[p2p-research] conditions for successfull resilience (meditation on post-capitalism)

[Michel Bauwens]

This could be of related interest:

There is no alternative but the alternatives: replacing anti-capitalism by
post-capitalism<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/there-is-no-alternative-but-the-alternatives/2010/02/08>

Capitalist Realism itself, is basically the cultural condition in which,
with Marx, we stare with clear eyes at “naked, shameless, direct, brutal
exploitation” (4) but yet…keep calm and carry on. We are not unmoved
exactly; but yet still we do nothing. The details of why and how, and the
ramifications in various domains, are the object of the book.

The following excerpt comes from a stimulating review of a book by *Mark
Fischer, “Capitalist Realism”*, positively estimated by the author of the
fascinating and stimulating Angel Economics blog, which is quite aligned to
our thinking at the P2P Foundation.

Here he responds to one of the observations of the author:

Thesis by Mark Fischer:

“For most people under twenty in Europe and North America, the lack of
alternatives to capitalism is no longer even an issue”

Response<http://angeleconomics.blogspot.com/2010/01/this-is-great-little-book.html>by
Angel Economics:

“To some degree this is true. However, a closer look would reveal that
throughout this stratum, within numerous subgroups - each in their different
ways - there are explorations taking place of ways of doing things which go
beyond capitalism. Most do not explicitly or self-consciously see things in
those terms of course – to provide that awareness of the wider context and
meaning, is the role of a movement (see below). But still. Thriving knitting
groups; shared amateur photography (with a high degree of editing skill and
artistic vision); open-source software; filesharing (the engine for this
comes from the young, and many take this source of acquiring data simply as
axiomatic); all sorts of geeky DIY, from biotechnology, pharmacology,
permaculture, health analysis and augmentation, robotics; binraiding (shops
throw out great stuff); swapping and ‘freecycling’ consumer goods; etc etc.
There is a homebrew industrial revolution, and the young are often on its
leading edge.”

This discussion is followed up by another one, about the extraordinary power
of capital to coopt resistance. It does this either by creating a split
between thinking and acting, it doesn’t care what you think, as long as you
don’t take action (for example it can rejoice in the anticapitalist Avatar
bringing in $500m or more, as long as it is not associated with concrete
action); or, by interpreting your resistance as a spectacular performance
which it can capitalize
on<http://generationbubble.com/2010/01/11/youth-in-revolt-creative-class-creative-destruction/>
.

Citing Fisher:

Capitalism does not merely appropriate but actually sets about producing
cultural artifacts with pre-packed anti-capitalism in them. Taking a recent
example, Fisher notes that “[a] film like Wall-E exemplifies what Robert
Pfaller has called ‘interpassivity’: the film performs our anti-capitalism
for us, allowing us to continue to consume with impunity”

This leads AE to call for a more explicit anticapitalism as an answer
against cooptation:

*“All it would take for artistic works to become un-commodifiable in a
stronger sense, would be the existence of a genuine anticapitalist political
movement to which they could attach themselves. If there were such a
movement which threatened capital, and it was generally known that some work
expressed its aspirations, you can be sure it would become indigestible by
MTV, the Wellcome Trust, or any other 400ft disembodied capitalist throat.*

*Putting this in other words: insofar as anti-capitalism is merely expressed
or performed or displayed, it is not, truly, anti-capitalism.”*

He concludes that:

*“A proper political movement needs to be constituted with the basic aim of
fundamentally restructuring socioeconomic relations.”* (and even mentions
current plans to create a ‘fifth
international<http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23692>
‘)

And yet he must concede (as does this other blog
author<http://logicalregression.blogspot.com/2010/01/left-right-left-right-left_23.html>
):

“The hard Left is peculiar at the moment. Popular discontent with the social
status quo runs extremely deep and wide, and, in fact, is even often very
clear about the identity or cause of its problems, viz. capitalism. And yet
the hard Left virtually never seems able to tap into this.”

I would suggest that this condition is terminal, because the left as we
understand it, is a movement of resistance against, but also co-evolving
with industrial capitalism. While it can be proud of having achieved a
redistributive welfare state (only partially dismantled under
neoliberalism), it has a very long and consistent record of failure as
anti-capitalist movement.

I would suggest the analogy with marriage, in order to explain the different
feeling-tone of the P2P Foundation’s attempt to create a new type of peer to
peer social movement, that is substantially different from the approach of
the traditional left.

Think about a forced marriage, which nevertheless was acceptable because
both partners benefitted (capital and labour). The relationship is
fundamentally contradictory and conflictual, but fighting occurs only as
long as the partners see a future in the relationship. As long as you fight
against, but within the framework posed by capital as the dominant system,
it actually means you are still attached to it. This is for me what
anticapitalism signifies, beyond the radical but powerless demands to mouth
a total opposition to the system of capital (in this, the radical left
ressembles the catholic church and its demand to accept the credo first and
above all). It is not only rather powerless and has a record of failure, but
actually signifies a taking serious of capital as the central issue of life.
Paradoxically, it feeds the beast that it wants to bring down.

Post-capitalism though is different. It is already profoundly convinced that
the system of capital is dying, because it knows that an infinite growth
machine is a logical and physical impossibility in a finite worth that is
now seriously subject to biospheric destruction. But it also knows that
empty radical stances are powerless. And it knows from the record of
history, that whenever new hyperproductive alternatives of value production
occured, as it now does with peer production, governance and property, they
were at first used by the previously dominant but dying core system, before
replacing it. So, we essentially do not worry that forces of capital use
open, participative, and commons oriented modalities to strengthen
themselves, because by doing so they actually strengthen the post-capitalist
alternatives. What matters most is not the fear of cooptation, but rather
the protection of the autonomy of the post-capitalist peer to peer logics
that we apply amongst ourselves as peer producers. If we live this core
relationship in the core of the value production modality, and the market
players use the commons to create added value for the market, this is
acceptable to us to the degree that the core functioning remains possible.
Only when market players use their dominance to subvert the core logic, say
by creating ‘fake distorted commons’ (as explained by Massimo de Angelis),
do we worry and fight back.

Therefore as post-capitalists, we know that we have to build and construct
alternatives, but the core of our consciousness is not directed against a
powerful enemy (because we know the Emperor is already naked), but rather to
insure the conditions for the survival and thriving of the human race, in
the period of terminal transition. We also know that demanding acceptance of
a credo, is counterproductive and isolating, though we do have social
charters, that state clearly the minimal demands for operating in a commons.
We just ask that you behave in that equipotential way, not that you sign up
to a anticapitalist credo. Rather we work with everyone which agrees in the
positivity of the alternative, and do not care that they may say they
support capitalism, as this can means so many different things to so many
different people. In fact, since we are able to divorce the market from
capitalism, we know that many market players are natural allies, as they
themselves already subverting the core logic of accumulation of capital.
Fair trade, socially responsible investments, social enterpreneurs and the
like, are already subsuming the forms of capital, to logics which are no
longer about accumulation but about the production of social goods. These
enterpreneurs are not the enemies of peer producing communities, but allies.
They are groping towards the chaotic attractor that is the peer to peer
logic of partnership in the creation of value. As peer producing communities
we must choose to preferentially treat with those market forces that respect
our autonomy, and have formats that are maximally aligned with our own
ethos, but we accept all those that respect our autonomy and core
functioning as a commons. This in my view can create a much wider alliance
of social forces, than a mere anti-capitalist alliance, which is in the
current configuration, usually a marginal affair of true believers.

The importance is to maximize those type of social relations, in my view
‘peer to peer’, which go beyond the greed and mere exchange of the
capitalist marketplace, and make us live today, the social logic which we
want to become the core of the new society and civilization of tomorrow.
Post-capitalism means living our values today, and creating the institutions
to strengthen and defend it, without waiting for capitalism to die. As
previous systems which had become parasitic, and were faced with a more
socially productive alternative, invariably did. This does emphatically not
mean a passeist or non-political attitude, just a more judicious management
of our transformative energies. The wounded beast has outlived its
usefullness, let’s move on.

To conclude, another
challenge<http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/01/journal-brands-and-hollow-nationstates.html>to
the traditional left strategy, by John Robb:

It’s *…*

dated nostalgia for populist movements and progressive government reform —
that legacy thinking is utterly useless, as a strategy for success, given
the rise of a dominant and sovereign global system that doesn’t have any
governing body to appeal to



On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am going to comment here while fresh in my mind, and then I will
> post and rework it into P2P blog
>
> Robb is right that there is not a 1:1 historical precedent for
> creating resilient communities centered around p2p networks (unless
> you consider the last 15 years and what people have established on the
> Internet, and are now transferring to general existence to be
> "history". Arguably there is a recent historical precedent in this
> form.)
>
> It's great to have theoretical models talking about community
> resilience and building p2p networks. I enjoy reading Robb for this
> reason. He covers this perspective really well, and challenges people
> to think about the dynamic nature of systems they are a part of. I am
> now of the opinion that what are asking for the most, in addition to
> these theoretical underpinnings, is practical guidance, in their
> communities, day to day, for building and sustaining actual resiliency
> and actual p2p network-based ways of operating in their own context
> right now, today. The fastest way to seeing this happen, in my
> opinion,  is by actually working with people in communities. There are
> varying degrees of people being ready to solve problems in this way.
> Most people generally lack a core understanding for surviving and
> thriving in an ecology that is network/systems-perspective, and
> P2P-political based. Yet, it is my experience in the last 2-3 years
> that people who are "on the fence" can be walked over to understanding
> this in steps and phases, driven by their own usually gradual
> acceptance of the core assumptions inherent in many-to-many systems.
>
> The illusion that some have operated under is that the industrial age
> paradigms can be somehow force-fit into these emerging systems. The
> reality is that industrial-age paradigms are fundamentally different
> than many-to-many systems.  John Robb understands and acknowledges
> this. So this paragraph is not about his writing, but about what I am
> adding to the discussion. The industrial paradigm is fundamentally
> about "control". The emerging p2p paradigm is fundamentally about
> distribution of control. I think a huge amount of people in
> communities realize this now. But, they look for guidance in
> succeeding in operating in participatory ecologies. Not controlling
> guidance, but guiding guidance. Guidance that offers clear paths to
> meeting basic fundamental survival needs while distributing control.
> For decades, following the commercial consolidation and decline of
> Agronomy-based communities in the US, we've all outsourced, and
> mortgaged our basic survival needs to industrial and commercial
> systems that tend to control in non-distributed ways. Those industrial
> systems benefited from us "users" having a narrow focus, guided by
> one-way mediums, and funneling resources away from our control as an
> "exchange" for food, energy, physical goods, culture "products", and
> access. The emerging system massively empowers the individual and
> people in their communities. But, having lived and worked in a
> previous and arguably collapsing system, so completely different from
> what is emerging, there is little available in the environment that
> helps many people understand how to operate in this new environment.
> Imagine getting into the seat of a Formula One race car, having never
> driven one before, and being expected to pull out into a track with
> cars wizzing past you at over 200kph, and you can have an idea of what
> this emerging environment is like for the majority of people.
>
> How do we help people learn to drive in this new race-car that,
> without them getting knocked off the track, or worse?  I think that
> those of us who build theory have an opportunity to also synthesize it
> into learning, and engage communities around the world that are ready
> to empower themselves to actually become resilient communities right
> now. Those of us who build tools also have an opportunity to help
> people learn how to use them to their full potential. In turn, those
> who benefit from the learning have an obligation to make sure that
> people who help foster and steward their path to resiliency are
> reciprocated back to fairly. I know, Michel, that you have realized
> this, and are working to create physical space in Thailand where you
> can do exactly what is described here, and likely more that I have not
> even fathomed. We are moving into a time of action, now that it is
> clear that the theory we have been building is sound in many ways
> (thanks to all of you who have dedicated yourselves to forging it). I
> think John Robb and many others are right, that if we do not act soon
> to make good on the promise of P2P systems, that we are headed towards
> a human evolutionary turn that many would likely deem undesirable.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > if you have time, this might be something to comment on:
> >
> >
> http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/02/journal-driving-resilience-by-building-networks.html
> >
> > --
> > Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think
> thank:
> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >
> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> >
> > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
> > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Sam Rose
> Forward Foundation
> Social Synergy
> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> skype: samuelrose
> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> http://socialsynergyweb.com
> http://forwardfound.org
> http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
> http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
> http://socialmediaclassroom.com
> http://localfoodsystems.org
> http://notanemployee.net
> http://communitywiki.org
>
> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
> ambition." - Carl Sagan
>



-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100208/fb1f97ec/attachment.html>