headers
Patrick Anderson | 1 May 2009 04:47
Picon

Re: What prevents ampleness? (was: Re: [ox-en] Apple trees (aka capitalism) are bad. What about barter exchange?)

Stefan Merten wrote:
> Yet in an exchange based system you "may not eat if you do not work".

But isn't this also true for the lone islander?

I think there is some truth in what you write here, but it must not
precise enough since the same can be said of an isolated human, no?

Patrick
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt@...
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Stefan Meretz | 1 May 2009 10:18
Picon
Gravatar

[ox-en] Re: What prevents ampleness?

On 2009-05-01 04:47, Patrick Anderson wrote:
> Stefan Merten wrote:
> > Yet in an exchange based system you "may not eat if you do not
> > work".
>
> But isn't this also true for the lone islander?

We are not lone islanders and have never been.

Ciao,
Stefan

--

-- 
Start here: www.meretz.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt@...
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Stefan Meretz | 1 May 2009 11:25
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion

On 2009-04-30 13:06, Diego Saravia wrote:
> > > > Yes, that is goal: replacement of extrinsic with intrinsic
> > > > motivation
> > >
> > > I think this idea, that people do not need "to work"* for live is
> > > unrelated to money.
> >
> > The fact, that people are coerced to work, is directly related to
> > money today, because primitive subsistance is no longer possible
> > any more. You only can make a living via money.
>
> okey, now coercion is exercised via money
>
> but between primitivism and money and beyond you have huge horizonts
>
> and money is not the reasson for coercion, is only a mechanism
>
> the logic of coercion is far more profound than money

True, but due to simplification I use "money" as a symbol. Behind money 
there is exchange _value_, which does only exist, because we do not 
produce societally, but isolated. Isolated producers have to exchange 
their products, societal producers do not.

If exchange is necessary due to isolated production, then value is the 
objective measure for the exchange relation, and money is a special 
means to represent this value.

Thus talking about value in the sense of objective value is more correct 
then talking about money. But value, on the other hand, is more
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 21 comments |
headers
Patrick Anderson | 1 May 2009 14:53
Picon

Re: [ox-en] Re: What prevents ampleness?

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Stefan Meretz <stefan@...> wrote:
> On 2009-05-01 04:47, Patrick Anderson wrote:
>> Stefan Merten wrote:
>> > Yet in an exchange based system you "may not eat if you do not
>> > work".
>>
>> But isn't this also true for the lone islander?
>
> We are not lone islanders and have never been.

I understand that.

My point is that "may not eat if you do not work" is not caused by the
exchange system, but is an inherent part of reality.

Can animals eat if they do not work?
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt@...
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Diego Saravia | 1 May 2009 16:23
Picon

Re: [ox-en] Re: What prevents ampleness?

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
2009/5/1 Stefan Meretz <stefan@...>

> On 2009-05-01 04:47, Patrick Anderson wrote:
> > Stefan Merten wrote:
> > > Yet in an exchange based system you "may not eat if you do not
> > > work".
> >
> > But isn't this also true for the lone islander?
>
> We are not lone islanders and have never been.

we always needed to work , in the beginning whe almost dont exchange, we
distribute ammong families or small groups, what we gather or hunt,
sometimes we use other kind of exchange as gift system in especial events,
in special occasions, in special places, that places with time evolved to
markets and humankind grow because of that

some of us were lone islanders in pacific islands for example, small
families in each island.

--

-- 
Diego Saravia
Diego.Saravia@...
NO FUNCIONA->dsa@...

[2 text/html]
_________________________________
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Diego Saravia | 1 May 2009 16:52
Picon

Re: [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
>
> True, but due to simplification I use "money" as a symbol.

ohhhh, ok  lets forget a lot of what we talk.

> Behind money
> there is exchange _value_, which does only exist, because we do not
> produce societally, but isolated. Isolated producers have to exchange
> their products, societal producers do not.

mmm,

what is that?

all we produce  is in a huge system, formed by "families" or something like
that

families exchange thing, work, etc

you are thinking of creating  bigger "families"

or confusing all society in only one family?

could you spoecify better what are you thinking about?

>
> Thus talking about value in the sense of objective value is more correct
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 20 comments |
headers
Christoph Reuss | 1 May 2009 18:34
Picon

Re: [ox-en] Re: What prevents ampleness?

Diego Saravia wrote:
> some of us were lone islanders in pacific islands for example, small
> families in each island.

And these lone islanders, although living in an environment of abundance
where it was possible to eat without working, developed exchange systems...

And what's bad about interest?  Well, it redistributes wealth(*) from the
poorer ~80% (those who pay more interest than receiving interest) to the
richer ~20% (those who receive more interest) of the population.
In Germany alone, this redistribution amounts to a whopping 1 Billion
Euros PER DAY.

(*) Note that this works not only with money, but with any items.
    (E.g. the medieval tithe was usually paid with food by peasants.)
    I.e. abolishing money wouldn't solve this problem.

Greetings,
Chris

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword
"igve".

_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Stefan Seefeld | 1 May 2009 19:23
Picon
Favicon

Re: [ox-en] Re: What prevents ampleness?

Christoph Reuss wrote:
> Diego Saravia wrote:
>   
>> some of us were lone islanders in pacific islands for example, small
>> families in each island.
>>     
>
> And these lone islanders, although living in an environment of abundance
> where it was possible to eat without working, developed exchange systems...
>   
Sounds like Schlaraffenland. Where is that place ?

       Stefan

--

-- 

      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...

_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt@...
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Christoph Reuss | 1 May 2009 19:31
Picon

Re: [ox-en] Re: What prevents ampleness?

> Sounds like Schlaraffenland. Where is that place ?

Caribbean islands come very close to Schlaraffenland indeed.

Chris

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword
"igve".

_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt@...
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Amine Chadly | 1 May 2009 20:07
Picon

Re: [ox-en] Re: What prevents ampleness?

Hi Diego and all,

[Snip from your answer]

>
> we always needed to work , in the beginning whe almost dont exchange, we
> distribute ammong families or small groups, what we gather or hunt,
> sometimes we use other kind of exchange as gift system in especial events,
> in special occasions, in special places, that places with time evolved to
> markets and humankind grow because of that

I wanted to react about the need to work. Watching this link
[http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/deborah_gordon_digs_ants.html]
where you will see that in a adult ant colony basically half of the
colony is just sitting around waiting,
comforted me in the idea that we cannot just have everybody working.
Specially because we keep in doing more with less
(our productivity just keep on increasing). I think at one point
people will realize that we will have human beings that we should
pay (if we keep on using money right ;-) for doing nothing (acting as
a reserve if needed ?)....
Robots were supposed to work for us while we would be sitting under
the sun sipping a nice cocktail...
the first part of the sentence is happening, while we have been forced
to accept low paid jobs that robots are not good at or
jobs that makes robots and other processes more and more effective.
Isn't it again a problem of greed ?

--

-- 
  Amine Chadly
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane