Capitalism, Optimism, and the Technoprogressive

To achieve our goals for the future, technoprogressives should accept that capitalism, properly managed and regulated, can be a powerful force for good, and we also must regain a deep sense of optimism and historical vision.

...

Complete entry

Posted by Donnie Maclurcan  on  03/20  at  07:12 PM

Hi Mike,

The idea that "capitalism is not a zero-sum game" falls into the old trap of considering net wealth in a very narrow sense. We will never be able to account for all of economic growth's externalities, so I think it is a debate that occurs on flawed premises.

My biggest challenge to your article is: How do techno-progressives de-link technological progressivism from the psyche of consumerism (accepting that, in theory and practice it may be possible)?

Donnie

Posted by Mark Plus  on  03/21  at  10:57 AM

Regarding capitalism and zero-sum games, Barbara Ehrenreich in a recent piece on Alternet writes:

If We Are in the Death Spiral of Capitalism, Can We Start Using the "S" Word?
http://www.alternet.org/story/130365/if_we_are_in_the_death_spiral_of_capitalism,_can_we_start_using_the_"s"_word/

"What is most galling, from a socialist perspective, is the dawning notion that capitalism may be leaving us with less than it found on this planet, about 400 years ago, when the capitalist mode of production began to take off. Marx imagined that industrial capitalism had potentially solved the age-old problem of scarcity and that there was plenty to go around if only it was equitably distributed. But industrial capitalism--with some help from industrial communism--has brought about a level of environmental destruction that threatens our species along with countless others. The climate is warming, the oil supply is peaking, the deserts are advancing and the seas are rising and contain fewer and fewer fish for us to eat. You don't have to be a freaky doomster to see that extinction may be what's next on the agenda."

Posted by Mike Treder  on  03/21  at  12:41 PM

Hi Donnie and Mark,

You both ask great questions. I read Barbara Ehrenreich's Alternet piece before (I love her work, by the way), and I think her concerns are well-placed. We have overused the Earth's natural resources and we're just beginning to feel the cost of borrowing from the future to pay for our present desires.

But what I think she fails to see is that nothing stands still. We either will have sci/tech progress or we won't, and if we don't, then almost certainly much of the world will slip backwards quickly in living standards -- including the poorest of us. If we continue to pursue scientific research and technological development, then we at least have the opportunity to do a better job of managing increased production and being better stewards of the Earth.

We can grow more crops on less land using less water and make more sustainable use of soil. We can generate energy from renewable sources and create new green power grids that will use that energy more efficiently. We definitely can do a better job of getting food and medicine to those who need it most while still providing profit motives for private corporations. The two aims are not mutually incompatible.

Capitalism isn't going away any time soon, at least not without a long, bloody, and probably pointless revolution. We all know that capitalism unleashed can be terribly destructive, but we also know that carefully regulated capitalism can produce high quality living conditions for far more people than any other system ever devised. (Remember, even Karl Marx admired what capitalized industrialization could produce. He thought it wondrous and hoped only to someday have ownership of the productive capacity shift to the workers. That may not ever be workable in practice, though.)

So, what I'm in favor of, and what I believe Sheri Berman (quoted in my article) prefers, is a blend of socialized democracy and regulated capitalism : the middle way.

Donnie, I think you ask even a bigger question, about the possibility of taming or even abolishing rampant consumerism. That would probably require a whole new article to answer (maybe you should write one for us on that topic!), but briefly, I'd expect that in the first half of this century, all of the challenges we'll face from depleted resources and changing climates will put a severe damper on the consumerist urge. Although it's strongly in the interest of corporations to promote consumption, even the most powerful advertising might not make people want to buy a lot more than what they need during the next few decades.

At some point in the latter half of this century, assuming we haven't destroyed civilization in a bio-war or nano-war, I wouldn't be surprised to see our natural animal urges to consume redirected into virtual reality, where we'll be able to have nearly unlimited supplies of whatever we want, in full sense immersion. Game theory may intervene to supply some limits so as to make gluttony less boring or something. But in any case, we'll be taking big bytes of data, not Gaia.

Posted by Donnie Maclurcan  on  03/21  at  03:48 PM

Mike,

Accepting we live in a dynamic world does not, for mine, present the situation that "we either will have sci/tech progress or we won't, and if we don't, then almost certainly much of the world will slip backwards quickly in living standards -- including the poorest of us". I find this a limited perspective that denies the potential for our wisdom to evolve with the tools we (largely) already have and some that we can continue to develop. Look at the global permaculture movement, for example. Also, it was interesting to see a recent report by UNCTAD who now suggest that organic ag. may be the way to go in Africa: http://tinyurl.com/da8sya

As to the statement "even the most powerful advertising might not make people want to buy a lot more than what they need during the next few decades". If this is the greatest global depression to occur since 1929, then I'm yet to see similar responses, in terms of consumption, in my own country. Whilst consumer confidence may be down in Australia, governments have a stake in seeing growth continue, and so we've had cash payouts here in Aus to general public.

Interesting thoughts on shifting consumerism to VR.

---

Add your comment here:

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: