Whilst in some respects Paul Mason’s “Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future” is a good read, I found it disappointing. I expected at some point to understand what Mason means by postcapitalism and whilst I understand why it is not possible to define it, the concept seems incomplete.
The argument is capitalism cannot adjust to the Internet age because the Internet makes production effectively free. Work no longer has financial value. People collaborate and create new things because they enjoy innovation. But as soon as you create something, it can be duplicated for next to nothing by machines. This applies to material as well as digital products; once machines are in place, production requires little contribution from human beings.
Exactly how this brave new world operates is naturally a mystery because it is still emerging and so we cannot fully discern its shape. Capitalism has been around for about 200 years. The earlier economic system, feudalism, lasted many centuries longer. Inequality is a major issue today. The market doesn’t work properly because 1% hoover up most of the resources. Feudalism and its precursors do not seem to be any better. Inequality was just as much a feature of the Roman Empire, itself a pattern for every dictatorship we’ve seen since.
It is hard to see how allowing a new paradigm to emerge, trusting it will be fairer than the one we have, is going to solve anything.
Resisting the Inevitable
Mason takes a lot of time explaining Marxist theory. This is interesting and the best part of the book. He describes how capitalism’s story is of long-term cycles. Someone invents something, it opens up new possibilities and so the economy grows. As more people take on the new development, returns fall and the economy moves into recession. It seems the latest cycle has broken down; capitalism cannot resolve the current cycle created by the Internet.
Possibly this theory shows the struggles of the last century are the struggles of the proverbial bald men fighting over a comb. It has never been a fight between capitalism and anti-capitalism (called communism, socialism or, bizarrely, liberalism (a more pro-capitalist ideology is hard to imagine)) but a fight between capitalisms.
The Soviet Union was not an alternative to capitalism but state capitalism. China today is managing to be capitalist without the democratic trappings of the West.
In truth we can design our own capitalisms. After all, the issue is not the value of capital but the ownership of capital. When 1% of people own most of the capital you can expect the economy to be less healthy. Demanding this should end is not demanding an end to capitalism.
One interesting point Mason makes is the working class in the UK did not follow the Soviet route but chose to reform capitalism. One such route was trade unions. Their approach to capitalism was so threatening to the wealthy that the Tories crushed them in the 1980s and still feel threatened by the feeble rump that remains.
Co-operation: an alternative?
Another approach, Mason hardly mentions, is co-operatives. The co-operative movement was immensely diverse during its glory days and presented an alternative economy within the imperialist economy of the British Empire. It was crushed during the 1980s too, to the extent most people no longer understand mutuality.
So, how about this vision of post-capitalism-as-we-know-it? Run the corporations, big businesses and public services as mutuals to set the standard for the economy. Smaller, local businesses can be mutuals but self-employed are able to set up smaller businesses. This allows people the flexibility to experiment with new ideas at a local level.
In such a local economy, people still have money and property but a lot of what they own is part shares in mutual businesses.
The Internet
Mason claims the digital revolution is a main cause of the current recession and transition to some unknown future. He actually writes little about the digital revolution and in that respect the book is a disappointment. The problem is I can’t help asking whether he would hold to his analysis if he knew more about the digital revolution.
One obvious issue is the digital revolution works only when most people link to it and that costs money. If the machines can open up something new, how does everyone take part? It may be true that a lot online is free but it is free only once you have purchased the equipment and access to the Internet you need.
Who Decides How Technology Works?
The reason so much is free online is a decision taken by the people who invented the Internet. Lanier in his book, “Who Owns the Future?” says the links we use are one way; they point to another page. You cannot track back to the original page through the same link. If they had chosen that option it would have been possible to track everyone’s contribution and they could have earned a share in any profit made through their contribution.
They made these early decisions for good reasons but the decisions that prevail are the ones that favour those with power. The information you put on Facebook, for example, benefits Facebook’s owners. The Internet is an unparalleled opportunity to aid communication within and between communities. We have hardly begun to explore its potential. Our ancestors achieved unbelievable things through mutuals with limited transport (trains) and mass communications (newspapers and the telegraph).
What do you think? Do we wait for Mason’s postcapitalist world and then decide whether we want it? Or do we follow the example of the Rochdale Pioneers and shape the new world from within in our own way?