The Laszlo model and the hunger for an alternative narrative that overcomes inaction | Las Indias


The narrative is half-baked, the technologies still a little green, the processes still in testing… but this is the way forward, because, if there’s one thing for sure, it’s that inaction won’t take us from decomposition to transition.

OstrichesIt was an hour before the awarding of the Novia-Salcedo prizes. We’d met up with Pericles to catch up and talk about how to foment the “P2P industrial revolution” in Asturias, building on its beginnings several years earlier in Barredos. We talked about our take on the crisis in Spain. At one point, he confessed to us:

We’ve been invited to a thousand groups of wise people, and cabinets of experts… and they just repeat the same formulas from a world that’s finished. The old industrial era is over, and my generation, which is the one in power, has no idea where to go, doesn’t have a single alternative model.

Last night, we were talking with GorkaMiriJulenDavid (BSide) and Aitor. We were sharing “indiano” strategies to confront the crisis on the peninsula, from the Fondaki start-up to the P2P revolution, including replicating the Cleveland experience and promoting free software distributed from Gaman.

David, from las Indias, pointed out that, now, when the crisis has arrived, fablabs are still far off, at a very early phase in their convergence with the productive fabric, still mainly connected to artistic and experimental efforts, while we “indianos” are looking forward toprofessional training centersmechanic workshops that have been reinvented, factories without orders…

Conversations, here and there, move carefully, so a not to fall off the cliff of degrowth. But, it feels close. It’s there, like a safe offer that doesn’t ask you to to do anything, and what’s more, that consoles us with the impossibility of of doing anything, since the catastrophe is inevitable, which saves us the time of having to learn, struggle or experiment; it only prepares us “psychologically” for the carnage by reducing our consumption (which, however, is necessary for the economy). As a peak-oiler commenter said with a derogatory sneer on our blog in English, as if it was an argument: “I have no clue about how the P2P mode of production works“; if the world is going to end, why bother even clicking on a link?

This morning, Michel Bauwens sent us a link to a series of graphics based on the Laszlo’s evolutionary model.

The Lazslo model

Laszlo, despite the spiritualistic direction of his approach, has an interesting background. His model, originally presented in 1987, does a good job describing what, in “the big picture,” suggests decomposition, so he’s certainly talking about the times we’re living in now.

Let’s frame the the current situation using Laszlo’s model.

Following a “normal” cyclical stage, the economic system enters into a phase of faster and faster succesive crises. It would come out of the “neoclassical corridor” recently rescued by Juan Urrutia and enter an age of instability like the one opened by the end of the post-war model in the Seventies and the ensuing search for reforms aimed at reaching scales that give meaning to the subjects of hegemonic power. But after a certain point, the crisis worsens, because the financial system itself, whose innovations once looked like a solution, doesn’t know how to respond to the underlying problem: the reduction of the optimal scale of production. That’s the point we’re at right now, and the Spanish crisis is just one more example.

From here, there are basically three alternatives in the model:

  1. Do nothing, keep the system in place with no funadamental changes, allowing the struggle for ever-slimmer profits to feeddecomposition, until there’s no State that isn’t a failed State.
  2. Leave a space for change, but grasp at the first signs of recovery as a chance to “go back to how it always was” — and so, keep the same group of people in power that always was. That’s the path to a “sweet death.”
  3. Push decisively towards the transition to an alternative mode of production, reaching for a new model of abundance.

Laszlo’s model also has something to offer on the evolution of ideologies, which is what Michel Bauwens wanted to point out out to us. The alternative is presented in contrast to the wishful thinking of those who act like nothing’s happening, and the catastrophism of those who act like nothing can be done about what’s happening, for whom the “alternative” is hitting bottom. That is, the alternative would be represented as a conflict between a power that rejects alternatives and a supposed otherness that doesn’t know how to see them, between the privileged of the old, elephantine world of large scales and those who dream of a degrowth apocalypse, between zombies and ghouls.

The possibility of raising alternatives, following the Laszlo model, comes at three “crisis points,” and the key to these is the appearance of a new narrative.



For Laszlo, this narrative comes through a “new consciousness” of eco-espiritual nature. We, on the other hand, see the need for analternative narrative, which is still half-baked, but much much more concrete, centered on the transition towards the P2P mode of production, and which provides a roadmap for what we can do here and now against the crisis

Laszlo presents the “new consciousness” as a purely evolutionary and unbroken possibility. Degrowth, in contrast, hopes that the break will come about on its own, as a brutal implosion, so a new world can begun to be built. One way or another, both avoid the discomfort of building anything beyond a prototype, or doing any intellectual development, dodging the need to confront the powerful and often brutal inertia of established society.

We, on the other hand, advocate bringing about the break now, starting to produce and work another way in accordance with newvalues, with new means and even raising up new forms of public administration.

The narrative is half-baked, the technologies still a little green, the processes still in testing… but this is the way forward, because, if there’s one thing for sure, it’s that inaction won’t take us from decomposition to transition.

Translated by Steve Herrick of from the original (in Spanish)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.