08)
You can have labour tokens used to purchase consumer goods without these
being money, if they are non transferable and cancelled at the point
when they are used to purchase something.
I am not sure I understand correctly Paul's thinking. Here he talks of
an "indicative function" and "tastes" to be "matched". That appears as
a sort of "opinion poll", concerning a marginal ("residual") share of
goods. But if we consider the amount of goods which could correspond
to Paul's criteria to be distributed through market, it is a real
system of distribution.
In any case, Paul's justification relates to the capacity of markets
to allow output to match consumers wants.
But, what about money? If symmetric exchange is absent from the main
economic mechanism in the peer sector, is it absent from the whole
society in transition? As I said in the first part of this text, there
will be inevitably a coexistence of the peer sector and the remaining
of capitalist and even pre-capitalist forms. The exchange between the
different sectors will certainly tend to be, at least at the
beginning, a symmetric exchange. And thus, a mean of exchange, a sort
of money will be required.
Why do you assume that capitalist production remains?
Why not assume that some form of cooperative production remains?
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de