Distribution - Market and State
Because Paul has focussed on the mode of distribution, via the market, as the foundation of his analysis, rather than the mode of production, he is led to think that, if a market solution is not possible, this represents a problem for capitalism, which thereby drives towards post-capitalism. But, capitalism has never been dependent upon market solutions. Capitalism has always utilised state, and other non-market means of achieving its ends. The French and German states, under Louis Bonaparte and Bismark, played a central role in developing industrial capitalism in those countries; Sherman and the US army cleared Native Americans from their lands to provide room for the transcontinental railway; space technology was developed by the US state; in Europe the atomic energy industry was developed by intra-state activity within the EU. The nature of capital is that it is self-expanding value. It makes little difference, ultimately, to capital, whether the method of distribution, and thereby the realisation of the produced surplus value, is effected by the market or by the state, on the basis of some other form of allocation.
As Paul himself notes, the new technology energy solutions are already lower cost, in the end, than the fossil fuel solutions. There are clear advantages in developing those solutions. But, more significantly, history shows that where some new technology is recognised as representing the future, capital begins to shift its focus to that new technology, even when it does not immediately represent an economic alternative. It does so, because each capital seeks to gain first mover advantage, and because capital knows that once production on a larger scale begins, the initial costs soon fall significantly. When cars were first developed there were attempts to utilise tried and tested steam engine technology, but it was already apparent that it was the internal combustion engine that was the way forward, and it was in that direction that capital directed its effort. If you think that fossil fuels will be a thing of the past, even in fifty years, why would you focus your investment now in that dying technology, rather than the technology that already is rapidly supplanting it?
But, as the technology becomes ever cheaper, the need for the state to take the commanding role actually diminishes. The example is space technology, where its development has seen the leading role pass out of the hands of the state, and into the hands of companies like Spacex, Amazon, Virgin and so on. A more advanced, smart, and flexible energy production system is likely to assume post-Fordist forms, in which the requirement for rigid national grids diminishes. Indeed, of solar energy production, and battery technology develops at its current pace, then there is no reason why each household should not be self-sufficient in electric, as already happens with some Spanish villas.
At the very least, the new technology drives towards smart local energy grids, rather than clunky, national grids, which lose 30% of the energy in transmission. Once again, here, the property question is crucial. The technology does not necessitate a post-capitalist solution, but it makes such a solution easier to achieve. But, the focus then becomes who will push for such a solution, how will it be driven forward, and here, once again, we return to the need for a Workers party to advance the solutions, and to organise the forces to fight for the implementation of those solutions.
But its not just energy production and distribution where this is happening. The same is true in relation to health care, for example, as Aglietta predicted twenty years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment