What (if anything) will replace capitalism and when?

[wimp]

.

[PSOL]

Generally the rate of global profits has to first hit zero, which I’ve seen estimates of that occurring in 2050. Most likely the global dominance of Capitalism will continue onwards as the state pushes them over the break-even point through massive subsidies, which it is already doing with Amazon and everything involving Musk. The high level of political involvement for the growth of these large corporations, most notably in Big Tech oligopolies diversifying now into land (Bill Gates) and crypto (Facebook).

While overblown compared from previous initiatives by the oil and rail oligarchs of the past, the immense wealth accumulation and elimination of competitors through regulatory capture along with immense consolidation, has been referred to as Neo-Feudalism among some circles—which is just fascism to it’s obvious conclusion. Of course; the examples in the West are minor compared to the clear examples of Hungary under Fidesz, the absolute takeover of the Iranian economy through bonyads and the Sepah’s businesses, and Myanmar’s military kleptocracy being so bad that it pushes the NLD and ethnic parties to be supported by 85+% of the population.

Outside of complete idealism best emphasized by the “Great Reset” and “4th industrial revolution” pushed by Davos, there is completely no chance of the international capitalist order surviving on an international scale. The messiah of technological innovation didn’t save the Feudalism and slave societies of old, and it won’t save them now. Regionally perhaps, but I doubt it.

The alternative to both the current capitalism in decay and neo-feudalism is socialism and further democracy, but whether it can even have the same hold as in the 20th century or much less succeed is up in the air. I say this because seeing Korea struggle to rein in its Chaebols has only made it more clear that the choices really just are socialism or barbarianism. Socialism depends really on the infrastructure present worldwide, which has seen a revival of sorts not just in South America and Asia, but has slowly grown in the African continent with the collapse of each and every comprador regime.

The timescale for this transition will probably last 100-200 years as each and every remnant on the corners of the globe.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Society will have already collapsed thanks to capitalism, there will be no second chances.

[jaichind]

Something like Borg

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

What does capitalism mean to you?

If it means the regime of a decentralized market economy based on broad-but-not-universal property ownership, buttressed by liberal democracy (which seems to be the colloquial definition) that is probably well on its way out already. What percentage of Americans own their houses (or cars, or phones) outright? What portion of the distribution of goods and services is centrally planned through places like Amazon, Alibaba, and Walmart? What percentage of the stock market is owned by passively managed index funds? How is liberal democracy doing right now?

As for what replaces it, IDK. What I can say is that at present the trends seem to be 1) increasing central management of agriculture and consumer goods 2) increased state ownership in organs protected from democracy (cf: the Bank of Japan's longterm buying strategy, the success of the "china model," the expansion of the Fed's balance sheet in the ongoing coronavirus crisis) 3) the decay of small-scale ownership and the rise of leasing/permanent indebtedness 4) increasing growth of security states and bureaucracies both public, private, and in the gray space between the two. Given sufficient continuation of those trends I think you could call it a different system from capitalism, tho idk what an easy term would be. Neo-Feudalism? The China Model?


Buy hey who knows that could all exchange in a flourishing of social, economic, and political democracy in 50 years! Who knows?

[vitoNova]

Provided we don't nuke ourselves, probably some sort of socio-economic-political dichotomy of AI vs. humans.

Philip K. Dick knew what was up. 

[ale62]

Replacing it with what? Not sure the 3rd way has been really found sorry LOL

[If my soul was made of stone]

Either paternalistic technocratic oligarchy or eco-fascism, depending on the pace of technological expansion over the next half century.

[Velasco]

I don't have a clue.  

A Spanish economist who gained credit for predicting the last financial crisis has some ideas about the evolution of capitalism in the years to come. He foresees increasing inequality and concentration of wealth, with (technological) megacorporations taking over. The power of governments will be diminished to a great degree and the role of ideology and politics will render irrelevant. Economic growth will stall or slow down, due to the scarcity of resources. Technocratic governments will be the norm and their task will be managing scarcity. Automation will imply millions of lost jobs. Welfare state will be reduced to thebare minimum. In order to keep the social order, basic income will be implemented at a global scale,  maybe financed by the almighty megacorporations. Capitalism will run its course through these and other developments until its replacement by something else, sometime between 2050 and 2100. That's what I recall

[Hope For A New Era]

Essentially, a feudal system.

See those Silicon Valley companies building apartment complexes for their employees who can't afford to live there anymore? It's only the beginning.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Imagine trying to ask someone (even a brilliant intellectual) in 1300 what would replace feudalism. Whatever they're going to say would bear no resemblance to capitalism as it actually developed.

System-wide changes are something that transcends any thinker's ability to understand and any ruler's ability to shape, so this is in every respect a fool's errand.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Imagine trying to ask someone (even a brilliant intellectual) in 1300 what would replace feudalism. Whatever they're going to say would bear no resemblance to capitalism as it actually developed.

System-wide changes are something that transcends any thinker's ability to understand and any ruler's ability to shape, so this is in every respect a fool's errand.

I can fully imagine someone who was familiar with the proto-capitalist Hanseatic League or the Italian mercantile republics (Venice, Genoa etc.) foreseeing that mode of production becoming the norm.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Imagine trying to ask someone (even a brilliant intellectual) in 1300 what would replace feudalism. Whatever they're going to say would bear no resemblance to capitalism as it actually developed.

System-wide changes are something that transcends any thinker's ability to understand and any ruler's ability to shape, so this is in every respect a fool's errand.

I can fully imagine someone who was familiar with the proto-capitalist Hanseatic League or the Italian mercantile republics (Venice, Genoa etc.) foreseeing that mode of production becoming the norm.

But modern industrial capitalism only bears the slightest resemblance to the kind of mercantile proto-capitalism these areas practiced. It's possible for us to see the through line between them with the benefit of hindsight, but actually predicting how it would develop at the time is a whole different matter.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Imagine trying to ask someone (even a brilliant intellectual) in 1300 what would replace feudalism. Whatever they're going to say would bear no resemblance to capitalism as it actually developed.

System-wide changes are something that transcends any thinker's ability to understand and any ruler's ability to shape, so this is in every respect a fool's errand.

I can fully imagine someone who was familiar with the proto-capitalist Hanseatic League or the Italian mercantile republics (Venice, Genoa etc.) foreseeing that mode of production becoming the norm.

But modern industrial capitalism only bears the slightest resemblance to the kind of mercantile proto-capitalism these areas practiced. It's possible for us to see the through line between them with the benefit of hindsight, but actually predicting how it would develop at the time is a whole different matter.

Oh yes no doubt. But I don't think the concept of a social and political system dominated by merchants subsuming feudalism would've been that alien to more learned peoples living in Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Imagine trying to ask someone (even a brilliant intellectual) in 1300 what would replace feudalism. Whatever they're going to say would bear no resemblance to capitalism as it actually developed.

System-wide changes are something that transcends any thinker's ability to understand and any ruler's ability to shape, so this is in every respect a fool's errand.

I can fully imagine someone who was familiar with the proto-capitalist Hanseatic League or the Italian mercantile republics (Venice, Genoa etc.) foreseeing that mode of production becoming the norm.

But modern industrial capitalism only bears the slightest resemblance to the kind of mercantile proto-capitalism these areas practiced. It's possible for us to see the through line between them with the benefit of hindsight, but actually predicting how it would develop at the time is a whole different matter.

Oh yes no doubt. But I don't think the concept of a social and political system dominated by merchants subsuming feudalism would've been that alien to more learned peoples living in Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

Yes, it could certainly have seemed like a plausible evolution, but that's different from saying "this looks like a plausible direction things might go" and actually making a predicting which direction things will actually go. Like, tell me, how would you apply this analogy to today? What classes do you see getting the better of the capitalists and taking over society? I could think of a few plausible candidates, but that's still a shot in the dark and not a particularly useful exercise.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Imagine trying to ask someone (even a brilliant intellectual) in 1300 what would replace feudalism. Whatever they're going to say would bear no resemblance to capitalism as it actually developed.

System-wide changes are something that transcends any thinker's ability to understand and any ruler's ability to shape, so this is in every respect a fool's errand.

I can fully imagine someone who was familiar with the proto-capitalist Hanseatic League or the Italian mercantile republics (Venice, Genoa etc.) foreseeing that mode of production becoming the norm.

But modern industrial capitalism only bears the slightest resemblance to the kind of mercantile proto-capitalism these areas practiced. It's possible for us to see the through line between them with the benefit of hindsight, but actually predicting how it would develop at the time is a whole different matter.

Oh yes no doubt. But I don't think the concept of a social and political system dominated by merchants subsuming feudalism would've been that alien to more learned peoples living in Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

Yes, it could certainly have seemed like a plausible evolution, but that's different from saying "this looks like a plausible direction things might go" and actually making a predicting which direction things will actually go. Like, tell me, how would you apply this analogy to today? What classes do you see getting the better of the capitalists and taking over society? I could think of a few plausible candidates, but that's still a shot in the dark and not a particularly useful exercise.

The proletariat.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Imagine trying to ask someone (even a brilliant intellectual) in 1300 what would replace feudalism. Whatever they're going to say would bear no resemblance to capitalism as it actually developed.

System-wide changes are something that transcends any thinker's ability to understand and any ruler's ability to shape, so this is in every respect a fool's errand.

I can fully imagine someone who was familiar with the proto-capitalist Hanseatic League or the Italian mercantile republics (Venice, Genoa etc.) foreseeing that mode of production becoming the norm.

But modern industrial capitalism only bears the slightest resemblance to the kind of mercantile proto-capitalism these areas practiced. It's possible for us to see the through line between them with the benefit of hindsight, but actually predicting how it would develop at the time is a whole different matter.

Oh yes no doubt. But I don't think the concept of a social and political system dominated by merchants subsuming feudalism would've been that alien to more learned peoples living in Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

Yes, it could certainly have seemed like a plausible evolution, but that's different from saying "this looks like a plausible direction things might go" and actually making a predicting which direction things will actually go. Like, tell me, how would you apply this analogy to today? What classes do you see getting the better of the capitalists and taking over society? I could think of a few plausible candidates, but that's still a shot in the dark and not a particularly useful exercise.

The proletariat.

"The proletariat" as Marx understood it doesn't even really exist as a meaningful class anymore.

[PSOL]

Imagine trying to ask someone (even a brilliant intellectual) in 1300 what would replace feudalism. Whatever they're going to say would bear no resemblance to capitalism as it actually developed.

System-wide changes are something that transcends any thinker's ability to understand and any ruler's ability to shape, so this is in every respect a fool's errand.

I can fully imagine someone who was familiar with the proto-capitalist Hanseatic League or the Italian mercantile republics (Venice, Genoa etc.) foreseeing that mode of production becoming the norm.

But modern industrial capitalism only bears the slightest resemblance to the kind of mercantile proto-capitalism these areas practiced. It's possible for us to see the through line between them with the benefit of hindsight, but actually predicting how it would develop at the time is a whole different matter.

Oh yes no doubt. But I don't think the concept of a social and political system dominated by merchants subsuming feudalism would've been that alien to more learned peoples living in Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

Yes, it could certainly have seemed like a plausible evolution, but that's different from saying "this looks like a plausible direction things might go" and actually making a predicting which direction things will actually go. Like, tell me, how would you apply this analogy to today? What classes do you see getting the better of the capitalists and taking over society? I could think of a few plausible candidates, but that's still a shot in the dark and not a particularly useful exercise.

The proletariat.

"The proletariat" as Marx understood it doesn't even really exist as a meaningful class anymore.

“The Proletariat” as low income wage-earners still exists as the majority of any given area. Just because they aren’t engaged in menial labor doesn’t cease making them members of the working class.

 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Imagine trying to ask someone (even a brilliant intellectual) in 1300 what would replace feudalism. Whatever they're going to say would bear no resemblance to capitalism as it actually developed.

System-wide changes are something that transcends any thinker's ability to understand and any ruler's ability to shape, so this is in every respect a fool's errand.

I can fully imagine someone who was familiar with the proto-capitalist Hanseatic League or the Italian mercantile republics (Venice, Genoa etc.) foreseeing that mode of production becoming the norm.

But modern industrial capitalism only bears the slightest resemblance to the kind of mercantile proto-capitalism these areas practiced. It's possible for us to see the through line between them with the benefit of hindsight, but actually predicting how it would develop at the time is a whole different matter.

Oh yes no doubt. But I don't think the concept of a social and political system dominated by merchants subsuming feudalism would've been that alien to more learned peoples living in Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

Yes, it could certainly have seemed like a plausible evolution, but that's different from saying "this looks like a plausible direction things might go" and actually making a predicting which direction things will actually go. Like, tell me, how would you apply this analogy to today? What classes do you see getting the better of the capitalists and taking over society? I could think of a few plausible candidates, but that's still a shot in the dark and not a particularly useful exercise.

The proletariat.

"The proletariat" as Marx understood it doesn't even really exist as a meaningful class anymore.

“The Proletariat” as low income wage-earners still exists as the majority of any given area. Just because they aren’t engaged in menial labor doesn’t cease making them members of the working class.

Defining "the proletariat" as "low-income wage-earners" is either too broad or too narrow for whatever purpose you have. If you're following the Marxist logic, the proletariat is anyone who doesn't own means of production (which as your definition implies, includes people who are by all accounts very well-off). But if you want a class analysis that accounts for modern developments, you have to recognize that "low-income wage-earners" encompasses a variety of social situation with material interests that often diverge and sometimes are outright in conflict (indeed, that's a big part of why socialist-inspired movements across the developed world are in crisis). So to just blindly cling to the idea that the proletariat is destined to take over imminently is more dogma than anything grounded in empirical reality.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Imagine trying to ask someone (even a brilliant intellectual) in 1300 what would replace feudalism. Whatever they're going to say would bear no resemblance to capitalism as it actually developed.

System-wide changes are something that transcends any thinker's ability to understand and any ruler's ability to shape, so this is in every respect a fool's errand.

I can fully imagine someone who was familiar with the proto-capitalist Hanseatic League or the Italian mercantile republics (Venice, Genoa etc.) foreseeing that mode of production becoming the norm.

But modern industrial capitalism only bears the slightest resemblance to the kind of mercantile proto-capitalism these areas practiced. It's possible for us to see the through line between them with the benefit of hindsight, but actually predicting how it would develop at the time is a whole different matter.

Oh yes no doubt. But I don't think the concept of a social and political system dominated by merchants subsuming feudalism would've been that alien to more learned peoples living in Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

Yes, it could certainly have seemed like a plausible evolution, but that's different from saying "this looks like a plausible direction things might go" and actually making a predicting which direction things will actually go. Like, tell me, how would you apply this analogy to today? What classes do you see getting the better of the capitalists and taking over society? I could think of a few plausible candidates, but that's still a shot in the dark and not a particularly useful exercise.

The proletariat.

"The proletariat" as Marx understood it doesn't even really exist as a meaningful class anymore.

“The Proletariat” as low income wage-earners still exists as the majority of any given area. Just because they aren’t engaged in menial labor doesn’t cease making them members of the working class.

Defining "the proletariat" as "low-income wage-earners" is either too broad or too narrow for whatever purpose you have. If you're following the Marxist logic, the proletariat is anyone who doesn't own means of production (which as your definition implies, includes people who are by all accounts very well-off). But if you want a class analysis that accounts for modern developments, you have to recognize that "low-income wage-earners" encompasses a variety of social situation with material interests that often diverge and sometimes are outright in conflict (indeed, that's a big part of why socialist-inspired movements across the developed world are in crisis). So to just blindly cling to the idea that the proletariat is destined to take over imminently is more dogma than anything grounded in empirical reality.

But that isn't that new of an issue. The thing is that even when Karl Marx first began writing theory in the 19th century the class of people who can be defined as "wage-earners who don't own the means of production" already encompassed a variety of social situations with material interests that diverge and can be in conflict. This was a fact that Marx was both aware of and accounted for when writing his analysis. His claim was that ultimately the proletariat's shared relationship to capital would come to negate their other conflicting interests.

I agree 100% that Marxist ideology is in dire need of an update for the 21st century. But the foundation still rings very true even today. I don't cling to this for dogmatic reasons, but because it is empirical reality.  The proletariat share more in common due to their relationship to capital no matter what the other circumstances are, and political and social change can and should be built around that shared experience and standing.

The thing is that I guess I actually depart from PSOL on this matter. I think saying that the proletariat is made up of "low income" wage earners is immaterial and actually counter to Marxist theory. The amount of the wage isn't what Marx is concerned with, just as much as Marx isn't concerned with whether or not the proletariat are doing old-school physical industrial work (a lot of people fall for this trap, and I don't really blame anyone who does).

But at the end of the day the extraction of a worker's surplus value from their labor, and the fact that they don't own the means of the production keeps them alienated from their work and from capitalist society. That was as true of the 19th century as it is of the 21st. The technology and the social situation have absolutely changed, but the structure and the economic relationship between workers and owners remains at it's base the same.

[Cassandra]

My gut says capitalism will persist until our technological complex civilization is overwhelmed by the demons of its creation (climate change, soil degradation, pollution, etc.). Whatever simpler society arises from our ashes will need many generations of growth and strife before capital accumulates to a level sufficient for a new capitalism.

[Diabolical Materialism]

My gut says capitalism will persist until our technological complex civilization is overwhelmed by the demons of its creation (climate change, soil degradation, pollution, etc.). Whatever simpler society arises from our ashes will need many generations of growth and strife before capital accumulates to a level sufficient for a new capitalism.

Socialism or barbarism, comrade.

[Cassandra]

My gut says capitalism will persist until our technological complex civilization is overwhelmed by the demons of its creation (climate change, soil degradation, pollution, etc.). Whatever simpler society arises from our ashes will need many generations of growth and strife before capital accumulates to a level sufficient for a new capitalism.

Socialism or barbarism, comrade.

I appreciate the optimism implicit in the suggestion that socialism is a realistic path forward in contemporary America. I can't help but think we passed the last off-ramp sometime in the 20th century (sometime between the failure of the German Revolution in 1919 and the CIA blowing off JFK head, I suppose). I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong.

[PSOL]

My gut says capitalism will persist until our technological complex civilization is overwhelmed by the demons of its creation (climate change, soil degradation, pollution, etc.). Whatever simpler society arises from our ashes will need many generations of growth and strife before capital accumulates to a level sufficient for a new capitalism.

Socialism or barbarism, comrade.

I appreciate the optimism implicit in the suggestion that socialism is a realistic path forward in contemporary America. I can't help but think we passed the last off-ramp sometime in the 20th century (sometime between the failure of the German Revolution in 1919 and the CIA blowing off JFK head, I suppose). I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong.

I’m sure the remaining leaders of the Peasant revolution in Germany would have shared the same pessimism.

[Benjamin Frank]

One of the definitions of capitalism is that the firms operating seek to maximize profits (more or less.)  

Using that definition, the South Korean Chaebol system isn't really capitalist.  'Crony capitalism' in other parts of the world could lead them to adopt similar systems to the Chaebol.

The most positive scenario that replaces capitalism is anything that eliminates scarcity like 'free energy' or a device that can make products out of elements in the air.

The most negative has been discussed here: a climate catastrophe.  Neo-feudalism is a situation that only the Republican hierarchy wants, but technically it's still capitalist as long as products are sold to other people at profit maximizing prices.