Is the end of capitalism nigh?

[LadyDeliah]

I, as some of you may have guessed, inhabit the left of the political spectrum and am interested in whether capitalism has actually finally gone as far as it can.

It seems to me to be in it's death throws and I am looking forward to being alive to witness a new social structure.

This may be somewhat premature, but one can live in hope!

of the problems with the current political/financial system by an academic named David Harvey.

[Loz]

I think the most interesting thing he said was, "I don't have the solutions". And that is the issue. I hear a lot about the death of capitalism, but very little about what anyone thinks can feasibly replace it. Most of the people saying replace it are, I think, secretly hoping for a socialist state, but dare not speak it's name because they know that no one actually wants it.

Anyway, as Mark Twain would say, the reports of capitalism's death are greatly exaggerated. It will do what it has always done, learn and adapt from each 'crisis'. Maybe one day one of the crises will overwhelm it, but I don't think that day is here yet.

And if it is, you won't get a socialist revolution, you'll get a world war.

[Loz]

BTW, LD - you and I have a different view of what a 'short analysis' is...!

[mockney piers]

No*.

*now that's a short analysis

[Jeremy]

I think that recent events have demonstrated that a free market just doesn't work very well. But that doesn't mean that capitalism doesn't work - it means that it needs to be partnered with sensible regulations and safety nets.

At the moment I don't think there's an alternative. So far socialism hasn't done a very good job delivering the qualities most of us value in a society - such as propsperity, freedom, or even equality.

[LadyDeliah]

I think the centralist notions of 'socialism' and/or communism just replaced one elite with another, so I don't want that model myself.

I think increased local decision making and empowering people to run their little bit of the world might hold some of the answers. It's a bit too close to anarchism for most people though, and unlikely to be popular due to the (incorrect) association of anarchism with violence.

If anyone thinks they have the answers, I'd run a mile, as I don't think any one-size-fits-all answer will work. Unlike Loz though, I do think this is the big crisis to end all crises of capitalism and the only way to get through will be grass roots co-operation and pulling together the talents of everyone.

Not sure if we'll end up with a police state before that happens though. Hopefully not.

My spelling is so rubbish - 3 edits so far!

[Huguenot]

I don't think anarchism works simply because it's inefficient.

Local groups can't pull together to feed, clothe and empower their community because the means of production needs to be organised to deliver efficiently at the current population weights.

Anarchism is a dream of an essentially agrarian fantasy not too far distance from John Major's 'Old maids bicycling to holy communion through the morning mist'.

The only way manageable populations could be delivered would be so inhumane that they would corrupt the soul of the movement.

To claim the death of capitalism is to assume that it already exists in a 'pure' form anyway - which it doesn't. The only question is the degree of regulation. This is essentially an 'analogue' control, not a 'binary' one: i.e. capitalism is not either on or off, it's simply of varying influence.

[Threadhead]

Have you read Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man (1992)? He asked exactly the same question of socialism. He saw the end of the 20th century as the culmination of the ideological struggle between liberalism and socialism, with liberalism the victor.

Interestingly, he saw the main threats to liberal societies/economies in the 21st century to be religious fundamentalism and nationalism.

Also, what do you mean by capitalism? Huge corporations exerting monopoly control over consumers and governments, or economies with high levels of competition where consumers have the power to reduce inefficient and exploitative firms to bankruptcy? Adam Smith (who has been almost as widely misinterpreted in recent years as John Maynard Keynes) argued for the latter, not the former.

[Jeremy]

Anarchism is a broad concept, which can incorporate collective cooperation. It's attractive in theory, but in reality, if modern society was to be plunged into this sort of existence, disorder and chaos (i.e. the popular definition of "anarchy") would probably prevail.

If Cameron can't get "Big Society" to work, I'm not sure what chance we'd have of implementing the sort of extreme micro-devolution LD describes. Unless we're put in the position where we have no choice but to manage ourselves.

I personally think that today's biggest problems - including the financial crisis, global warming, declining fossil fuels, natural/humanitarian disasters - would be best solved with global cooperation (although it ain't happening at the moment...)

[Huguenot]

That was kind of my point - I wasn't suggesting that anarchist movements couldn't operate collectively - I was trying to say that the distribution of resources that are vital and necessary for a modern society is so fragmented around the world that it requires co-operation on a scale that anarchy couldn't co-ordinate.

I'm sure that anarchist groups could find ways of operating on a community level, but I also have no doubt that would be quite impossible on a global scale.

The only society that could sustain itself in such a context would be a low density agrarian one. Even that wouldn't work across vaste swathes of the planet, where many societies can only import sufficient foodstuffs if they're exporting resources necessary for a highly technologically advanced society (which would cease to exist).

Ceasing to exist is just about the best imperative for war yet...

[DJKillaQueen]

Well let's look at the stark reality. We live in an extremely wasteful world, for the sake of cyclical consumerism. Population is growing, resources (that have taken longer than the lifespan of mankind to form) are depleting.....so something major has to give. We can not go on as we have.

[mockney piers]

Oh don't get me wrong, capitalism as we now know it will end, but not out of choice. Not as a reaction to failed markets or banking systems or desperate inequality and exploitation.

As long as we want fresh salmon from Alaska and cheap electronics made with cheap components manufactured by cheap labour, then we won't voluntarily let go of this system. The odd bail outs and service cuts are the taxation we're willing to pay collectively.

But the end is nigh once peak oil hits, or if we still muddle through, once the oil runs out, and who knows what havoc global warming may yet wreak upon us. Our global system is going to become something akin to the early industrial period, and obviously our horizons will be that much narrower. At which point the homogeneity of the global system will fracture and there will be a much more varied approach towards our means of exchange and production.

[Jeremy]

Is peak oil necessarily going to have the impact you suggest? Before oil runs out, energy will become so expensive that a massive programme of nuclear power will be unavoidable - hopefully, but not necessarily, augmented by renewables. What can't be ran by electricity? Rail would become the norm for long distance passenger journeys and freight.

[mockney piers]

Rail, that phenomenon of the industrial age yep?

ANd yes it will. I don't hold with the apocalyptic predictions of many but everything will change as a result, and as usual the richer countries will cope better in some repects than the poorer ones. In other respects pooorer countries won't miss what they never had much access to anyway (I remember reading about an EU symposium given to agricultural ministers of new member states about organic farming, and one of them shrugged and said, what the hell do they think we've been doing all this time, we can't afford their chemicals!!).

Air travel of course gone, i suppose shipping can all become nuclear too....obviously not a finite resource either especially if the whole world turns to it.

Then there'll be instability all over the place, further fracturing communications, war and piracy, think somali pirates * 100.

Of course in a world where pan-national governance is gone then I suppose we can all turn back to coal because we're all too shortsighted to care about wreaking further havoc to the environment.

Everything is changing, our world as we know it hasn't got long left, for starters the era of cheap air travel is pretty much going already (actually altogether it hasn't really lasted all that long has it).

[Brendan]

It?s a nice day today isn?t it? Don?t you just love it when the cloud cover is gossamer thin and the sunlight that shines through it gets that golden glow?

[mockney piers]

perfect pint indoors weather if you ask me.....

[Brendan]

With a tinfoil hat on.

[LadyDeliah]

Lol, no it's miserable out if you ask me. Was better yesterday.

[Loz]

Damn lefties. They always think it was better in the olden days.

[Jeremy]

libtards, the lot of 'em.

[Loz]

leftards...

[LadyDeliah]

Going to be worse tomorrow!

[ManOfTheCloth]

Please read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, compelling reading and a book that will open your eyes as well and if you stick with it will give you hope for the future.

This link gives a brief synopsis

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book

[Ridgley]

A bit of a novas when it comes, to this sort of topic but I am just thinking it is very difficult to have democracy without capitalism or can you?