Post-Capitalism: Rise of the Collaborative Commons

https://medium.com/@cjdew/post-capitalism-rise-of-the-collaborative-commons-62b0160a7048

by nissimk • 11 years ago

45 55 11 years ago

medium.com

pjonesdotca• 11 years ago

I have a feeling that anything other than "free market capitalism" is going to be shunned around these parts. :)

Great read. And the predecessor as well. https://medium.com/@cjdew/the-obsolescence-of-capitalism-340...

ancap5• 11 years ago

I have a feeling that anything other than "free market capitalism" is going to be shunned around these parts.

As it should. If it weren't for capitalism we would not enjoy any of the abundance we have become accustomed to having in the past century. Capitalism, as limited as it is in the current world, has provided such that royalty of past centuries would envy certain aspects of a poor person's life today (I'm talking first world country poor).

The main problem with this article, and many like it, is it identifies problems existing in today's world, and then completely misattributes them. For example, the problem with food distribution has very little to do with businesses, or individuals, desiring profit. Neither does inequality (if we can even call that a problem) stem from capitalism.

worik2• 11 years ago

(a) How is it possible to say "if we can even call that a problem" re inequality?

(b) How is it possible to say inequality does not stem from capitalism? Where else could it stem from.

I am not advocating the abolition of capitalism, I advocate a mixed economy.

Dewie2• 11 years ago

As it should. If it weren't for capitalism we would not enjoy any of the abundance we have become accustomed to having in the past century.

That argument can't be directly applied to the future. Just because a system worked in the past, doesn't mean that it will work in a future world with different constraints. Hence why many think that today's capitalism is not a good political model for the envisioned future of mass automation.

And of course we can't hold on to an idea out of reverence and respect, i.e. "be grateful for what it has done for you, you privileged first-world dweller, you".

decals422• 11 years ago

The problem with America incarcerating a larger percentage of its population than any nation in the history of the world can be directly attributed to the privatization of prisons, and the capitalist incentives they impose.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-unit...

The problem with inequality is that the 20th century middle class was specifically what made America great, by providing a consumer base to buy all the wonderful things people wanted to make. You can only sell so many jeans to the richest one percent.

tomjen32• 11 years ago

In all my travels (on the interwebs) I have seen two articles arguing against capitalism that were worth reading. Easily twenty times that failed.

So yeah, my bayesian filter is going to shun anything but free market capitalism. Especially because for many it has become a political stop-word, even though we sit in the greatest luxury in history. For me, any article that wants to replace capitalism first has to explain how it rolf-stomp every system that came before it, and how their new proposed system will augment capitalism.

protomyth2• 11 years ago

Yep, in addition, I would like to see an article that effectively answers the arguments in Why Not Capitalism? by Jason Brennan. The book itself is a rebuttal and quite good.

http://smile.amazon.com/Why-Not-Capitalism-Jason-Brennan/dp/...

nemo• 11 years ago

FWIW, capitalism isn't the same thing as "free market capitalism." There are plenty of good reasons to favor some forms of regulation (preventing monopolies, collusion, managing externalities like pollution, etc.). We have the wealth we have today due to a regulated capitalist system.

Estragon• 11 years ago

What were the two good ones?

decals422• 11 years ago

"even though we sit in the greatest luxury in history"

We also sit in the greatest state incarceration of individuals in the history of the world, thanks largely to the privatization of prisons (ie, Capitalist incentives turned onto a societal function where they don't belong)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-unit...

skilesare• 11 years ago

I'm presenting your answers Sunday morning at the Texas Bitcoin Conference. I've been very careful to make sure that I leave the positives of free market capitalism in place while fixing some of the problems like economic rent and r > g.

https://vimeo.com/user17783424/review/122784294/439ab072b5

jjoonathan3• 11 years ago

I don't see it as post-capitalism, just a change in what constitutes the most efficient means of production. Cuts out middlemen.

If rent-seeking accounts for an increasing fraction of economic activity (a big IF, but let's assume it's true for the sake of figuring out consequences) then it will eventually surpass the inefficiencies of small-scale generalist production and we'll break into "communes." Scare quotes because there's no reason they have to be anti-technology, anti-capitalism, anti-trade, anti-government, or any of the other scary associations that follow the word around.

Especially for "unskilled" (or otherwise marginalized) labor, this sort of a model would seem to make sense. Employers would be forced to beat the value proposition of "work x days a month, do whatever you want with the remainder, your ability to secure food and shelter is guaranteed unless you screw up big time."

There's a ton of work to be done before it's a viable alternative. Hell, I bet it's even going to get VC funding someday (better to sell the shovels, right?). Neat stuff, but right now I'll just watch from the sidelines. Robotic farming (GVCS), DIY circuit board / chip manufacture, DIY chemical industry (stock up on popcorn when they get to Haber or Frank-Caro), 3D printing of structures... am I missing anything? Is there a mailing list I should be on (FBI forgive me)?

EDIT: We should talk about the big sticking point, which will be "how would one replace or compensate specialists that haven't been marginalized by capitalism yet and don't contain bunches of 'hippies,' for lack of a better word"? In other words: doctors. This is why I'm on the sidelines for now ;)

bryanlarsen• 11 years ago

"If rent-seeking accounts for an increasing fraction of economic activity (a big IF)"

Is this really a big IF? Software revenue is technically rent (since the cost of production is 0), and that's definitely growing as a fraction of economic activity.

jjoonathan3• 11 years ago

I tend to agree, but I've been waffling between sides and it was tangential to the argument I was interested in, so I hedged.

Actually, it should be rent seeking + costs of competition. Some things are marginally important not because they serve a consumer need but because they still provide an advantage in the eternal tug-of-war. Advertising is the typical example. A DIY economy would save on some of those costs too.

fweespeech• 11 years ago

Is this really a big IF? Software revenue is technically rent (since the cost of production is 0), and that's definitely growing as a fraction of economic activity.

The cost of production [software engineers] is not 0.

The labor of maintaining software products [sysadmins] on the internet to perform the distribution is not 0

The cost of distribution [bandwidth] requires extensive infrastructure that the owners charge for. The power, hardware, etc. for the machine is non-0 as well.

rent-seeking is expending resources on political activity to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating wealth.

That is the definition I'm used to.

So I'm not sure if you can really classify that as a "rent".

zzalpha2• 11 years ago

In what world is the cost of software production zero?

You are aware software developers are paid, you know, money for services, right?

To be honest, your argument, here, is exactly the trouble economists have trying to understand economic rent. Rent is to economists what pornography is to a supreme court justice: they know it when they see it.

There simply is no concrete theory to define rent, and so it's extremely difficult to provide any kind of proof of increased rent seeking in modern economies without relying on personal judgment, and therefore bringing to bear personal bias.

Which is, of course, why you think software is rent while someone else might not: it's in the eye of the beholder.

bcheung8• 11 years ago

Software engineers are one of the highest paid professions. How does software production cost 0? Do you mean distribution?

jchrisa• 11 years ago

Maybe these communes can be run like social networks, so you don't even have to worry about how people smell, as long as they contribute and don't screw up big time.

jjoonathan3• 11 years ago

They could even compete against one another to offer better "benefits" for less work. It's a much sunnier proposition than forcing the billions of people who need to eat to compete for an ever-shrinking pool of un-automatable work, wouldn't you say?

dmichulke2• 11 years ago

Capitalism - that word again. I don't think it means what you think it means.

PS: Post-capitalism implies capitalism was or is present and unless the author wrote this piece in Hong Kong or Singapore he should not even remotely apply that word any present or past "economic system"

PPS: Much like democracy.

dragonwriter6• 11 years ago

The term "capitalism" was created to refer to and defined by the early industrial economic system of the more developed countries of Europe in the 19th Century. It is quite odd to claim that it never existed anywhere other than Hong Kong or Singapore.

dmichulke2• 11 years ago

OK, I see your point :)

Here's what I mean:

Capitalism is (as democracy) not a yes/no thing. Instead, it is one extreme of a scale and every state has a value on that scale and can can be more or less capitalistic (democratic). Less capitalistic in this context means more centrally planned, typically by an actor of the state (government, council for economic planning, ...).

The problem I see in the typical use of the word "capitalism" is that many flaws of the current system are blamed on the "too capitalistic" side while I'm convinced the reason lies on the "too centrally planned side", i.e., we have too little capitalism.

Hence my reaction to the word "post-capitalism" which sounds to me as if someone against torture wrote an article about "post-humanism" as a follow-up to "the obsolescence of human dignity" (where clearly humanism and dignity aren't the problem, rather it is the lack thereof).

So, yes, we had and have capitalism to some extent everywhere (including Soviet Russia) but plain capitalism is very hard to find and even more so in the last 50 years. In fact, even Singapore has a central bank and I bet HK has one, too.

Loic• 11 years ago

This post is basically a copy/paste of the latest book of Rifkin:

http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Marginal-Cost-Society-Collaborati...

Book, which is by the way very good.

KaiserPro• 11 years ago

I just dont see it happening, that those with great capital resources would allow themselves to be undermined in such a way. The innate human power structure is such that those with the most resources make the rules. (Feudal, mercantile, and democratic)

I would suggest reading the second half of "road to wigan pier" which will both provide history and an excellent critique of this style of thinking.

terravion• 11 years ago

The premise of this piece is that we are close to satisfying the demands of society and that we'll be living in a post-scarcity world. But everyone I know wants to vacation on the moon (i.e. we have an unlimited capacity to consume new things). At current prices, just my 30 closest friends going to the moon for two week every year is about the same level of consumption as the total global economy.

We only live in a post scarcity world if you believe that humans have a limited capacity for consumption. Everyone who has bet on that thus far in history has been proved wrong, so capitalism or no, we need to deal with scarcity.

zzalpha2• 11 years ago

We only live in a post scarcity world if you believe that humans have a limited capacity for consumption.

I think that depends on how you define "satisfying the demands of society".

If that means everyone is essentially comfortable (ie, all essential needs are met, including things like basic recreation... I consider "play" a basic human need), I'd say that qualifies.

Will there always be people with ambitions that outstrip their resources? I'd certainly think so. But there's an awful lot of people out there who don't share your ambitions for space travel.

dragonwriter6• 11 years ago

If that means everyone is essentially comfortable (ie, all essential needs are met, including things like basic recreation... I consider "play" a basic human need), I'd say that qualifies.

There's considerable evidence that "comfort" is driven largely by perceived relative economic conditions, not absolute conditions, so as long as most people aren't doing above average compared to what they perceive around them, we won't achieve that.

Will there always be people with ambitions that outstrip their resources? I'd certainly think so. But there's an awful lot of people out there who don't share your ambitions for space travel.

Even if only some people had unmet needs, the society would still fail to be post-scarcity, since post-scarcity means rationing is not necessary because there isn't contention for resources. Even if there are only a few people who will always want more (though there is no reason grounded in the reality of actual human behavior to believe that there will only be a few, no matter the objective conditions), they will eventually place other people into a deprived position without a social system for allocating scarce resources, hence, no post-scarcity.

bcheung8• 11 years ago

I question the post-scarcity assumption. If you described how people live now to someone who lived 5000 years ago they would think we live in a post-scarcity world now. We have such abundance now, yet we still have "poor" people and humans still want to consume and control more. It's human nature to want more. Maybe in the far future people will want their own planets and anyone who doesn't have one will be considered living in "poverty". I don't think it will ever end unless the biology of human nature and the animal brain changes.

Scarfleece5• 11 years ago

  It's human nature to want more.

You pulled this out of your ass, and it's nonsense. Any anthropological study will tell you that hunter-gatherers are/were satisfied with what they could get. Anecdotally, there are vast amounts of people around the world who don't "want more".

bcheung8• 11 years ago

We all came from hunter-gatherers. If hunter-gatherers didn't want more then logically they would have stayed hunter-gatherers. So, why do we have the current civilization? I suspect because being cold, not having medicine, refrigeration, running water, plumbing, transportation, etc sucks.

dragonwriter6• 11 years ago

hunter-gatherers are/were satisfied with what they could get.

If that were true, hunter-gatherers wouldn't have developed agriculture and/or husbandry as ways to get more, leading to civilization, leading to a state where, for the vast majority of the planet, knowing about hunter-gatherer society was something that came through anthropological studies rather than life experience.

Post-Capitalism: Rise of the Collaborative Commons

Related Stories