Comments on: Economic crisis and post-capitalism

By: The Melvins 3

The Melvins 3 — Tue, 07 May 2013 16:06:29 +0000

Postcapitalism isn’t postcapitalism if it’s just capitalism with extra liberal traits. “Rich pay their fair share; green technology; etc. etc.

POSTCAPITALISM: (noun) A political theory which states that a capable machine proletariat (robots, droids, et cetera) will replace the human proletariat and lead to widespread unemployment and may or may not lead to sweeping socialist-esque welfare reform.

Capitalism thrives on technological progress- retard tech progress, you cut off the head of capitalism. This theory holds to the idea that technological capabilities will reach a point- The Singularity- when it becomes more profitable to use machines rather than humans. We’re not at that level today, not even close, because we can’t make a computer do a task with abstract thought, and- more importantly- our robotic limbs and structs do not possess a human or super human feel. They feel robotic. And you can’t interact with a machine.
To current theorists, we’ll never reach a point where this is possible. They’re like the people who thought that, in 1912, mass producing radios would be impossible, let alone using these waves to transmit images. We don’t understand the sophistication, nor do we understand the sophistication behind the sophistication, and this metasizes continuously until you reach our current state of technology, compared to, say, 2113.
Postcapitalism needs a machine proletariat- otherwise, there won’t be anything akin to ‘postcapitalism.’ As I said, if it’s anything like what this person and many other people have written down- a “greener, liberal world with a system yet to be named”- it would just be capitalism with liberal elements.

By: l3fx

l3fx — Mon, 14 May 2012 20:40:29 +0000

In short, a global trick will take place sooner or later. As weak economies will get a deadline,
a new way of control will be the major factor.
In that case, people will suffer less income and higher cost due to the depression policy.
There isn’t some economic theory here or scientific
means to prove it. The trick actually is, that when
people get a lower social level, and get somehow used to it , after it will be easier to get even lower. And when some economies seem strong they’ll
follow that, because the excuse for that will be the rest of the “new economy status”.
Do not blame some countries for that, the “chief engineers” are elsewhere.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:52:10 +0000

There is a very real problem of Mr Shutt not explicating more clearly the potential pitfalls of a citizen’s income. Perhaps his book does, but in the meantime, the late Andre Gorz does a fine job of going beyond the surface analysis here:

http://www.principiadialectica.co.uk/blog/?p=177

By: David

David — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:45:56 +0000

I agree with a lot of this: “growth, jobs, justice” is an absolutely terrible slogan for the 21st century “left”. Trying to provide full employment by growing the economy ever more in scale is a suicide pact for the species; it can only end in planet-wide ecological collapse.

I think citizen’s incomes and monetary reform are two vital stepping stones on the way to a sustainable and just economic system. In the longer term, if people on “the left” are hungry for a new post-capitalist vision Michael Albert’s “Participatory Economics” makes interesting reading. His book “Parecon: Life After Capitalism” is available free online.

By: A. Percy

A. Percy — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:19:43 +0000

I agree with Robert, fundamentally good analysis of the real problems but a little weak on the solutions. Harry is also right that there has been an “abject failure” of the Left to come to bat with real understanding of the problems and solutions.
LIFE have just published a paper on Sustainable Economics that brings together many of the threads of what Harry talks about and suggests that simple reform of the welfare system into a universal service system allows the appearance of a social economy that complements and hosts the commercial economy.
http://www.standardsoflife.org/sustainable_economics

In any case, very cheering to see real discussion of the real issues starting to appear – thanks.

By: Joerg Drescher

Joerg Drescher — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:00:10 +0000

A citizen’s income is not just a left idea, but is supported by people from all political camps. Of course, it doesn’t mean, that political parties (also the left) propose such a measure in real, because the implementation of a citizen’s income would imply a loss of power for them. And there are different variants of such citizen’s incomes – among them some, which are not compatible with left ideas.

However, today, if ever, decisions are not made for the wealth of a nation (and by no means for the whole mankind). And a monetary system, as we have it today, helps to keep the balance of power between leaders and subjects. The question is not, how to change it, but who would be interested in such a change and what benefit is reached and which purpose it has.

That’s why it is necessary to keep on going to enlighten people. The more they know, the better they can choose free. But as can be assumed, they would never adopt their oppressor…

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 22:24:25 +0000

Lovely article and typical of the “Left” which has had the same problem since the time of Marx, it is very good at analysing why capitalism doesn’t work, and even predicts its cycles of crisis, yet the holy grail which humanity is waiting for is what on earth are we going to replace it with (how to distribute wealth being a huge problem). Its at this point where most “Left wing” philosophers disappear into la la land, coming up with vacous, idealist, abstract statements without any real concrete realities. Human beings will have to make do with capitalism a little longer until someone works out what we are going to do next.

p.s. I would love to read Mr Shutt makes of the economics practiced in the USSR, and why China has abbandoned that approach and taken to capitalism.