What do you see in a post-capitalistic world?

True freedom.

An economy backed by prestige and not gold.

Poverty and desperation.

@Jaxk “Poverty and desperation.”

Which totally doesn’t exist under capitalism.

Most of the world is capitalist, and most of the world is poor.

@Darth_Algar

The Borg Collective is not a realistic model for us. If you want a socialist or communist system, anything more than a few thousand people will end up like the old USSR, Cuba, maybe pre capitalist China. We’re not talking about some poverty but rather massive poverty. We’re not there yet but the liberals are working us towards it. You’ll forgive me if I don’t wish them luck.

Unfortunately as Burckhardt observed “turpitude is immortal”. There will always be those ready to exploit and corrupt whatever system exists for personal advantage. Even heaven wasn’t immune! It can only be hoped that whatever arises will not be so clearly based on principles of personal enrichment at the expense of of others.

A new Dark Age. We’re long overdue for a general total collapse of civilization as we know it.

@Jaxk “The Borg Collective is not a realistic model for us. If you want a socialist or communist system, anything more than a few thousand people will end up like the old USSR, Cuba, maybe pre capitalist China. We’re not talking about some poverty but rather massive poverty. We’re not there yet but the liberals are working us towards it. You’ll forgive me if I don’t wish them luck.”

Note that I said nothing about any kind of collective society (or any of kind of society at all). Honestly I wouldn’t make any assumptions about what a post-capitalst society would, necessarily be. For all I know it could entail a revival of feudalism. I simply dispute the rosy notions that you have about capitalism. Massive poverty does exist under capitalism. Just because you don’t see it on your block does not mean that it doesn’t exist.

You can never kill capitalism, it will always be there riding in the backdrop of whatever system is in place. Call it what ever you want but wealth and power will always run things. The wealthy and powerful will still be capitalistic and the rest will be held down at gunpoint. True capitalism is a component of freedom, we don’t have that we have crony capitalism which is not. It’s not a fair deal it’s a deal using a stacked deck. That’s where Laissez-faire capitalism will eventually lead without safeguards. We need Gov’t to enforce protections that keep us from being steamrolled when too much power gets into too few hands. That’s not really happening though and that’s what most of the anti-capitalism folks hate. A world without free and equal access to capitalism is a world with little hope.

@ARE_you_kidding_me

Many would say that capitalism with government regulations/restrictions/safeguards/whateveryouwishtocallit it is not true capitalism, that only laissez-faire is true capitalism.

The only way I can see for things to change significantly, (for better or worse) is if the practiced concept of money and economy is obliterated. Otherwise, whatever system springs in the place of capitalism will probably just be similar to what was there before.

Many do believe that and I think that they would be wrong. It’s free at first but as it progresses power and wealth get centralized and concentrated. This chokes out access to opportunity leading to a system that is not capitalism. This is why it needs to be regulated properly.

I’m with @ibstubro

We are long overdue for a total collapse of life as we know it, and, dream on, as much as I love John Lennons ” Imagine”, the dreams of Utopia remain just that. No point in crying over spilt Capitalism, socialism is never gonna happen in America, never, ever, ever.

If not capitalism is it necessarily communism/socialism?

We will probably find out earlier than we think.

I get black screen with that link @Judi

Certainly not, @flo. A theocracy is still fairly likely were the Muslims to dominate.

I think monarchy is pretty well dead, but could revive given the correct circumstances – Hitler was probably headed that direction.

There are many alternative methods of governing, and sure to be new wrinkles in the future.

@flo, strange. It works for me. Basically a NASA affiliated study has determined that our civilization will collapse in the next few decades.

@Judi Oooh…do try to find the correct link. You cannot tantalize me and then withhold. haha
I keep hoping a renegade black hole will just suck us into oblivion. Best way out.

@ibstubro I meant that people tend to go to “Well we certainly don’t want communism” response whenever they hear anti-capitalist talk. So, I mean there has to be somewhere in between, or something else completely, that would be better than capitalism (Added so theocracy for example is not in the contention in my opinion)

@Judi I just read the article, excellent, but…you put it in the “Tell me something great” zone.
Hurry…relocate! haha

Here is @Judi‘s linked article (it was a mobile page in her link).

I think it’s rather optimistic to think that capitalism will leave much of a world behind for a new system to take its place.

Why is theocracy not in the contention in your opinion, @flo?

Why would it be less viable than other government? It’s totalitarian.

@Coloma If Socialism will ”...never happen in America, never, ever, ever.”, and if Democracies only survive for about 200 years and no more, then where is America headed, if not Socialism??

@kritiper kicking and screaming all the way of course. lol

It will be death of the human spirit. It may very well happen one day and I hope to be long gone by then.

If we’re lucky, it will look kind of like this.

Capitalism is actually great. And I consider myself a Socialist. These beliefs aren’t in conflict. Make the next iPhone, good on you. If you teach your employes how to get food stamps while they make that iPhone we have a problem.

It will never happen.

Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism always fail under their own weight.

Any society needs some medium of exchange and commerce. Whatever you call it, the markets deliver goods to people that consume the goods. And that entire process does not / cannot exist without capital and exchange and sales.

So capitalism will never go away. The question is unrealistic on its face.

I do not understand why an alternative to capitalism has to be either socialism or communism. Both deny an individual’s right to own property and/or personal possessions. All three of these forms of economic distribution do this to some extent. Capitalism permits a minority total access to this right while insuring that the rights of the majority will be limited or denied, and all three permit the most aggressive to subvert the better qualities of their economic system and acquire disproportionate wealth.

Any successful system must afford families the ability to obtain sufficient means to provide them with the four freedoms that Franklin Delano Roosevelt defined through the efforts of adult members of the family to contribute to the needs, goods and services, of their society. Wealth is defined as all goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use. If wealth were to be defined as the time and skills of individuals as having this value, perhaps the potential evils of capitalism might be mitigated.

@Bill1939 (and @elbanditoroso): If every democracy has failed after around 200 years, and you claim Communism or Socialism cannot be an alternative to it, what alternative do you suppose would take it’s place?

@kritiper, I do not have a name for the economic system I suggested; wealth defined as the time and skills of individuals as having value in terms of exchange or use instead of defined as all goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use. However, neither communism nor socialism would accommodate this approach to value.

@Bill1939 “I do not understand why an alternative to capitalism has to be either socialism or communism. Both deny an individual’s right to own property and/or personal possessions.”

This is just not correct. It’s also a ludicrous statement. Do you seriously believe there’s an entire subset of political philosophy that claims that no one has a right to personal possessions or personal property? I realise that anti-socialist propaganda has been effective in the US, but why not actually find out what socialists really think?

Even Wikipedia is a decent primer on socialism and what socialist theories of property actually mean. The distinction between personal and private property

Proudhon’s theory of property, which notably influenced Marx and every socialist and anarchist since

Once the capitalist system (hypothetically) falls, I feel certain that there would be period of chaos, and certain concepts that have evolved over the centuries of capitalism would have to be relearned and realigned.

1. Property. The concept of property would, I think, evolve toward the Proudhon concept, as referred to by @Kropotkin above, namely, de facto ownership (physical possession) of property will be more legitimate than de jure (legal title).

2. Labor. To quote Abraham Lincoln: “Labor is prior to and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” All things of value would be determined by the amount (and possibly the quality) of labor of production or creation.

3. Commodities: Labor and labor-derived commodities would be the currency. I see a robust barter economy,

4. Technology: given the current state of technology, there is no reason it would all devolve, and that we would be reduced to pre-electrical technologies. The power grid as we know it would deteriorate, and possibly even disappear, as parts are appropriated, but there is a good chance that wind, water, solar and other technologies would develop a local/community structure of generating this technology.

@ibstubro If we’re hoping/going for an improvement, then it is not an option.

I apologize for addressing the responses of others and not to the original question. I further apologize for my minuscule understanding of political science. Saying that Socialism and Communism “deny an individual’s right to own property and/or personal possessions” is an overstatement, but not really ludicrous when you consider the modifying sentence that followed: “All three of these forms of economic distribution do this to some extent.”

I appreciate @Kropotkin pointing me to sources that clarify what the term ‘property’ means. The portion of the Wiki link, however, opens with “In political/economic theory, notably socialist, Marxist and anarchist philosophies, the distinction between private and personal property is extremely important. Which items of property constitute which is open to debate.” Under which economic system does the individual have an unfettered right to personal possessions? Perhaps all do in theory, but do any in practice?

@Yetanotheruser‘s quote from Abraham Lincoln seems to support the point of the second paragraph in my first post regarding @pleiades‘s opening question. An individual’s time and applied skills should be the basis for their affluence, not their control over the distribution of resources.

In order to respond to @pleiades’ opening question I need to replace ‘post-capitalistc’ with ‘utopian’. In this the most desirable and least likely world, the Four Freedoms articulated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his 1941 State of the Union Address exists. By whatever economic system all have at least an adequate standard of living, though for many it would be more than adequate and for some substantial wealth.

Freed for the burden of survival, individuals are able to pursue their talents and interests. Arts and sciences would flourish. Having the opportunity to engage in satisfying activities few would feel a desire to escape into intoxication, though such pleasures would be accessible for social gatherings or personal enjoyment. Educational and psychological counseling would be available to assist individuals at every level of their maturation in identifying and achieving their desires and goals. The potential for antisocial personality disorders would be mitigated, and no need for laws enforced by a militant authority would exist.

CBS 60 Minutes, just gave a free ad for Pink Panthers a ruthless crimnial gang, a propos nothing.

@hearkat thanks for posting the link.