[p2p-research] Why Post-Capitalism is Rubbish

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Ryan,

If you can prove to me that an infinite growth system can survive in a
finite material system without destroying it, I'll believe  your argument
that capitalism is eternal, and is not, like all other systems in our human
history, destined to be transformed. I'm ready to believe our current system
is indeed exceptional and eternal, if you can argue the first point.

In the meantime, I think the most sensible policy is to divorce markets from
the infinite growth system.

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.

So, I choose to interpret your arguments not in a metaphysical way as above,
but simply as a series of observations about the near future, and will
engage with some practical points you are making inline.

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> After some consideration, I've decided that the post-capitalism talk
> is largely Utopian fantasy:
>
> 1. Current financial assets are considerably more than all non-cash assets
> in the world.  Over the counter derivatives alone in 2007 were over 600
> trillion USD.  (that's trillion with a T).  The innovation that has been
> financial markets goes on strong and the wealth created is anything but
> fictitious.
>

The current overflow of financial assets is parasitic and is harming the
productive economy.


>
> 2. The total global gross product (GDP of the world in 2007) was about 47
> trillion USD (almost 14 trillion of that in the USA).  So far in the
> recession/depression, it has sunk globally by about 2% and certainly not
> more than 4%.  Total stock market valuations were 51 trillion in 2007 and
> are perhaps slightly less than that now.
>


Not sure what you point is, but the meltdown is very serious, with most
economists agreeing 'the worst since WWII, in fact meaning, since 1929. This
means it is on a par with Sudden System Shock, the end of a long wave, and
therefore, cannot resume simple growth without major structural reforms.
These reforms are to my mind in part of a reform of capitalism, and partly
'post-capitalist' in nature, since they will necessarily go beyond the
commodity form, infinite accumulation, the Fordist division of labour and
many other aspects.


> 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.


>
> 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.



>
> 5. Venture Capital has spent 29 billion without production on Web 2.0
> companies and there have been no bankruptcies.
>

Happy to see you are turning the argument of John Hagel around!! But there
is still a value crisis in this sector. However, I think it can be resolved
and the solutions will be part of the next long wave.



>
> 6. The majority of US banks will soon be nationalized (along with those in
> the UK and Germany) with very little immediate impact.
>

The financial heart of the old neoliberal system is effectively bankrupt,
and can indeed only survive that way, but it has a staggering cost that is
severaly harming necessary structural reforms.


>
> 7. Unemployment in the US is just reach 10% where it has been sustained for
> years in other nations like Germany.
>

Yes, but are you sure it is stopping there, and are you taking into account
the major statistical manipulations which have undercounted U.S.
unemployment?


>
> 8. Capitalism in Asia and Africa is taking off considerably.  The potential
> for growth is probably only bound by climate change issues.
>

Translated: they cannot grow in the old way.


>
> 9. There are no serious labor movements in the US, China nor India.
>

There has been a major labour reform in China, which according to observers
has greatly strengthened labour, and 70,000 or so major social incidents in
just one year; India's labour movement is not as weak as you think, it
depends on the region. India's Congress has won by promising a very active
social policy, so has China and Obama is labour-friendly. I think we are in
for a resurgence in the coming years of severe crisis.


>
> 10. Japan, China and India have no debt and can sustain negative growth for
> at least a generation.
>

There is no way that China can sustain negative growth without social
upheaval, and similarly for India.


>
> 11. There are no function democracies that are non-market oriented.  There
> are increasingly few nations that are moving sharply to the left.  Many that
> have, including Argentina (formerly) and Venezuela (now) are emerging from
> or headed toward bankruptcy.  Venezuelan foreign reserves are falling faster
> as a percentage of total than any other nation's.
>

The whole of Latin America is still moving to the left. Argentina has been
bankrupt because it followed neoliberal recommendations and has
substantially recovered under Kirshner, though is now facing new challenges
with the capitalist meltdown. Brazil has been incredibly successfull with a
progressive social-democratic agenda, Ecuador's president was just
re-elected with a landslide ... The U.S. has moved substantially to the left
as well.


>
> 12. Even with a collapse of the dollar, oil exploding to several hundred
> dollars a barrel (both of which are reasonably feasible), there is little to
> suggest that this would be more than a hiccup for markets and capitalism.
>

????



>
> 13. While the nation state may be in decline for financial reasons, there
> is no sign (anywhere) if disintegration.  Even where hollow states are the
> norm, continual processes of rehabilitation suggest that few believe a
> non-state solution is seriously feasible in the near term with any
> reasonable standard of living.
>

I think we will both see hollow states in case of failure, but also a
resurgence of the state form as key actor in realizing structural reforms.


>
> That said, I think P2P is exciting, vital and an excellent tonic to
> excesses of capitalism and markets.  However, I am convinced the main issue
> is climate change.  If there is an Achilles' heel of capitalism, it is
> climate change.  That places those who are anti-capitalist in a strange
> place--to advocate most effectively against what they dislike they must
> align to a degree with what is the greatest threat to humanity overall.  I
> seriously doubt that in the next 50 years there is much threat to capitalism
> from any non-coercive process.  If this was even the first wave of a massive
> crisis 10x the scale of the current, capitalism and markets could easily
> endure it in most of the globe and probably all of the globe that has
> significant production.
>

Strange that you mention 50 years, since that is my own (and that of
Wallerstein) estimation of a phase transition.


>
> For these reasons, I believe decoupling P2P research and advocacy from
> supposedly associated advocacy against markets would tend to advance the
> legitimacy and contribution of P2P theory to be more productive in a
> reasonable time frame.
>

I'm not sure whom your addressing since the P2P Foundation has never
advocated against markets.


>
> My own thought is that market anarchism is a realistic evolutionary
> development for many backwater geographies of capitalism (central England,
> mountain districts, Central Africa, rural Europe (especially Eastern Europe
> and Southern Europe)--where it already shows signs of developing into a
> characteristic peripheral mode of operation.  It will not be relevant in the
> increasingly powerful city-states/small states of tomorrow like Singapore,
> Switzerland, Austria, London, Sidney, Jakarta, New York, Shanghai etc.
> Those areas will continue as highly industrialized market-oriented trading
> entities with banks, capital, financial markets, etc. for the distant
> foreseeable future.
>

Not sure what you mean by market anarchism? In the sense of emancipatory
market mutualism as advocated by Kevin, or as hyper-exploitative wildcat
capitalism? Mafia-type economies?



>
>
> I am for sustainable wealth by the best means.  I am for as much freedom as
> is possible.  But I am also for not advocating unrealistic Utopias that
> simply are not going to matter.
>


P2P modes are not unrealistic utopias, but already existing alternatives
that function very well in their areas of operation. There is no way that
neoliberalism can continue to operate in the pre-meltdown logic, and p2p
will be part and parcel of any structural reform that can potentially lead
to a new growth cycle.

Michel



>
> Ryan Lanham
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>


-- 
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090528/efbdd44e/attachment-0001.html>