Wolfgang Streeck wrote in his book "How will Capitalism end?"
Contemporary capitalism is vanishing on its own, collapsing from internal contradictions, and not least as a result of having vanquished its enemies – who, as noted, have often rescued capitalism from itself by forcing it to assume a new form.
What do think? Is capitalism's future really doomed after the demise of its enemies, or will it be with us, and keep dominating our societies as long as our civilisation exists?
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
16 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Wolfgang Streeck is a socialist -- not that I have anything against socialism -- the US has many socialistic ideas embedded in it. Just as socialistic societies have capitalism in it. Two sides of a pendulum that swings back and forth over time. You can find as many capitalists who say that socialism is a lost cause. Should we (as individuals) be allowed to make a profit? Or should we give that profit to help others in our society. An eternal question without an answer. If money and bartering disappeared (like Star Trek shows), would, or could, we move away from personal desire for more than we need? I don't know. But it isn't going to change.
xyz123
Level 7
Oct 31, 2019
0
Many scholars believe that the world is in a better place than it has ever been. War, Famine, and Plague, as they see it, is no longer a concern for us humans. As Yuval Noah Hariri said in his book, Homo Deus: "starvation kills fewer people than obesity; plagues kill fewer people than old age, and suicide claims more lives than violence and accidents combine."
Harari and his contemporary scholars attribute this to the spread of liberalism and capitalism. Both of these ideologies conquered the world in the late 20th century, corresponding with the increase in better living conditions around the globe.
Life expectancy is at 72 and Child mortality rates and the number of people living in extreme poverty are decreasing globally. According to Hans-Rolling in his book Factfullness (2018 ), Roughly only 1 billion of the 7 billion people on earth live in extreme poverty. This is roughly 14% compared to 85% a mere 200 years ago.
Capitalism seems to be doing a good job, as far as helping people get out of extreme poverty, not so much relative poverty. The United Nations had an impact as well. At our current state, most people won't die because of their economic status, but the classic Marxian divide is still there.
The bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the rich and the poor, the have and the have some, and the 1% percent and 99%, this is the major shortcoming of capitalism. It tends to promote wealth inequality. Yes, I am now able to afford a car, but because of my hard work, you can buy 3 of them. This is the hard problem of capitalism and one of the main aspects Marx criticized.
Modern Criticisms of capitalism, argues Harari, fall into two categories: 1. Those who criticize capitalism but offer no alternative.
2. Those who say Capitalism is all fine with me, but I need a fair chance in the system.
The former camp includes, but is not limited to complaints on Global Warming and finite resources. While these issues are pertinent today, the latter camp is the most threating to Capitalism. Think Occupy Wall Street. They weren't protesting capitalism, but instead for their share of the capitalistic dream.
Capitalism seems to be here to stay at the current moment. The wealth inequality issue definitely will have to be addressed, but without a current alternative, it reigns as the most successful system thus far.
Stoic247
Level 5
Oct 21, 2019
0
Capitalism has done more than any other philosophy / ideology to advance the well-being of humanity. What needs to be ended is rampant, unregulated corporatism.
[intpolicydigest.org]
PBuck0145
Level 7
Oct 21, 2019
0
“ Capitalism has done more than any other philosophy/ideology to advance the well-being of humanity.” Tell that to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. What is left of them. And to Africans of the enslavement period.
@PBuck0145 So you agree that Capitalism has inflicted irreparable harm on masses of people, and continues to destroy us through extraction of resources and humans for profit? And you're looking for a response/alternative to it? Very cool! I'd love to have that conversation. Let's start with cooperatives/collectives as a basic socio-economic structure.
@PBuck0145 I am sorry if I was condescending. I would truly like to hear your response about colonial capitalism and its genocidal past and present. I see no defense for the death culture of capitalism, unless one is surviving or even thriving in this culture and chooses to ignore what capitalism has wrought.
@Bobbyzen "Colonial imperialism" is a phrase which is much more valid than is "colonial capitalism". It is disingenuous to imply that capitalism itself is a "death culture". While it is true that capitalists are responsible for millions of deaths, many times more deaths have been caused by the ideologies of Islam and Communism.
I am patiently waiting for you to inform me of one or more instances where "cooperative collectivism" has produced long term benefits to the participating cultures.
Uncle Milton said it best. "Capitalism is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for freedom." and
"People vote with their feet".
@PBuck0145 Friedman’s “trickle-down economics”, implemented by Reagan and continuing to this day, is a scam. It has robbed the U.S. Treasury of the people’s money Look for example at our cities’ roadways, bridges and public transportation—the most decrepit of any developed nation due to redistribution of wealth to the rich instead of reinvestment in our infrastructure.
@PBuck0145 And I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge the genocide of Capitalism. You claim Communism has killed more but offer no proof. And you claim Islam has killed more, not only with no proof, but Islam is not an economic system. Neither is Christianity, also responsible for millions of deaths. You stand by Milton Friedman, fine. We know his economic theories have undermined the lower, working, and middle classes and led to the decay of our infrastructure. You don’t want to discuss viable alternatives. You just want to defend Capitalism. Fine. Defend it. Tell us it is okay to sacrifice untold millions of lives so the privileged can prosper and remain safe.
@PBuck0145 I've been responding to your statement: "Capitalism has done more than any other philosophy / ideology to advance the well-being of humanity". Yet you fail to respond. You fail to acknowledge the catastrophic damage of Capitalism. You could say that yes, Capitalism is responsible for the enslavement of Africans, the genocide of indigenous peoples native to the Americas. You could say yes, Capitalism is responsible for the extraction of fossil fuels and its devastation of our climate. You could say Capitalism is responsible for the dumping of toxins on our lands. You could acknowledge that America's health care system is among the worst in the developed world - worst in terms of health outcomes like longevity and mothers and babies dying in childbirth. All of this because of the drive for profits. Instead, you want me to name a better system without you offering even a hint of agreement that Capitalism is indeed hell bent on destruction of any being in its path in the name of profits. No, I ain't playing until you show a semblence of openness to a real conversations.
Karl Marx said that capitalismn is like a parasitic plant that flourishes on its host as long as the host is healthy. But after a while, the host dies and so will the parasite. We have a limited amount of finite natural resources and a limited number of markets . It will end , no doubt about it, either with a bang or with a whimper.
Spinliesel
Level 9
Oct 21, 2019
1
Capitalism will not go quietly into the night. Even its victims defend it, as noted in the quote, unable to envision an alternative other than to “regulate” it, which is a way to surrender power to Capitalists, allowing Capitalists to dictate the terms of our surrender. Without a rebellion on a massive scale—which these days seems unlikely—extraction of resources from humans, animals and the earth by Capitalists will continue until the human species finally expires.
Bobbyzen
Level 8
Oct 21, 2019
0
This article has some interesting views on “fixing“ capitalism.
Haemish1
Level 8
Oct 20, 2019
0
There are only a few ways I can forsee capitalism ending. Streeck might make a good argument, although without reading the book I will never know what it is. Capitalism happens to work very well with human nature, by allowing people to do as they please tends to mobilize resources the fastest, and it is human nature that inevitably spoils it.
Although I can't forsee our current economic model working on a global scale, I can't think of a good reason that some form of capitalism would not work globally, that is to say without any enemies.
Personaly, I don't think capitalism will ever really go away. However in the coming decades we will see the rise of automation that will all but eliminate the need for work and I can see why that might cause some issues.
Happy_Killbot
Level 7
Oct 20, 2019
2
I think Capitalism, Socialism, yes and even Fascism are tools. It makes no sense to use the same tool for every challenge.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail and is treated accordingly. That's not much help if you are trying to deal with a bad hair day.
Capitalism is a good tool for providing elective services at the lowest cost.
It is not a good tool for providing mandatory services at any cost, like medicine, bridges, power, telecommunication infrastructure.
By contrast, those are services that are mandatory and are best provided by a Socialist structure. But that socialist structure may not be able to provide a tasty popular doughnut or affordable functional personal computers.
On the Fascist front ... I don't think a military run by Socialists nor Capitalists is a good idea.
Anyway ... the point is, we need to select the appropriate tool for the appropriate issue and stop this "all one way or the other" type thinking.
@Normanbites I completely disagree for reasons that are technical albeit quite fundamental. First off, there is no such thing as having an economy or society that is completely unitary in nature. All the terms we use to describe our economy are umbrella terms for a basic framework ideology or social structure. Every type of economy is going to have aspects that are similar or even outright identical to aspects of another.
For example, under a capitalist system that uses stocks to signify ownership in a company, a co-op may be founded where all the workers receive stock certificates and any profit inuring on those certificates as part of or all of their pay. This is socialism. Likewise, a country that is entirely socialist may still have to compete with other companies from outside their boarders, and that would be capitalism.
However, an economy that has mixed economic types within industries is unstable. For example, there is much heated debate over making health care private vs public. You can not sustainable do both. To demonstrate this, imagine you are in charge of a drug manufacturing company that produces medication that is life saving for a few individuals, however it is expensive and time consuming to make. In a capitalist system, you price the drug where the supply and demand curves meet and sell it for that amount. This has the effect that some people will be unable to afford it, potentially costing them their lives. If you drop the cost, your company may go out of business and then no one can get the drug unless another manufacturer starts producing it, in which case they face the same dilemma. If you can produce the drug for cheaper, through innovation or by increasing efficiency, you can sell the drug for less.
If Health care is paid for by the state which is in turn funded by taxes, then the drug can be profitably manufactured to meet 100% of persons who need it. This however means that the price of the efficiency and total cost of making the drug is meaningless, so there is no motivation for you to decrease the manufacturing cost of the drug. So if a critical part of the manufacturing process is to make bets on racehorses, that would be justified. Thus this mixed system isn't stable, because the most logical move the manufacturer can do is to maximize the price of the drug.
If the drugs are manufactured by the state through government owned programs, then as much of the drug can be manufactured as is needed by the people, and there is an incentive to do so as cheaply as possible, specifically so that funding could be sent elsewhere.
@Happy_Killbot It sounds to me that in the end we are in raging agreement.
@Normanbites Sort of. The difference is a bit nuanced, my comment seeks to refine rather than replace by exposing underlying complexity. A nation that is state capitalist in some sectors and privatized in others is fascist because fascisim is an ideology rather than an economic model. So all the 14 things that happen to a nation ( and already apply to the US ) that adopts this as their guiding ideology would start to happen to that country. You can only have one ideology and one economic model, but either of these things can be more specific and specialized
If this still doesn't make sense let me give an analogy. You may have heard that the sun fuses hydrogen because of its gravity. This is only right in so far as gravity brought the hydrogen together, but if it were true the just adding high pressure to hydrogen would cause it to fuse. This is not true, so the original statement is wrong by technicality. The reality is that stars fuse hydrogen because of their mass being large enough that the probability that hydrogen fuses is a mathematical certainty.
Capitalism (corporatism), seems to be alive and thriving currently in the U.S. Unions, living wage jobs and at a low point . Just look who is in the White House, how he got there, and who is keeping him there. There is no telling how the 2020 electin will go...he could be there for another four years as could his majority in the Senate. Shudder!
dahermit
Level 7
Oct 20, 2019
0
I read Thomas Piketty's book. The basic premise was that all the economic data ever collected everywhere says that capital gained through having money (rent, business, interest, stocks, etc) always increases faster than money gained through work. Over time, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer until the system is unsustainable (revolution), or until there are some other checks on the system (taxes on the rich, government money pouring into society as a whole through a war, GI bill, etc).
Capitalism is great for certain things, and terrible for others. If the value of the goal on balance is more (or entirely) a value other than money, market forces do not work. If you need a drug to save your life, you will always value your life more than the person selling you the drug values the money they want for it (personal finance guru Suze Orman used to say "People first, then money, then things", and situations like this put the things first, the money second, and the people last as the drug comes first, the money for it comes second, and the person--broke if they want to live--comes last...and those unable to afford it die, placing the money and the drug at more value than people...and most of those who CAN afford it end up broke and priced out of any other markets going forward).
The military, infrastructure, and education are other areas where market forces do not work very well because the value between the money and the service can never have balance (because, like in health care, what you are paying for is essential...but in this case essential for the health of the entire society when individuals feel like they should be able skip out on the cost if they do not see a direct and immediate benefit to themselves personally).
As a personal anecdote, I know a teacher who recently moved to my state because of the low teacher pay in his state. That seems like a natural market force. But part of the reason his pay was low was that he lived in an area where it was mostly old people who didn't want to pay for the education of other people's kids, so they continually vote no to increase taxes for education. So the old people don't have to pay more taxes, and good teachers leave the state...and the actual VALUE in that system (the education of the children) diminishes with no recourse for the children (the receivers of the actual value that trickles down to society as a whole over time). You might suggest "charter schools" as an alternative, yet the motive in those schools is money first, which may be why data shows they are often (if not always) less effective than public schools. (Data shows rich students do better than poor students because they have continuous access to better resources, often included educated parents. Poor students do equally well when time at school is increased...which costs money.)
Likewise, the military and infrastructure are valuable to society as a whole, but less valuable to us as individuals if we were given the choice to chip in our share of the cost or not. On the other end, the military's budget is bloated because the nature of the entire "market" is lopsided, and lopsided in multiple ways. Remember a few years ago when Congress kept funding the Abram's Tanks the Army kept saying it didn't want because the manufacturers provided many jobs in certain congressional districts? In this instance, the market forces are working exactly the opposite to how they are supposed to work. (Apparently the tanks are parked in the desert somewhere collecting sand.)
greyeyed123
Level 7
Oct 20, 2019
6
After WWII , there was a huge baby boom , as those returning from the war , began families . Today , the Baby Bomers , are senior citizens , their families have grown and are on their own , they are no longer needing to buy homes , furnish them , or support their families . So , of course , they're buying a lot less . Contraceptives , were big news , during the late 1900's , so family sizes decreased . Chains of stores that expanded as the Baby Boomers came of age , are now shrinking due to the fact that they are no longer needed as they had been . The fact that Capitalism , is adjusting to meet today's reduced requirements , does not mean it's failing . It means that it's adjusting , and therefore is more lilkely to succeed . In the animal kingdom , the animals which could adjust survived . It's the animals who could not adjust , which died out .
Cast1es
Level 9
Oct 20, 2019
0
We may be planning our own demise, then, as markets do what is best for them, not what is best for people. Very soon we will have self-driving long-haul trucks, eliminating millions of jobs, and this kind of trend will only continue. Several years ago Google bought all the robotics companies, and the progress they are making is scary.
Without reading the book it’s hard to give an opinion. In a free and open society there is constant change, constant shuffling of business formations.
There’s plenty of room for improvement—for reform, but that doesn’t mean that capitalism needs to be brought down and replaced with Marxism.
I’d say that in the US, private enterprise is failing miserably in the area of health care. IMO that’s because the normal forces of supply and demand that regulate free enterprise have been circumvented, and government policies have abetted that circumvention in some cases. It could also be that private enterprise is simply not capable of meeting our needs and that some level of government participation is needed. We should look at what works in other countries.
I really like the idea of State Capitalism as is practiced in China, Norway and other countries, even Canada to some degree.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Oct 20, 2019
2
Didn’t our current level of government involvement in healthcare come about due to a failure of free markets/supply and demand?
While China has grown a enormous middle class in an amazingly short time, haven’t they done it without incorporating basic human rights like Norway and Canada have?
@Haemish1 First question: only partly. It’s been a very long time since the health care industry was subjected to purely supply and demand forces. Due to government policies regarding insurance, patients are unable to shop for the best deal—they don’t even know the proposed charges.
Second question: I don’t know a lot about human rights in China. That is a separate issue. I do not propose to copy China in every aspect.
@WilliamFleming
The free market in healthcare probably ended when doctors stopped making house calls and accepting chickens for compensation.
I believe Harry Truman was trying to bring about a National healthcare system.
I'm not sure what government regulations were in force at the time, (perhaps insurance companies were required to be non profit?) but I think things got out of control in the 80‘s when HMO‘s began to dominate the system.
@WilliamFleming Ahem, excuse me, but the scarcity of supply (of doctors) relative to the demand has more to do with the hegemony and dominance of the American Medical Association (AMA) over the fundamental capitalist levers of health care.
What made you think the insurance companies might've had to be non-profit?
No, premiums were meant to be paid by the employer, that's all.
That they got too expensive just means the number of patients (population),and thus DEMAND, rose faster than the number of doctors, that is, SUPPLY, and premiums got too expensive.
That simple.
Capitalism as practiced in China is in what way similar to that that is practiced in Norway, Canada?
@dahermit I’m no expert on China but I do know that they have embraced capitalism to some degree. For example, I read that their military is financed by a huge stock market fund. Canada has a large investment account used to fund pensions. Norway is one of the worlds biggest stockholders.
Look up “State Capitalism”
@WilliamFleming Northern European countries do not have "State Socialism", they just have more social programs than the U.S. has. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union there are only a few insignificant State Socialist countries. So, there is no big debate over which of the two systems is superior. The great debate that is pertinent to the current state of affairs in the U.S. should be, is the U.S. system superior or inferior to those Northern European countries with more social programs than ours.
@dahermit I did not say that the countries of Northern Europe have either State Socialism or State Capitalism. What I said was that NORWAY has State Capitalism.
I am in favor of a few well-managed social programs, but those programs have to be financed somehow. They are financed by free enterprise.
I posit it will become obsolete. Irrelevant. No longer applicable to the "facts on the ground." Technology, I predict, will provide for all physical needs without need for MANual labor.
I believe we are so still in thrall of old thinking generated by the "old religions," which of course are unfortunately still with us, it's hard to think beyond it.
Armaggedon (self-fulfilling prophecy?), the simplistic duality of good and evil and man's essentially 'evil' nature, original 'sin,' the inevitability of scarcity, pain, and suffering, etc.
It need not be that way but we have been conditioned since birth to believe it.
This is the pernicious essence of the religious mindset in which we are steeped and marinated. And who can blame our ancestors for thinking this way? That was their reality. Indeed it is ours as well, for now.
As is capitalism.
Republicans think (or pretend to think) they invented capitalism and are in the process of perfecting it via "supply-side" voodoo economics and Ayn Rand-style Objectivism, but as we should know by now it's a carefully-crafted illusion, invented or co-opted by the rich to justify their avarice and greed. And/or they really believe this nonsense.
Whatever.
I think Democratic socialism is now, to one degree or another, the trend, and will eventually evolve into communism once the technology supports it.
Storm1752
Level 8
Oct 20, 2019
4
Communism was highly touted by the USSR but was eclipsed by the free market. Look at what works, not at some failed utopian bureaucratic solution.
@WilliamFleming A NEO-communism based on democracy and intelligent use of modern technology, not on a fascist, totalitarian political system and a top-down command economy.
One of the main reasons the old system failed was because it was impossible to adequately control and coordinate all the elements of production.
For instance, an automobile requires hundreds of constituent parts. To arrange for the correct allocation of resources, any bureaucracy would be stretched to it's limit for even that one product.
Multiply that by countless products over the width and depth of a gigantic economy, and efficiency would be impossible.
Add to that a demoralized, underpaid, unmotivated work force, and failure over time was inevitable.
HOWEVER, employing automation guided by computers, no such limitations would apply.
Sometimes the lessons of history are fallacious.
Applying old outcomes to new conditions and potentialities can be misleading.
A failed, coercive communistic system managed and administered by a hopelessly incompetent bureaucracy is no model on which to base future applications.
Moreover, old-style communism was not ECLIPSED by capitalism, but rather was pre-dated by capitalism.
Capitalism has been around since the first Caveman traded with his neighbor a stout stick for a pretty rock!
Communism was meant to correct some of its glaring shortcomings. That it failed because of the aforementioned deficiencies does NOT mean capitalism's shortcomings do not exist. It just means the right remedy was not yet found.
@WilliamFleming "Communism was highly touted by the USSR but was eclipsed by the free market. Look at what works, not at some failed utopian bureaucratic solution." Are Demark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, all those countries with higher standard of living than ours, universal health care, lower infant mortality rate, much less crime, fewer people in prisons, happier people, etc., etc., "...failed utopian bureaucratic..."?
@dahermit No they are not. And they are not Marxist states either are they? They have seen fit the establish social programs that are of benefit, and those programs are paid for by free market enterprise.
@WilliamFleming I didn't SAY Marxist-Leninist, did I? I said COMMUNIST. And I didn't say, "Soviet-style communism," did I?
No.
I'm talking about something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, as I said above.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.