![Photo by Graham Lacdao St. Paul's Cathedral](https://www.annpettifor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/DSC00441-1024x684.jpg)
I was privileged to be invited by the St. Paul’s Institute to discuss (on the 3rd November, 2015) the thesis in Paul Mason’s recent book PostCapitalism: A Guide to Our Future with a keynote speech from the author.
Mason’s book is both a riveting and intellectually exhilarating read. It challenged me at a range of levels, and has added considerably to my list of must-read books. However, I have strong disagreements with Mason, and these are outlined in my review, published here as a PRIME e-publication.
I disagree primarily with his assumption that capitalism is subject to Kondratieff waves or “mutations”. The implication is that these waves are “natural” and unavoidable – beyond human agency. I strongly disagree. We have subordinated capitalism to the interests of society before – during the Golden Age of Economics from 1945 – 1971 – and can do so again.
Second, Mason is preoccupied by profits. I consider profits to be an out-of-date account of the rise in capitalist wealth, which is now accumulated as capital gains by the new, expanded and more ruthless rentier capitalism.
![Photo Graham Lacdao, St. Paul's Cathedral](https://www.annpettifor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/St-Pauls-03nov15-from-above-1024x682.jpg)
Third, Mason is optimistic about technology’s ability to eliminate pricing, to free up knowledge and to empower society to act collaboratively and with a “general intellect”. While I share some of that optimism, I see new technology as intensifying exploitation – by barring access to society’s collective public goods, and by transferring all risk on to today’s increasingly insecure working class – the precariat. Above all Mason’s optimism about technology’s role in our future means that he never fully grasps the nettle of ecological limits.
![Crop](https://www.annpettifor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Crop.jpg)
A straightforward yet ‘stimulating’ & provocative article Ann, it raises many questions about the worlds ‘global’ economic future esp. the relation of ‘technology ‘. I agree with you on the 3rd point, sharing your ‘scepticism’ about technology’s ability to eliminate pricing, free up knowledge & to empower society to act collaboratively & with a ‘general’ intellect & from ‘personal’ experience I witness how technology has ‘intensified’ exploitation by in fact barring access to society’s collective ‘public’ goods.
For example, believe it or not, over the last few years I have ‘earned’ my living as a Street Performer in the Uk. On the one hand & as a ‘self taught'( growing ) ‘popular’ classical/’cafe’ guitarist I can vouchsafe ‘the internet’ for instance has democratically revolutionised ‘high’ arts learning for the likes of me, ‘I ‘ now have access to arts resources/ material impossible only 10years ago. I’m now familiar with world music(s) for instance that may have taken a ‘lifetime’ for me to gather knowledge of previously, with an ‘instant’ access that far supercedes that of an ‘academie’ student only a decade ago.
However on the other hand, I’m currently witnessing how ‘streaming’ sites are busy ‘copyrighting’ pieces ( arrangements ) that would otherwise be in the ‘public domain ‘ eg. The Los Angeles Guitar Academy ( see YouTube )I notice has copyright over the classical guitar standard ‘ Romanza ‘ ( or Spanish Romance ), a traditional piece ( Anon ) that has long been covered by & a staple of many a ‘students’ emerging classical repertoire. Ok its the particular tremolo ‘arrangement ‘ that appears to be copyrighted, however this is ‘naughty’ because that ‘tremolo’ style approach is in fact ‘common’ practice on that piece ( i.e. it not unique! ) so therefore ought remain in the public ownership realm rather than be ‘privately'( institutionally ) owned in any way ( i.e. any shape or form! ).