[p2p-research] Why Post-Capitalism is Rubbish
Dmytri Kleiner
dk at telekommunisten.net
Mon Jun 8 09:34:43 CEST 2009
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Chris Watkins wrote:
> Capitalism is very widely used to mean something similar to a free market economy.
Yes, propertarian propagandists have adopted the term and used the
massive power of the corporate media and state education system to
promote that false (and ridiculous) definition.
The term originates in Socialist critiques of the emerging social
relations of the industrial revolution.
The point of the term was to draw a parallel with feudalism, where in
feudalism direct producers are denied land, in capitalism direct
producers are denied capital.
> 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?
I'm not going to link to anywhere, but here is mine, take it or leave it:
Capitalism is a state-enforced economic system of class stratification which
drives up the price of capital by withholding it from labour, thus allowing
a class of property owners to capture value created by direct producers.
BTW, I've updated http://dmytri.info last night on the overnight train with some
thoughts about rent. Quit interested in comments, especially from Kevin.
Cheers.
>
> 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: "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. 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
>
>
--
Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list