In rainy Brussels, December 2017 as part of my ‘Urban Geography’ class under the 4CITIES Master in Urban Studies I attended the StadsSalonUrbains lectures. These are Friday evening gatherings at which renowned international speakers and thinkers in urban studies are invited to present their ideas to a Brussels audience.
I found particularly interesting the second StadsSalon presentation by Peter North from the University of Liverpool, UK which he titled: “Towards Social Solidarity and Antagonistic Urban Economies”. It raised substantial critiques to the capitalist system and invited us to think about alternative urban economies. North exposed examples of community economies from U.S., U.K, Italy, Argentina, and Greece ranging in size, scale, and impact. To me, his most provocative question was: “Can we build an economy out of love, peace, and kindness?” which answer inspired this blog: I think it is possible, but not immediately after Capitalism.
My thinking is that given the complexities and embeddedness of Capitalism and the instrument of money in everyday life, it is not possible to transition directly to an economy based on the common good and generosity. The gaps in value, mentality, and logistics of implementation are way too large between both systems. This calls for a transitioning alternative urban economy that I could call for instance “Contributionism” a moneyless system with socialist basis, powered by an “invisible hand” (Smith 1776) that drives the individual to perform and participate in society through incentives of personal fulfillment and social meaning, rather than pure self-interest and wealth accumulation. A system based in reciprocity of “contribution” to society, rather than money.
A direct shift from Capitalism to an ‘ideal generosity society’ is not possible, the stretch is too large. Such a process would require generations to change the consumerist, self-interested, and money-centered mentality we observe today in most ‘developed’ countries.
We are currently living in a world where the 1% richest elite controls the great majority of capital through stock exchanges (NYSE, LSEG, NASDAQ, JEGT, etc.) and the largest companies in the world have larger revenues (and can be better organized and efficient) than some entire countries. This while “the 99%” of people visible through social justice movements such as Occupy, M15, Gezi park, Nuit Debout, Movimento Passe Libre send a message of the massive demand for a large-scale change.
Let’s imagine for a second how a ‘Contributionism’ model could be an alternative setup for the functioning of societies: through a socialist organization while being “incentive” based. It proposes a middle ground in the wide spectrum between Capitalism and Utopian Socialism – which is often dismissed as unrealistic and unattainable, or confused with Communism, and/or too-soon, too-often scratched-out immediately almost as demonic at its first mention…
The tools to exchange commodities can be reimagined. People produce and need goods and services. Money has been a tool for that exchange for centuries. A tool that through artificial manipulation has gotten extremely disproportional and unequal, and so did the distribution of resources. Nonetheless, the exchange can be accomplished without money. On Napoleon’s words the “human race is governed by its imagination”. We have imagined money has value: since birth we have conceived its value as an unquestionable truth, as we grow up we merge into the masses agreeing on a social contract that was signed before our own existence, and we have universally accepted it as valuable and desirable. However, we have the power to give value to other mechanisms.
Karl Polanyi describes “The Great Transformation” (1944) of people’s mentality during the rise of the market economy to become more money-driven. In the same way, we can allude to the fact that the human mind is moldable and it can adapt to different core values such as reciprocity and contribution to society. Polanyi’s term ‘substantivism’ refers to an alternative perspective of economics as the organization of a society to meet its needs by exploring how people interact with their environment to coexist with one another and in the society. With this on mind, ‘Contributionism’ can perhaps present a different lens of the economic system as we know it. Rather than based on the self-interested human nature reacting to scarcity, it calls to the common and universal consciousness and social responsibility of individuals, also intrinsic in human nature!
We would need to measure effectively and accurately each person’s true talent and contribution to society. By dismissing the limitations of monetary compensation human resources can be maximized. Individuals’ contributions could be assessed as a factor of knowledge, skills, and experience and their product, to determine each person’s realization of their potential offer to society (conscious this seems very subjective, unrealistic, titanic, nearly-impossible, and for it to be fair, all people would need the same access to opportunities to develop their potential). Can we measure individual’s contributions to society?
SBS News reports that in Australia unemployment fell, but underemployment is at record levels (Sarumpaet 2017). Also, according to a survey conducted by Accenture in the U.K., U.S., and Germany, “more and more millennials—51% in 2016, compared to 41% in 2013—report being underemployed”, this highlights the mismatch between the persons’ skills and their job, translating into frustration and missed economic opportunities (Smith D. 2016). Also, in the current capitalist system, unemployment, as well as underpaid and overpaid jobs create injustice. How can we get more accurate about matching skills/talent/potential with the places where they are needed?
The state should be the provider of primary goods and services, i.e. the essential conditions to sustain and develop human life (these are also universal human rights) e.g. access to basic food, healthcare, housing, and education. This idea makes up the socialist basis of ‘Contributionism’ as an alternative urban economy. These primary goods and services are basic tools for an individual to develop and start contributing to society. With limited access to any of these, society should not expect nor demand a substantial contribution by the individual.
Our current socio-economic configuration lacks this provision at different contexts and degrees. For example, Pundy Pillay, Professor of Economics and Public Finance and the Research Director at the WSG, voices the challenge in African countries: “Free-market capitalism cannot be enough. It needs to be made more human and efficient through redistribution, through the adequate provision of public goods” (2002). The provision of these basic public goods to sustain human life and its development, are (should be) the common denominator among people (these are like the initial cash that is given to each player in the board game ‘Monopoly’, each person starts with the same amount, same conditions, and at the same time; then luck, life, and the game takes its own course according to each persons’ abilities – a capitalist example, but hopefully illustrative).
Then, companies and organizations should be the providers of secondary goods and services. Having on mind that without the concept of money, the definition of companies, non-profits, and NGOs, become blurry. Under ‘Contributionism’ these are just organizations providing a good or service to the society.
Production processes involves labor, intermediary goods and services and fixed capital to produce a commodity and sell it for revenue to cover the cost of labor and capital, and use the profit left for consumption and –in the best cases– reinvestment. Its contradictory nature is that the self-seeking, profit-maximizing interests of companies seek to lower as much a possible their ‘cost of labor’ when on the other side of the coin that ‘price of labor’ is in fact the purchasing power of people to afford the goods and services being consumed.
Since the current system is based on competition, companies that lack resources (labor and/or capital) will succumb even if they had potential or talent. Fierce competition is a suppressor, often dismissing the value of emerging small providers. Under ‘Contributionism’, we could measure other values e.g. how much companies contribute to society, rather than a factor of money (or the aggregated GDP), the measurement could be a factor of the company’s output in relation to a basic human necessity, importance in everyday life, its capacity to improve life conditions, and the quality and quantity produced.
The distribution of resources to people can be based on a ‘contribution score’. The current system is based solely on money and overlooks the actual input of each person to society. In other words, purchasing power is not necessarily correlated to how hard the person works, nor on how talented he/she is, but based on how much money they make. This proposal assigns a value to secondary goods and services, which people can have access to, based on their ‘contribution score’ so their talents and work are directly remunerated in things they want. As their basic needs will already be covered by the primary goods and services provided by the state.
All in all, inspired by the questions posed by Peter North, “Contributionism” is the spark to get us thinking, to evoke criticism, opinions of it being realist or unrealistic, utopic, idealistic, or a far-fetched dream; at least it gets us discussing where we should head to and, at most, how to get there!
Can we reimagine the tools to exchange commodities from economic value to ‘contribution value’? How can we measure more effectively and accurately each person’s true talent and added value to society? Contributionism proposes that the state should be the provider of primary goods and services, and that companies/organizations be the providers of secondary ones, which in turn are to be distributed to people (outputs) in direct correlation with their ‘contribution’ (input)… does that make any sense?
What about the application of new technologies e.g. blockchain to keep track of a ‘general ledger of contributions’? what other tools can we harness for the common good, the appreciate social value, and to turn cities into systems that respect and nurture people?
References:
Pillay, P. (2002) The Role of the State in Economic Development in Southern Africa. Friedrich-Ebert- Stiftung. Lusaka.
Access at: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/global/02055.pdf
Polanyi, K. (1944) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Farrar and Rinehart, New York
Sarumpaet, Rena “Unemployment falls, but underemployment at record levels.” SBS [Sydney] June 21, 2017 Published.
Access at: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/06/21/unemployment-falls-underemployment-record-levels
Smith, A. (1776) The Wealth of Nations. W. Strahan and T. Cadell, London
Smith, D., LaVelle, K., Lyons, M., Silverstone, Y. “Insights from the Accenture Strategy 2016 U.S. College Graduate Employment Study.” Accenture. March, 2016 Published.
Access at: https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-2016-accenture-college-graduate-employment-research
Van Criekingen, M. (2017) The production of urban space under capitalism. Urban Economic Geography Class Lecture 2. Université Libre de Bruxelles
Van Criekingen, M. (2017) On alternatives, resistances and the right to the city. Urban Economic Geography Class Lecture 8. Université Libre de Bruxelles