[p2p-research] Why Post-Capitalism is Rubbish

Mon Jun 8 08:55:48 CEST 2009

Capitalism is very widely used to mean something similar to a free market
economy. I'm aware there are different meanings given to the word, but a
more precise term would be useful.

Could you give a link to a definition for what you're referring to?

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 16:55, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> if you really take this definition seriously, then you can discount huge
> swats of our economic life, because fraud is endemic in it ... in the real
> world, it would be hard to find any economic activity without fraud in it
> ... to some degree or other ...
>
> in fact, what is described by wikipedia is markets, not capitalism which is
> a very specific system
>
> it all depends on your definition's of course, but large swats of the
> Chinese economy are still steered by the state, and none of the growth
> stories in East Asia, have followed the neoliberal recommendations ... for
> example, Malaysia who most successfully recuperated from the Asian crisis in
> 1998, did so by explicitely rejecting the neoliberal recommendations of the
> IMF
>
> And no, in Africa the IMF, while top down impositions, has not used a
> central planning approach to economics, but it forced government to cut
> social budgets, sell state assets to the private sector, etc ... none of it
> related to central planning

I use "central planning" in the sense that a remote power-holder at the
center is telling those under their authority or influence what to do, with
little regard for the local conditions. I don't mean to imply that it's the
same as centrally planned economies such as the Soviet Union, or China under
Mao.

Chris

>
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Chris Watkins <
> chriswaterguy at appropedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for raising this, Ryan.
>>
>> Checking Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism>: "Capitalism
>> is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth,
>> are privately owned.[1][2] Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital
>> are owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits,
>> without force or fraud, by private individuals either singly or
>> jointly,[3][4] and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing
>> and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary
>> private decision in a market economy.[5]"
>>
>> So, it looks to me like capitalism in the broad sense includes the Grameen
>> model, and the models of innovation and micro-entrepreneurship advocated by
>> the development consultant and writer Paul Polak<http://www.paulpolak.com/html/paul.html>.
>> They are based on markets, incentives and property rights, and they allow
>> individuals to work hard and reap the benefits. Likewise for China's
>> economy, since they reformed and allowed people to create wealth for
>> themselves, leading to a long economic boom. None of these are not
>> neo-liberal, and they may not fit the capitalism of some (e.g., proponents
>> of a "pure" lassez faire capitalism) and they do have a more complex view of
>> the way institutions can operate effectively to serve society. I would have
>> called them capitalist - I don't want to argue about that definition (which
>> may be mistaken) but I'd like it if we all used the same definitions.
>>
>> If we're talking about some kind of future that *includes* such
>> approaches, I'd rather we used a term other than post-capitalism, or at
>> least that someone would post a clear definition, broken down into points,
>> so that we could know what we're agreeing or disagreeing.
>>
>> Re Africa's poor growth: Ironically, the Western powers through the World
>> Bank and IMF, in enforcing neoliberal policies and "structural adjustment,"
>> have taken a top down, central planning approach to economics, which is
>> almost always a bad idea, I suspect. This is a bigger issue than I could try
>> to address in a short email, but I find William Easterly's "White Man's
>> Burden" to be insightful - he argues that "Searchers" get results by solving
>> problems in a piecemeal way; the "Planners" set big goals that they don't
>> achieve. He's especially critical of the IMF, Jeffrey Sachs, and government
>> aid programs in general. (Or you could try Collier's "The Bottom Billion"
>> for a more balanced perspective.)
>>
>>
>> Re the financial crisis and what it says about financial markets, I think
>> this reflects on the crony capitalism of Bush's America, rather than
>> captalism or even neo-liberalism. I have some comments, but I'll run them by
>> a better-informed friend before sharing them here.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:05, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ryan,
>>>
>>> I'm adding comments inline,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I agree that continued material growth in conventional terms is
>>>> impossible at worst, and ill-advised at best.  But continued wealth
>>>> accumulation is not.  Wealth can be attained through technologies, free
>>>> time, etc.  One can imagine capitalism shifting to a 4 day week, for
>>>> instance.  Real income might decrease, but happiness and satisfaction might
>>>> radically increase.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are two issues: we will be facing really serious challenges around
>>> climate change, and the depletion of easy energy and others materials we
>>> have relied on. I agree with you that we can probably go through this, but
>>> the future is open at best, and what certainly won't work is business as
>>> usual under the system that prevailed from the 1980's onwards.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have the capacity to build whole cities in Africa with green power
>>>> where there will be condos and movie theatres and bars.  Perhaps these will
>>>> be in orbit or extend to other planets.  5/6 of the world is the oceans...we
>>>> barely know what is beneath them.  One can as easily imagine floating cities
>>>> as much as one can imagine post-capitalist frameworks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have had the technical capacity to do some of these things for the
>>> last 50-60 years, but we haven't, despite the sole dominance of capitalism
>>> since 1989, and Africa is worse of now than it was in the seventies. So
>>> clearly, technical potential alone is not enough.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Since I believe that  you cannot prove the points above, I think
>>>>> 'eternal capitalism' is a lot more utopian than positions that believe that
>>>>> change and transformation are eternal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eternal is of course a long time.  I'm content to discuss my normal
>>>> lifetime or my children's.  My youngest son is 8.  Let's say he lives a
>>>> normal and healthy life to...say, 108.  That's another 100 years...2109.
>>>> For rounding, I'll talk about the period between now and 2100.  I can easily
>>>> imagine in that period a rapid growth of human wealth particularly if
>>>> populations are brought under control or even decline slightly as they are
>>>> in much of Russo-Europe.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I can also imagine that, as I can the opposite ... What is more
>>> difficult to imagine is the continued growth of material growth under the
>>> western model, and it's extremely high price related to biospheric
>>> integrity.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The current overflow of financial assets is parasitic and is harming
>>>>> the productive economy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't disagree more.  The greatest innovation in history is
>>>> financial engineering.  It has unleashed everything from Grameen Bank to
>>>> diversified financial money centers that hold politicians in check and
>>>> assure government debts and currencies are properly managed.  Is it
>>>> perfect?  Of course not.  But it is highly successful, employs millions and
>>>> will grow before it shrinks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I find it hard to comprehend how you can put on the same line the
>>> financial engineering of Wall Street banks, which has led to the stagnation
>>> of western countries (the countries in East Asia that succeeded did so by
>>> explicitely rejecting that model, i.e. China, Korea, Malaysia, etc..) and
>>> the current systemic shock, which even Alan Greenspan is now disavowing. ((I
>>> can't understand how you can justify this, when even its more ardent
>>> supporters are abandoning this model, apart from CNBC, this is becoming a
>>> very minoritarian view, how can you call that a success, that really beats
>>> me))
>>>
>>> So, to continue my too long sentence ... I find  it hard to comprehend
>>> putting on the same line neoliberalism and the Grameen reforms. What Yunus
>>> has done goes completely against every of the principles of neoliberalism:
>>> he doesn't want profit maximisation, the money is managed collectively, it
>>> is directed at the very poor who have no purchasing power, and the social
>>> goal of the enterprise is primary. These are two very different animals. In
>>> fact, Yunus and other peer-informed market ways  turn capitalism on its
>>> head, and are therefore already signposts of post-capitalism.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Capitalism hasn't been about commodities since World War II.  Still,
>>>> there are lots of things made of sand and graphite that tons of people
>>>> want.  There are things made of mud and cement that people want.  We have no
>>>> serious shortages of steel, bamboo, ocean water, silicon, carbon, soil,
>>>> etc.  We can make computers for everyone and software to run on them and
>>>> clean power to drive them.  There is huge room for expansion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is only room for expansion in an age of climate change, if we can
>>> make material production sustainable, otherwise, it is suicide. We will have
>>> to make choices. High tech is absolutely unsustainable now, but since it has
>>> a leveraging effect on global collective intelligence, it is so crucial for
>>> developing humanity's challenges that it is one of the choices that I would
>>> argue we need to make.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Most of Africa and large portions of Asia including China are still
>>>>>> growing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It all depends when you start counting ... If you start from the 80's:
>>>>> Africa's development has been catastrophic, Latin America has stagnated, and
>>>>> China has never practiced neoliberal recommendations. In the heart of the
>>>>> West, the part going to labour has declined, and working wages have
>>>>> stagnated since the 70s.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I am willing to accept that median wages in the US have been about the
>>>> same as they were in 1990, but look what you can buy for those
>>>> wages...amazing entertainment, powerful communications, great mobility.  I
>>>> certainly wouldn't want to go back to 1970 or 1980 with my same relative
>>>> pay.  We are vastly wealthier now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some things have progressed, but some other aspects of human social life
>>> have declined. To obtain that wealth, it is now necessary for two people to
>>> work, when before one was enough.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. There are real signs that the green capitalism is starting to take
>>>>>> off.  Last year there was more increase in alternative energy production in
>>>>>> the US than in all other forms of energy production (including nuclear
>>>>>> power.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but keeping monopoly IP in this sector could represent a very
>>>>> serious problem for continued innovation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly, but I doubt it.  Monopoliies are relatively rare.  They
>>>> matter, yes, but small business has been the dominant sector of employment
>>>> growth in the US for a generation.  No reason to think the same will not be
>>>> true throughout the world.  We are in the age of small businesses.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Monopolies aren't rare, but the dominant fact of our current economy.
>>> There is no single sector which is not dominated by 2-3 main players. SME's
>>> are important, but they don't control any market.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes but imagining a Euro-styled union system in China is like imagining
>>>> post-capitalism in the US or Canada or Japan.  It might be a dreamy vision,
>>>> but the reality we both know is something radically different, and will
>>>> remain so. India even more so.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One look at the history of China shows a dramatic series of upheavals.
>>> The current model will be radically challenged when it ceases to deliver the
>>> goods, and a new social compact will have to be formulated for continued
>>> growth.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Argentina went bankrupt because it became socialist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is historically totally false. Argentina followed the neoliberal
>>> recommendations to the letter, and Kirchner, a very moderate social
>>> democratic, only came to power after the breakdown. Whatever happened after
>>> the breakdown and the reconstitution, wasn't remotely socialist by any
>>> definition I know of. So what is your definition of socialism??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The same is happening to Venezuela.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The situation in Venezuela is mixed for the moment, but poverty has
>>> dramatically declined under Chavez, after 25 years of total stagnation under
>>> neoliberalism. The jury is still out on Chavez.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My point is that I don't see dramatic change coming soon.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you look at 1929, or even the consequences of the previous
>>> archeo-liberal crash of 1893, you can see it takes a few years, but
>>> instability and dramatic change has been historically associated with Sudden
>>> System Shocks. What makes you so confident in business as usual, when even
>>> the neoliberal elite no longer holds that view?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Specifically, I think the socialist blend that seems to pervade a lot of
>>>> our discussions is an unrealistically utopian.  P2P can inform a more just
>>>> society, bring assets to the disadvantaged, etc. but it is not a replacement
>>>> system for markets.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well I think it is a systemic change. Initially, like the serf-based
>>> system under slavery, and the capitalist seedform under feudalism, it is
>>> used to strengthen the old system in crisis, but ultimately, as I said in
>>> the beginning of my first answer, an infinite material growth system cannot
>>> last.
>>>
>>> And I think it is a priority to find ways of growth that are sustainable
>>> and given the global challenges, will necessity a quantum jump in
>>> participation and collective intelligence.
>>>
>>> Michel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chris Watkins
>>
>> Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.
>>
>> identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia
>> blogs.appropedia.org
>>
>> I like this: five.sentenc.es
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>

-- 
Chris Watkins

Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.

identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia
blogs.appropedia.org

I like this: five.sentenc.es
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090608/696fa933/attachment-0001.html>