-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Capitalism vs socialism
- Thread starter Leo613
- Start date
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I think capitalism is reaching it's natural limits. The new paradigm will be more based upon information than capital.
The treaty of Westphalia established the system of state supremacy that has stood for 500 years, but the relevance of those territorial boundaries is evaporating. There will be a much more global form of administration, with the existing states reduced to bureaucratic hubs, rather than sovereign powers.
Capitalism relies on an infinite market to expand into and an income gradient to exploit - I don't think either are tenable in the long term.
The treaty of Westphalia established the system of state supremacy that has stood for 500 years, but the relevance of those territorial boundaries is evaporating. There will be a much more global form of administration, with the existing states reduced to bureaucratic hubs, rather than sovereign powers.
Capitalism relies on an infinite market to expand into and an income gradient to exploit - I don't think either are tenable in the long term.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I think the post nation-state system will be member-states, which is already in practice to a small degree with organizations such as the UN and EU.
They aren't. We live in a finite world, and growth and consumption that is required for capitalism can only work in a world of infinite resources. And people are going to reach a point where they have had enough; they will take a firm stand against companies that want to pollute their communities, they will stand united against companies that want to take all the local resources for themselves, and they are going to want nothing more to do with a system that allows them to loose money, loose their home, and loose any sort of financial stability because of the mistakes of a few ultra-wealthy investors, bankers, and executives. And I do think it will start in America, where the majority of people are not seeing income increases that are proportionate to the increases in the cost of living, where upward mobility is dwindling, where each new generation is going to have less and have a harder time finding work with the increased expectations of already being trained and having experience in a given field, and where most of the money is going to just a few who people are way up top on the financial ladder.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Indeed. And perhaps a Japan/Korea/Singapore/China trading block.
I agree with you that activism will play a big role, and I think there are other big structural shifts - like mass manufacturing for example. The economy of scale that led to the success of those great global mega-corporations will lose out in favour of small scale boutique manufacturing as the technology develops.
Capitalism relies on a 'them and us' paradigm. Great for us if we exploit them. The problem with globalisation of course is that there will be no more 'them', just 'us'.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
With the way we have shifted from production to information, I don't think either capitalism or socialism is suitable for the future, especially since information is so frequently - and legally - distributed for free these days over the internet. And with good paying full-time jobs with benefits becoming harder and harder to find, we're going to need a system that begins with the assumption that while most people are capable of working, many will not be able to find gainful employment over a myriad of reasons. And it's going to have to also begin at the realization that we can't go on consuming the way we do. The earth can't sustain it.
Has capitalism failed?
No. Not Yet at least. The current economic crisis will pass but will leave a great deal of misery in its wake. There are deeper concerns on environmental limits to economic growth and the fact that capitalism needs constant expansion to continue. In the very long term, technology may provide solutions to these problems, but it appears to be fairly remote. The only threshold to capitalism is the willingness of the people to endure it.
Can we learn from socialism?
Yes. There are many ways that we could improve capitalism to make it work for as many people as possible. The sticking point is whether that is something that can be achieved in the long-term because of class differences and structurial inequalities arising from private property. that is the basis for arguing for radical and systematic change.
Is there a new theory? what's it called?
No. There isn't a "new "theory. There is an enourmous amount of stuff which is deeply critical of capitalism, but so far as I know, no proposals for systematic change. rather there are demands for partial modifications of capitalism by changing individual policies. Slavoj Zizek had it right when he said "it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism." The centre-left and the far-left are in deep trouble and at the moment don't present a serious ideological challange to dominant narratives of capitalism as the 'natural order' and as the basis for a 'free' society. it will be a long hard fight to change that.
No. Not Yet at least. The current economic crisis will pass but will leave a great deal of misery in its wake. There are deeper concerns on environmental limits to economic growth and the fact that capitalism needs constant expansion to continue. In the very long term, technology may provide solutions to these problems, but it appears to be fairly remote. The only threshold to capitalism is the willingness of the people to endure it.
Can we learn from socialism?
Yes. There are many ways that we could improve capitalism to make it work for as many people as possible. The sticking point is whether that is something that can be achieved in the long-term because of class differences and structurial inequalities arising from private property. that is the basis for arguing for radical and systematic change.
Is there a new theory? what's it called?
No. There isn't a "new "theory. There is an enourmous amount of stuff which is deeply critical of capitalism, but so far as I know, no proposals for systematic change. rather there are demands for partial modifications of capitalism by changing individual policies. Slavoj Zizek had it right when he said "it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism." The centre-left and the far-left are in deep trouble and at the moment don't present a serious ideological challange to dominant narratives of capitalism as the 'natural order' and as the basis for a 'free' society. it will be a long hard fight to change that.
I find a common thread in the ideas of Jaron Lanier, Robert Reich, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders:
Capitialism is a complex machine, and like any such machine it needs tweaks. In the 50's the US economy was booming - by most any metric you can name. We had a top tax rate of 90% and we had very strong unions. We also had strong banking regulations. These are examples of the kinds of tweaks we need. And we need them urgently!
Another useful idea is the "B Corporation". In the US, 99.999...% of corporations are legally bound to maximize short term profits over long term viability. "B corps" (beneficial corps), on the other hand are free to think in terms of long term and sustainable strategies and tactics. We need to shift the bulk of our corporations over to B corporations.
Capitialism is a complex machine, and like any such machine it needs tweaks. In the 50's the US economy was booming - by most any metric you can name. We had a top tax rate of 90% and we had very strong unions. We also had strong banking regulations. These are examples of the kinds of tweaks we need. And we need them urgently!
Another useful idea is the "B Corporation". In the US, 99.999...% of corporations are legally bound to maximize short term profits over long term viability. "B corps" (beneficial corps), on the other hand are free to think in terms of long term and sustainable strategies and tactics. We need to shift the bulk of our corporations over to B corporations.
illykitty
RF's pet cat
As I see it, there's a few issues with our current capitalism:
-We cannot infinitely grow, our resources are finite. Even if we can take more, is it really desirable? What is the point of infinite consumption? Shouldn't we aim for happiness instead? Surely that's a better indicator than GDP. I think we can achieve a comfortable life for all, but this doesn't mean to consume, destroy and ruin everything. Also, often with growth comes environmental damage of all sorts, and we need our planet to live, the planet however doesn't need us... I think we need to achieve a careful balance of consumption and regeneration, where we can be comfortable and cause as little damage as possible. Hopefully in the future we can reach abundance, where we can have more than we consume, without hurting the planet. Surely that is a better goal than growth at the expense of everything.
-Robotics and AI are advancing quickly, to the point that the idea of us being replaced by them was a laughable idea a few years ago, except by futurists, is now accepted even in mainstream media (though some still report that we can create enough jobs). Now a few scenarios can emerge from this, either the government artificially suppresses technology (unlikely and that's a dystopian scenario as it would stagnate us), the rich profits from this and lots of people lose their jobs and that also grinds the economy to a slow death (you need people to buy your stuff and they need money to do that)/create fake jobs which would be to supervise the robots (dystopian if you ask me, to stand there doing nothing is horrible) or we let it happen and adjust our economic system to this new reality (best scenario). But this also means death of our current system, as I imagine it will be evolving into something different (technostism, resource-based economy, etc.)
-This point is more of an opinion. A lot of people realise that this isn't the best humanity can achieve and with the Internet, more ideas are developed and spread. Some people realise that there is still vast inequality in this world and that we could feed everyone. We just need to put our minds into it. Our current system still results in many people being poor, homeless, dying of simple diseases, hunger, etc. I'm sure most people arguing this aren't saying that we can make a utopia, but we can do better. And better often sounds utopic to some people, but it isn't the case. Imagine describing today's world to someone in the past. They probably would think its impossible. Same applies to this world. I believe we can do better. To cling to this system is madness, in my opinion.
@Strategic Philosopher , are you talking about Yuli Ban and technostism on reddit and all? I read those ideas, I'm a member on another forum that Yuli Ban is on, futuretimeline... They are interesting ideas indeed. It needs refinement but I think it's getting there. I also applaud the ideas like basic income, while not ideal, it's better than having 25% of people on benefits in 2050 (and I personally think that's conservative estimates). At least with basic income you can work, to add wealth on top of that, which means people are more insentivised to work, even if it's only part time, if there is such work.
-We cannot infinitely grow, our resources are finite. Even if we can take more, is it really desirable? What is the point of infinite consumption? Shouldn't we aim for happiness instead? Surely that's a better indicator than GDP. I think we can achieve a comfortable life for all, but this doesn't mean to consume, destroy and ruin everything. Also, often with growth comes environmental damage of all sorts, and we need our planet to live, the planet however doesn't need us... I think we need to achieve a careful balance of consumption and regeneration, where we can be comfortable and cause as little damage as possible. Hopefully in the future we can reach abundance, where we can have more than we consume, without hurting the planet. Surely that is a better goal than growth at the expense of everything.
-Robotics and AI are advancing quickly, to the point that the idea of us being replaced by them was a laughable idea a few years ago, except by futurists, is now accepted even in mainstream media (though some still report that we can create enough jobs). Now a few scenarios can emerge from this, either the government artificially suppresses technology (unlikely and that's a dystopian scenario as it would stagnate us), the rich profits from this and lots of people lose their jobs and that also grinds the economy to a slow death (you need people to buy your stuff and they need money to do that)/create fake jobs which would be to supervise the robots (dystopian if you ask me, to stand there doing nothing is horrible) or we let it happen and adjust our economic system to this new reality (best scenario). But this also means death of our current system, as I imagine it will be evolving into something different (technostism, resource-based economy, etc.)
-This point is more of an opinion. A lot of people realise that this isn't the best humanity can achieve and with the Internet, more ideas are developed and spread. Some people realise that there is still vast inequality in this world and that we could feed everyone. We just need to put our minds into it. Our current system still results in many people being poor, homeless, dying of simple diseases, hunger, etc. I'm sure most people arguing this aren't saying that we can make a utopia, but we can do better. And better often sounds utopic to some people, but it isn't the case. Imagine describing today's world to someone in the past. They probably would think its impossible. Same applies to this world. I believe we can do better. To cling to this system is madness, in my opinion.
@Strategic Philosopher , are you talking about Yuli Ban and technostism on reddit and all? I read those ideas, I'm a member on another forum that Yuli Ban is on, futuretimeline... They are interesting ideas indeed. It needs refinement but I think it's getting there. I also applaud the ideas like basic income, while not ideal, it's better than having 25% of people on benefits in 2050 (and I personally think that's conservative estimates). At least with basic income you can work, to add wealth on top of that, which means people are more insentivised to work, even if it's only part time, if there is such work.
Last edited:
illykitty
RF's pet cat
I agree with your points and I know first hand how flawed some of these systems are, since I have mental illnesses. I have to ask for governmental help because I have no income since I'm too ill to work, I don't want to remain on it forever, I want to get better to be able to work and function as normally as possible but the mental services are very lacking (they told me "you need help but we can't help you because we're full") and then at the same time there's some that complain about people like me who claim money from the government. Perhaps it wouldn't be such an issue if there was basic income to begin with and decent services for mental health. But nope, instead the system is all backwards.
Many countries spend way too much on the military and don't tax the rich enough... But they would still complain (right-wingers) because they don't realise it's beneficial to all, they only perceive it as "taking it away" from them.