
Don’t Be Scared About the End of Capitalism, Be Excited to Build What Comes Next - doener
https://www.fastcompany.com/40454254/dont-be-scared-about-the-end-of-capitalism-be-excited-to-build-what-comes-next
======
dandare
As usual with most debates about Capitalism, this article indiscriminately
mixes economic systems with political ideologies.

Capitalism is not the opposite of Communism, Democracy is (one of the core
ideas of Communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat). And there is not a
single Western state with purely capitalist economy, what we see around us are
mixed economies with smaller or bigger level of redistribution, limits on
private property and elements of social security.

I would really like to see which one of the central characteristics of
Capitalism - private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary
exchange, price system, competitive markets - is no longer supported by "51%
of young people in the United States no longer support the system of
capitalism".

~~~
humanrebar
I suspect people are meaning different things when they say "capitalism". Most
of its detractors are against corporate cronyism, which I think almost
everyone is against. I also think the effects of that cronyism are unfairly
attached to capitalism when, as you are alluding to, there's nothing in
capitalism itself about the specifics people complain about in the status quo.

Here's capitalism: a recognition of certain human rights (oriented around
property) and a thesis that crowd-sourcing economic choices is better than
centrally controlling them. I'd be interested in hearing someone who is
against capitalism argue against either of those things.

~~~
mmsimanga
Agree 100%. To add my own take. No I haven't read Marx just my observations.
Humans, rather human nature is the weakest link with whichever system is
implemented. Communism seems to result in dicatorships. Cronyism exists in
both communism and capitalism. I honestly think very few people once in power
can resist starting to believe in their own hubris. This often results in all
sorts problems including wars and cronyism. I think electoral systems that
limit people to a few years in power are the only way. Same should apply to
cooporate entities unless you founded the company.

~~~
gremlinsinc
I don't think we need to limit execs in companies...but we should limit pay to
a multiplier of average company wages... ---this should be for all upper
management...

There could be variations based on job growth...new jobs added over previous
years...could raise their take or give them a bonus...

The end goal: Increase jobs + Increase wage lower the gap between
highest/lowest wage earners in America.

Also capitalism results in Oligarchy usually which isn't much better than
Dictatorship... 1% own everything and control every aspect of society from the
shadows... it's one big game of monopoly for them.

~~~
humanrebar
> ...we should limit pay to a multiplier of average company wages...

Won't they just find more loopholes to circumvent these rules? Maybe they take
small salaries and get paid in transferrable, no expiration stock options.

It seems like the way to level the playing field is to figure out ways to help
small companies, including startups, to compete with big players.

~~~
gremlinsinc
During the New Deal era -- I believe there was something like a 90% tax on
anything above 10 mill. If you taxed all earnings above a certain threshold
for CEO's...then they'd be better off putting it back into their
companies..but things are a bit different now adays.. Still something needs to
change in 1980 it was 100-200x average employee salary.. since then average
worker wages haven't gone up at all, but CEO pay has gone up to 450X the
average worker...

Trickle down hasn't worked...at all. The middle class is the new 'poor'.. I
earn 60k as a jr developer and still money issues are tight.. I shiver to
think what'd happen if I lost my job or went to a lower paying job.

------
titzer
Capitalism won't die. It's an umbrella term for a lot of different economic
arrangements where private individuals hold the main concentrations of wealth.
As other commenters mentioned, capitalism is not a political system.

What will die is growthism ([https://hbr.org/2013/10/this-isnt-capitalism-its-
growthism-a...](https://hbr.org/2013/10/this-isnt-capitalism-its-growthism-
and-its-bad-for-us)): the organization of our economic systems around the
assumption of perpetual exponential growth. It's simple math that this will
fail, no matter how many virgin markets there are in developing countries. We
can already see growth failing; it is likely to completely collapse within the
lifetimes of most people in this forum.

But even when growthism fails, some form of private ownership will survive.

~~~
humanrebar
> It's an umbrella term for a lot of different economic arrangements where
> private individuals hold the main concentrations of wealth.

There's nothing in capitalism itself about concentrated wealth. Or are you
saying the term is being misapplied?

------
eksemplar
I'm not a pessimist because capitalism is ending, I'm a pessimist because it's
not.

Right now we're seeing a shift in who benefits and an inequality crisis, but
absolutely nothing is being done to change the course of our economy away from
capitalism.

Uber isn't a collective/shared economy, it's a taxi service without labour
rights.

So what we're really seeing isn't the end of capitalism it's the end of
democracy and individual rights, and anyone who's read any bit of cyberpunk
knows what comes next isn't going to be exciting.

It'll be dystopian as fuck, and we're approaching the point where the powers
can render revolution almost impossible through tech.

Sure it could lead to something better, if you're optimistic, but then I
wonder if you've been paying attention to the state of individual freedom
these past years.

Surveillance is at an all time high, big data can predict our lives and we've
started hating our neighbors.

~~~
gremlinsinc
Unfortunately.. I think you're absolutely right... We definitely need to
change course...

Especially when AI/Automation begin taking more jobs and the proletariat don't
even have the ability to get a job or enter the labor force... There will be
mass protests and upheavals everywhere if something doesn't happen.

------
gutnor
I guess the elephant in the room that the article ironically illustrate is
that "we have no idea what's coming next".

The article reads a bit like "You are suffering from a well know incurable
illness, you are going to die very soon. By don't despair, think all the
things you will be able to do if a cure is found! Even better, some people are
even looking for one!"

But that's not the real problem. Humanity is very bad at transitioning, it
mostly still works in the natural fashion: keep the survivors if any. That's
the real fear, not where we are going, but how we are going to get there
without war, massive death toll, ... Before capitalism is abandoned, we need
Capitalism 1.1, 1.2 then 1.3 and we need it before wrecking Earth completely
or before the growth engine is completely broken whichever come first.

------
jondubois
Growth is great if everyone involved in the system has a fair opportunity to
partake in that growth and if it creates real value (not just growth in stock
price). However, opportunities for wealth redistribution are increasingly rare
these days so the only way to level the playing field seems to be through the
collapse of the financial system. Personally, I stand to benefit financially
from chaos. If the stock market collapses tomorrow and a large number of
public corporations go bankrupt then that means more business opportunities
small (self-sustaining/profitable) startups to take their place and therefore
more opportunities for me as a shareholder of such a startup.

~~~
humanrebar
> ...the only way to level the playing field seems to be through the collapse
> of the financial system.

It's worth noting that when the financial system goes through a down cycle,
the government bails out the politically and economically powerful, propping
up existing economic inequalities. This is not a capitalist policy.

I think capitalism mostly has a branding problem.

~~~
jondubois
I think that the bailing out of corporations during the 2008 crisis was in a
large part the result of corporate lobbying; which is a natural byproduct of
capitalism. Capitalist moralists love to point out that 'bailing out' is anti-
capitalist but at the same time they seem to ignore to the fact that that
government manipulation by corporations is an integral part of capitalism in
the first place.

So you end up with two sets of capitalists; moral capitalists and immoral
capitalists unwittingly collaborating with one another.

It was very convenient for a lot of passive 'moral' shareholders that the
government just happened to step in to bail out their favourite stocks.

~~~
gremlinsinc
capitalism might actually ... work ... if it was untethered from
government..and didn't manipulate governments. I.e. get rid of lobbying, and
make it universally illegal to influence politicians even on the level of a
Geneva war-crime.

Not that - that will ever happen.. Politics lately seems to just be legal
Mafia.

~~~
humanrebar
Lobbying is free speech. School teachers writing their school board about
school supplies are lobbying. And that action is constitutionally protected as
freedom of petition, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

But I agree about the cronyism. But I think the solution is to simplify
everything and make it more transparent. So regulatory capture, for instance,
has fewer places to thrive.

~~~
gremlinsinc
One single person writing a letter--is acceptable.. But money is power, one
single person writing a letter backed by 2 million in funding... that's
extortion..and should NOT be free speech.

Each person should have EQUAL weight on their 'freedom of speech' abilities...
Lobbyism as it works now is flawed.

Corporations are not human entities and should have no protections under the
constitution of free speech either... The CEO sure--but they should just be
able to send the letter, without any money backing and be barred from giving
more than what a normal person could afford to a politician -- i.e. something
like $500/year per politician..or something.

------
simion314
Edit: this comment was intended as a reply but the original comment I was
replying was deleted... My understanding is that the authors were referring at
consumerism, like changing your phone because a new version appeared, or rich
people owning a few cars or plains or yachts, maybe too many resources are
wasted for nothing good. My wish is that we will arrive to a Star Trek like
system, but in the series is shown that before we reached that we fist had an
extreme capitalism phase then a third world war, so I am afraid of a big blood
bath before things balance.

------
pb060
Growth based capitalism is so resilient that it will eventually end, but it
will probably happen too late, either because of a world war or most probably
natural disasters that will affect the most basic needs like food production
and water resources.

I have been quite excited about the concept of alternative, local based
economies, and I'm amazed by communities that try and manage to build one, but
I think they are too small to be a viable solution. Still, reading articles
like this give me a bit of hope.

~~~
cisanti
You can start with your family and relatives. Live close to each other, help
each other. Best communism ever and it actually works because you care. Of
course the urbanism makes things difficult but nothing besides greed is
forcing people to cities. The biggest problem in my eyes is that people lack
any gratitude for everything we have in the western world. Maybe because I was
born in soviet union I think about it more, but I'm sometimes guilty too.

------
doener
Why is this article flagged?

