[p2p-research] Why Post-Capitalism is Rubbish

[Ryan Lanham]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Chris Watkins
<chriswaterguy at appropedia.org>wrote:

> 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.
>
> One of the ways that Wave will matter as a new technology is that it will
limit the wasted time now spent on indefinite meaning of terms.

Capitalism, markets, communism, socialism, autocracy, polyarchy, money,
coupon, stock, capital, democracy, etc. are all messy terms.  They do not
adhere well to ordered logic because few applications are consistent.  Long
deliberative processes in the open with lots of public vetting are necessary
to achieve much legitimacy.

One of the reasons universities are starting to die is that the individual
professor/researcher is no longer able to retain much legitimacy in the face
of the constant crackle of relevant blogs and other Web X.0 technologies.
Sensemaking is shifting from individuals to groups--to networks.

Wave, as I understand it, begins to offer a technology where group
legitimacy can be open, transparent and historic so that core terms are less
contested and new entrants can understand the history of discourse more
clearly.

On your specific point, I think in the broader world it is considered a
crank position to be against markets as a means of allocation for most goods
and services.  No one has yet advanced anything like a coherent non-market
framework that would be freely chosen or even plausibly sensible for
implementation on a large scale.

Cranks sometimes create works of genius, but it isn't the way to bet.
Further, societies change slowly and generally only under crisis.  I think
there is a hope afoot now for some that the current economic storm might
devolve into something that motivates colossal change.  That seems unlikely
to me.

Climate change could become such a crisis, but you will only live to see it
in the large if you are under 20 years old.  There will be long transitions
with much new technology and innovation.  Markets and conventional money
will be the core of this system.  Will other elements exist or even thrive?
Yes, they will.  And as the world becomes more complex and localized, the
difference between core and periphery may be harder and harder to recognize.

What seems clear and most relevant to me is that P2P is here now and
deployed on very large scales.  It seems to be growing and thriving.
Linking it for or against economic models from the 19th century or before
seems irrelevant.  With all the new that the Internet has wrought, I am
continually perplexed that people keep wanting to go back to old
philosophers for answers.  The answers are in reality and action...not in
some dusty old book.

Ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090608/c4743d98/attachment-0001.html>