How long do you believe capitalism will last?

[Edric O]

You don't have to be an opponent of capitalism to realize that it can't go on forever. The rate of change in human society (technological, social, economic) has been accelerating since the dawn of civilization. The slavery-based economic system of the Ancient World lasted about 2000 years. Feudalism lasted about 1000. Capitalism has been around for 200-300 years. How much longer will it last? There are three basic ways capitalism could end:

1. Capitalism ends because mankind (as we know it) ceases to exist. There are several things that could produce such a scenario (nuclear war, asteroid impact, perhaps the Second Coming...). In any case, this has little or nothing to do with capitalism itself; capitalism would simply be washed away in an event of much greater proportions than the mere end of an economic system.

2. Capitalism ends because civilization collapses. This is still an apocaliptic scenario, except Humanity is not entirely destroyed. It survives, though it reverts back to some form of pre-industrial society (e.g. tribalism). Five thousand years of civilization are undone, and we must start over. What could produce such a situation? Well, a smaller version of the catastrophes that would produce #1. A Third World War that doesn't kill everyone, for example.

3. Capitalism ends and is replaced by some other economic system; human civilization and technology continue to evolve and grow. This is the good scenario - or, rather, group of scenarios, since there are many different ways it could happen, and (presumably) several different systems that might replace capitalism. I will of course vouch for socialism, since it is the most plausible successor of capitalism. But others have also been imagined (usually based on futuristic technology).

So, which one do you think it will be, and when?

[Acriku]

I voted ~200-500 years, simply because there are too many people who have no problem with capitalism still (until they end up on the other end of the stick, of course). I seriously would wholeheartedly welcome an alternative that maintains the goods of capitalism (competitive drive most importantly, as it has undoubtedly brought advancements otherwise not possible or would take a much longer time) and gets rid of the bad (everything else about capitalism).

Not to sound too much like Dust Scout (erm, Dante), I secretly hope for the second scenario because we're too comfortable and just damn bitchy about the world - and a near-wipeout would wake these people up. Either that or God give me the strength to just kick the sh~t out of them until they see the light.

[Dante]

Hmm... Tough one. On the one hand, I don't think that capitalism as we know it will last any longer than the next 20-30 years. However, I also think that it will evolve into a new, more vicious economic system. Capitalism on steroids, or something. They'd probably call it Capitalism nu. What a stupid phrase.

Why do I think this? Because big businesses are getting bigger, and economies need to survive large threats. The emerging threat/ally, depending on how you see it, is China. And whether intentionally or no, there will be competition between the major players which will probably lead to more ruthless business. How long this other form of capitalism will last is anyone's guess. I think that rather than change into an entirely different system, capitalism will just keep evolving with us until/if something drastic happens to shake up the planet. Something like a mass evacuation or invasion. Therefore, I vote that it will be around for some time.

I actually do kind of hope for number 2. Hitting the reset button would be so tempting.

[lowzeewee]

Forever and ever, amen.

[Dude_Doc]

Well, the protests in France seems to be a sign of the failing sign, according to some anarchists (who also said capitalism will probably "end" first in Europe, then spread throughout the world). The way I see it capitalism is like a virus, it needs more resources, more commodities. So in thechnically capitalism could go on until the end of the universe.

Personally, I don't think humanity can take anymore of this "shit" so to say. I vote 50 years.

[Edric O]

I voted ~200-500 years, simply because there are too many people who have no problem with capitalism still (until they end up on the other end of the stick, of course). I seriously would wholeheartedly welcome an alternative that maintains the goods of capitalism (competitive drive most importantly, as it has undoubtedly brought advancements otherwise not possible or would take a much longer time) and gets rid of the bad (everything else about capitalism).

Keep in mind that nearly everyone who is alive today (even those who are small children) will be dead within 100 years. Therefore, the preferences of people today can't really tell you anything about the future beyond the year 2100.

Besides, people's opinions of the current economic system are usually shaped by their personal financial situations. If another Great Depression or something similar hits, the tide of popular opinion will quickly turn against capitalism. That is what I believe will happen near the end of this century. The global economy is surfing the tide of globalization right now, but, eventually, the world will be fully globalized and there will be no markets left to expand into. Couple that with mass poverty, overpopulation, environmental issues and possibly peak oil, and it seems very unlikely that we could go on for more than 100-150 years without radical changes in our society and economy. So I voted ~50-200 years.

I believe it is up to us to choose between scenarios #2 and #3. Capitalism will eventually decay and collapse, and if there is no strong alternative ready to take its place (in other words, if there is no large socialist or communist movement to organize a revolution), the result will be a multitude of local wars - many of them civil wars - that will plunge Humanity into chaos. There will be no great WW3, but there could be an age of chaotic wars by everyone against everyone else.

[chatfsh]

I believe that globalization will pump more blood into the capitalist machine, as cross-border integration of markets continues at an escalating rate.  This should keep things going strong for a good bit.

In addition, I think even once globalization saturation occurs, ten percent of the world

[Dude_Doc]

That is why I believe that capitalism has to shut down altogether - that includes the eradication of money. In other words, we must "shut down" the earth.

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, read history, in 10th century nobody asked 'how long will feudalism last?', and I don't mean the grammatics (which, in your case, are good anyway). It's a dumb question, you know every generation has its own world.

[Dude_Doc]

Nobody asked because the world back then was not like it is today. They all followed one straight path from birth into death. There weren't even "systems to live in" back then, feudalism was instituted by God. Humans are simply more free today than, well, ever - but not free enough.

[Tatar Khan]

I go for 200 to 500 years of capitalism still left.

The economic institutions of capitalism have been proven themselves stable more or less. The only reason capitalism will fall if its institutions will fail (by "institutions" economists mean the attributes and features that make economic system unique). So far they are standing firmly on the ground. Overall through out most of the century the world economic system was swinging between more capitalist to more socialist and back. However no state was able to implement perfect socialism. Socialism right now is impractical and impossible in its pure form. So another system is needed to repalce capitalism. That ssytem doesn't exisit not even in theory yet. If it would appear tommorow it stil would not replace capitalism in a boom. Because creation, as well as developement and spread of the new system will take time.

[Dude_Doc]

So another system is needed to repalce capitalism. That ssytem doesn't exisit not even in theory yet.

But it does. Communism.

[Cyborg]

Communism won't actually work, so we kind of have to find something else...

[gunner154]

I voted 50 and 200 years. Problems of Capitalism are showing up, albeit not to a great extent. But the rest of it is just a gut feeling.

[Andrew]

I voted:

Between 200 and 500 years. We're still in the first half of the capitalist age.

Of course those in power wont want it to go away. The proporation of wealth in wealthy is increasing (ie rich get richer, poor get poorer).

I'm waiting for a star trek economy. Where humanity betters itself without the need for wealth.

[Tatar Khan]

Communism is a great idea but it can work only on small scale and on paper. It is impossible to implement it in the country, the only country that actually came close was China during the Cultural Revolution. Even than the idea was so weird that Khrushchev told Mao to go visit a mental hospital.

Even the new system that will replace capitalism would be based on a lot of same ideas. At the core of capitalism we have the allocation of goods throught the system of the markets. If you think about even during the ancient times and middle ages markets existed through which the goods and services were allocated. Merchants existed in all ancient civilizations and they were the face of the market. They bought and sold stuff on the market according to rules of supply and demand. Feudal lords still sold the produce that peasants gave them as rent, except they bought often services of the knights in the return. Capitalism just evolves from one form to another but overall the basics stay the same.

Richer getting Richer and poorer getting poorer doesn't work for capitalism either. Can you explain than why is Japan has such huge and wealthy economy, it was poor in 1950s but it did not get poorer it got richer. Four Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea) all are getting wealthier (Hong Kong has slightly stalled due to increasing openeness of China to the world). Singapore has enough money in the governmental funds as well as its companies to afford free education (including university), subsidised housing like luxury condos, free health care and social services beyond your imagination. It also a country that invests in other countries. That I don't think any other country is doing. I don't mean humanitarian aid I mean huge amounts in billions of dollars to build infrastructure, factories, education and etc. The goal is to make it easier for Singapore companies to access those markets and expand to those contries. This is not a sign of the poor nation and it started out in the 1960s as a place os sweatshops for the western world. Now it is one of the Asian leaders of services providers and electronics manufacturers, ship bilding and steel and oil refining.

The fact that capitalism is chaotic in its nature, markets work by themselves there is no plan, what makes it scary to people we want to organise things and economy is impossible to stick in a plan. We create consiparcy theories because we want to see some kind of plan or minds that behind this chaotic system.

[Edric O]

Nobody asked because the world back then was not like it is today. They all followed one straight path from birth into death. There weren't even "systems to live in" back then, feudalism was instituted by God. Humans are simply more free today than, well, ever - but not free enough.

Indeed. Most people who lived under feudalism did not even imagine that there was any other way to live. They believed feudalism was ordained by God and would go on forever.

The economic institutions of capitalism have been proven themselves stable more or less.

Actually, as economic systems go, capitalism has proven itself remarkably unstable. Think of the Great Depression, for example. Also, capitalism has been faced with an unprecedented amount of opposition. Feudalism never had to fight a Cold War, after all... No economic system has ever been opposed as much as capitalism has.

The only reason capitalism will fall if its institutions will fail (by "institutions" economists mean the attributes and features that make economic system unique). So far they are standing firmly on the ground. Overall through out most of the century the world economic system was swinging between more capitalist to more socialist and back.

Precisely, which is why I believe capitalism is far more unstable than most people realize. I think it will keep swinging.

However no state was able to implement perfect socialism.

True. But I wouldn't use the term "perfect". There's no such thing as perfect or less perfect socialism. No state has ever implemented socialism, full stop (and, arguably, there have only been one or two serious attempts).

Socialism right now is impractical and impossible in its pure form. So another system is needed to repalce capitalism. That ssytem doesn't exisit not even in theory yet. If it would appear tommorow it stil would not replace capitalism in a boom. Because creation, as well as developement and spread of the new system will take time.

On the contrary, socialism is more practical now than ever before. Why? Because the great advances in computer technology over the past two decades have made economic planning a lot more feasible than at any point before. Not only that, but network technologies (such as the internet) also provide a greater potential for democratic feedback and popular involvement in politics than ever before.

At the most basic level, socialism is made up of two components: (1) a planned economy operated by the state, and (2) democratic accountability of the state to the people, complete with popular involvement in government decisions.

Both of these components are made far more practical than ever before by the information age. Computers allow for more accurate economic planning, and the internet allows for greater democratic feedback. The information age seems custom made for socialism.

[Edric O]

But as long as it works to the advantage of the powers-that-be, capitalism will be around for a very long time.  Therefore, I vote 500

[Edric O]

Communism won't actually work, so we kind of have to find something else...

Communism is a great idea but it can work only on small scale and on paper. It is impossible to implement it in the country...

False. Communism is certainly a lot more difficult to implement than socialism, but it is possible. Why exactly do you believe that communism cannot work? Tell me and I'll explain how it can work. :)

...the only country that actually came close was China during the Cultural Revolution. Even than the idea was so weird that Khrushchev told Mao to go visit a mental hospital.

The cultural revolution was actually more about - well, culture - than economics. Mao wanted to build an entirely new "proletarian culture" from the ground up, and destroy all traces of the old "bourgeois culture" in the process.

At the core of capitalism we have the allocation of goods throught the system of the markets.

Not quite. More fundamental than markets is the private ownership of the means of production (and all other goods) on which capitalism is based. Capitalism rests on private property. Markets are a secondary product of the existence of private property.

If you think about even during the ancient times and middle ages markets existed through which the goods and services were allocated. Merchants existed in all ancient civilizations and they were the face of the market. They bought and sold stuff on the market according to rules of supply and demand.

Feudal lords still sold the produce that peasants gave them as rent, except they bought often services of the knights in the return. Capitalism just evolves from one form to another but overall the basics stay the same.

Markets have always existed, but, until very recently, they played a very minor role in the economy. For most of history, merchants only bought and sold rare goods from far away lands. The average person would go to market once or twice a year, if that. Calling the ancient world "capitalist" because there were some markets is like calling the present day system "socialist" because there are some state-owned companies.

Under both the ancient world and feudalism, the vast majority of the population worked in agriculture. They produced their own food, built their own houses and made most of their own tools. Villages were largely self-sufficient; trade existed, of course, but usually only luxury goods or rare items got traded.

Richer getting Richer and poorer getting poorer doesn't work for capitalism either. Can you explain than why is Japan has such huge and wealthy economy, it was poor in 1950s but it did not get poorer it got richer. Four Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea) all are getting wealthier (Hong Kong has slightly stalled due to increasing openeness of China to the world). Singapore has enough money in the governmental funds as well as its companies to afford free education (including university), subsidised housing like luxury condos, free health care and social services beyond your imagination. It also a country that invests in other countries. That I don't think any other country is doing. I don't mean humanitarian aid I mean huge amounts in billions of dollars to build infrastructure, factories, education and etc. The goal is to make it easier for Singapore companies to access those markets and expand to those contries. This is not a sign of the poor nation and it started out in the 1960s as a place os sweatshops for the western world. Now it is one of the Asian leaders of services providers and electronics manufacturers, ship bilding and steel and oil refining.

The vast majority of the countries that were poor in the 1950s and 60s are still poor today, and the vast majority of the countries that were rich back then are still rich today. Yes, there are exceptions, such as the ones you mentioned, but take note of the fact that the Asian Tigers are very small countries (Hong Kong and Singapore are city-states, in fact) and their economic growth was driven by government investment and exports. In fact, net export makes up such a large part of the GDP of the Asian Tigers that you can't really consider them independent economies. If Silicon Valley was its own country, it would probably be pretty rich too.

Also, there are examples of capitalist countries that went from rich to poor over the past 60 years. The best such example is probably Argentina, who had European standards of living in the 1950s and is now almost a third world country (thanks to the free market policies imposed on it by the IMF).

[Caid Ivik]

Nobody asked because the world back then was not like it is today. They all followed one straight path from birth into death. There weren't even "systems to live in" back then, feudalism was instituted by God. Humans are simply more free today than, well, ever - but not free enough.

People were telling the same question 'why it is so and not else' since they had words for it. For always, when you are able to reflect something, you are also able to imagine a negative of it  ;)  It doesn't matter, how 'free' are the people, slave could do so as well as a monk in a cave. If we look for a 'working system', them you have one here and now, and you can be sure this will last for much more than 1000 years yet...at least I think so...

[Dude_Doc]

People were telling the same question 'why it is so and not else' since they had words for it. For always, when you are able to reflect something, you are also able to imagine a negative of it

You're missing the point. Yes, people always had the ability to think different - that is why there are different wings of Christianity for example. But - most of society was controlled by king and church. People did not learn how the world worked, they learned what the church wanted them to learn. What I am trying to say is that people have not only access to wast and different information, but the right to do so too.

If we look for a 'working system', them you have one here and now, and you can be sure this will last for much more than 1000 years yet...at least I think so...

It doesn't work since the majority of the world's people are suffering from it. It doesn't work because the system is unstable and contradict the very essence of the human being. Capitalism will inevitably collapse unless all of our technological achievements collapse, are forgotten and completely destroyed (as well as the means to create it).

[Khan]

I think we'll live to see the end of capitalism, but it won't be us that bring it down. We may sow the seeds of its undoing but it will be our children or our children's children that do it.

[Tatar Khan]

Actually, as economic systems go, capitalism has proven itself remarkably unstable. Think of the Great Depression, for example. Also, capitalism has been faced with an unprecedented amount of opposition. Feudalism never had to fight a Cold War, after all... No economic system has ever been opposed as much as capitalism has.

Unstable? Great Depression is the only black mark on its record, since 1950s the economics growth in Western World has continued to rise, there has not been even a strong recession during these years. The oil crisis, the .com crash and etc. brought small set backs in economic growth but these recessions were very small. Capitalism is opposed more than any other system because we have historical records of opposition, Not all peasant revolts against their feudal lords, or slave revolts have been recorded or records survived. Also the increase in educated people has brought out more critics and mass media allows us to see those critics.

Precisely, which is why I believe capitalism is far more unstable than most people realize. I think it will keep swinging.

I would like to point out that the swings have been not between socialism and capitalism but rather pure capitalism and market socialism (the system that distributes the resources through markets but has more planning and invovlment on the behalf of the state).

True. But I wouldn't use the term "perfect". There's no such thing as perfect or less perfect socialism. No state has ever implemented socialism, full stop (and, arguably, there have only been one or two serious attempts).

By perfect socialism I mean the economic system described as socialism, no pure capitalism ever existed, since it is also impossible to implement. The Soviet Bloc did implement different versions of socialism however they were not completely planned to every aspect.

On the contrary, socialism is more practical now than ever before. Why? Because the great advances in computer technology over the past two decades have made economic planning a lot more feasible than at any point before. Not only that, but network technologies (such as the internet) also provide a greater potential for democratic feedback and popular involvement in politics than ever before.

Even the modern technology won't be able to plan the economy. Markets balance out all the inpurities in the economy through prices. Here people through induvidual choices do that balancing and move economy towards equilibrium. In socialism you have to calculate a lot of things in order to move to that equlibrium. In 1907 Enrico Barone (Italian economist) produced theoretical frame work for planning centrally an economy. For that he created equations that related inputs and outputs to the ratios of equivalence. When solved thy would provide appropriate relative valuations that will determine distribution that will balance supply and demand. He also himself said that that is impossible to do because central planing board needs: 1) perfect computation techniques, 2) induvidual demand schedules/cruves, 3) enterprise production fucntions, 4) existing stock of both producer and consumer goods, 5) all other relevant factors.

Problems arise - agency problems a huge one. Plus you have to build a perfect model of economy. Ask any economist and they tell you that idea is suicidal because there are too many factors to account for. You can't gather perfect information about economy. In market capitalism no person has perfect information in the economy, people act on the information that they have at the moment and think is relevant.

Finally, Barone admitted that allocation of goods and services won't be any different than in capitalism, so no need to change.

[Tatar Khan]

That seems to be an unnecessarily pessimistic view. By definition, the status quo always benefits the powers that be. And yet, no status quo has ever survived for very long. For one thing, the powers that be rarely get along with each other. Capitalists (like any ruling class) don't work well together. In fact, they hate each other and compete all the time.

I don't know about hating each other, have not experienced that, there are freaks but most are normall people. Capitalist hate each other only in the movies. However we all compete all the time. That the instinct of survival the sucessful survive the weak die. Darwin put it straight forward. Through competetion for limited resource the mankind improves itself.

[Tatar Khan]

False. Communism is certainly a lot more difficult to implement than socialism, but it is possible. Why exactly do you believe that communism cannot work? Tell me and I'll explain how it can work. :)

. Communism rests on the ideal of "from everybody according to their abilities, to everyone according to their needs". Now I am a person who is living in such society, my reasoning would be to make myself vsibly less able to do work, therefore I work less, and increase my needs as much as I can. Since there is no price system to stop me from needing everything I'll demand for everything. According to rules of demand when Price = 0 quantity demanded is infinity. Since we all want to increase our hapiness that comes as a result of doing something that will make us better off, the work = zero (no waste of our resources) and demand everything (ultimate consumption of resources) makes me better off. It is a basic game theory exercise - analogical to prisoners dilemma.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Me/Everyone else|They do nothing                                |They work

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do nothing      |All lose                                              |I win, I abuse everyone else                 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I work              |I am abused by everyone else, I lose      |Middle state between winning and losing

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The best option is the I do nothing. Even if you tell me that if everone would do that than we would all lose, I would still pick the to do nothing because now I take the choice of everyone else a to work. No matter what i would never want to end up in I work they do nothing situation, therefore I won't work.

The cultural revolution was actually more about - well, culture - than economics. Mao wanted to build an entirely new "proletarian culture" from the ground up, and destroy all traces of the old "bourgeois culture" in the process.

Mao wanted to create a self-sustaining communities which is basicly the element of communism. People work to benefit the whole community and not themselves, in return they receive what they need. According to Mao, that was not much.

Not quite. More fundamental than markets is the private ownership of the means of production (and all other goods) on which capitalism is based. Capitalism rests on private property. Markets are a secondary product of the existence of private property.

Ah my friend, market is what makes capitalism work. Markets determine allocation of resources and prices. There a plenty of publicly owned corporations in the world's capitalist systems. But in those countries where they work according to rules of the markets those publicly owned corporations thrive. Economic system answers important question: How goods and services are allocated? The qoal of economy is to efficiently allocate scarce resources. Markets in capitalism is what allocates the resources. Not to define the market. Market is any place where goods and services are exchanged. It does not have to be a supermarket, a mall or a bazar. A drug dealer on the corner of the street is a market, he exchanges goods for other good (money). A kid cutting grass for a neighbour is a market he exchanges a service for a good (money) and etc.

Markets have always existed, but, until very recently, they played a very minor role in the economy. For most of history, merchants only bought and sold rare goods from far away lands. The average person would go to market once or twice a year, if that.

I guess my definition of markets above should answer this too. A pottery maker in ancient times did not eat pottery, sure he grew some of his food and repaired and made some of his cloth but he did have to buy food and clothing still. Even if he goes to his neighbour the farmer and gives him a pot for a piece of clothing it is a market transaction of exchange of goods.

Feudal serve pays his rent he makes a market transaction of goods for right to use the land.

The vast majority of the countries that were poor in the 1950s and 60s are still poor today, and the vast majority of the countries that were rich back then are still rich today. Yes, there are exceptions, such as the ones you mentioned, but take note of the fact that the Asian Tigers are very small countries (Hong Kong and Singapore are city-states, in fact) and their economic growth was driven by government investment and exports. In fact, net export makes up such a large part of the GDP of the Asian Tigers that you can't really consider them independent economies. If Silicon Valley was its own country, it would probably be pretty rich too.

If those countries would have done right things they would not be poor. Japan and Four Tigers did right things and are rising now or already rose up. For good economic growth stability of government is needed. A lot of poor countries lack that stability.

Having a huge exports is good for the country that means it is producing more than it consuming, that is a healthy economy. GDP = Consumption+Investment+Government Spendings-Imports+Exports. If exports are bigger than imports the economy is doing great.

There is nothing wrong in the countried becoming interdependent, this decreases the likeness of war, (you don't want to destroy somebody who you depend on). and the biggest point is that the general theory of trade clearly shows that all countries benefit in trading.