[p2p-research] Post-Capitalism

Tue Jul 13 18:38:13 CEST 2010

I like that we can see the beginning of all of these trends now.

I was stricken last year when California docked my alma matre 15%,
removing 2500 students from the rolls.  California subsidizes quite a
bit for residents, but this meant that unsubsidized folks were cut
also.

A

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> A Crude Timeframe for Innovation
>
> Next 2-4 years.  Universities begin to die wholesale through massive
> government cut-backs.  R&D goes to the garages in huge numbers.
>
>
>
>
> Next 4-8 years.  Wiki-like repositories of design projects and mechanics for
> sythesizing everything from green transport vehicles to simple drugs start
> to emerge.
>
> Next 8-12 years...governments regularly fail based on financial collapse of
> soverign debt.  This will start in Europe and spread quickly to Asia and
> North America.
>
> Next 12-15 years.  The capacity of homebrew biology products like new
> organs, limbs, and rebuilt arteries, etc. will make longevity far less
> problematic for the rich (top 20% of the world)...we on this list are all
> rich.
>
> Next 15-20 years...Last of the large for profit industries find it difficult
> to operate in a world where rapid movements to free P2P networks are
> commonplace and very disrespectful of intellectual property.
>
> Next 20-25 years...humans become largely irrelevant.  Singularity and
> robotic technology makes non human hybrids irrelevant...rather like hobby
> farm animals.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Ryan re his points on participative innovation,
>>
>> the question is, what are the industrial effects of participative
>> innovation?
>>
>> the answer is: there is really no crucial difference, yes they are rival
>> goods, but, anything that needs to be made, needs to be designed, and thus
>> falls under the possiblity of open innovation,
>>
>> more interestingly for me is that once open design communities take hold,
>> they are also designing the production process differently, which gives rise
>> to the new forms of distributed manufacturing that are described in our
>> wiki,
>>
>> of course, this emergence of open and distributed manufacturing will take
>> more time (more capital needed, more integration between the physical and
>> the virtual, many collaborative tools are still missing in many sectors),
>> but it is precisely this necessity, which weds the corporate world, to the
>> world of shared design, and makes it co-evolve with it,
>>
>> that a development is marginal only matters to a degree, what matters is
>> the direction of the evolution, and from my vantage point, it is happening,
>> and I agree with Ryan's time frame on this, i.e. 20-30 years, but that
>> doesn't mean its effects are not visible long before that ..
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dan:
>>>
>>> Arguing with Marxists is very similar to arguing with anyone who believes
>>> strongly in their point of view.  Personally, I see little evidence to
>>> support Marxism any time I've made admittedly minimal efforts to understand
>>> it.  As I am inclined to work with and use things that are evidential, I
>>> have never seen any reason to seriously engage Marxism any more than I
>>> do have reason to engage others systems or beliefs that are minimally
>>> evidential.  That said, some very smart people have used Marxism as a basis
>>> of analysis particularly in sociology and history.  I don't diss it as a
>>> sort of theory of how the world works much from those academic traditions.
>>> It isn't useful as economics or social policy so far as I can tell.  It also
>>> isn't in any way a good predictor of social evolution.  I think Marx meant
>>> well.  State implementations of his theories have been uniformly disasterous
>>> in my opinion.  Others can certainly disagree, but I think an objective
>>> viewer would find most instances of Marxism in practice to be worse than
>>> mere failures.
>>>
>>> You ask is innovation possible in a post-capitalist world.  I suspect it
>>> is not only possible but it will accelerate.  What is killing capitalism
>>> is technology.  Technology is rapidly encroaching on the mind and the body
>>> as to how humans can control and own reasoning.  This is not a bad thing.
>>> Personally, I'd much rather trust a system that was built and vetted by
>>> thousands of doctors and nurses than the ideas of one human.  Soon, that
>>> sort of collective, social technology will be commonplace.  Elements have
>>> already begun.  Your field, learning, is all important.  Soon there will be
>>> a greater synergy between machine learning and human learning.  This is all
>>> but inevitable unless some cataclysm freezes us where we are or in a lower
>>> state of progress.
>>>
>>> Innovation requires a sort of willingness to trial.  Trials and
>>> experiments are typically expensive and hard.  In a post capitalist society
>>> (one where debt driven growth is not the norm) it may be less risky to try
>>> things.  This will give even further impetus to innovation in co-ops, maker
>>> faires, garage-level manufacturing, etc.  I think all that stuff is very
>>> very exciting.  Anyone who does not have a still or a CNC router or a set of
>>> test tubes in the garage right now is really missing out on what is most
>>> exciting about our times...it is the democratization of R&D...and that is
>>> the most important driver of innovation of all.  Don't get me wrong, we are
>>> still in the corporate age and will be for 20-30 more years at least.
>>> The change is started though.  Many of the people on this list are doing
>>> it.  That's why I am here.  The associated Marxism is not helpful, but I'm
>>> unlikely to convince those of that inclination of that nor are they likely
>>> to convince me.  In general, it is better, as Michel has said, to seek out
>>> common ground.  I find Marxian influenced people, like people of any strong
>>> metaphysical view, have great difficulty finding common ground, however.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Daniel Araya <levelsixmedia at hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ryan, one question I have for you: Do you think there is room for
>>>> continuous innovation in 'capitalist' post-industrial economies? If so
>>>> innovation in what areas? Green energy? Or are we in the early phases of a
>>>> post-capitalist commons-based era?
>>>>
>>>> What is your view (ignoring all the Marxist fog)...?
>>>>
>>>> D
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:03:48 +0700
>>>> From: michelsub2004 at gmail.com
>>>> To: p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [p2p-research] The problems of debt
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ryan,
>>>>
>>>> when do you place item 8, I think this would be crucial in your theory,
>>>>
>>>> if you place it in 2008, then obviously, this is right,
>>>>
>>>> but if you place it before, it's totally against the historical record,
>>>> as debt and credit is precisely the strategy that was chosen to jumpstart
>>>> the economy, i.e. the social product going to labour was dramatically
>>>> diminished, forcing the middle class to resort to debt-fuelled lifestyles
>>>> ... It is the collapse of this strategy that led to the meltdown of 2008 and
>>>> the death of the neoliberal model (but not of the power of the elite that
>>>> sustained those policies, as you rightly say, they were 'saved' and remain
>>>> in place)
>>>>
>>>> as any enterpreneur or capitalist knows, in real production, profit only
>>>> comes from monopoly, i.e. preventing as long as possible that innovations
>>>> are shared, once this happens, super-profits become impossible, and start
>>>> declining very rapidly; this is of course why IP is crucial,
>>>>
>>>> in a world of open and social innovation therefore, and I think this is
>>>> happening, profit tends to be distributed much faster, and therefore
>>>> declines much faster,
>>>>
>>>> as you can see in the RSA animate presentation by David Harvey, and this
>>>> is confirmed by The Big Shift of Hagel/seely brown, production-based profit
>>>> has dramatically declined, and only financial rent is now providing profit,
>>>> or at least it was until 2008
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've been asked to explain debt problems as influenced by technology.
>>>> I'll try.
>>>>
>>>> Here's my "theory".  Many others share or have versions of something
>>>> similar.  I claim no originality.  I've posted several versions on this
>>>> list.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Growth occurs when someone produces something others value.  The sum
>>>> total of value is the economy.
>>>> 2. In the past, it was a matter of work and labour to produce something
>>>> of value...like digging a hole where a hole was wanted.
>>>> 3. People learned to take money that was not in use and to use it by
>>>> borrowing it and then buying value-production which was then placed on sale.
>>>> 4. The process of 3 entails risk.  Risk was rewarded by profit.
>>>> 5. The system of 3-4 really works quite well so long as profit is
>>>> likely.
>>>> 6. In a world where learning and high productive machinery requiring low
>>>> skill levels is readily available (i.e. post 1990 or so) making profit is
>>>> harder.  7. Item 6 is especially true if innovation is not protected by the
>>>> state (e.g. through intellectual property.)
>>>> 8. Because profit is harder especially in tangible goods and services
>>>> (because of technology and learning distribution) credit is harder.
>>>> 9. When credit became hard, the incentives to cheat increased.  People
>>>> lent money badly and then cleverly sold the bad loans to others who didn't
>>>> understand.
>>>> 10. When 9 happened, the state had to decide whether huge firms
>>>> fulfilling important institutional roles would die, or be saved.
>>>> 11. Nearly all states, especially in Japan and Europe, chose to save old
>>>> institutions (e.g. Royal Bank of Scotland), or in the US, AIG.
>>>> 12. There is now an open question as to whether markets can still create
>>>> value (e.g. the iPod) in such a way that debt is justified.  If not,
>>>> capitialism in the form that creates ready growth through using unused money
>>>> is screwed.
>>>> 13. When money goes unused, it is difficult to create new money and
>>>> growth of value.  There is no/little incentive to innovate.  This can be
>>>> called "deflation."
>>>> 14. Deflation is more dangerous to capitalism by far than inflation.
>>>> Deflation means shrinkage of an economy because unused money becomes more
>>>> valuable by sitting than by being used.  Thus, people become even more risk
>>>> averse.
>>>> 15. When 14 happens for a long time (e.g. Japan) then demographic and
>>>> institutional patterns start to become unsustainable.
>>>> 16. When 15 happens, we do not understand the long term outcomes, but
>>>> they don't seem good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ryan Lanham
>>>> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>>>> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>>>> P.O. Box 633
>>>> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
>>>> Cayman Islands
>>>> (345) 916-1712
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with
>>>> Hotmail. Get busy.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ryan Lanham
>>> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>>> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>>> P.O. Box 633
>>> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
>>> Cayman Islands
>>> (345) 916-1712
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
> P.O. Box 633
> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
> Cayman Islands
> (345) 916-1712
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>