Customer Reviews

Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons (Bk Currents)

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I concur with all the 5 star reviews with respect to this book presenting a vision for the next level of capitalism nurturing the commons rather than destroying it, but it is not the whole story. It is simple without being simplistic, but the terms "ecological economics" (see my reviews of books by Herman Daly) and "natural capitalism (see my reviews of books by Paul Hawken) are not an integral part of this story. Neither is public philosophy, although the author clearly has an ethical public policy of his own.

Like the work of Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, Hunter Lovins, and Herman Daly, it does not accuse nor seek repatriation of benefits as much as it seeks to educate and demonstrate why respect for the commons is good for business.

I recommend Michael Sandel's "Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics," and Paul Hawken's "The Ecology of Commerce," in addition to this book, but those deeply interested in this topic might wish to expand their range by browsing some of my lists on democracy, capitalism, and security.

The book ends with numerous ideas, some easy to implement, like time banks (I see a rush to displace banks, money, credit, and interest coming down the pike), and some more difficult but essential, such as reversing the spectrum licenses and land licenses awarded to corporations under Capitalism 1.0, and putting those resources to work for all of the people.

The author spends some time noting that government is not the complete answer, and I not only agree, I am eagerly waiting for a book called Government 3.0 or Democracy 3.0, something that brings together the diverse literature on the need to localize agriculture and energy again, stop the global corporations, e.g. Wal-Mart, from destroying communities, and restore integrity and trust in human transactions. In a sense, this book is a model that could be applied to other areas in need of revitalization.

Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics
The Ecology of Commerce
Ecological Economics: Principles And Applications
Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution
Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming
Wal-mart: The High Cost of Low Price
Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price

Peter Barnes does a masterful job in re-imagining economics to take account of the commons, the shared resources that we inherit together and must pass along undiminished to our children. This book is lucid and highly readable as it deconstructs key flaws in conventional economics and proposes innovative solutions that protect the commons. Barnes is a former businessman (cofounder of Working Assets) and journalist, so he approaches the subject with sophistication and clarity.

Barnes notes, for example, that conventional economics typically fails to account for the hidden subsidies that companies take from the commons (air, water, spectrum, public lands, federal R&D, etc.). Companies also use the commons as a convenient place to "externalize" their wastes, social disruptions and other costs. Barnes suggests some new legal and institutionl strategies -- such as stakeholder trusts -- as ways to harness market forces while preserving our "common wealth." This book is succinct, profound, idealistic and practical.

I have just read Capitalism 3.0 by Peter Barnes and am very impressed. Peter is a Georgist of the US variety although that fact is not immediately apparent as the book is written in a very light, non-ideological, non academic style. It is an extremely accessible and well written case for 'the propertisation' of the commons - emphatically NOT 'privatisation'. It does not discuss land value taxes/rents directly but places them indirectly within the context of all commons and proposes a solution to 'the tragedy' of all commons that, followed through, would nevertheless deliver LVT and something like a citizens income.

Peter sees a need for a counterbalance to corporate power linked to private property, but not by State ownership and hence not by any measure that smacks of Socialism. Instead he puts forward the idea of many kinds of Trusts holding many kinds of commons property- from the GHG emisison rights to scientific knowledge to community land. Apart from the very essential job of supporting Commons Trusts and assigning property rights and legal protections to them, governments would thereafter stand aside. Governments would especially distance themselves from disbursing the receipts/rents/ licence fees collected for the use of the various commons as their susceptibility to corporate influence, according to Peter Barnes, is systemic and cannot be overcome. It is a very American approach - rather than intervening directly to regulate the power of an damaging but essential force, a countervailing force is introduced to dynamically re balance the system. A global Trust would be required to protect the atmosphere but this would not be given political power per se - but it would have significant economic power to balance the existing private sector influence of the WTO.

This solution would satisfy libertarian, free market thinkers as it would not enhance the role of the State any more than that which it currently plays. Indeed many regulations would become unnecessary as social, cultural and environmental welfare would be intrinsically factored into ordinary business decisions.

Of course all of this fits conceptually very nicely into the work Feasta has been doing for a Cap and (equal per capita) Share of green house gas emission rights. See www.capandshare.org for an update. What I think the idea really needs is another book entitled 'Socialism 3.0' that says more or less the same thing but from a European perspective. Together they could bookend a conceptual framework for an Earth and human friendly new economic system.

I recommend this book for breaking out of tired approaches to economics.
Barnes argues we need a new "operating system" to deal with problems inherent in the current form of capitalism -- problems such as growing inequality and pollution. He describes an economic theory of the "commons" which defies some of the traditional right-left dictotomies. Well written and a breath of fresh air.

Peter Barnes has long been one of the leading "working-theorists" promoting the commons. Capitalism 3.0 takes the theories advanced by people like David Bollier, Larry Lessig, Vandan Shiva, David Morris and distills them into an easy-to-read narrative format that build on Barnes' last work, "Who Owns the Sky?"

The book is refreshingly easy to read for the genre, and is required reading for anyone who is serious about finding a new framework to organize around. It's way past time for us to rearrange our politics and regulation around a concept as robust as the commons.

There are some great ideas in this book and it is highly educational. However it seems like it could have really used a solid editor. First off, the running metaphor of capitalism and operating systems is just plain dumb, maybe it's because I am a software guy, but I just find it distracting. It lowers the authors cred.

Another gripe is that the book doesn't linearly develop an argument. It moves from high level 'wouldn't it be great ifs' to details and then back and forth repeatedly.

Sigh...

CAPITALISM 3.0: A GUIDE TO RECLAIMING THE COMMONS provides a strong critical eye on modern capitalism, which is rapidly destroying the heritage 'the commons' imparts to future generations. Our modern approach will lead to economic and social collapse, Barnes warns; but capitalism can be 'upgraded' by recapturing the focus on 'the commons' of future generations, and here he proposes an update that includes innovative changes to preserve the system for the future. A fine roadmap for preserving capitalism's best features emerges.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

This book is an eye opener. the author does an excellent job at highlighting how the inherent limitations of both capitalist business and democratic multi-party governments in their current forms urgently need to be complemented by trusts that are constituted to have a long term mandate to protect ecological and community health as seed capital.

I agree that there are many complementary aspects such as ecological economics but feel that this book helps create a broader understanding of why trusts play such a vital role in moving beyond the dangers of centralized government and centralized big business.

A reviewer who claims that this book proposes any form of socialism seems to miss the point. Trusts are partially needed to prevent governments from taking short term populist decisions or over simplifying the quest for sustainability. Exactly because the author does not want to compromise the roles of business and government the author suggests trusts as a complementary force. If he was not a successful and convinced supporter of the free market he would reach different conclusions.

Barnes' idea is that we need to use a 3rd institution - "the commons" - to develop a better form a capitalism that takes into account natural resources that are used and not accounted for. This is needed, because government has failed to do a good job in this regard and is subject by capture by industry, something that is very prevalent in the USA. The commons works by being above the short term exigencies of businessmen and politicians, using the power of property rights under legal trusteeship to ensure that the commons under trust are best used for the long term.

So far so good. Then we appear to run into real issues that are glossed over pretty lightly.

The commons works best where the commons boundary, like any property, can be clearly demarcated and the inputs and outputs tallied. Parks and historic buildings come to mind. But the real commons we are after include the air, the oceans and the larger terrestrial land masses. And this is where the commons system may break down. Why? Barnes wants to make the commons sustainable by offering stakeholders an income based on use. If a factory owner wants to emit CO2, he must pay the commons for that right and the commons disburses some of the fees to the stakeholders. But consider another common, the oceans. The stakeholders might reasonably ask the air commons for fees for their right to add CO2 to the oceans, increasing their acidity, or raising their temperature, or destroying Arctic ice cover. How would that be valued, where are the boundaries drawn? This seems to lead us back to the morass from whence we came, allowing markets to determine this, and possibly back to private ownership.

As far as I can see, this is only going to be managed by global decisions and global ownership of the commons, something that I see as very hard to accomplish, given the huge differences in goals of the global stakeholders.

Another goal of the commons structure that Barnes sees as desirable is the redistribution of income through stakeholder ownership, rather than by taxation. I agree this is a good goal, but I disagree the commons is the best way to solve this. Other countries have solved this at least partly through policies and taxes. Even in the US, we still have publicly funded schools, and publicly funded senior health care. That was achieved historically and has resisted attempts to dismantle it, although both are on shakier ground today than they were.

Overall, I think that the central idea is an interesting one, worthy of more discussion and implementation, at least in the simpler, smaller domains. For that reason alone, this book is worth reading.

The ancient idea of the commons came from the need for babies to have fresh milk even in the middle of cities. So an area was set aside where families could put milk cows nearby. This works very well until there are so many cows that every blade of grass has been eaten. Then no one can have a cow. Up until that time each person who put a cow on the commone benefited, then no one. This situation is more completely analyzed in Garrett Hardin's essay, which is available on line at no charge [...]

In this book Mr. Barnes proposes that we establish the concept of a commons that will 'own' those things that we must all have. He begins with air. Obviously this is something that we all must have, all the time. But some people, some companies dump polution into the air. His theory is that if we all 'owned' the air, we could charge those people/companies enough to pay for the damage that they cause.

It is an excellent idea, but one that's going to take a lot of work, a lot of time to make happen. Indeed at this time our President would like to open up the Arctinc National Wildlife Refuge to oil development. I'm afraid that this will inevitably happen as the general public would rather beileve anything except that the availability of cheap gasoline is going away. And this belief is not limited to the United States. The ring road around London is just as crowded as the freeways around LA. And the public in China and India is just now getting enough money for them to buy cars and of course gasoline.