Hi Matthias, On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 11:59, Matthias Studer wrote: > > 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). Yes! I mean: No! I mean: you can only give them the flower you have! It may turn out you receive a smile :-) A double gift? Shall we smile back? Or feel anxious not to corrupt the singular purity of the gift by falling into an exchange, as if that's what it was really all about, our dirty little secret behind the flower? All I'm suggesting is that gifts are presupposed by a series of exchange. So to talk about gifts as the opposite of exchange, as a replacement for the injustices of the system of exchange value, seems to be to put the gift-fragment above its place, perhaps out of place. It's just a gift. It may not have been asked for. Did it become a wanted gift? Does it matter? No, if it is not an idea for an 'economy'. Because when we give, we don't necessarily 'not have' afterwards, and because gifts are often sadly unwanted, the only certainty about the gift is that the giver has given. So, to put 'the gift' outside 'the exchange' is merely to exclude everything else except the capacity of the giver to give, and the fact that he gives. The id, the ego, is the hand inside this velvet glove! Yet at the same time, what we really we need is a healthy exchange. And to forget about ourselves for a while. (Listen, a meeting of worlds is taking place...) A flower, and a smile back, and no hesitation, and hello, and off we go... > > 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. Yes. I do agree with you. I've just been trying to look at the 'equivalence based exchange requiring money in order to put an equality between two things' as a dazzle spot, as an exception, as a disjuncture with nature; and trying to look at what else exchange is, what the nature of exchange is. As you point out, there are many kinds of exchanges. I'm just suggesting that we don't need to be neurotic, and stop ourselves up by trying somehow to escape 'exchange'. Exchange is natural and real. I suppose, if I have any purpose, I'm reclaiming the word 'exchange'. Here, I'll give it back to you, as a gift: Should you accept it, you may, from this time forward, use 'exchange' to refer to the flux associated with a series of gift-events. > > 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? :-) Oh, I'm sure quantity doesn't matter. Perhaps we could just say, we're all exchanging email gifts? :-))) (I have enjoyed writing this email. Thanks.) With my very best wishes, John.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part