What is the non-capitalist vision of the future?

[London_Calling]

What is it? Equality, justice, true democracy, Anarcism, Socialism, Marxism? Elimination of all privete property, nationalization of big business, small business? Specifically, how would a non-capitalist society/world be structured? Is there some consesus among U75 users?

I’d think, from where the USA currently is, the highest ambition might be to recognise ‘capitalism’ as a mere tool by which society creates wealth, and not a flag-waving philosophy manipulated in order to justify imperial ambition and irrational and unjust concentration of wealth -the latter to the great detriment of the overwhelming population it allegedly serves.

 

[fredfelt]

In my mind there is a difference between neo-liberal and capitalist.

I'd argue that the neo-liberal project has done much damage to societies and stripped individuals of their rights in order to give power to transnational corporations.

This is different from market based economies, social democracies, which Keynes espoused and were brought about (and now largely dismantled) by Roosevelt in the new deal.

In my mind there are many different types of capitalism's - different market based system which fit around a countries culture. For example the Scandinavian high tax equitable market based systems, the Japanese system which cherishes family relations and connections, the Chinese model of state interventionist capitalism. The anarcho capitalism currently in place in Russia.

The fundamental American model of capitalism is another style of capitalism. This is the model currently preached to the rest of the world via institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. However this misses the point that different styles of a market based system are appropriate to different cultures. There's nothing inherent in the US model which makes it more appropriate than any other model.

In my mind the market should exist as a system to allow human relations to thrive and for our capacity to work together to be supported. To function it requires a state to uphold the rights of individuals and to support a society. However it seems that the neo-liberals and the fundamental capitalists see the market as an aim in it's self which production is sub-servant to. Markets should be there to support production and people in a functioning society which is upheld by the state.

This is my contra to neo-liberal outlook - but probably still a capitalist vision.

 

[phildwyer]

I don"t see why anti-capitalists have to come up with an alternative.

 

[camouflage]

Like an omelette without the eggs then?

You may say I'm a dreamer...

 

[camouflage]

Capitalism with a human face.

but I'm not the only one...

 

[Lo Siento.]

if I offer you a shit sandwich, do you have to have something else in your lunchbox in order to politely decline?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I love the idea of a public sector running large areas of the economy and of life, but I don't think there is enough thought given as to how improve public sector management. As it stands large areas of public sector management are appalling if not practically corrupt. So bad as to make some people think that private sector profit motives might actually result in the economy being run better and fairer.

The reality being that the private sector merely hide their corruption better.

 

[fredfelt]

The reality being that the private sector merely hide their corruption better.

It's not just public vs private though. It's how private enterprise has changed which has resulted in where we are today. In reference to my post about different sorts of capatilism's once our high streets used to be able support local small many diverse local businesses. You'd have for example grocers, butchers, insurance brokers, building societies, small legal firms.

Neo-liberalism had dismantled the framework which enabled these separate businesses to be common sights in every town. In shot de-regulation has resulted in Tesco's being able to provide just about all of the services mentioned above. Essentially as the small business is not able to do such careful 'tax planning' they are at a disadvantage. Global corporations have pushed out small companies which once provided stable well paid jobs.

I think it's less to do with corruption when looking at the running of private vs public enterprises, but more a question of the legal framework which supports an economy.

As I mentioned before it's too simplistic to look at capitalism vs another system. First I think it should be recognised that there are plenty of different ways market based economies can be structured. Unless of course the other system is based on removal of price, and money - then we have two completely different systems we can discuss.

 

[LLETSA]

As the comments in this thread, and the many similar ones there have been on here, so pointedly illustrate, a coherent vision of a post-capitalist society hasn't existed for a long time; if it ever really did. Those opposed to capitalism are trapped in a dilemma it's impossible to escape, whereby lack of an alternative vision reduces all struggle to to immediate, usually defensive, aims-which can then be clawed back by capitalism, either quickly or, as has been happening for three decades, over a drawn out period.

 

[LLETSA]

A future where communities get to decide their own direction.

Platitude.

 

[ericjarvis]

a mere tool

It's alright. Dick Cheney has gone.

 

[LLETSA]

personally i'd prefer to see pretty much everything nationalised except for perhaps the odd shop - but even then, the working conditions of shop workers etc would be vastly different to how they are today. food etc would be free, peoples needs would be planned for democratically by the community with everyone having an imput into it, food and basic essentials would be free and hopefully as time went by so would everything else.

None of this could possibly happen when you consider that the conditions that would make possible the nationalisation of 'everything but the odd shop' would be of necessity so turbulent that internal and external subversion would be inevitable. The result being that notions of 'democratic planning with everybody having an input into it' (even the millions who'd inevitably be opposed to the attempted changes?) would very quickly fall by the wayside in favour of some kind of state of emergency as the government committed to change desperately battles for survival with a shrinking support base. In short, in the absence of a near-impossible international revolution, such an experiment in would be a short-lived fiasco.

 

[killer b]

it's an open toed sandal, stamping (gently) on a human face, for ever.

 

[_angel_]

I love the idea of a public sector running large areas of the economy and of life.

I'm not sure I do. They should definitely be in charge of health and education and social care etc tho.
I don't see why we can't keep the banks nationalised and put the profits back into society, tho.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Future metropolises woven out of yoghurt.

 

[camouflage]

I think a shift from a share-holder focus to stake-holder focus would suffice. Not so much life after capitalism... rather life without capitalism trying to stove in heads and eat the goo within. Most people on earth could probably make a decent living in such a system.

 

[camouflage]

it's either that or become a fanatical adherant of my new political philosophy that I have named anarcho-cybertalitarian fascilibercommunosociocollectivism.

 

[DotCommunist]

Tweaked parecon with more focus on queues and black bread than in Alberts vision.

 

[frogwoman]

None of this could possibly happen when you consider that the conditions that would make possible the nationalisation of 'everything but the odd shop' would be of necessity so turbulent that internal and external subversion would be inevitable. The result being that notions of 'democratic planning with everybody having an input into it' (even the millions who'd inevitably be opposed to the attempted changes?) would very quickly fall by the wayside in favour of some kind of state of emergency as the government committed to change desperately battles for survival with a shrinking support base. In short, in the absence of a near-impossible international revolution, such an experiment in would be a short-lived fiasco.

That's why it has to be international, comrade

You're probably right though. Without the necessary international support it would collapse / degenerate into something very nasty, which is why it would have to have backing from outside, as an absolute ncessity.

I've thought about this sort of stuff a lot and it doesn't really get any easier to work out the answers to these questions, or how we would achieve anything even slightly different to capitalism, i'm not sure how it would happen. would an international revolution really be impossible though?

It's probably not going to happen in the near future though. And you're right in that even to nationalise in the manner i would prefer, one large or even medium sized but well known company like - i dunno, wetherspoons or something - would be almost impossible without massive social changes.


what sort of society would you like to see llsetsa? is there any way you think it could be achieved - and under what time frame? or do you think we're basically all fucked?

 

[LLETSA]

I'm not sure I do. They should definitely be in charge of health and education and social care etc tho.
I don't see why we can't keep the banks nationalised and put the profits back into society, tho.

No political will to do it on the part of party currently able to rule and a severely damaged left/working class movement permanently excluded from power.

 

[LLETSA]

That's why it has to be international, comrade

You're probably right though. Without the necessary international support it would collapse / degenerate into something very nasty, which is why it would have to have backing from outside, as an absolute ncessity.

I've thought about this sort of stuff a lot and it doesn't really get any easier to work out the answers to these questions, or how we would achieve anything even slightly different to capitalism, i'm not sure how it would happen. would an international revolution really be impossible though?

It's probably not going to happen in the near future though. And you're right in that even to nationalise in the manner i would prefer, one large or even medium sized but well known company like - i dunno, wetherspoons or something - would be almost impossible without massive social changes.


what sort of society would you like to see llsetsa? is there any way you think it could be achieved - and under what time frame? or do you think we're basically all fucked?

We are all basically fucked.

 

[_angel_]

No political will to do it on the part of party currently able to rule and a severely damaged left/working class movement permanently excluded from power.

They've already done the nationalising part.. it's a no brainer. But apparently profits have to be privatised, losses socialised.

 

[LLETSA]

They've already done the nationalising part.. it's a no brainer. But apparently profits have to be privatised, losses socialised.

The supposed nationalisation is only to help out the banks' private owners. We'll see more of this kind of stuff the more capitalism drifts towards the shit.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Apologies for doing a Jimmy Saville on this thread, but I just found a really interesting paper on Kantorovich and decentralised economic planning mechanisms which I am keen to share.

http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/918.html

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

It's Star Trek isn't it?

 

[phildwyer]

It's Star Trek isn't it?

Everything is Star Trek to you.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Everything is Star Trek to you.

Is now dwyer. You haven't lost that magic I see.

 

[phildwyer]

Is now dwyer. You haven't lost that magic I see.

Live long and prosper amigo...

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Live long and prosper amigo...

Do what and what? What are you on about?
Bit lonely?

 

[phildwyer]

Do what and what? What are you on about?

Google is your friend effendim...