Do We Need Capitalism 2.0?

Sramana Mitra, in her post ‘Capitalism'sWe need to value talent and connections far more
Fundamental Flaws', has made a very important point:than capital. The individuals and organizations that are
the capitalistic system is not rewarding the right peoplebest able to leverage not just talent but talent
– the innovators and creators.networks will generate far more value than firms that
Sramana has raised valid concerns about capitalismhave access only to large capital. As Sramana says,
and the need to debug it. She's right about manythe value equation will need to shift back to the people
bankers and venture capitalists walking away with thedisproportionate share of the gain.
pie and leaving the innovators and entrepreneurs withMore importantly, our definition of value has to change.
the crumbs. She's also right to blame unregulatedWith our Industrial Age mindset, we automatically read
greed for the unprecedented financial meltdown that‘money' when we hear ‘value' -- just as an
has had ripple effects through every sector of theexercise, re-read the previous paragraph to check out
economy. She calls for Capitalism 2.0 to evolve awhether this statement is true.
better, fairer system.We need to replace this with more holistic,
While I agree with her on the problems, I don't thinkwell-rounded definitions of value. To recognize and
Capitalism 2.0 is the solution. The Agrarian Age wasacknowledge what drives people to contribute to
largely about land as a source of power, while themovements like Open Source or Wikipedia. Or the
Industrial Age has been about capital as the source ofvalue we get by participating in environmental and
power. The Industrial Age has run its course, making asocial movements like Green Peace or Sai Seva. Why
billion people super rich, a billion super poor and leavingshould we short-change ourselves with the belief that
the world's remaining four billion somewhere inmoney is our only motivator?
between.We need to go beyond capitalism, and nurture more
It has depleted almost 60% of our ecosphere in justinnovative forms of human activity that are more in line
200 years – more damage than all of mankindwith the new, connected age. While I don't have the
could manage in 50,000 years. The premise of Newanswers – I don't think any individual does – I
Constructs is that the industrial age -- with its focus onwould like to catalyze conversation to help us all work
capital, money and wealth as the predominanttogether to take the world to the next level. That's the
measure of success – has to be replaced with aNew Constructs opportunity. Stay engaged, stay
more inclusive, sustainable era – the Connectedhappy.
Age for want of a better phrase.