>> This discussion of “what is capitalism?,” it seems to me, has great
relevance for any real left-green synthesis. Most of the left is
oblivious to the existence of postindustrial productive forces geared to
qualitative development, and the fact that capitalism is absolutely
incompatible with such postmaterial development.
*******
Do you mean post-technological? If not, then what does post-industrial mean?
Capitalism is a system of property and contract rights at it's core.
Capitalists have shown a rather insidious proclivity towards making sure
that technological innovations conform to a desired property and contract
scheme that allows them to accumulate lots of $$$$$$$$$$$ and legally avoid
paying for the pecuniary externalities imposed on other owners and
non-owners.
>> Real postindustrialism
is not primarily about information and computers, but about human cultural
development, and how this new role for creativity makes possible
widespread substitution of human intelligence for materials and energy.
It’s about what Martin Sklar called “disaccumulation” and what the
industrial ecologists call “dematerialization”. Only the industrial
ecologists, and advocates of eco-capitalism, do not see that capitalism
cannot by definition dematerialize the economy as a whole because it is
based in quantitative accumulation. Capitalism is based in material and
monetary accumulation; in scarcity; and in cog-labour.
*********
Who reaps the benefit of that creativity is, again, a manifestation of the
dominant legal relations between owners and non-owners. Technology under
capitalist relations of production push at and beyond the ability of some
ecosystem's regenerative and resiliency capacities. As for the ability of
capitalism to dematerialize, see:
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80901e/80901E08.htm especially the
appendix. Then come back and tell me that Alan Greenspan and all the other
high priests of capitalism have the slightest idea on how to achieve those
goals, let alone the desire.
>>I agree with the folks arguing that it is the commodity relationship
(M-C-M, etc.) that is key, because qualitative development (or the
regeneration of communities and ecosystems) can never be, for the system
as a whole, a by-product, a spin-off or a trickle-down of accumulation.
The ecological “end-use” approach is essentially the socialist “use-value”
approach. The starting point is human and ecological need—and the
redefinition of wealth. Questions of the distribution of wealth must
follow—and will follow—from that. The focus of Jim and others on
proletarianism and wage labour is very closely connected to this
subordination of human development; today’s working classes must
ultimately put an end to cog-labour, and make sure that even routine
labour is truly developmental.
********
Decommodifying our lives is the great adventurestruggle. Democratic
determination of use values is the great project of the 21st century. At the
same time, a lot more material output of goods is gonna be needed to
alleviate the misery of hundreds of millions. So the relations of production
must be transformed totally.
>>I agree with Yoshie that support for ongoing struggles is
essential, but
developing a large social vision is essential. In the name of diversity
and difference, apparently feeling burned by its past association with
vulgar Marxism, most of the left is retreating from the understanding of
historical potentials that should be the left’s forte. The left is
largely clueless about the political-economic alternatives to capitalism,
and for this reason its stale statism does not ring true with many in the
social movements who are already working to create alternatives. These
alternatives—in every sector of the economy and society—are not simply
ecotopian dreams. The precondition for a real left-green synthesis is for
the left to wake up to alternative forms of production geared to
ecological community regeneration.
******
Many on the left know about the experiments of which you speak. By forms of
production, do you mean that in an engineering sense or is it similar to
relations of production as commonly used by lefties?
>>When the left can do this, it can be very effective in showing how
eco-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. But will also become aware
that a narrow focus on the state will be insufficient, and even
counterproductive, for creating regenerative wealth. There needs to be
new rules, and these new rules can institutionalize quite different
processes than accumulation.
******
Apart from the whole gender bias issue built into the idea of rules, if you
are talking about the laws of property and contract under which ecologically
benign technologies and social services are delivered to citizens, then
you're talking about the state as enforcer of rules both in the making and
remaking sense.
And in fact they would have to discourage
accumulation. Markets, driven by the profit-motive, today are
destructive; but tomorrow, driven by social and ecological values and
indicators, they might be something else. Rather than poo-pooing
environmentalist concerns with consumption (and therefore the CONTENT of
production), the left should be raising the ante, and indicating the new
forms of production and exchange (and community-based regulation) which
can establish a new mode of
Brian Milani
Eco-Materials Project, Toronto
Green Economics Website
http://www.greeneconomics.net
*******
Democratic forums to determine use values and then works councils to
determine the technical details of production always sound good to me, as do
markets with different forms of ownership and governance; but they entail
"taking away" power from the current owners. Let's get on with it.
Ian
