After Capitalism...

[pErvinalia]

We often here people talk about the need to do away with capitalism. But what would a replacement look like? Can it be anything other than barter or top-down socialism? Any ideas what it would actually look like?

[Animavore]

There's no need to do away with capitalism at all.

[cronus]

What might be called 'hybridisation' or 'latch onto any idea that might work' or 'opportunism' there are many names. Someone will throw a name up at a time the new ways old particular promise, have enough internal cohesion etc. What name do you give a drowning man learning to swim? Unluckism?

[PsychoSerenity]

There are hundreds of vastly different other options. With the level of non-market logistics that the likes of supermarkets and Amazon can manage using the Internet, we could effectively have a bottom-up command economy if we wanted. Once we have access to automated bespoke manufacture (getting there with 3d printers), things could be really changed. I'd argue for a system that allows for overarching safeguards of distributive justice based on John Rawls' difference principle. A land value tax and a citizens income could be a step in the right direction - certainly as automation further reduces the need for labour, with a citizens income reducing the coercion into jobs, the focus of the products of labour would change to 'what people think is good for society' rather than 'what people can make a profit from'. If we wanted we could get rid of the basis of capitalism (the right to profit from private ownership) and the inevitable inequalities and market failures it brings, while still keeping a money-based (relatively) free market system, - or visa versa if we so wished.

For a long time we've been sold the idea that the only two options are 'very slight variations of the status quo' (though these are made out to be much bigger variations than they really are to give us the illusion of choice) or 'the evils of communism'. What a different society could look like is, at the moment, far more limited by a lack of political imagination than a lack of technological ability.

[cronus]

There are hundreds of vastly different other options. With the level of non-market logistics that the likes of supermarkets and Amazon can manage using the Internet, we could effectively have a bottom-up command economy if we wanted. Once we have access to automated bespoke manufacture (getting there with 3d printers), things could be really changed. I'd argue for a system that allows for overarching safeguards of distributive justice based on John Rawls' difference principle. A land value tax and a citizens income could be a step in the right direction - certainly as automation further reduces the need for labour, with a citizens income reducing the coercion into jobs, the focus of the products of labour would change to 'what people think is good for society' rather than 'what people can make a profit from'. If we wanted we could get rid of the basis of capitalism (the right to profit from private ownership) and the inevitable inequalities and market failures it brings, while still keeping a money-based (relatively) free market system, - or visa versa if we so wished.

For a long time we've been sold the idea that the only two options are 'very slight variations of the status quo' (though these are made out to be much bigger variations than they really are to give us the illusion of choice) or 'the evils of communism'. What a different society could look like is, at the moment, far more limited by a lack of political imagination than a lack of technological ability.

[pErvinalia]

There's no need to do away with capitalism at all.

What makes you say that?

[macdoc]

Responsible capitalism overseen by a responsible gov....like Norway has and the rest of us envy.

[cronus]

Responsible capitalism overseen by a responsible gov....like Norway has and the rest of us envy.

Norway - small population backed up by massive oil reserves. ( $800billion in oil reserves. And Population 5million. )

[macdoc]

That $ 800 billion did not come directly from oil but also from smart investment. They own 2 % of the world's stock and have had a $50 a barrel carbon tax since the 90s

Alberta has larger reserves, a smaller population, an oil fund of all of $16 billion and running a deficit AND Canadian tax payers cough up $32 billion a year in subsidies.
That would be predatory capitalism combined with corrupt or at best irresponsible government.
read and weep for us..

Canada Is a Lousy Oil Negotiator
We collected less than one-fifth the tax and royalty benefits Norway did in 2012. Ouch.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/03/31/Ca ... egotiator/

and

dle No More, Meet the Norwegians
Canada's elite lack guts dealing with oil giants. First Nations might embolden all of us.
By Mitchell Anderson, 10 Jan 2013, TheTyee.ca

Norway is a long way from Attawapiskat but there may be some important lessons for Canada's First Nations from across the Atlantic in the looming showdown with Stephen Harper. In a recent series for The Tyee, I documented how this tiny Nordic country stood up to powerful outside oil interests intent on exploiting their natural resources and achieved a remarkable economic success.

By standing their ground with a clear vision and united front, Norwegians negotiated arguably the toughest ever terms with the world's most powerful industrial sector. They now enjoy full employment, no debt, generous social programs, and have over $600 billion in the bank -- putting them $1.2 trillion ahead of Canada.

Secrets to Norway's Petro-Wealth: Lessons for Canada?
Norway and Canadian flags
At the moment when Canada is making the transition to petro-state, ironing out internal agreements among provinces and external deals with major powers including China and the United States, The Tyee sent veteran energy issues journalist Mitch Anderson to Norway to learn why that nation has been able to amass a $600 billion savings fund for its population of under 5 million, a stark contrast to the situation here.

http://thetyee.ca/Series/2012/08/01/Nor ... th-Series/

Responsible capitalism held to account by responsible government can work wonders.
We have neither....Norway has both.

[cronus]

Isn't there enough collective intelligence in Canada for them to take out their corrupt elite and print a new currency with all that oil to back it up?

[macdoc]

Apparently not.

64% of the populace hate Harpo with a vengence.
36% supported him in the last election.

32 + 32 = failure ....two left wing and centre left parties don't have enough collective intelligence to make a coalition.

[jaydot]

the voice on that video sounded a lot like richard dawkins. wonder if it is?

since capitalism is a construct and money an illusion, there is no reason not to give everyone an living allowance and let people work as they will. first thing to do is stop corporations profiteering at the expense of their hired help, or as they now call them "associates". oh, and fuck the shareholders. they are a net drain on a company's resources if said company pays dividends.

[pErvinalia]

Mac, we've been hearing the same thing about non-predatory capitalism from you for years (since well before the financial crisis). I suspect that heavily regulated capitalism might indeed provide a reasonable basis for social organisation. But how exactly do you think this is going to happen? Neoliberalism has gone on in leaps and bounds since the GFC. If the GFC can't stop it, how do you imagine it happening? I really think moderate lefties can lose sight of reality. The theory is all good and hunky dory, and despite the fact that the Scandinavian countries are becoming less equal and fair as neoliberalism encroaches hard on them, we can see it in operation for the time being in some of those countries. But they are bit players on the world scene. American neoliberal capitalism dominates the world markets and economies, with China providing the only possible variation on any large scale. China will be interesting to watch in the future. Will it turn to full on neoliberalism, or will it still use the state to protect and nurture corporations and markets? At the moment it is still heavily doing the latter while adopting some neoliberal policies. Will they continue to realise the strength of the state into the future, or will they be swayed by the lure of massive wealth accumulation at the top of society?

[rainbow]

Capitalism is dead.

...except perhaps in the People's Republic of China.

[macdoc]

That would be state capitalism and indeed the difference between that and the slide to fascism in the US ( and perhaps the UK ) is getting pretty narrow.
Us peons are fucked