Saturday Night -- 10.03.09 -- Julie Graham -- A Postcapitalist Politics for Difficult Times

1. About this Saturday
2. About Julie Graham
3. Community Economies Collective - Imagining and Enacting Noncapitalist Futures
4. Link to Gibson-Graham’s papers, books and projects

___________________________________________________
1. About this Saturday

What: Talk / Discussion with Julie Graham
When: Saturday 10.03.09 @ 7:00 pm
Where: 16 Beaver Street, 4th floor
Who: Free and open to all

Julie Graham’s talk is both directly and indirectly related to two previous events at 16Beaver: World Capitalist Crash Course with Loren Goldner & Howie Seligman and Connective Mutations with Franco Berardi. J.K. Gibson-Graham’s work offers an alternative, differentiated vision of economy incorporating a rich plethora of non-capitalist economic activities, and a political imaginary that envisions economic transformation through place-based actions and the transformation of subjects. Through collaborative action research with communities in the US, Australia and Asia, J.K. Gibson-Graham demonstrate that it is possible for individual and collective subjects to create innovative, participatory economic institutions and practices. In chapter 6 of their most recent book, A Postcapitalist Politics, “Cultivating Subjects for a Community Economy,” they say, “If to change ourselves is to change our worlds, and the relation is reciprocal, then the project of history making is never a distant one but always right here, on the borders of our sensing, thinking, feeling and moving bodies.”

Julie and Kath’s work presents a unique combination of grass roots political activism and an intense theoretical engagement with a number of traditions: political economy, feminist, queer and psychoanalytic theory, cultural geography, and, most recently, Eastern teachings. Rather than just talking about economies, their work engages the subjects of economies, including ourselves.

We are sending this email out early with the hopes that you may be able to read it for a more lively discussion.

___________________________________________________
2. About Julie Graham

Julie Graham is a scholar activist who teaches rethinking economy and economic alternatives at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. Under the pen name J.K. Gibson-Graham, she co-authored with Katherine Gibson The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy /(2nd edition, Minnesota, 2006), which challenges the usual vision of capitalism as the dominant or only viable form of economy, and A Postcapitalist Politics (Minnesota, 2006), which focuses on building community economies in the face of globalization. Over the past 20 years she has been engaged in research, activism and teaching related to diverse development pathways and community economies, including the economy of generosity that is fueled by gifts of labor, goods and money; the non-capitalist market economy made up of worker collectives and self-employed individuals; and the social economy comprised of non-profits and alternative capitalist businesses. She is a founding member of the Community Economies Collective, a university-based group involved in building community economies in Australia, the US, and the Asia Pacific region.

___________________________________________________
3. Community Economies Collective, "Imagining and Enacting Noncapitalist Futures,"

IMAGINING AND ENACTING NONCAPITALIST FUTURES

The Community Economies Collective

Feminists…want to leave their husbands, abandon their children, become lesbians, practice witchcraft, and overthrow capitalism. (Pat Buchanan)

Inspiring, isn’t it? Imagine if rather than having to "overthrow" capitalism (now a virtually unimaginable project) leftists could pursue the other revolutionary options available to Buchanan's feminists— what if we could leave capitalism, abandon capitalism, become socialists, practice socialism? What follows is the unfinished story of such an imagining. It’s the story of a search—for a new way of thinking socialism and a new way of performing it. It’s also the story of a group of people who began a research project together and became a desiring collectivity. We started out, embarrassingly, with no real desire for “socialism.” Yet maybe that’s not so surprising. Over the last hundred years, the word has been drained of utopian content and no longer serves, as it once did, to convene and catalyze the left. This makes it difficult even to speak of “the left” or to use the pronoun “we” with any confidence or commitment. As self-identified leftists at the end of the 20th century, we found ourselves tongue-tied, not knowing who or what we might speak for. But what if the current dispersed and disidentified state of the left could be seen as an opportune reversal, and the absence of a mobilizing vision could be read as a new kind of presence? If formerly there was certainty (if not unanimity) among leftists about the lineaments of a desirable society, now there is silence, tentativeness, and openness to possibility. The project of creating alternatives has become a voyage to unknown destinations, accompanied by unfamiliar or unexpected companions. In this vacant/pregnant environment our group came to life in 1997—a collection of students, postdocs and faculty members, loosely knit across continents, who hoped to become desiring economic subjects of a “socialist” sort (even if that initially meant little to us). Without a destination we set forth, tired of waiting for a revolution we didn’t want and tired of waiting generally. From the perspective of a more literate moment (after many courses and reading groups), it seems clear to us now that we were embarking on what William Connolly has called a “politics of becoming”3—a process through which we would not only begin to envision other worlds, but also cultivate ourselves and others as possible inhabitants.

Legacy

It seems to be easier for us today to imagine the thoroughgoing deterioration of the earth and of nature than the breakdown of late capitalism; perhaps that is due to some weakness in our imaginations.4 Seeking a politics of desire and invention, we found the prevailing (left) economic imagination to be a colonized territory, offering us very little in the way of models or alternatives. Think about “socialism,” for example, which bears the unbearable burden of providing a complete and total alternative to capitalism, itself envisioned as total and complete. If capitalism is characterized by private ownership and market relations, socialism must entail state ownership and non-market allocation. Yet socialism cannot simply present itself as capitalism's opposite. It must also be its equivalent—expansive yet sustainable, efficient but not exploitative, it must have capitalism's strengths without its weaknesses. To its great disadvantage, socialism has been largely defined by capitalism, as its opposing counterpart and suitable replacement. And the project of building socialism has been similarly constrained. To the extent that capitalism is understood as a systemic form of economy, the enactment of socialism is a task of systemic transformation. Before socialism can be constructed, a capitalist totality must "break down" or be "overthrown." We wanted to step outside the confines of economic monism, where capitalism is everywhere and its opposite (a now discredited socialism) is the only alternative. This would require reading the economic landscape through a lens of difference rather than sameness, enabling ourselves to see capitalist and noncapitalist (even socialist) activities coexisting there. If we could locate noncapitalist activities here and now, if we could see them as prevalent and sustaining, perhaps we could find more possibilities of participating in their creation. Perhaps too the imagined scale and temporality of socialist politics could undergo a shift, becoming more partial and proximate.

Rereading the economy

In The End of Capitalism (as we knew it) J.K. Gibson-Graham argues that representations of capitalism constrain our political imaginations and economic possibilities. If we understand capitalism as necessarily expansive and naturally dominant, we eliminate the imaginative space for alternatives and the rationale for their enactment. It seems that we need to conceptualize the economy differently in order to enact a different economy. More specifically, we need to de-naturalize capitalist dominance and to represent noncapitalist forms of economy (including ones we might value and desire) as existing and emerging, and as possible to create. Rereading the economy does not mean simply investigating the interstices and bringing minority practices to light; it involves opening up the entire economic space to resignification. Fortunately there are many others to guide us in such a radical undertaking. Most recently, feminist theorists have produced a powerful critique of conventional economic representation and an accompanying re-visioning of “the economy.” On the basis of accountings of unpaid labor performed in households and neighborhoods (including childcare and housework), feminists argue that as much as 50 percent of all economic activity in both rich and poor countries is excluded from labor force statistics and national income and product accounts. Calling upon a time-honored definition of economic activity, their intervention helps us to see the discursivity and contingency (not to mention interestedness) of concepts of economy. It reminds us that to call a society or economy "capitalist" is an act of categorical violence, one that obliterates from view the economic activity that engages more people for more hours of the day over more years of their lives than any other.

A diagram from a popular radical economics textbook conveys the point visually: (see PDF)

To the extent that we think of capitalism as coextensive with commodity production, capitalism occupies no more than half the economic space. But, as Bowles and Edwards point out, not all commodity production can be considered capitalist (that is, if we understand capitalism as involving commodity production by free wage labor under exploitative conditions in which the surplus is appropriated by nonproducers). Commodities are just goods and services produced for a market—they can be produced under a variety of different production relations. Slaves (unfree and unpaid) produced cotton for a market in the antebellum US south. Worker collectives (who appropriate their own surplus), self-employed people (also self-appropriating and thus not exploited), and slaves (without freedom of contract) in the prison industry today produce goods and services for a market, but not under capitalist relations of production. In this reading, perhaps 40 percent of the total product of the US economy is produced under capitalism. That allows a lot of room for other kinds of things in the social space of economy. The project of rereading the economy depends on the familiar (to Marxists at least) proposition that knowledge is neither neutral nor singular; instead multiple, politically inflected knowledges coexist in unstable relations of dominance and subordination. Rereading the economy entails excavating subjugated knowledges, both academic and popular, and drawing upon them as resources—to bring what is unsayable into language and what is hidden into visibility. Rereading is necessary to empower novel social and political possibilities but it will never be sufficient, as those who are impatient with language activism frequently remind us. Moreover, it exposes us to the dangers of intellectual arrogance and social isolation. Nevertheless we pursue it because we feel deeply that representation is powerful and that visibility as a project has transformative force (this is something the queer contingent in our group will not allow us to forget or underestimate). Part of fostering a different economy involves cultivating a language of economic difference, within which alternative economic projects can be conceived, and through which alternative economic subjects can be validated and come to self-recognition.

To continue reading please download ...

Community Economies Collective, "Imagining and Enacting Noncapitalist Futures," Socialist Review, Vol. 28, no. 3+4 (2001).

http://www.sduk.us/beaver/community_economies_collective.pdf

___________________________________________________
4. Link to Gibson-Graham’s papers, books and projects

www.communityeconomies.org