Avoiding co-optation of the commons under capitalism
For this interview I sat down with Hannes Gerhardt, professor of Human Geography at the University of West Georgia and author of a recent piece in ROAR Magazine titled, Blockchains: Building blocks for a postcapitalist future? . He has published on a wide range of political and economic issues and is currently working on a book exploring pathways to establishing non-capitalist forms of economic production. During the interview we talk about how his research interests in human geography ...
Top Keywords
No salient keywords identified yet for this episode.
Transcript
Hello again. You're listening to the Blockchain Socialist Podcast. And for today's interview, I have doctor Hannes Gerhardt, who is a professor of human geography at the University of West Georgia. He has published on a wide range of political and economic issues and is currently working on a book exploring pathways to establishing non capitalist forms of economic production. So hi Doctor. Girhart, how you doing?
Good. Thanks for having me.
So I I came across your work when I read your article, which was in, Roar magazine, titled Building Blocks of a Postcapitalist Future, which I thought was really interesting and has, it explores a lot of really interesting spaces that are happening in in Blockchain and have that has a lot of potential. But of course we'll we'll talk more about that in a bit but maybe before we get into the article I would be really interested to know, you know, why did you get interested in Blockchain from your own personal research interests and from that perspective? So from a human geography perspective, what is interesting about Blockchain?
Well, I'm, been increasingly focusing in my research on, alternatives for how we can organize our economy. So alternatives to the capital mode of production, with a heavy emphasis on the commons. And so I found blockchain to be an interesting tool because it allows you to really keep track of a large amount of information in a secure and decentralized way. And by doing that, it, it opens up a number of possibilities. One is, it allows you to structure, economic environments in an intentional, way. So if we are trying to, start taking certain things into account in production, these need to be tracked and verified and, Blockchain can be very helpful there. Blockchain is also, very interesting in its potential with regard to, enabling, democracy, an expansion, of decision making, a decentralized decision making. And lastly, of course, with regards to currencies, alternative currencies, block based, blockchain based alternative currencies, offer a way to generate capital and incentivize certain types of behavior. And, of course, in the longer term, you know, the idea is is that these, alternative cryptocurrencies could even be an alternative to state based money, meaning that the creation of money and and then consequently who has access to it could be organized in ways that's fundamentally different from the current system.
So I guess that means that you see a lot of potential for, of course, non capital capitalist forms of economic production. But maybe to to preface it, how would you define, a non capitalist form of economic production? And what are some maybe examples of that? You know, does something like that exist today in a world where we would consider our dominant mode of production to be capitalism?
I think that there is, there's lots of, non capitalist production going on. I would consider, basically anything, any type of activity that adds value to the world, that is not primarily driven by profit as being non capitalist, production or non capitalist activity. And so this could be, you know, household work. It can be community oriented work. It could be, work, you know, on a larger scale for the greater good of humanity. And so this can happen within the family. It can happen, when, you know, people are contributing to the commons or for the social environmental well-being. And it happens, you know, on an individual basis. You can be working for a nonprofit or in loose collaborative organizations, cooperatives. And so I think that there are lots of opportunities, for non capitalist production that are happening already, but that can be expanded. This doesn't mean that these are beyond the reach of capital or that capital doesn't continuously try and oftentimes succeed in co opting these forms of non capitalist production. But, I think that doesn't necessarily make them capitalists. I would I would I see them as outside of capitalism, but constantly interacting with capitalism.
Is there any, like, very clear example that's, because what what I've heard is that, you know, something like Wikipedia, would that be considered a non capitalist form of economic production?
Yeah. I mean, Wikipedia is, it certainly fits the bill. I guess I was just trying to make it even, you know, even larger, because a lot of times, you know, particularly with an anarchist types of literature, they emphasize that that this non capitalist type of, these non capitalist social relations and non capitalist, production is really all around us. I mean, you know, just having your friends over for dinner is a very non capitalist thing to do. And so,
so I was trying to You don't charge your friends for the dinner that you just spend all the time. We're
not there yet. So so that's a good thing. But, yes, I mean, when you're talking about, certain types of activities that, that that more fit into particular economic sectors where you would expect maybe a a four capitalist type of, entity to dominate, and then you find something like Wikipedia. That is a very good example of a of of a non capitalist type of, of production. It's collaborative. People are voluntarily putting that information in and, you know, it's not for profit.
Alright. So we have, our definition of what a non capitalist, economic production looks like. But so I'm curious then, what are your thoughts on the current state of Blockchain and cryptocurrency? And, you know, because I think it's easy to criticize it. So I'm curious, you know, what do you think is are the bad parts of it, but what are some of the post capitalist elements that are the most interesting or eye catching to you of of blockchain in the moment?
Well, I guess I could start with the bad. You know, in some ways, any technology, especially emerging technology that has a lot of potential still, is something that will catch the interest of capital. Capital will always seek to make, the most of, of anything new. And so the same thing is happening with with blockchain. And so I guess what I'm concerned about is that blockchain will be, used to make, capitalism, even more, effective, I guess. And and in terms of of of dominating the economic sphere. And so it's it's maybe a bit counterintuitive, but the banking industry is, is flocking towards, towards, towards blockchain even though blockchain is oftentimes presented as something that can cut out, the central middleman of the banks. But I think the banks are on to that. Right? So they're figuring out that if this is the next wave, they're going to have to, be a part of it. You know? So similar to what happened with, with file sharing and what happened to the music industry, if you did not get on board with the digitization of music, then you were gonna be left behind. Right? So the the Spotify is in these these, you know, pay, for service types of, capitalist enterprises. They then came and and essentially replaced the record industry. The banks see the writing on the wall, and so they're they're responding. And so they're, you know, they're they're working to now co opt, this danger into a profit making opportunity. Another thing that concerns me is, when you start using blockchains in these smart contracts, the concern there is that you really enable, this potential for, charging basically for everything. Right? You you you then have this, possibility where your entire life, can become this series of mini charges, basically. Right? And so whether you're making use of of state or private services, every little time you take make access to that service that you can, be charged for it. And these could even be made, you know, on the basis of supply and demand. So it's kind of like the the data plans you get with your phone. You know, you can either have unlimited access or you would have a certain amount of allotment, but this could, essentially, be applied to everything that you use. And that's concerning because then you you really get away from from this idea of a commons or a public, and of us all contributing to something, that's a common good and and and everything, essentially is is just is it there's a charge to it, and that's really capitalism taking over everything. So blockchain has the potential of enabling that, and so there's a concern, with that. Is it sort of financialization?
I mean, which is already, I mean, arguably to an extreme at the moment, but taking it even farther. There is a potential with, I think, any sort of digitization of, information. Basically, banks and the financial industry seems to want to find a way to financialize it. And ironically, Blockchain and cryptocurrency is trying to be the anti bank technology. It's sort of seeming like it's ending up being the bankification of our economic lives sometimes, potentially.
Yeah. I mean, and that's the, you know, that's that insidious way that capitalism has of of of of, you know, finding a way to to constantly, put these new technologies to a to to a to a use that, that maybe we hadn't anticipated, but that ultimately just furthers their bottom line. And so, you know, that's that's it's it's it's inevitable that capital will try to do this and that they will, you know, pursue this and they'll have a lot of power behind it, but it doesn't mean that, that it's inevitable either. You know, and that there are, alternatives, in in in terms of the direction that, that blockchain could go or or how it could be applied.
Would you consider similar to how, the file sharing, technology that happened back in nineties, February and blockchain now, like, would you consider them to be terrains of, I guess, in a way, political struggle in a sense where I think in the file sharing example or music streaming, I mean, essentially capitalism won with Spotify. I mean, Napster, peer to peer file sharing services for music, as a dominant form of production, it seems to be on the is is not dominating capitalism, Spotify's, and these other type of streaming services. Whereas I think I feel like my view seems to be that we're with blockchain at a similar point where we're in the middle of the of the political struggle. Would you do you would you see it that way or would you see it differently? I suppose,
I share that view. I I would say there may be a difference in that the file sharing, that was enabled with the explosion of the Internet was something that that came about, I think, quite suddenly and and caught capital really off guard. And capital really had to struggle to to find a solution to that. And, you know, you can say that Capital One in that they, you know, they have these these platforms now where they control access. But at the same time, you know, you know, I I mean, I can have basically access to all the music in the world, you know, for a pretty nominal fee. You know, and and and, you know, when I was growing up, you know, the the amount that it costs to to to to pay for, you know, all the music in the entire world, that would maybe be enough to to buy one album. You know? So so in a way, the digitization of, of of information, in this case of music, really, it just exploded access to content that capital has found ways of still profiting off of, but but not nearly in the way that they used to be able to do it. And so then, with blockchain, what are some of the what are the bright spots that you see in it? Well, I guess the the flip side is that, you know, as as capital is trying to to make the most of it for profit, you know, that there's also the alternative of using blockchain, in intentional ways to pursue nonprofit, ideals. And so there's a number of of things to point to, I guess. In terms of concrete examples, I've found, these, open value networks very interesting. The the company I guess they call themselves a company. It's not really a company. It's a strange kind of entity. They call themselves an open value network. It's called Sensorica. They engage in, projects that focus on building sensing types of equipment. And so in that sense, they're a, you know, they're a manufacturing, entity. But the way that they organize themselves is that anybody can take part, and so anybody can join a project. Anybody can start a project. Anybody can contribute resources. Anybody can contribute labor. And the way that they then organize it is in a very democratic way to, determine, you know, how everyone is going to get paid. And the idea behind it is that everyone gets paid in a fair, in a fair way that, that is that kinda reflects the the work or the resources that they put into it. Why this is interesting is is that it's not capitalist in the sense that you have a boss who's trying to exploit workers and, you know, scrape off the surplus labor for profit. It's basically just people getting together and then sharing, you know, the the revenues that they make. So it's a it's really much more of a cooperative, I guess, in that sense, a type of work cooperative, but it's but it's a very sophisticated way of organizing it. And, they are looking at, at blockchain to organize all of this. And I think blockchain, that's exactly where that kind of technology can come into play to actually facilitate, this type of non capitalist, cooperative type of production. Another interesting case is that of HollowChain. HollowChain, I guess, they say that they're not really blockchain, but it's very similar to blockchain. It's a little bit less it's a little bit based on more trust, I guess. It's not completely trustless, But they are trying to, create this code that will enable, you know, decentralized users across the world to provide the space for, an alternative to the current Internet. And so they want to they want to create a non, capital Internet that's basically, avail that everyone has a say in, and that would not be controlled in in the form of those server farms that are controlled by Google and Amazon would be controlled basically by everyone who is, you know, who's contributing to the storage of all the information. And that's, you know, another just really interesting, application. Lastly, I would just mention circles, is a cryptocurrency. Still very, very early stage, and I think these ideas of these cryptocurrencies, they're still all very early, and and, I think it's gonna take a while for them to really have an impact. But they'll allow you to see what a future could look like. And so they're creating a a a cryptocurrency, which they intend to be used as a means of exchange that you can use it to buy things. And so, obviously, it would require a massive buy in, of various, you know, providers of goods and services to accept these. But the idea is is that they would create them, these circle currencies. They would create them and distribute them to, to all participants, as a form of a guaranteed income. So basically, not waiting for the state to do it, but basically doing it on their own terms. And so that's also just a really interesting, application of blockchain.
Yeah. There's a a couple of those, I've looked into before and I also find them projects that, would be interesting for people to, to keep up with just to see how it progresses. I mean, it's still very early and it's gonna be just interesting how they develop. But so in your article, Building Blocks of a Postcapitalist Future, you mentioned Revaluing and Defetishizing. So I thought there were pretty interesting ideas and, you know, how we would think about creating an intentionally more progressive, probably socialist, cryptocurrency or blockchain project. But how would you explain what revaluing and defetishizing is, particularly in the in the context of blockchain and blockchain technology?
So I think that value is what it's really all about. If you wanna boil down the struggle for, for a better future or for a non capitalist future, it's all about value. Capitalism knows only one value, and that is, the exchange value on the market. So the worth of anything is reduced to its price. And this is what Marx had called commodity fetishism. So all the world is essentially reduced to commodities in their price. There's no concern for any other value. Capitalists will then say, you know, that the market, it doesn't have any values. Right? So it's it's it's kind of it doesn't take an ethical stand. But that's Neutral. That's a lie. Right? That is one of the biggest lies of of of capitalism. So, you know, price is ultimately the result of a system of supply and demand, which is fueled by the pursuit of profit. And there are all kinds of ethical consequences to that kind of arrangement. When everything is a commodity, we end up with alienated labor and alienation towards nature and then the externalization of everything that cannot be viewed as a commodity. And so ecosystems and human well-being, they all basically get trashed, because they don't have a price tag, and they're free for the taking. And so I think that, you know, that's the problem of value and any type of efforts to to to overcome, you know, that aspect of capitalism, which is its heart, is going to have to, rethink and and and and come up with alternative value.
How would you see defetishizing happening? And what what would defetishizing look like?
Well, I mean, it it's it's not easy. In a sense, you know, the you know, what Mark said what about the commodity fetishization, what what his big concern was is that we're we're no longer aware of any other types of value in the commodity. So we don't see, for example, the labor that was involved. He was particularly concerned about the labor that's involved. We just see the commodity in its price and the labor is erased from it. And similarly, you know, we don't see, the the price of the cost to the environment that was involved in this. And so to be able to to try to bring that back in some ways, I think it would require on one hand maybe a a a greater decentralization of, of production and making it more local so that there's more of a connection to, the workers and the environment, so that it's not so far away that you can just forget about it. But there are also other ways of trying to do it because, you know, we're in a globalized world. We're probably never going to, you know, completely deglobalize, if we wanna maintain the type of standard of living that we have. And so, you know, there are other ways of trying to, make, the person that that that uses a good or service, make them more aware essentially of, of what went into it. And so with regard to the environment, for example, you could have a pretty elaborate, certification system that, tracks the entire, supply chain and, the various steps involved and the various impacts and the various types of labor used, and where that labor was and what the conditions were so that, you know, so that you could, for example, have a barcode on on a on a product, or a good, and you could scan it, and then you could see the entire history, of that, of that product. And so that would be one way of you know, obviously, it's it's not, you know, the complete decentralized where you're going to the to the to the, you know, to the shop and buying it directly from the worker. But at least you would have this this this kind of connection through the, this blockchain enabled supply chain that you could just look up and you can actually see, how it was all produced. And in some cases, you know, you can even add more detailed information. For example, film footage of the, you know, of of, of, some of the sites where this where these things are being produced or the stories behind the places. And so there's different ways of trying to recreate that connection between the person that is consuming a good and service and the ones that are actually offering it.
I think it's a it's a pretty, big push at the moment with certain supply chain companies of, like, particularly in the use of Blockchain of, you know, we can show you our traceability.
But I think
the way that they're thinking about traceability is a bit different than I think the way that maybe you or I are thinking about traceability but for the explicit intent of defetishization. But I do think it is interesting that Giant Companies are sort of trying to, or at least pretend to try to do, defetishization to a very limited extent
with this. Yeah. I mean, I think you get it in in some of those, older forms, you know, like fair trade coffee and things like that where you have, certain types of guarantees of how things are being produced. And, sometimes even with that fair trade coffee, or or these cooperative types of, coffee exchanges, there would actually be quite a bit of information of where this, where the product is coming from. So there is that attempt of defetishizing a little bit and being aware of the of the work and the labor and the conditions, under which this production is happening. But as he said, I think that blockchain is really, being developed quickly by companies because they see the value of all these other, you know, efficiencies that they can gain by by having better chains, obviously. Yeah. It would then, you know but then it's up to the, you know, whoever's using the blockchain, you can code it in a way so that you're actually, doing it in a way where you're trying to capture certain types of, information, you know, that you then put a value on or that you have a demand for, that then gets coded into the into the supply chain. So, you know, that's again it's blockchain is just a tool. It's not gonna create a better future, and it's not gonna create a libertarian capitalist dream. It's it's all dependent on what the people do with it.
Hey, everyone. Happy New Year's. If you're enjoying this episode so far, be sure to subscribe, leave a review, share with a friend, and join the crypto leftist community on Discord or Reddit, which you can find links to in the show notes. If you want to be sure that more content like this could be created, you can donate to my efforts through Patreon. So if you go to patreon.com/theblockchainsocialist, you can donate starting at $3 per month or more to help me out and join the more than 17 other patrons. At the moment I've spent more on this project than I've ever earned from it due to hosting costs so any amount really helps. As a patron you'll get a shout out on an episode and access to monthly patreon exclusive Q and A episodes where you can submit questions you'd like me to answer and I'll give my thoughts in roughly twenty minutes. On the latest episode of the patreon exclusive q and a series, I gave my thoughts on the question about markets versus planning under socialism using blockchain. Of course, I'll still be making free content like this interview to help spread the message that blockchain does not need to be used to further entrench capitalist exploitation if we put our efforts into it. If that message resonates with you, I hope you consider helping out. You mentioned in your article as well about how the impact of technologies like Blockchain will depend on how it is designed and employed. So do you have any advice for people who are wishing to create applications on Blockchain and want to avoid cooptation by capital?
So that really, the key challenge, I guess, for for for activists that are working within the commons in general, finding ways of establishing the commons, in a way where they don't constantly get co opted. And so, you know, if if the commons do constantly get co opted, then they can it can never become the foundation for for an alternative. And so that is the the ultimate question is how do you prevent that type of cooptation and and that, ability to somehow barriers or boundaries between, the commons, and, and capital. And capital's interest just being, you know, what what a value can they kind of pilfer to to to, you know, to enhance their profits. So, I guess there are a couple of ideas that I would suggest and that I'm exploring also a bit more in in in the book that I'm working on. For one, I think that, any type of of comments production, but this applies to code, like blockchain or applications of this code that, it can be placed under a pure property type of licensing. So, it really depends on, how, you know, who who does it belong to? And a lot of times in capital, it's it's under copyright, which means that, you know, it's highly protected and it's it's it's made artificially scarce. Right? So all of this all of this digital value, theoretically, it could be produced at infinitum. Right? Because it's, you know, it doesn't cost anything to just reproduce it because it's all digital. The thing is with the commons that they have, they have this because it's a commons, they there's no barriers to it and and and capital can just take whatever they want. And so, there is a development now of, well, we already have the the beginnings of it and and and these pure property licenses like the, the, the software general, public license and the, the Creative Commons licensing. So these were the beginnings of, of licensing where you're trying to foster the commons or protect the the workers a little bit more. But there is even now a movement towards more, commons, I guess, defensive type of licensing, where you basically say, you know, this is available to a particular in group, and the in group would be, you know, a commons friendly category. Right? So it could be this will be available to anybody who uses it for nonprofit purposes or anybody who's, you know, who's actively contributing to the commons in some way or anybody, you know, so there'd be some kind of a a limitation to who has access to it. And if you're not that, if you're a a capitalist entity that is seeking profit, then you basically you have to pay royalties. You have to pay. You don't just have free access to it. And so it's a way of, of protecting the commons and in turn allows the commons to get a a critical source of revenue, from capital, which it could then in turn use to further expand the commons. So that's one, I think, area that is is just beginning, but that really, has a lot of potential. I think would be absolutely necessary, to try to protect the commons and expand the commons in the long term. I think that, you know, a lot of these blockchain enabled creations also just need to be very aware of, of capital's intent and and and ability to coop, so they have to be very explicit about excluding capital. And so, for example, with with the hollow chain and the effort to create this this new Internet, it would you know, there would have to be rules that basically, you know, capital is not allowed in. And that would just and and because that's the intent of it, and so you just have to establish these rules of excluding capital. And then, ultimately, I think also, you would have to have, governance arrangements, for the various, projects you have. If it's a cryptocurrency, for example, or or like a a hollow chain based Internet, the governance of these things has to be as democratic and as decentralized as possible. So that there is makes it very hard for capital to somehow come in and buy it out or something. Right? If you just have one person you need to convince to kinda sell out and make money, then it's it's much more likely to happen. But if it's really owned by the people, like a like a kind of a member cooperative or a worker cooperative, that gets much, much more difficult to do. So I think those are all, different ideas that, that could help against the coopation of, of capital. Oh, and with cryptocurrencies, you know, you can design them in ways that makes them, inherently uninteresting to capital. By, for example, you know, what circles does is they have a a demurrage, type of arrangement so that the value of the currency, decreases quickly with time. So there's absolutely no, incentive to to try to hoard this. It's not a it can't be a store of value. It's really just there as a medium of exchange. And so that that's not that interesting to capital because it just loses its value so quickly.
Yeah. I don't I don't know if you've seen, like, the post on the Internet about circles. It's pretty funny. A lot of people, you know, commenting on their posts like, you know, what is the purpose of this cryptocurrency? Like, I can't make I can't get rich off of it. So, I mean, it's it's it's, if you want to exclude capital, you can't be interesting to these type of speculators as well, I
think. Right. No. Exactly. I mean, that's exactly the people you wanna avoid. But, of course, I mean, the I cryptocurrencies are dominated by, by capitalistically minded people and especially people that, like to make a quick buck and are interested in speculation. And so, you know, all of that is basically, in my view, is is pretty useless, for for what, you know, what we're trying to create, as a commons based kind of post capitalist type of, future. So, you know, they're doing their thing, but, but the the left, if you wanna call it that, they they're going to have to, come up with alternatives that are just totally different.
It's either, I think, be uninteresting or bully them out of it. Right. Okay. So speaking about the left, generally, you know, I think in my experience and with other people's experience, sometimes it's a bit difficult to talk about Blockchain as a tool for potential, you know, post capitalist type of thinking. But I'm I'm just curious. What's been your experience when when talking about Blockchain and maybe some of your left leaning circles? And how do you approach talking to them?
I suppose that my left leaning circles are, primarily academic. But there's a lot of overlap, I guess, between the academic side and the more practical side. I would agree that there is a lot of skepticism. I think that the skepticism is it's a it's a broader based skepticism than just a blockchain. I think it's it's basically a skepticism towards what they perceive as being a form of techno utopianism. This idea that, that this new emerging technology is gonna come and it's and it's gonna change everything, and and and capitalism won't be able to to adapt, and it'll just it'll just wipe, you know, capitalism off the map. And and they're just they just, you know, and I think rightfully so. Just think that that's that's just wishful thinking. Of course, when it comes to blockchain in particular, they'll point to, to to, Bitcoin and and and its libertarian kind of roots and the fact that it's, you know, it's it's very capitalistic, and its and its applications and its intervention. And so, you know, they would point to that and say, you know, and the banks that they're, you know, that they're, starting to get on the on the bandwagon. And I read something on on on your, on your web page as well with regards to the the large corporations that are looking to create their own cryptocurrencies. You know, Facebook, and and I've heard that some of the other big ones, I mean, you could think of Amazon wanting to do something like that. It's it's a pretty frightening specter. And so the, you know, the skeptics, they'll point all of this and they'll say, look. This is you know, capitalism is having a heyday with this, and they're going to just get more powerful. And so I think what what needs to be kind of done in a in a in a conversation like that, is to is to kind of push back a little bit and say, okay. You know, we're not this isn't we're not talking techno utopianism. But at the same time, you can't be, you can't be a tech a technology determinist in the opposite direction and say that this technology is all, somehow already coded in in capital's favor, or that it has, you know, it has capital's interest already kind of encoded in it. So, you know, there are the technology is is is a very fluid thing, and it could go many different directions. I guess, you know, what what really lies also at the heart of this is just the inability right now, I think, of the left to to be very visionary, to have a vision of of what, a non capitalist world can look like. You know? It's it's it's that's been referred to as this, capitalist determine determinacy or this idea that, that there is no alternative to capitalism. I I feel like the left has kind of gotten sucked into that, and, they just can't really imagine, anything being powerful enough to to to resist capital. They've kind of submitted, to the power of capital. Unfortunate because when you lose that vision, then you also, really kind of lose your your your political motivation and inspiration. And so I think that's something that needs to be rekindled is is finding that vision again.
Yeah. I think that's, Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher, probably one of my favorite books. I mean, it's it's very, yeah, eye opening about the sort of cultural and potentially mental effects of what what neoliberalism, has sort of done with limiting our imagination and our ability to envision alternatives to wage slavery, essentially.
Yes. Exactly. I mean, it's it's I start actually with Fisher in, in the first in the introduction to the book that I'm working on, because I feel like he really hits the nail on the head with that, with that insight that, you know, without that without that vision, without that ability to to to see a different type of future, we're we're we're just kind of, you know, just lame ducks sitting here, you know? Yeah. Yeah. And it's,
very informative and, very good.
You know, I I think that that it is important to be able to show, the left or or or people that are critical towards capitalism at least, of the many, types of, opportunities that these technologies open up. Right? And that they're not hardwired to be, just tools for capital. And they're obviously not hardwired to bring down capital. Right? I mean, that's where agency comes in. There has to be we have to harness it, but it's important for, you know, the people that are critical towards capitalism to to to recognize how what a what an important tool it is and how, you know, they they really need to, take it seriously and work with it, if they, you know, if they want to, create some kind of an alternative in the future. Maybe perhaps more important though than than convincing, the the political left is is maybe is convincing the the various techies and the and the nerds and the hackers, that are oftentimes doing the work, in this technology and and to actually convince them to be a little bit more critical, with regard to to to capital and capitalism. Because I think that, you know, if you could get them on board, that would really push this technology in the directions that it needs to go that would then in turn also be able to convince the the political left more broadly that there is actually a lot of potential here. And so those kind of two things have to come together.
Found that I mean, quite a lot of developers in the blockchain space. I mean, I think in particularly, maybe more Ethereum, a lot of them were driven by their distaste for big tech companies and big I mean, and people who are interested in cryptocurrencies as well were already quite disillusioned with, finance as it exists today. So I mean, they have they have a lot of, I think, seeds and potential for radicalization, towards the left that can be, tapped into and can be explored, so that they can be more open to the broader ideas of the left economically and and politically.
Yeah. I agree. I mean, I I I think you're tapped in more into that culture, into those people than I am, but I I I have a sense that it's that it's there. I mean, a lot of times I feel that they are there's a an underlying bucking against capital and a bucking against the state. But, I feel like if if you want, you know, taking it to the next level, there's oftentimes a resistance. I mean, not I don't think they need to really embrace, you know, leftist ideology even. But just to be a little bit more aware, of of the of the political implications and the possibilities of, of really, you know, of of creating a different future. So I guess what I would say in the end here is that, that we find ourselves increasingly in a in an in an economy that is, really dominated by knowledge and data and information. I mean, that is the key to prosperity these days, and it's just becoming more so. And so with this being captured digitally, these assets could theoretically be set free for the benefit of everyone. But capitalism really prevents that from happening. And I think that's the key insight here is that there's there's this potential for so much prosperity, and it's being it's being held back. It's being held scarce, by capital. And so I think a key aim would have to be to free up, the immense potential of the digital commons, but also and that goes hand in hand with that is is, you know, a careful management of the material commons because those are scarce. And, you know, those have to be managed in a way that that's just and sustainable. But today, more than ever, I think we have the technological ability to create a really good life for everyone on the planet. And so, you know, blockchain, can be an a a critical tool in in in in kind of pushing us in that direction or facilitating. Let's not say pushing. It's facilitating us, to go in that direction. It's a it's a key tool. But, of course, it'll be, it'll be dependent on on people to actually harness that tool for for those ends. And so, you know, in the end, it comes back to us.
I think, Marx wrote that technology is, it has contradictory potential. It has the potential to liberate people, but it also has the potential to make us be even more enslaved to our work. And so I think it's up to us to sort of compete in that struggle for the use of the technological commons, I guess, and take that for particular political, goals.
Mhmm. Mhmm. Right. I agree.
But so thanks a lot for taking the time. When can people expect your new book? And how should they keep up with your work?
Well, you know, writing books is one of those things, you know. Done when it's done. But no. I'm, you know, I'm, I'm currently, shopping around for a publisher. I have probably about a third of the book written now. I have a very clear idea of, what's what's going to happen in all of the other chapters. So I, I am thinking that I'll probably be, be wrapping it up by the end of the of the summer of next year. Then it depends on the publisher, you know, where it fits into their release schedule. So, you know, who knows? Hopefully, it will come out, I would say early, you know, 2022 or something like that. So, yeah, there's still some work to do, and then the publisher has to do all of the marketing stuff and and all of that stuff. Hopefully, we'll be able to find a way to make it, open access in some way or another. It's, you know, really in the spirit of what I'm writing about to make it that, but it's actually much harder to do than, one would think maybe. So, yeah, it's a it's a work in progress. I, you know, I have been a bit lazy in in in regards to, keeping people up to speed with what I'm doing. I guess I've just been, so involved in the work. But, I think once the, the publisher is sorted, then, I'll start using my, my Facebook page to kind of, regularly update on, on the progress and on the various ideas I'm exploring in the in in the chapters.
Alright. Cool. And I imagine there'll be quite a bit of, Blockchain in that book.
There is. Yeah. There's, Blockchain, is explored for sure, in various chapters and in various types of applications, you know, the supply chains and the cryptocurrencies and the, you know, there's lots of, different types of applications that come up. But it's not the only emerging technology. I'm also looking at, artificial intelligence, which obviously synergizes quite well with all that information that can be processed. And then, the Internet, the Internet of things and the, ultimately also, the digital manufacturing three d printing stuff.
Nice. That sounds very cool. And I will definitely be picking it up when it comes out.
Yeah. Well, I have to convince the publishers of, that there's more people like you out there. Well, thanks a lot,
Hannes, and,
good luck on the book. Thank you so much for having me.