Monday, March 4, 2013

Marjorie Kelly — The Economy: Under New Ownership

Here’s the problem: The very aim of maximum financial extraction is built into the foundational social architecture of our capitalist economy—that is, the concept of ownership.
If the root of government is sovereignty (the question of who controls the state), the root construct of every economy is property (the question of who controls the infrastructure of wealth creation).
Many of the great social struggles in history have come down to the issue of who will control land, water, and the essentials of life.
Ownership has been at the center of the most profound changes in civilization—from ending slavery to patenting the genome of life.
Throughout the Industrial Age, the global economy has increasingly come to be dominated by a single form of ownership: the publicly traded corporation, where shares are bought and sold in stock markets. The systemic crises we face today are deeply entwined with this design, which forms the foundation of what we might call the extractive economy, intent on maximum physical and financial extraction.
The concept of extractive ownership traces its lineage to Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. The 18th century British legal theorist William Blackstone described ownership as the right to “sole and despotic dominion.” This view—the right to control one’s world in order to extract maximum benefit for oneself—is a core legitimating concept for a civilization in which white, property-owning males have claimed dominion over women, other races, laborers, and the earth itself. 
In the 20th century, we were schooled to believe there were essentially two economic systems: capitalism (private ownership) and socialism/communism (public ownership). Yet both tended, in practice, to support the concentration of economic power in the hands of the few.
Emerging in our time—in largely disconnected experiments across the globe—are the seeds of a different kind of economy. It, too, is built on a foundation of ownership, but of a unique type. The cooperative economy is a large piece of it. But this economy doesn’t rely on a monoculture of design, the way capitalism does. It’s as rich in diversity as a rainforest is in its plethora of species—with commons ownership, municipal ownership, employee ownership, and others. You could even include open-source models like Wikipedia, owned by no one and managed collectively.
These varieties of alternative ownership have yet to be recognized as a single family, in part because they’ve yet to unite under a common name. We might call them generative, for their aim is to generate conditions where our common life can flourish. Generative design isn’t about dominion. It’s about belonging—a sense of belonging to a common whole.
AlterNet
The Economy: Under New Ownership
Marjorie Kelly | YES! Magazine | fellow with the Tellus Institute and is director of ownership strategy with Cutting Edge Capital consulting firm. She is author of the new book, Owning Our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution. She was co-founder and for 20 years president of Ethics magazine.
The cooperative economy—and the broader family of generative ownership models—is helping to reawaken an ancient wisdom about living together in community, something largely lost in the spread of capitalism. Economic historian Karl Polanyi describes this in his 1944 work, The Great Transformation, tracing the crises of capitalism to the fact that it “disembedded” economic activity from community. Throughout history, he noted, economic activity had been part of a larger social order that included religion, government, families, and the natural world. The Industrial Revolution upended this. It turned labor and land into commodities to be “bought and sold, used and destroyed, as if they were simply merchandise,” Polanyi wrote. But these were fictitious commodities. They were none other than human beings and the earth itself.
Generative design decommodifies land and labor, putting them again under the control of the community....
The generative economy finds fertile soil for its growth within the human heart. The ownership revolution is part of the “metaphysical reconstruction” that E.F. Schumacher said would be needed to transform our economy. When economic relations are designed in a generative way, they’re no longer about sole and despotic dominion. Economic activity is no longer about squeezing every penny from something we imagine that we own. It’s about being interwoven with the world around us. It’s about a shift from dominion to community. 
This is really the crux of it. 

8 comments:

Matt Franko said...

Tom,

I'm still stuck on that 'surplus value' concept that you, Peter and Magpie came up with from Marx in another thread...

Being equivalent to "Profits" in Capitalism...

Rhetorical: Who/what regulates the 'surplus value' ie 'profits'? Getting this 'surplus value' correct is important (tax rates are very involved, ie fiscal policy, other regulations...), competition, etc..

Is "ownership" really important to this 'surplus value'?

ie could 'surplus value' not be regulated regardless of who/what "owns" the production systems?

and I would point out again that no one can "take it with them..." so to speak when they check out permanently...

rsp,



Tom Hickey said...

Matt, the surplus is difference from surplus value. The surplus is what a society produced in excess of subsistence. Then the question become one of how to distribute the surplus.

Another question is who owns the surplus. Marx argues essentially those who produce the surplus, the workers, are the natural owners of it.

However, ownership of the means of production — land and capital — by others means that the workers can be deprived of rightful ownership of the surplus by an ownership class that does not work, i.e., extracts economic rent as "profit," or "owners' share."

Is "ownership" really important to this 'surplus value'?

ie could 'surplus value' not be regulated regardless of who/what "owns" the production systems?

and I would point out again that no one can "take it with them..." so to speak when they check out permanently...


These are questions that those who question the claim that feudalism or capitalism are "natural."

Matt Franko said...

"the root construct of every economy is property (the question of who controls the infrastructure of wealth creation)."

"Who" is ultimately the government unless most everyone is a libertarian in the country....

Tom,

" The surplus is what a society produced in excess of subsistence. Then the question become one of how to distribute the surplus."

This seems like it is only applicable to a non-monetary economy... once you go to a monetary economy, I dont see this as straight forward... govt becomes more involved in picking "winners and losers" imo ....

rsp,

Tom Hickey said...

" The surplus is what a society produced in excess of subsistence. Then the question become one of how to distribute the surplus."

This seems like it is only applicable to a non-monetary economy... once you go to a monetary economy, I dont see this as straight forward... govt becomes more involved in picking "winners and losers" imo ....

Not really, Matt. In any surplus economy, it's a question of the distribution of "the fruits of labor." In a money economy, the market is the distribution system, so distribution of financial wealth is a proxy for real wealth.

Matt Franko said...

"Marx argues essentially those who produce the surplus, the workers, are the natural owners of it."

That (basic) belief is 100% Israelite... only they would perhaps term it "enjoyment of the allotment of the land"...

It's then interesting that Marx would focus on this "surplus value" as a data point... to an Israelite, anything else other than 100% Marx's "labor" retention of "surplus value" probably literally looks like "stealing"...

But from an MMT perspective, the price of anything in a monetary economy (state currency) is a function of what the government agrees to pay for things.... so this includes labor also...

... so govt as a point of logic has to determine the equivalent of "surplus value" these days... not the "free market".

In a state currency system, there is no "free market", there is only govt price setting/subsidy.

rsp,

The Rombach Report said...

Matt Franko: "Rhetorical: Who/what regulates the 'surplus value' ie 'profits'? Getting this 'surplus value' correct is important (tax rates are very involved, ie fiscal policy, other regulations...), competition, etc..

Is "ownership" really important to this 'surplus value'?

ie could 'surplus value' not be regulated regardless of who/what "owns" the production systems?"


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Tom Hickey: "the surplus is difference from surplus value. The surplus is what a society produced in excess of subsistence. Then the question become one of how to distribute the surplus.

Another question is who owns the surplus. Marx argues essentially those who produce the surplus, the workers, are the natural owners of it.


Matt, Tom - The following link features a very long but rather good essay Karl Marx Revisted, by now deceased Supply Side guru Jude Wanniski, which I think is very relevant to this discussion.

http://www.polyconomics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1275:karl

Tom Hickey said...

It's an interesting article, Ed, but about what one would expects from Wanniski. While he gets a lot of it right, he completely misses Marx's point by ignoring economic rent, which lies at the heart of classical economics (Smith, Ricardo, and Marx), which was really political economy, and is dismissed by neoclassical economics and neoliberalism as the political economy built on it.

There is no analysis of Marx's key point, that profit arises from rent AFTER the owner's fair share on capital is paid, i.e., the real interest rate plus an appropriate risk premium.

Wanniski argues that since risk is incommensurable, any risk premium that owners can extract from the market is appropriate.

Marx would never agree with that, but hold that this is only possible through owners' control of institutions of power through the leverage they can bring to bear due to their position in society.

Monopoly power arises out of the economies of scale, for instance, and political power out of using wealth to corrupt the politica process.

Marx would not deny the invisible hand of market forces in perfect markets. He would simply claim that market perfection is not attainable due to institutionalism, largely due to the influence of state capture by interest groups that become the oligarchs.

I don't think that Marx would be anymore encouraged today that capitalism would survive than he did then, although he would certainly admit many of the advances that Wanniski cites.

But one could argue that these improvements were not due to capitalism but rather political action and owners' fear of the rise of socialism in the East.

Wannishi says: Marx is absolutely not arguing that the problem would be an insufficiency of aggregate demand, which could be solved by having the state tax capitalists and hand out unemployment checks and food stamps. He posited a distribution crisis, with capitalists unable to find ways to distribute the productivity gains capitalism was producing.

For some reason Wanniski does not connect this "distribution crisis" with lack of effective demand due to the rising discrepancy of productivity rate and labor share due to rent extraction.

Which is what is happening in the developed world right now, as inequality rises and economies either slow down or contract. For example, the question is not whether expansionary fiscal austerity is sustainable in the EZ but whether it is politically sustainable, as Marx would have predicted.

ketz said...

In any surplus economy, it's a question of the distribution of "the fruits of labor.

nobel prize economics