Re: perpetual gift computer system
> The divergence perhaps gift and exchange is this simple: proper
> exchanges are fair, in that neither party has less afterwards. Gifts are
> only possible when somebody decides somebody else should have something
> they have.
No ! also because you want to give a symbol (like giving flower).
> Whilst acknowledging the distinction between exchange value, use value,
> labour value, etc. I don't think that exchange, as such, is a problem
> (my lungs exchange air, my fireplace exchanges heat, etc), excepting
> the exceptional conditions within which workers exchange their lives in
> the so-called free labour market.
You compare two differents form of exchange. The first one is equivalence
based exchange because you need to invoque something else (money) in order to
put an equality between two things differents. This way of exchange is based
on a social representation of the value of each things. fireplace exchange in
another way since heat is the same things in a different state.
> Doesn't trying to do away with exchange, as such, seem just a little bit
> daft?
>
> Here: we're exchanging emails already!
We aren't exchanging emails but giving to others our emails content. Who can
say there's an equivalent between emails ? Quantity?
Best regards,
Matthias Studer
Reply to: