Download pdf from this link
Apologies for the tacky headline but after it got into my head, I couldn’t resist it. As a response to my recent post on the virus, denialists and energy descent, one of my friends made this comment. What we need is a revolution.
I would love a revolution to bring an end to capitalism and usher in a global post-capitalist order. Let’s replace this shambles with something more positive and sustainable.
My qualms are these.
1. Most of those who are hoping for system change want a kind of post-capitalism that is unlikely to work in practice. What they envisage is ‘radical reformism’. Basically, a market economy with much more regulation and intervention by the state. The aim would be just distribution and environmental restraint. I feel pretty sure that the underlying market framework that radical reformists envisage would make these necessary changes impossible. Alternatively, the measures brought in by radical reformists could destroy the market economy. That could be unfortunate if it is expected to provide necessary goods and services. Either way, the long-term outcome is unpredictable.
There is another tendency also seeking system change. They look forward to the collapse of industrial society and want a very low-tech post-capitalism — iron tools and agriculture. One half imagines hobbit villages and global harmony. The other half imagines warrior tribes — with yours truly always the one victorious through endless courageous episodes. I can see why these visions are attractive. Yet I worry that without industrial technology we could end up with something more like feudal societies of the past. Not much fun for the vast bulk of the population.
My own views on a workable and preferable post-capitalism are different again, and certainly not shared by a majority of leftists and environmentalists.
In summary, working out what kind of a revolution we might want is a work in progress.
2. Looking at society as a whole there is only a minority who actually want system change. Most people today have no appetite for anything so all embracing. My feeling is that you have to work with what people are most likely to support. Grassroots alternatives and pressure on the state to do slightly more sensible things.
So, what is my vision of a preferred post-capitalism? I regard the long-term solution to our problems as a demonetised economy, non-market socialism, a commons or gift economy.
In terms of how a revolution to a non-monetary, non-market, non-state solution might come about I offer the following.
I see the living laboratories of current grass roots interventions as being of two kinds. One kind are (almost) purely non-monetary interventions — a rural commune, squatting, a community garden. The other kind are hybrids of the gift economy and capitalism. Hybrids attempt to implement the ethics of degrowth (or permaculture = earth care, people care, fair shares) while also having to work in the market economy. These expedients are necessary at the present time. For example, workers cooperatives, community supported agriculture. These hybrids are also backed up by some government initiatives. For example, the EU subsidies for organic agriculture, the subsidies for solar panels, the carbon taxes, public transport, social welfare. These government measures are also implemented via money and operate in the market, while they defy market logic in other ways. Such expressions of grass roots economic experimentation and government supported reform could grow as the ecological crisis develops. Recent experience with Covid is a pointer — increases to welfare payments and panic buying of vegetable seeds.
So, here is one possible pathway. The intensification of grass roots initiatives means that money becomes less meaningful as a means of exchange. One factor is the increasing amount of provision through non-monetary alternatives. More and more of one’s daily needs could be met without money being required. The second factor is that in the monetary sector of the economy, money would become less important in determining production and distribution. Money and the market work through the discourse of selling dear and buying cheap. Yet ethical businesses, including cooperatives, can never completely endorse this framework. They subvert this logic to fit with environmental and social justice ethics. For example, charging less to groups with more needs. Refusing the cheaper option when environmentally necessary. If more and more of the economic space were to be taken over by hybrids, they would link up to consolidate these un-market-like arrangements. The end result would be a patchwork of agreements between producers and consumers to supply and receive products at prices that defied market logic. Money as a useful tool of exchange would be dead. It would be easier not to bother. The commons economy would begin from that point.
A second pathway might open up if the capitalist class resisted these developments strongly. The response could be a forceful appropriation of the means of production from below. This movement would be most likely to succeed from this point if it adopted a ‘demonetisation’ approach. Production and distribution decisions could be negotiated through meetings between producer and consumer collectives. There would be no necessity for money or the state.
To be realistic, I do not expect my political allies to share the views I outline here. That does not actually worry me a great deal. I take it that the main thing is to get support to work on the things that we can agree about and the things that may work in the present context. This is building various kinds of grass roots alternatives and putting pressure on the state to do slightly more sensible things.