During the Economics and the Commons Conference I gave a seven minute talk in the labor stream with title »Direct reciprocity versus indirect reciprocity and stigmergic polycentrism as new phenomena of socialized, needs oriented production processes«. Wow. Since this title was given to me and seems to be quite complex, I approached the topic by clarifying the notions within that title. Here is my notepad, the talk was given freely, and below you’ll find some additional remarks.
Ein Diskussionsbeitrag aus dem Arbeitskreis Lokale Ökonomie e.V. (AK LÖK), Hamburg
Möglichst viel Demokratie ist allerseits gewünscht. Darauf können sich viele einigen. Bei genauerem Hinsehen nimmt sich eine wirkliche, basisdemokratische Mitwirkung der Menschen an ihrer Gesellschaft bisher freilich eher bescheiden aus. So ist z.B. ein kleiner Teil der Bevölkerung nahezu dauerhaft in einer Sprecherrolle, während es der Großteil schon seit der Kindheit gewohnt ist, dass andere für ihn sprechen und handeln. Gleichzeitig stellt sich für jeden von uns ein alltäglicher gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhang durch eine Vielzahl von Kauf-Verkauf-Handlungen her.1) Das sind Vorgänge, die von Einzelnen kaum praktisch in Frage gestellt werden können, wenn sie nicht verhungern wollen.
Im folgenden soll dargestellt werden, wie die Menschen vielleicht eines Tages ihre eigenen gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhänge intensiver, direkter und weniger stellvertretend bestimmen, also wirklich »mehr Demokratie wagen« könnten. Dazu ist es aber nötig, sich die real erfahrbaren Hindernisse von dauerhafter Selbstorganisation anzusehen, um nach Möglichkeiten ihrer Überwindung zu suchen. (mehr …)
[Part 5 of 5 of the essay »Anti-economics and Anti-politics« by Robert Kurz, published under CC by-nc-sa]
One would have to be pretty naïve to assume that a new social movement, under the impact of the crisis, would immediately commence with a radical critique of the commodity production system. It is, rather, more likely that such a perspective can only be mediated by a public debate and by conceptual discussions in the midst of the social struggles and conflicts themselves. One does not start from zero, however. In societies in crisis, there are diverse initiatives for a “cheap economy” which, however, are still in the infant stage. These hardly do justice to a kind of reproduction “that transcends the market and the State”, since in most cases they rely on State (municipal) subsidies or else are restricted to creating enterprises based on the most basic developmental forms of the market and the State.
[Part 4 of 5 of the essay »Anti-economics and Anti-politics« by Robert Kurz, published under CC by-nc-sa]
So how is a “natural microelectronic economy” possible as an embryonic form? The difficulty consists in the fact that the capitalist form of the functional division of society, as in the case of the capitalist structure of use value, cannot be assimilated, without alterations, into an emancipatory reproduction. The personnel of an enterprise which, for example, produces ships, cannot emancipate themselves, such as they are, from the social form of value. Since they do not consume the ships and cannot satisfy their own needs with the means of production of their enterprise, and since, at the same time, the specific production of their enterprise is incorporated into a capitalist system of division of labor, they remain dependent on the production of commodities, with all the familiar social consequences.
[Part 3 of 5 of the essay »Anti-economics and Anti-politics« by Robert Kurz, published under CC by-nc-sa]
The modified or “superseded” notion of the productive forces and its connection to the relations of production is obviously the precondition for solving the real problem: the supersession of the form of fetishistic value in social relations. On this point it is also necessary, first of all, to bridge the gap between the reductive conceptions, immanent to the system, of the Marxism of the workers movement and that of the alternative movement or the cooperatives. As in the question of the productive forces, we see these movements evincing a speculative and complementary attachment to fetishistic structures. Both political Marxism and the alternative movement reduce their goal to a critique and a supersession of private property in the means of production, although in different ways. When, however, one speaks of the institution, “private property”, it is clear that one is dealing with a moment of the commodity production system, i.e., of its juridical form. It is thus clear that this moment cannot be overcome alone, without overcoming the other moments of the value form and even the latter itself as such. The attempt to eliminate private property in the means of production and at the same time to maintain the forms of mediation of the commodity and money, can only lead to social paradoxes.
[Part 2 of 5 of the essay »Anti-economics and Anti-politics« by Robert Kurz, published under CC by-nc-sa]
If we are not to allow ourselves to be confused by the past, we have to attempt to elaborate socioeconomic definitions of an embryonic form, beyond commodity production, at the current level of socialization, without falling into a vulgar practicality. It is thus not by any means a matter of direct plans of action (which can only be developed, furthermore, within the context of a social movement), but of theoretical and practical reflections to concretize the critique of value. The question of the embryonic form of a reproduction no longer mediated by monetary and commercial relations has to be approached historically, analytically and theoretically.
[Part 1 of 5 of the essay »Anti-economics and Anti-politics« by Robert Kurz, published under CC by-nc-sa]
The misery of the radical critique of the commodity production system, that is, of a “mode of production based on value” (Marx), appears to reside in the fact that it is incapable of representing a historical praxis (not to be confused with just any little practical activity), of taking the initiative, of finding a way out and heralding a common mass consciousness, and is thus condemned to an esoteric existence, confined to socially remote domains of purely theoretical reflection or even philosophical speculation, and ultimately to a gradual descent into an eccentric sectarian existence. Even if an emancipatory socialization eliminating fetishistic forms of the commodity and money were possible—it would still be a book sealed with seven seals for this form of critique.
[Repost from libcom.org under CC by-nc-sa]
The following translation of the German »Antiökonomie und Antipolitik« by Robert Kurz (1997) base on a Spanish translation which is no longer available on the web (the same or another Spanish version can be found here). The essay had an enormous influence on the discussion about an alternative to capitalism — not only keimform.de was one outcome of the debates initiated by this text. Kurz himself was very sceptical about the references to his text, and he often polemically dissociates himself from these references. On keimform.de we repost the text in five parts (the chapters of the text). The links below will function in the future. The following preface is from the translation at libcom.org. Here we go:
In this 1997 essay, Robert Kurz discusses the question of the “embryonic form” of “the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society” (Marx); rejecting both the “all-or-nothing” view of the extreme left that sees such a project as doomed to integration into capitalism, and the reformist concept of “dual economy” where cooperative businesses produce for the capitalist market, he advocates a process of “disconnection” from the value matrix that incorporates aspects of both the old cooperative movement and modern “microelectronic” technology while preserving a commitment to overcoming the system of commodity production and a refusal to produce for the market.
1. Politics and the Question of the Embryonic Emancipatory Form
2. The Concept of the Productive Forces and the Microelectronic Revolution
3. The Supersession of Private Property in the Means of Production
4. Disconnection from Commodity Production
5. Internet Movement and Cybernetic Subversion
[Teil 1 / This article is also available in English.]
Dass die Re/produktion von einer Belastung, der zahllose Menschen einen Großteil ihres Lebens widmen mussten, heute zur relativ mühelosen und meist eher angenehmen Angelegenheit geworden ist, hat auch damit zu tun, dass wir wo möglich auf Maschennetze setzen. Maschennetze (mesh networks) sind dezentrale Netzwerke, die allen die Teilhabe ermöglichen und so organisiert sind, dass niemand in einseitige Abhängigkeit gerät und sich niemand eine besonders privilegierte Position verschaffen kann.
Wenn Sozialismus die Gesellschaft ist, die sich auf den Weg zum Kommunismus gemacht hat, dann lässt sich festhalten:
Gut, dass das mal geklärt ist.