[p2p-research] Repurposing Profit for User Freedom

[Michel Bauwens]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Michel,
>
> If I were advocating the argument you make, I'd put it in these terms: Does
> a person have the right to be rich when someone else is poor?
>
> It seems you would say, no.  They don't have such a moral right.  I would
> classify that as a strong economic socialist.  I would say such a right
> clearly exists though it is morally undesirable.  You would call that
> "neo-liberal."
>

Clearly Ryan, a world where everyone would have equipotential capacities
would be a world that I would welcome. However, I also realize that we have
had several thousands of years of a class society. So rather than positing
as an absolute, I would pose it as a relative. Can we imagine a world where
progress is made towards more human rights and equality, can we imagine a
world with an economic system does not destroy the biosphere? The second one
is a matter of survival, the second one of moral preference, but I believe
that today, both goals coincide. The system that is creating more and more
inequality is also endangering our biosphere. So such a system
self-destructs eventually, and takes with it the planet and its inhabitants.
So as I see it, there are two possibilities: something better, or something
worse.





>
> The question would then typically move on to one of how to make the poor
> richer.  A strong economic socialist would tend to say that should be done
> through some form of redistribution of wealth so as to alleviate suffering
> and enhance fairness.  A neo-liberal would say...enable people to have the
> capacities to produce things the world wants.
>

that is perhaps what a neoliberal says, but not what he does. What it
factually does is massively enclosing the commons, massively disowning
people, and taking away their capacities. So we indeed need to restore a
system that factually restores those capacities, and historically, more
equal societies have been much better at this. Just check the post-war
growth rates, with the neoliberal period starting the eighties .. a massive
fall by two-thirds, a stagnation of the real wages of working people


>
> Here is the strong concession you will get from me:  My world of enabling
> people to have capacities is dying.  I cannot stop that death.  It will be
> complete in a matter of decades.  There are three possible answers to that
> decline/death as I see it:
>

I will concede that the world of massively disenabling people's capacities
is dying ... increasing inequality does not work, it destroys the very basis
of society



>
> 1. Depopulate either by force or voluntarily.
>

I do not believe overpopulation to be a terminal problem (though it causes
relative problems), our world has the capacity to sustain a big population
under the right conditions, and birth rates are rapidly declining everywhere


> 2. Implement strong economic socialism.
>

depends on what you mean, I don't think the old model of state capitalism
(what you call socialism), will work. Certainly it the west, it has no
social basis



> 3. Do something else.
>

that in my view is what p2p is about


>
> I hope for 3 knowing 1 is brutal and 2 has failed repeatedly.  The trouble
> is, no one is yet articulating a coherent and workable view of 3.  My
> answers tend to be technological.  Yours tend to be
> institutional/political.  There is some mixture to both.  I think the real
> value of the Foundation is in generally exploring and attempting to
> articulate point 3.  Little is gained by rehashing that the continued
> creation of economic value by individuals is dying.  We concur on that.
> John Robb is a smart guy I've read a long time, but he keeps pointing out
> the obvious...that what you call neo-liberal capitalism (and what I call a
> credit-based demand-driven economy with full employment) is dying.  I know
> of no strong capitalist/libertarian here who is saying otherwise...I know
> many outside of P2PF.
>

neoliberalism is supply driven, since wages stagnate and so the objective
buying power, it needs hyper-credit as a last ditch attempt; keynesianism on
the other hand, was demand driven and based on savings, but had its own
problems (which is why it could be replaced by supply driven neoliberalism)

I think the strength of the p2p approach is that is entirely driven by
observing trends, and seeking ways to interconnect and strengthen the
desirable ones, both in technology, and in the institutional-political
field, the latter often enabled by the former, and both driven by a values
revolultion





>
> I would even say J. Andrew was far from that point.  The question is, now
> what?  Rehashing the death is irrelevant unless it leads to futurism that is
> compelling.  So, I guess I am agree with Sam Rose on resilience.  Overall, I
> find the points on current IP law fairly irrelevant.  I was diverted by
> anarchist arguments I have been in before (never productively for me so
> far)...once again; it is religion...not a philosophy in that it answers all
> questions and allows no compromises.
>
>
> Ryan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100209/cfebb308/attachment.html>