It is now Two Thousand and Fifty .

[tinfoilhat]

But not every country is at the same development phase, and it would seem churlish to me to turn off the tap for the very thing that has allowed other countries, including our own, to develop.

 

Improvements in technology hopefully mean that they can develop in a less environmentally damaging way, but removing capitalism entirely (even if that were possible, which I doubt it is) does not strike me as the answer.

 

It would be great if there was a third way that guaranteed the same level of improvement that we have seen under capitalism without any of the downsides, but I can't think what that would be..

 

Well we've already got the tap at half speed to be fair. We were able to plunder other countries for centuries for both resources and even people, chop down what we wanted, hunt (to extiction) what we wanted and belch what we wanted into the air. We're telling large chunks of the develping world they cant do the things that put us at the top of the food chain.

[Jacktari]

Regarding environmental damage, it is surprising how quickly nature can repair the damage we do.

When we first moved to the area we now live in, about 30 years ago, a hillside on one side of the town was completely denuded, due to centuries of smoke and acid rain caused by the smoke from the mill chimneys.

After Thatcher's destruction of industry, and the closure of the mills in the 80's we saw a regrowth starting to take place

That area is now a large woodland area, with much wildlife and even deer living in it.

 

However, if we allow the despoliation to start again, due to removal of environmental controls, that damage can occur just as quickly as it did in the 19th century

[petemcewan]

Just for information purposes: I'm not a Marxist.

 

Change is part of our evolutionary history. Is it being seriously suggested that capitalism (private ownership of the means of production ) is with us till the end of time - the summit of human economic activity , the end of history ?

 

Tinfoilhat,

 

The problem you describe in your final sentence is definitely a difficult one.

Edited March 31, 2017 by petemcewan

[Jacktari]

Just for information purposes: I'm not a Marxist.

 

Change is part of our evolutionary history. Is it being seriously suggested that capitalis (private ownership of the means of production ) is with us till the end of time ?

 

Tinfoilhat,

 

The problem you describe in your final sentence is definitely a difficult one.

 

Pure capitalism cannot exist, its own structure is its own destruction.

[Anna B]

I would like to suggest in this discussion that if the human race is to get to 2050 and beyond .It will require that society undergo a revolutionary change . And move beyond economic relations that are rooted in dog eat dog and survival of the fittest; and find cooperative strategies for survival.

 

For us in the West, this means it’s time to grow up and move on to the next phase in our maturation cycle. It means recognising that cooperation between nations is required ,rather than unrelenting competition if we are to achieve ecological harmonious societies..

 

We’ve had Capitalism, it’s time to move on. We can’t keep on trashing the Earth indefinitely and when we’ve done, fly off to Mars in a Trump dynasty sponsored spaceship.

 

In MHO I reckon that 2050 will be post capitalist.

 

Excellent post. I can't believe it's beyond the wit of man to come up with a new system adapting the best aspects of both systems that benefits everyone.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2017 at 18:49 ----------

 

Some people did because society didn't adapt to the fact that we no longer have enough work for everyone to work full time no matter how much everyone seems to want it. When we can accept that working full time is no longer aspirational and that the developed world at least has moved well beyond the need to 'work' in a profit making sense then we can start to fix the future. Capitalism no longer fits when there isn't enough 'work' to be done. That doesn't mean we should all sit around doing nothing, no no no, society doesn't work that way, but we need to widened our view of what 'work' is and include voluntary roles, caring for others, doing things simply for the benefit of others etc to be viewed as genuine work by society. It's this reason why I really support the idea of a citizens income to replace all but very specific additional benefits (disability for example). Everyone gets it regardless of job or income status. You could afford to live off it without extra income, just about, but every extra penny you earn is yours subject to normal tax rules. This could encourage people to take more piecemeal gigging type work knowing that it's worth the risk as they'd still be able to eat if they didn't get any work for that month, people could be more fluid in utilising their skills where needed when needed rather than often being in a job that suits neither employer or employee. People could also cut back hours to spend more time doing voluntary work or looking after family and friends. For me this is the only viable future we have. Anything else and the numbers just don't add up.

___

 

I like this too. We need new thinking and ideas like this.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Anna B

[petemcewan]

Anna B,

 

 

The transformation is happening,

 

"As with the end of feudalism 500 years ago, capitalism’s replacement by postcapitalism will be accelerated by external shocks and shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human being. And it has started."

( Paul Mason, Post Capitalism. A Guide To Our Future. Pub. Allen . Lane .2015. ISBN. 978-1-846-14738-8 ).

 

Paul Mason's book is well worth a read.

 

As I stated previously, I'm not a Marxist. However, I've read a lot of his work. Marx is quite good at describing how different modes of production have arisen and declined.

 

Mason takes the PostCapitalism Hypothesis beyond speculative thinking and technobabble. Mason attempts to explain the economic dynamics of a postcapitalist society.

Edited March 31, 2017 by petemcewan

[Anna B]

Anna B,

 

 

The transformation is happening,

 

( Paul Masom, Post Capitalism. A Guide To Our Future. Pub. Allen . Lane .2015. ISBN. 978-1-846-14738-8 ).

 

Paul Mason's book is well worth a read.

 

As I stated previously, I'm not a Marxist. However, I've read a lot of his work. Marx is quite good at describing how different modes of production have arisen and declined.

 

Mason takes the PostCapitalism Hypothesis beyond speculative thinking and technobabble. Mason attempts to explain the economic dynamics of a postcapitalist society.

 

Thanks for that. I'll take a look.

[psynuk]

You have to recognise the legitimacy of personal property in order to understand.

 

Having invested time and effort and taken risks to acquire personal property and wealth it only matches one rather radical definition of "fair" for it to be confiscated upon death (much as in life).

The state has already taken their cut at the time the wealth was earned, upon death you think they should have whatever is left?

Such property and wealth should clearly go to whomever the former owner chooses to pass it on to?

 

Myself I shall take whatever steps are necessary to see that I continue to support my wife and my family from Valhalla rather than allowing the state to waste it on windmills.

 

just a thought,

I consider you to be rather scientifically pragmatic, the 'there is no free will' thread springs to mind, you seem to not get tied up with sentimentality etc. It's kinda odd that you'd let a romantic view of the gene pool,as in the bit your swimming in is somehow more imprortant than the rest. and to let that sway you from the science -that we're all one species so helping the many would be the logicaly smart thing, rather than focusing on a few.That you'd only really care to aid a small part of it after death seems to fly a bit in the face of the determindly scientific stance you often hold. I suppose though you have no choice in the matter anyway.

 

not having a dig here btw, just a thought that popped up.

 

I've not explained it very well,but I hope you get the idea

[I1L2T3]

But not every country is at the same development phase, and it would seem churlish to me to turn off the tap for the very thing that has allowed other countries, including our own, to develop.

 

 

The big difference now is a technological revolution in automation.

 

Countries won't be allowed to develop as we did. There won't be any mass investment in human capital, in building a workforce. New factories for example can go straight to the automation phase. No need to spend decades training up and educating the humans. Even elements of professional jobs will be automated.

[area 51]

Its a high possibilty that i will be pushing up the daisies by then.