![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
nairiporter.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAfter a long illness, the patient dies. This is how we could basically summarise the story of a British economics journalist about the end of a system that has dominated the world for more than a decade. The author claims that capitalism is at its death bed, and all treatment therapies, from Schaeuble's austerity to Draghi's currency devaluation policies, are doomed to fail. "Capitalism's long-term prospects are dire", former BBC and Channel 4 contributor Paul Mason argues.
Having observed the "dying patient", Mason characterises the current situation as "critical", and uses date from the OECD showing that growth in the major economies would remain slow for the next half a century, and income inequality would increase by 40% globally. He expects that the most pessimistic predictions about capitalism will come to be: that this system will no longer be able to generate prosperity even in the wealthiest countries; that the battles for redistributing the pie will increase, and political extremism will thrive; and automatisation of labor will destroy millions of jobs. He says any attempt by the socio-liberal elites to keep a life line to the patient and maintain order, would inevitably lead to dictatorship.
Mason does seem to have an alternative approach for saving the world, though: "We could start with saving globalisation by removing neo-liberalism. Then we should save the world by overcoming capitalism. That would spare us all sorts of inequalities and cataclysms".
He believes capitalism has become a gravedigger of itself, and the modern information technologies it helped create will be the ones to play its requiem. New movements like Open-Source, Open-Access and Open-Content, which have revolutionised the Internet, will soon make copyright obsolete, he also predicts. The new information technologies will provide free or almost free access to a number of everyday services, and people won't need to pay enormous amounts to buy a house or a car, as in the future they will be able to "print" them, using a 3D-printer.
"The most significant internal discrepancy of modern capitalism is the one between the inability to produce an abundance of goods for mass consumption and simultaneously having a system of monopolies, banks and governments that aim to preserve their control on political power and information. This is a war between the network and the hierarchy", he writes, and goes on to argue that these fundamental changes would not be a product of the working class, as the leftists of the 20th century had expected, but by "the educated individual who is connected in the network of information society in the era of computers". In this sense, planned economy and the current market are about to be substituted, and the era of "intelligent network structures" is at hand, he promises.
Mason also argues that the ability to have access to practically limitless goods wil undermine the current economic system and replace it with a new, more progressive one (no surprise he self-identifies as a "radical social-democrat". He believes people will be increasingly connecting between themselves in ever expanding networks, and be able to help each other. In this sense, he speaks of cooperative forms of production and exchange of goods and services, which will transform the character of the world economy. In a system where hired labour could become almost unnecessary, people will make a living out of a guaranteed base income, he believes.
Of course, all of this sounds too utopian for anyone who is familiar enough with the realities of today, and the peculiarities of human behaviour. Mason's ideas may radiate a lot of optimism, but in fact they do not sound particularly convincing. Most of all, due to the fact that the bulk of those claims and predictions rest upon rather questionable assertions. Take for example the claim that the principles of the so called "sharing economy" could somehow completely replace the current material production. And not least importantly, his ideas may sound rather far-fetched because he assumes that the people who benefit the most from the current economic order of the world would somehow refrain from putting a fight against these proposed revolutionary changes. Indeed, that would be the first case in human history when the ruling class would be benevolent enough to just stay passively, and observe the very process of its own decapitation. As we already know, that is not going to happen.
Having observed the "dying patient", Mason characterises the current situation as "critical", and uses date from the OECD showing that growth in the major economies would remain slow for the next half a century, and income inequality would increase by 40% globally. He expects that the most pessimistic predictions about capitalism will come to be: that this system will no longer be able to generate prosperity even in the wealthiest countries; that the battles for redistributing the pie will increase, and political extremism will thrive; and automatisation of labor will destroy millions of jobs. He says any attempt by the socio-liberal elites to keep a life line to the patient and maintain order, would inevitably lead to dictatorship.
Mason does seem to have an alternative approach for saving the world, though: "We could start with saving globalisation by removing neo-liberalism. Then we should save the world by overcoming capitalism. That would spare us all sorts of inequalities and cataclysms".
He believes capitalism has become a gravedigger of itself, and the modern information technologies it helped create will be the ones to play its requiem. New movements like Open-Source, Open-Access and Open-Content, which have revolutionised the Internet, will soon make copyright obsolete, he also predicts. The new information technologies will provide free or almost free access to a number of everyday services, and people won't need to pay enormous amounts to buy a house or a car, as in the future they will be able to "print" them, using a 3D-printer.
"The most significant internal discrepancy of modern capitalism is the one between the inability to produce an abundance of goods for mass consumption and simultaneously having a system of monopolies, banks and governments that aim to preserve their control on political power and information. This is a war between the network and the hierarchy", he writes, and goes on to argue that these fundamental changes would not be a product of the working class, as the leftists of the 20th century had expected, but by "the educated individual who is connected in the network of information society in the era of computers". In this sense, planned economy and the current market are about to be substituted, and the era of "intelligent network structures" is at hand, he promises.
Mason also argues that the ability to have access to practically limitless goods wil undermine the current economic system and replace it with a new, more progressive one (no surprise he self-identifies as a "radical social-democrat". He believes people will be increasingly connecting between themselves in ever expanding networks, and be able to help each other. In this sense, he speaks of cooperative forms of production and exchange of goods and services, which will transform the character of the world economy. In a system where hired labour could become almost unnecessary, people will make a living out of a guaranteed base income, he believes.
Of course, all of this sounds too utopian for anyone who is familiar enough with the realities of today, and the peculiarities of human behaviour. Mason's ideas may radiate a lot of optimism, but in fact they do not sound particularly convincing. Most of all, due to the fact that the bulk of those claims and predictions rest upon rather questionable assertions. Take for example the claim that the principles of the so called "sharing economy" could somehow completely replace the current material production. And not least importantly, his ideas may sound rather far-fetched because he assumes that the people who benefit the most from the current economic order of the world would somehow refrain from putting a fight against these proposed revolutionary changes. Indeed, that would be the first case in human history when the ruling class would be benevolent enough to just stay passively, and observe the very process of its own decapitation. As we already know, that is not going to happen.
(no subject)
Date: 30/6/16 15:20 (UTC)The UK's postwar decolonialisation, though far from a perfect counter-example, exhibited the ruling classes at war with themselves and their values, and effectively, in some cases, led to decolonialisation without immediate violence. Often though, the violence came later, sometimes decades later.
It depends how evolved and enlightened our governments are, I suppose.
As for the rest of it, I think he's wrong in places. Money and inequality will be protected for as long as is possible, but it may be that it is no longer possible. When all money is electronic, and all accounts are rendered obsolete by quantum computing enabling any code to be cracked in nanoseconds, we shall need a new model and access to something other than merely bigger primes. Q.C. Will also ruin Bitcoin.
Land. Gold. Jewels. Art. Take your pick until the kerfuffle has died down.
These are interesting times.
(no subject)
Date: 30/6/16 18:28 (UTC)It is an efficient way to get resources from those who have too much, to those who have too little and (hopefully) make both parties better off in the process.
I don't see how that goes away.
The "sharing economy" still needs a banker.
(no subject)
Date: 2/7/16 07:15 (UTC)A pretty good definition, but one must also involve the "capital" dispute. I support those who see it as productive capital that money ("finance capital") is the representation of the value of that productive capital.
(no subject)
Date: 2/7/16 23:33 (UTC)This is pretty important and the sort of discussion that at least some free software advocates and a handful of economists have been wrestling with for a while.
Expressed in pure economic terms the following are issues:
a) Original information goods take a lot of investment to produce
b) Information goods have a close to zero marginal cost of reproduction.
c) Low costs of reproduction reduces the cost of new information goods (but not to zero)
d) Owners of information goods will tend to adopt legal, rent-seeking measures to enforce "intellectual property" claims (increasing the cost of new information goods, providing damaged goods, increasing the cost of reproduction).
It is like the telic components of technology are at war with the political economy of intellectual property.
It all sounds familiar...
(no subject)
Date: 4/7/16 08:42 (UTC)Good ol' Karl.
No disagreement here, even from a Macmillanite conservative. :)