[p2p-research] What comes next?

Tue Jul 13 15:14:19 CEST 2010

you are right Robin,

any end-of-history statement would seem to absurd in view of past history
and the different phase transitions that we have seen in the past,

thinking that evolution is completely over, and moreover, that an infinite
growth system can be sustainable in a finite natural environment over an
infinite period of time, is a logical and scientific fallacy .. the only
possible counter-argument here would be to show how a capitalism could exist
that is not dependent on continued growth, and can deal with compound
interest if this would happen .. I'm really open to hear that, but it is a
counter-argument that is never forthcoming, in all likelyhood because those
who like capitalism, like it because it is based on growth, and assume that
technologies and innovations will occur to solve this 'natural'
contradiction

of course, this doesn't say anything about when or how it will be replaced,
and the alternative of world destruction is also there, in this case indeed,
nothing would come after it

from a p2p perspective, I think also nothing stops a pluralistic
perspective, that would allow markets and other modalities of allocation to
co-exist,

the only thing p2p theory is affirming, is that the next dominant logic will
be peer to peer and a commons-orientation, but a commons of
knowledge/code/design, as well as trusts protecting vital resources from
depletion, can be compatible with market modalities

for example, as ostrom shows, you can have fisheries that are owned by a
community, yet allow individual fishing rights and trading of the fish,
provided the stock is not depleted.

I do believe then, that a commons approach should not be wedded to a single
proposed mode of allocation, but can be compatible with the largest possible
human freedom, such as the freedom to trade and to market,

why not call it capitalism, well in my case, because of the infinite growth
argument, but I'm actually perfectly happy with green capitalism, natural
capitalism, and other similar movements,

when you look at them closely, they are really about the freedom to trade,
not about infinite growth, hence they are market approaches but prefer to
use the term capitalism for cultural and political reasons, because it is
associated with dynamic enterpreneurship etc..

Michel

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Robin <robokow at gmail.com> wrote:

>  On 07/12/2010 10:21 PM, Ryan Lanham wrote:
>
> Daniel,
>
> Nothing can replace capitalism.
>
>
> Hi.
>
> What an absurd statement. How do you define capitalism? It currently
> consists of many elements: a 'free' market, state-regulation, wage-labour,
> competition, private ownership of means of production, etc.
>
> All of those can be replaced and have been replaced. I personally like to
> look at how competition works and how that is effectively making us less
> efficient. I like to co-operate not compete (though I do see how competition
> can be embedded within co-operation I can't see any benefit in it being the
> other way around!)
>
> If you're talking here about market-capitalism, then please say so. Then
> you're talking about the allocation of goods, products and services, not
> about the other elements (per se).
>
> I believe we can also find many ways of replacing market capitalism,
> through a community controlled and p2p based way of networking people,
> groups, etc. In the past there have been many examples of how this has been
> implemented. I think here for example of the cooperative movement of late
> 19th Century, that has effectively been co-opted by the state, resulting in
> the social welfare state.
>
> With the 'decrease' of the social-welfare system, the increase of autonomy
> and new technology one can expect a resurgence of systems that are based on
> this and that we can explore again old & new ways to replace these
> capitalisms and to ensure its sustainability. That's why I am on this list
> for example.
>
>
>  There is no known capacity now that would lead to economically efficient
> outcomes.  Could we have more efficient capitalism?  Yes.  Could we all be
> poorer and have systems that do away with markets, contracts, free trade?
> Yes.
>
>
> Economic efficient outcomes? That's a statement that comes straight out of
> any generic scholar-book about liberal economics. I see ourselves living in
> a highly inefficient society, as per the reasons you are stating yourself
> also below. Those are no bugs, but features of a system whose only way to
> survive is by creating problems (environmental waste for example) that can
> only be solved by having more penetration of the same logic. Its existence
> relies on crises.
>
> Robin.
>
>
>
> Asia has 4.2 billion people.  Africa has 1 billion.  The rest of the planet
> has a little over 1.4 billion...750 million of which live in Europe.  If
> pollution is the problem, we know that either the US and Europe must not
> continue as today, or the rest of the world must not become like the US
> and/or Europe.  Granted, the US is the worse of the two in rates and per
> capita, but Europe is overwhelmingly the worse of the two in total outputs.
> Europe has 750 million people.  The US has 308 million.  If China equalled
> the US in productivity and output for even a fraction of its population, it
> is highly likely that its consumption would exceed the US usage
> rates.  That's the "pollution" problem.
>
> Then there is the debt problem.  Real income must come from someone
> consuming.  The US has, for a long time, been the world's consumer.  We buy
> German cars and Pianos, Japanese electronics, Canadian trees and oil,
> etc. far more than anyone else.  Without someone consuming, it is very hard
> for anyone to be a net producer.  Now that the US is becoming depleted, that
> means people will have to sell stuff to a much poorer and much less
> sophisticated China...or the world must become poorer.  This the
> "consumption" problem.
>
> Given that nations must build and maintain infrastructure like roads,
> armies, and social security systems to keep populations productive,
> governments must spend funds.  But if taxes go too high, some believe that
> incentive is lost.  This is the "debt" problem.  Really it is the same as
> the consumption problem.
>
> No system besides capitalism has a prayer of solving these issues.  Arguing
> the issues don't exist is simply mad if one has any economic sense of income
> and wealth.  Many do not have such a sense.  Perhaps the majority of humans
> do not.
>
> For most people the 1-2 billion people who live life in the upper 1/3 of
> humanity are all that primarily matters.  Whether this is just or not is a
> political and moral question.  For now, it seems few in the developed world
> (even those who are most activist) really do much to help the poor of the
> world.  Nor have they done much.  If those poor become richer, there are
> endless issues.  If the rich become poorer, there are endless issues.  Since
> I am in the rich group, I prioritize my own problems.  I hope the poor can
> do better, but I would not change 60% of the U.S.'s income and wealth for
> doubling the income and wealth of 2/3s of the world's poor.  Even if I did
> have the capacity to make such a trade, the laws of productivity suggest it
> would be a lost gain in a matter of a few years.  The only thing that makes
> people wealthy is skills, systems, good governance and free trade.  Few
> places can or do have those things in excess....probably less than 1 billion
> of the world's people...most of which live in Europe, North America, or
> their satellite regimes.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Daniel Araya <levelsixmedia at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Very nicely layed out Ryan. My thoughts also.
>>
>> As you say, what comes next? Thats the question. One possibility is simply
>> no growth economies in advanced countries (Japan simply got there first).
>> And a significant shift in power/wealth to industrializing countries (which
>> are the bulk of the world's population anyway).
>>
>> And yet there is that nagging question of P2P. Could it replace
>> capitalism... I like Michel's optimism there... just not sure on this myself
>>
>> 1. I believe free market capitalism has largely proved the happiest time
>> for humans by far.
>> 2. I believe in governments regulating markets.
>> 3. I believe these things require careful balances.
>> 4. I believe that technology is all important in changing the rules.
>> 5. Technology has made labour and learning problematic.
>> 6. Because of 5, the credit/debt economy of the world is now broken.
>> 7. There may be ways to fix 6, but I don't see how.
>> 8. If there is no way to fix 6, there will be great disruption and
>> trauma.
>> 9. Something else will ensue.
>> 10. P2P may be part of 9.  I think "free" economies are a logical
>> technical outcome.
>> 11. Understanding free economies is therefore important.
>> 12. There is no future in the past.
>> 13. State socialism and communism are the past.
>> 14. It is possible that debt-based capitalism is becoming the past.
>> 15. If 14 is true, there is an urgency to uncover some means of solving
>> what will replace it.
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.orghttp://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
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

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100713/47aea46d/attachment.html>