
The end of capitalism has begun - gburnett
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun
======
vegancap
The author assumes we have 'capitalism' to begin with. Even talks about big
banks etc.

Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of
'capitalism'. An industry, arguably the most aggressively capitalistic.

Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101
would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated
capitalism, but rather state corporatism).

He mentions big companies using public data, most of that public data is
generated, collected and shared openly by private companies to start with. I'm
not even sure what his point was there...

Then he talks about alternative currencies, something which bloomed in
response to flailing, devaluing state currencies. Which is just about the most
free-market response to state currencies...

The next paragraph he references briefly the 'sharing economy', something
pioneered and spearheaded by companies such as Airbnb and Lyft. Truly great
success stories of consumer capitalism.

"The solutions have been austerity plus monetary excess. But they are not
working." \- What? Our public spending has increases by £50bn, how is this
'austerity'? The cuts have slowed down our public spending and even that has
made us one of the strongest economies in Europe. So I'm not sure where he's
getting the 'not working' from.

"Even now many people fail to grasp the true meaning of the word “austerity”.
- Oh, the irony.

Most of the fluffy scenarios he describes, whereby private individuals make
voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements with each other, is almost the very
definition of capitalism!

~~~
tstactplsignore
>Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101
would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated
capitalism, but rather state corporatism).

Let's talk about this point as a whole. Firstly, I don't think it is well
substantiated, and there are numerous examples to the contrary- Microsoft,
Standard Oil, United Fruit, telecoms, airlines, railroads- almost anything
which requires significant initial investment to grow. But, more importantly-
why distinguish between capitalism and what you call "state corporatism"? The
corporations who lobby the state, or coerce the state, or even cause the
formation of an authoritarian state in ways that work in their favor are
merely being good capitalists- they're simply better at competing than other
capitalists! When United Fruit coerces the US government into supporting a
foreign coup, or a corporation coerces the police or military to massacre
striking workers, or big oil asks for huge subsidies- it's no different from a
capitalist perspective then investing in advertising or aggressive expansion,
and all are about increasing control and centralizing power. If there were no
state corporatism, how long would it be before a capitalist caused it to come
about? Campaign finance laws, monopoly regulations, and public opinion can be
rolled back or simply ignored until power is consolidated; the inherent
unequal distribution of power in capitalism means that a comparative few
people will always be capable of doing this. In the words of Woodrow Wilson:
"If there are men in this country big enough to own the US government, they
are going to own it". State corporatism, monopology, and inevitably
authoritarianism are the end game of capitalism, not a perversion. You can't
put limits on the definition of capitalism so that the second anyone is any
good at it, and the most obvious oppression that being good at capitalism
causes is then apparent, that suddenly it's "not capitalism" anymore because
they didn't play by your rules in a system where the actual rules are what
those with money say they are. Hopefully, this should make you more critical
of the inherent viability of capitalism.

~~~
MCRed
Telecom-- a government granted tri-opoly. The FCC limits the number of
organizations who can license spectrum in a given metro area.

Airlines-- government regulated, airports are local government monopolies and
they limit competition.

Microsoft- Not a monopoly in any line of business

I have been waiting for a long time for someone to come up with an example of
an actual natural monopoly that exercises monopoly pricing power. In every
case so far, either they had competition, or government is the one that was
limiting competition in the first place, usually by regulation.

~~~
tstactplsignore
Your requirements are absurd - Every business will be subject to some sort of
government regulation that could limit barrier to entry. That's why your
conclusions are outlandish- Microsoft was literally deemed to violate
antitrust law in federal court; there are plenty of obvious historical
examples (United Fruit, Standard Oil, US Steel); Pharmaceutical companies
consistently exhibit price gouging in medical monopolies, etc. Furthermore,
oligarchical monopolies, like the telecoms, are not somehow exempt- they
operate, lobby, coerce, and consolidate power together, despite being 3
separate companies. Utilities are generally natural monopolies, not government
created- the major barrier is the huge costs on upfront infrastructure, which
dwarf any regulatory costs. Most importantly though, you failed to grasp the
fundamental concept, that a government granted monopoly is not somehow
uncapitalistic: it's hypercapitalism, the end goal of the system itself.

------
angrybits
From the fine article:

> individualism replaced collectivism and solidarity

I find myself wondering if I am part of a remaining few who treasure that. I
value self-sufficiency over dependency, moreso as I get older. I have come to
realize that there can rarely be an imposed collective benefit that didn't
come at the expense of at least one individual. The answer to "is it worth
it?" will be dependent on which one you ask. Likely the same for "is it
moral?" if I had my guess.

That said, I don't think individualism can last forever. The fast exchange of
ideas gives incredible power to well coordinated groups. Will it descend into
mob rule? Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. We see regular examples of
internet mobs taking down powerful people and companies. The recent Pao take-
down comes to mind here. People have their opinions on whether or not it was
justified, and mine is irrelevant here, but to me what is most striking was
the sheer effectiveness of it. Eventually "we" will figure out how much power
we wield and put it to use on targets of more consequence than the CEO of a
cat picture website. Occupy could have really shaken things up with the right
leadership in place. They were tactically effective, but lacked a leader to
put them to effective use to achieve an end.

I think the time of the collective is fast approaching. As long as it's a
volunteer collective, I have no issue. If it's forced at the threat of
violence, I think my opinion would differ. I am not convinced that history
inspires confidence on this one.

edit: small clarification

~~~
Retra
Self sufficiency and dependency are not a 1-dimensional parameter. You can be
self sufficient in some aspects, and dependent in others, and each of us can
be like this in different ways.

Both aspects have their merits, and it is very easy to see that those merits
are fundamental necessities. Governance is hard.

~~~
johndevor
Dependency does not mean government. A homeless man can be dependent on a
church for food and shelter, but that does not mean governance.

~~~
Retra
What I meant is that governance _implies_ some dependencies. Ones that people
may not want, which makes it hard to know what dependencies to apply through
governance.

------
boona
The 20th century, in contrast to past centuries, was an experiment in
progressivism. The idea that the state can be used by the masses to improve
the well being of individuals over what can be achieved in a situation of
economic liberty. So what came of this? We're finding out is that the power to
regulate, is also the power to grant special favors. That giving this power,
even to a well intended political class, was resulted in a poor outcome for
us.

I find it interesting that the EU took over the currency, interest rates and
inflation are set by state actors, and that now we're seeing articles such as
this one that blame economic liberties for the failure of the system.

~~~
contingencies
_The 20th century, in contrast to past centuries, was an experiment in
progressivism._

Maybe from the magnetosphere. Otherwise, it's blatantly false ... well, at
best limited to the coddled middle class western world, but only post WWII,
and only if you exclude Vietnam, the Gulf War, and other major conflicts, the
NSA's antics, and pretty much anything that happened in economics... perhaps
with the exception of collateral debt and high frequency trading, which were
progressing something ... I'm just not sure anyone really stood for it except
its positive results on their bank accounts. I suppose Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot
and the Japanese Empire were 'progressivist' by some definition, though!

------
omonra
I find the article lacking. Author makes a bunch of controversial yet
unsupported statements. Even if they're true (something he doesn't really
bother proving), the logical links from one to the next are missing.

Ie I can't even dismiss it as typical Guardian progressive ranting - because
there is no coherent story to dismiss, more of a hot-potch of terms.

Putting it down in the 'not even wrong' file.

~~~
Animats
That's more or less correct. The problem is real (we don't need that many
people to make all the stuff) but the proposed solutions are no good. He's
into co-ops and "local", which just don't do much in the developed world
because the big guys are not inefficient. (You're not going to beat WalMart on
price with your local grocery co-op.) Then there's some Marxist analysis,
which doesn't help; Marx wrote when companies needed huge labor forces.

Bernie Sanders, the presidential candidate, makes an interesting point. He
questions the whole idea of economic growth as a national goal. “Unchecked
growth – especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1
percent – is absurd. Where we’ve got to move is not growth for the sake of
growth, but we’ve got to move to a society that provides a high quality of
life for all of our people."[1] There's something to be said for that. You get
what you measure and optimize for, and US policy has been to optimize for GDP.
Maybe we should be optimizing for median per capita real income per hour
worked, or "how much does an hour of work buy for most people". That's a
number you never used to see in the press, but it shows up more now.

[1]
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/13/w...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/13/what-
bernie-sanders-is-willing-to-sacrifice-for-a-more-equal-society/)

~~~
omonra
Thanks.

Re the Bernie Sanders quote, it's actually not true
([http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2015/apr/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2015/apr/19/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-
income-going-to/)).

For start it omits taxes and wealth transfers - and secondly it measures
2009-2013.

2009 was the year right after the crash when 1% experienced a sharp decline in
income.

Thirdly, the huge increase in healthcare (hence insurance) costs is largely
carried by employers. That's one of the main reasons for stagnant wages of
late - total compensation has been increasing but the increase is flowing into
benefits - thus flat income.

I have been thinking myself about the issue of inequality and think it's being
obfuscated by the language used (whereby it's discussed in terms of rich vs
poor instead of US poor vs foreign poor).

Ie - how are the wages for the top 1% (lawyers, doctors, bankers, etc)
affecting the wages for the bottom 50%? If anything I think that immigration
has been a much larger factor (for the low skilled / paid sector of the
economy).

------
EthanHeilman
>Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices
correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information is
abundant. The system’s defence mechanism is to form monopolies – the giant
tech companies – on a scale not seen in the past 200 years, yet they cannot
last. By building business models and share valuations based on the capture
and privatisation of all socially produced information, such firms are
constructing a fragile corporate edifice at odds with the most basic need of
humanity, which is to use ideas freely.

This is a fascinating dynamic. How do you charge for information when nearly
anyone can replicate it for free?

* Novelty - sure you can get civ4 for 2 dollars, but civ5 is "more desirable".

* Punishment - hexrays blacklisting engineers that use IDApro without a license.

* Technical - DRM it is only mildly effective, but architectural solutions such as gmail or WoW have a low piracy rate.

* Rewards - benefits to compliance, such as steam backing up your saved games and giving you hats.

If a nation were to completely ignore IP law would that provide a competitive
advantage to that nation?

------
valar_m
This statement seems odd to me:

 _Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices
correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information is
abundant._

I don't understand how this follows. Wouldn't having more information mean
that prices form _more_ correctly?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Only if everyone has perfect information all of the time.

~~~
altcognito
and the ability to interpret and rationally act on that information. (if
rational action is what one wants)

------
davidgerard
I'm fairly sure people were thinking this in the 1970s, just before
neoliberalism came along and destroyed all in its path.

~~~
pkkim
And your point is that capitalism will renew itself once more?

------
applecore
We've been hearing about the impending “end of capitalism” since the beginning
of merchant capitalism in the 16th century. Mercantilism still thrives even
when commodities are produced by non-capitalist production methods.

------
TYPE_FASTER
The success of Uber, Airbnb, Ebay, Amazon underwhelms his argument.
Information technology, and really the internet, have worked around
traditional anti-capitalistic forces like taxes and regulation very
effectively.

------
contingencies
Awesome to see such an expression of technological optimism informed by social
concern. A rare thing these days.

 _they have struggled to describe the dynamics of the new “cognitive”
capitalism. And for a reason. Its dynamics are profoundly non-capitalist._

I believe the author refers to Yann Moulier Boutang's theory, espoused in his
book _Le capitalisme cognitif_ (translated in to English as _Cognitive
Capitalism_ ): [http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Capitalism-Yann-Moulier-
Bout...](http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Capitalism-Yann-Moulier-
Boutang/dp/0745647332) .. I actually had it sitting on my bookshelf here in
China (had to wait for the translation to come out before ordering) .. must
remember to read it now!

------
dpweb
It's interesting the Greece and 2008 global crises are usually brought up, but
important to note that with capitalism comes a need for responsibility -
especially regarding debt, and those failures were a result of irresponsiblity
on the part of the governments and actors involved - not a defect of the
capitalist system itself. In both cases, taking on massive debt and quite
simply, living beyond one's or a state's means.

~~~
Shivetya
The problem with Greece isn't capitalism, that much is obvious. The problem is
the EU was designed to fail. It was created in such a way to appease the
dominant economic countries by guaranteeing the EU would not be a transfer
union. This all but doomed weaker economies from the get go.

Tied to one currency they lost the most effective means of combating budgetary
and economic issues. Worse, as they become weaker it becomes ever harder for
them to generate the hard currency they need.

So if anything what happened is exactly the opposite of capitalism, they could
not compete because the rules agreed by governments prevented them. Yes Greece
shares fault for working the books but the EU was formed to only favor the
powerful countries and protect their interest, this was no union

~~~
yummyfajitas
Preventing the EU from being a transfer union is not what doomed the weaker
economies; the fact that _some of_ the weaker economies tried to turn it into
such did.

The more capitalist weaker economies (note: most are poorer than Greece) seem
to be doing just fine.

[https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...](https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:EST:LVA:LTU&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:EST:LVA:LTU:GRC:SVK&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false)

------
TheGrimDerp1
Full-on, spot-on, and a huge "hell-Yeah." I've said it before and I'll say it
again, we need to build a really big damn space ship. (buildtheenterprise.org)

------
Mikhail_Edoshin
Again?

------
de1978st
Good read, thx for the post.

------
mml
you can't run an economy on information alone. you can't eat information, or
haul lumber with it. Information is just a lever that makes hauling lumber or
producing food more efficient.

Author needs to get out more.

------
paulhauggis
"Postcapitalism is possible because of three major changes information
technology has brought about in the past 25 years. First, it has reduced the
need for work,"

The need for work hasn't reduced, it's just changed.

The issue is that someone will need to be doing the work and the people doing
the work aren't going to put up with giving the majority of their pay to the
rest of society (that don't need to work) for very long.

This idea will eventually lead to total wealth distribution and then the issue
will be how you decide to split up the money.

Do we then need to have control on the number of kids a person can have? How
about risky behavior (so health care costs aren't that high)?

Also, who decides how it's split up?

All of the articles about basic income and 'post capitalism' only take into
account what will happen in the very beginning, which might seem like it's
working.

They never discuss the long-term where 3 generations of families are living
off of the system and the continued dependence of more and more people. What
happens when the number of people on basic income vastly outnumbers the amount
of people working? Will the government force people to work? A revolution?
Starvation??

Capitalism is not perfect, but it's the one system that not only brought us
the most technology and advancements, but also brought the most people out of
poverty.

Most of these ideas aren't new. They have been tried and failed and are now
just being re-packaged and prettied up into something that seems more
palatable.

