I don't think anyone alive has experienced true capitalism. If you're currency is manipulated by a federal reserve and government is in cahoots with the largest corporations, you have centralized forces running the show. Then there are the 3 letter agencies whose job it is to take out competition. It would be cool to live in true decentralized capitalism.
True, but we could have a system a lot closer to true capitalism. Or at least recognize that what we have now is not true capitalism. Maybe make bailouts, lobbying illegal and dismantle a lot of government agencies that protect the elite. And dismantle the federal reserve. The end result would be cool for the next 50 years or so.
I think the idea will continue to mutate but not fully go away. Through history, individuals have always bartered and sold the fruits of their labors. Over time this expanded in scale and scope and we got small business, then larger business then corporations.
With time, legal systems grew too and aided corporations. Legal systems are like a cancer; they grow and never shrink, because they are a route to power for some.
So what will affect business is changes in laws. Large business is predatory, and it needs to be reigned in or it will devour.
If you replace capitalism with state-run production, that puts power in the hands of the politicians controlling the goods, and that never ends well. What we need is controls on society that limit how much power politicians can grab, and how long they can stay (Pelosi as prime example but Fauci too). Malign lobbying by corporations does ill and so that also needs fixing.
In short, capitalism is a product of a social system and it is that system we need to pay attention too; the farmer selling eggs isn't the problem.
Yeah, the corporate system is definitely feudal with power at the top and all the workers as serfs below. Power is somewhat self-sustaining, and it is in its best interests to keep the serfs without power. One way that goes bad is when the power level takes its money and influences society, corrupting it in its own interest. Right now, most government is in part controlled by corporations - the military-industrial complex as a full example.
We are now back at the third going into the fourth cycle type.
Although some criticize the theory, I feel it does describe the alternating phases of generational goals, meaning that we undergo waves of haves, and have nots who then rebel against oppression.
Capitalism at its core means no entity government or otherwise has the right to use violence or other significant threats to force you to participate in the economy.
Corporations can certainly be evil monopolizing overlords but they don't get to force you to work for them or purchase their goods/services, and they're not allowed to forcibly stop you from trying to compete with them, either. You are always free to boycott for any reason.
The alternative is that some entity ie the "government" gets to force people to work X jobs for X compensation (or else) and gets to decide for you what you can purchase and how much and for what price. Police brutality against union members on strike is a historical example of anti-capitalist sentiment from government, though the irony is lost on most modern day anti-capitalist pro-union types, who can't comprehend that unions are quite capitalist in their nature, using basic supply/demand principles in negotiations.
But anyway, people are turning against capitalism because capitalism does require active participation in society and a willingness for personal sacrifice, in the forms of boycotts and strikes etc, to use deliberate supply/demand maneuvers as leverage.
Instead more and more people just want a powerful authority figure to do all the work for them and save them. Most people are frankly going to get what they deserve as capitalism is thrown out the window in favor of brazen government control.
Capitalism does not require growth at all, and will work fine in a shrinking economy. Fractional reserve banking, that uses a currency that is debt to be paid back to private bankers, requires that growth, to not fall apart. Capitalism is basically just taking the power to invest and use property from certain classes to anyone, with social contracts and legal frameworks supporting that (including the right to say no, which, FI, is violated by property taxes).
It's going to end, not for lack of growth, but because too many people are going to too stupid and/or poorly raised to handle basic day to day responsibilities on their own, and self-organize. The typical citizen being able to make informed decisions around their labor, money, and wealth, are implicitly necessary, along with being willing to sacrifice time/labor for the good of the whole.
Yeah, lack of growth, because the current system demands growth. However why would a decentralized, free dealing society necessarily necessitate constant growth. Growth happens but every now and then you need to prune the tree. In our current system, the tree is never pruned and you have bailouts. By definition, bailouts and capitalism cannot coexist. Maybe more like an oligarchy.
I agree, not on the obvious moral grounds of capitalism's every man for himself problem; rather, because as you point out, capitalism requires constant growth, and this is not sustainable on a planet with finite resources.
Because the fractional banking system corrupts everything that it touches by masquerading debt as currency. Usury corrupts all systems of governance and finance that it touches.
I don't disagree with what you just said, but I think you're complicating the question by bringing up fractional reserve banking. Supposing we had a sound money system, would capitalism require constant growth?
I don't think anyone alive has experienced true capitalism. If you're currency is manipulated by a federal reserve and government is in cahoots with the largest corporations, you have centralized forces running the show. Then there are the 3 letter agencies whose job it is to take out competition. It would be cool to live in true decentralized capitalism.
True, but we could have a system a lot closer to true capitalism. Or at least recognize that what we have now is not true capitalism. Maybe make bailouts, lobbying illegal and dismantle a lot of government agencies that protect the elite. And dismantle the federal reserve. The end result would be cool for the next 50 years or so.
I think the idea will continue to mutate but not fully go away. Through history, individuals have always bartered and sold the fruits of their labors. Over time this expanded in scale and scope and we got small business, then larger business then corporations. With time, legal systems grew too and aided corporations. Legal systems are like a cancer; they grow and never shrink, because they are a route to power for some.
So what will affect business is changes in laws. Large business is predatory, and it needs to be reigned in or it will devour.
If you replace capitalism with state-run production, that puts power in the hands of the politicians controlling the goods, and that never ends well. What we need is controls on society that limit how much power politicians can grab, and how long they can stay (Pelosi as prime example but Fauci too). Malign lobbying by corporations does ill and so that also needs fixing.
In short, capitalism is a product of a social system and it is that system we need to pay attention too; the farmer selling eggs isn't the problem.
Yeah, the corporate system is definitely feudal with power at the top and all the workers as serfs below. Power is somewhat self-sustaining, and it is in its best interests to keep the serfs without power. One way that goes bad is when the power level takes its money and influences society, corrupting it in its own interest. Right now, most government is in part controlled by corporations - the military-industrial complex as a full example.
In the 60's, youth rebelled. It was the Crisis stage (4th stage) of the Strauss-Howe social cycle theory -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory
We are now back at the third going into the fourth cycle type. Although some criticize the theory, I feel it does describe the alternating phases of generational goals, meaning that we undergo waves of haves, and have nots who then rebel against oppression.
Capitalism at its core means no entity government or otherwise has the right to use violence or other significant threats to force you to participate in the economy.
Corporations can certainly be evil monopolizing overlords but they don't get to force you to work for them or purchase their goods/services, and they're not allowed to forcibly stop you from trying to compete with them, either. You are always free to boycott for any reason.
The alternative is that some entity ie the "government" gets to force people to work X jobs for X compensation (or else) and gets to decide for you what you can purchase and how much and for what price. Police brutality against union members on strike is a historical example of anti-capitalist sentiment from government, though the irony is lost on most modern day anti-capitalist pro-union types, who can't comprehend that unions are quite capitalist in their nature, using basic supply/demand principles in negotiations.
But anyway, people are turning against capitalism because capitalism does require active participation in society and a willingness for personal sacrifice, in the forms of boycotts and strikes etc, to use deliberate supply/demand maneuvers as leverage.
Instead more and more people just want a powerful authority figure to do all the work for them and save them. Most people are frankly going to get what they deserve as capitalism is thrown out the window in favor of brazen government control.
Capitalism does not require growth at all, and will work fine in a shrinking economy. Fractional reserve banking, that uses a currency that is debt to be paid back to private bankers, requires that growth, to not fall apart. Capitalism is basically just taking the power to invest and use property from certain classes to anyone, with social contracts and legal frameworks supporting that (including the right to say no, which, FI, is violated by property taxes).
It's going to end, not for lack of growth, but because too many people are going to too stupid and/or poorly raised to handle basic day to day responsibilities on their own, and self-organize. The typical citizen being able to make informed decisions around their labor, money, and wealth, are implicitly necessary, along with being willing to sacrifice time/labor for the good of the whole.
The only reason you need wicked growth is to play the federal reserve dollar manipulation game. Without it you could just have capitalism.
Yeah, lack of growth, because the current system demands growth. However why would a decentralized, free dealing society necessarily necessitate constant growth. Growth happens but every now and then you need to prune the tree. In our current system, the tree is never pruned and you have bailouts. By definition, bailouts and capitalism cannot coexist. Maybe more like an oligarchy.
I agree, not on the obvious moral grounds of capitalism's every man for himself problem; rather, because as you point out, capitalism requires constant growth, and this is not sustainable on a planet with finite resources.
Why does capitalism require constant growth?
Because the fractional banking system corrupts everything that it touches by masquerading debt as currency. Usury corrupts all systems of governance and finance that it touches.
I don't disagree with what you just said, but I think you're complicating the question by bringing up fractional reserve banking. Supposing we had a sound money system, would capitalism require constant growth?
Interesting. I can see it going that way.