[p2p-research] Why Post-Capitalism is Rubbish

[Michel Bauwens]

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



>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090529/760cdc4e/attachment.html>