[P2P-F] Product Maximizing Corporations (was: "corporateperson")

Thu Dec 1 03:40:56 CET 2011

Patrick, let me just say that a product maximization based economy is the
only sane thing to have. The economy we are in is messed up and i mean on
its core principles.

I think that any coorporation should be based on a contract between the
affected parties. The consumers will decide which product will be made and
its quantity. The consumers will pay a price per unit that will be the sum
of all the work being put in it.(tools plus wages). The workers will
codecide with the consumers on what the conditions of the working
environment will be plus their wages. The community might also have to sign
that contract if it the production affects it.

So in fact a just management of a coorporation would give all those people
voices, exactly at the things which affect them.

Right now, none of them has any voice.

In general, I have the same ideas with you patrick but what i want to
investigate is whether this new network of coorporations can lead to
inequality or not. I intend to find this out not in an empirical way since
there is no such network today but in an axiomatic mathematical way.

2011/11/26 mp <mp at aktivix.org>

>
> i agree
>
> On 26/11/11 04:15, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 1:01 AM, mp <mp at aktivix.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25/11/11 12:04, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> >>> martin,
> >>>
> >>> would you agree that there is a difference between profit making (i.e.
> an
> >>> accidental or regular surplus in money after an exchange, which enables
> >> you
> >>> to continue to operate  in a money system) and a system    based on
> >> profit
> >>> maximisation (i.e.capitalism), i.e. between a mere market and
> capitalism
> >>> ... this is a classic distinction made by marx (m-c-m vs c-m-c),
> polanyi,
> >>> braudel, de landa, and even by anarchist anthropoligists like david
> >> graeber
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> Yes, this is a typical general/particular or type/token distinction.
> >
> >
> >
> > No, it is a difference between two different systems, non-capitalist
> market
> > systems vs capitalist market systems
> >
> >
> >
> >> So,
> >> when we speak of big pharma (AIDS drugs was the example), then we speak
> >> of a very particular kind of profit. What you outline above as the
> >> latter, while the former is a much more general kind of "profit".
> >>
> >> While in the latter (capitalist) kind of profit making the problem is
> >> very obvious and OWS and Tea Partiers and many mainstream commentators,
> >> notably even conservative journalists and so on, can now agree on the
> >> problem associated with extremeties of that system and the way in which
> >> it is fused with the political system to become power over people, -- in
> >> the former, however, more general idea of "profit", and in the absence
> >> of maximisation, we would still have to consider the social relations
> >> (all production is social) that make up the framework for that moment of
> >> profit. Questions such as wage labour/slavery, the quality of the
> >> product (here I a thinking environment and life span, for instance) and
> >> the livelihoods of all the people involved would have to be addressed.
> >>
> >> There is probabl no sensible and simple good/bad, right/wrong conclusion
> >> that follows from a comparison of the general with the particular. False
> >> exercise of the mind.
> >>
> >
> > No, a very interesting and useful exercise, I'm with the cited authors on
> > this.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> pre-capitalist markets were always subsumed to broader economic and
> >> social
> >>> goals (i.e. fixed price in Indian villages, 'just price', also pretty
> >> much
> >>> fixed, in medieval europe, etc ...)
> >>
> >> I wouldn't want to paint with such broad a brush. Even if I had a great
> >> overview of what you call pre-capitalist markets, which I don't, I don't
> >> think I would like to lump them together. It is too much us/now vs.
> >> them/then to my mind, i.e Eurocentric. I see much more of continuity
> >> between ages, which is eradicated in the minds of Marxists - indeed
> >> Hegel, the forefather of the science of capital (i.e. Marx's work), and
> >> Marx himself desired such a qualitative shift away from superstition and
> >> whatever else the despised about the unenlightened past.
> >>
> >> Along other threads of inquiry (such as, say, the scientifc method, the
> >> history of programmable machines, patriarchy) things look different. I
> >> am not a great fan of the the meta/master narrative of so clear
> >> universal shifts and see much overlapping stuff going on.
> >>
> >
> >
> > So really, there is nothing to be learned from the fact that both Hindu
> > society, and medieval society, did not allow free pricing, and seeing a
> > commonality of purpose in this is inevitably euro-centric? I don't buy
> this
> > for a second. I find it generally more interesting to focus on the
> > argumentation and facts, rather than disqualify the person making them
> and
> > focusing on their wrong epistemology.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> it seems to me that cartels/etc .. are a inevitable feature of
> >> capitalism,
> >>> but are they a necessary feature of market systems in general,
> especially
> >>> when the market dynamics are subsumed?
> >>
> >> They are really just super-guilds, aren't they? What's new? People do
> >> business with like people. These are human dynamics that are given a
> >> particular framework in capitalism, indeed one might say that capitalism
> >> is an outcome of such formations, much more so than the other way round.
> >>
> >
> > could be ... but I don't think so, I think there are structural reasons
> > leading capital-based systems to such a specific form of accumulation
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> perhaps any class-based allocation system is marred by power law and
> >>> concentration dynamics, since it was also certainly the case in feudal
> >>> systems, where it is the land that was being concentrated,
> >>
> >> .. and the imagination always was by the church and through laws.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I think they are more structural reasons why class societies are driven
> to
> > accumulation. But if you read Norbert Elias, that dynamic of feudal land
> > accumulation is explained very well. If anything, the Church was a
> > counterforce to it, and it accumulated land through gifting, and
> attempted
> > to pacify the warlord class through 'expansion through marriage' rather
> > than permanent warfare (see the book,  The first european revolution)
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> to me it seems logically that any competitive allocation system, where
> >> some
> >>> players can win, immediately favours the winner, since they already
> >> obtain
> >>> more resources in the second round
> >>
> >> Well, this depends on what "win" entails.
> >>
> >>
> >>> without counter-measures, are these not inevitable?
> >>
> >> depending on what "win" means, yes.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Winning is different in each system, what is comparable is that a
> > particular type of resource-that-creates-a-particular-form-of-power is
> > accumulated
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> my understanding is that tribal societies had such active
> >> countermeasures?
> >>
> >> what tribal societies? when? where? Again, a very broad brush, but more
> >> importantly, I think, incommensurability is at play here: it is very
> >> difficult to compare paradigms: which part of system X makes it
> >> different to system Y with regard to abstract concept P, where -
> >> crucially! - P is derived from a particular set of observations within
> >> system X?
> >>
> >
> > it is really difficult to even use language without using any
> > generalisation; rather than arguing against inevitable use of
> > generalisation and comparison, it is usually more productive to explain
> why
> > a particular form of comparison and generalisation is mistaken. I suspect
> > that a person unable to reason in broad brushes, may be hospitalized in
> our
> > societies. if you can't go from a particular dog, to the genus dog, that
> > makes for a very hard life. just a wild guess, but I suspect your own
> > thesis is full of abstractions, comparisons, and broad brushes. to go
> back
> > to the issue that was discussed, the argument was informed by someone
> > relating Society against the State of Pierre Clastres, who claimed that
> > 'different' tribal societies (I hope that way of formulating passes the
> > epistemological test), seemed to have very active measures and practices
> to
> > avoid the emergence of permanent inequalities, hence classes, hence the
> > state (or the otherway around, preventing privileged armed men, the
> > proto-state, to create a permanent class society).
> >
> >
> >>
> >> martin
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> >> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> >> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> > http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
> --
> NOT sent from a flippin' "smart"phone - 'cause I like birds...
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>

-- 

Sincerely yours,

     Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20111201/cf367453/attachment.htm 