Capitalism Is Collapsing -- and Nothing Is Rising to Replace It

[Endus]

You seem to like the Marx definition

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.

That's pretty much the definition, it's not unique to Marxist thought. You're pulling that straight from the Wikipedia entry on Capitalism, which is hardly Marxist.

If you own a factory you own the means of production but by definition my labor which I own is also a means of production. I can quit and get a higher paying job, greed is my motivation, my means of production my skills and labor are the way I profit.

This is straight-up incorrect. Since you seem to like Wikipedia, here's the entry on "Means of production";

In economics and sociology, the means of production are physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value, such as facilities, machinery, tools,[1] infrastructural capital and natural capital.

The big in bold is my emphasis. Human labor is specifically not included under that label, precisely because it's a concept that exists in pretty much every economic system.

Any exchange that is an attempt to profit is capitalism.

Again, this is obviously false. Mercantilism, just by way of example, involves profit motives and market activity, but is clearly not, in any sense, capitalist. Not only is it not capitalist, Adam Smith's writings regarding his theory of capitalism were largely in response to the excesses of the mercantilist systems in Europe and the colonies.

As you pointed out capitalism is defined by ownership of the means of production. This is called private property (as opposed to pure possesion). To democratize capitalism would be the end of capitalism as a system of private property. No man could or would be a boss and the relationship between capital and labor (wages) would be disolved.

That's more or less what I was getting at; the classic model of capitalism expects that an elite minority will own the means of production, for their own benefits, but we're quickly approaching a world where everyone has ready access to such means of production, should they want them, meaning an end to that classic model, because the functional realities no longer support that classic model. It's less about the principles behind it, and just about the functional reality.

[Glorious Leader]

[/B]


That's more or less what I was getting at; the classic model of capitalism expects that an elite minority will own the means of production, for their own benefits, but we're quickly approaching a world where everyone has ready access to such means of production, should they want them, meaning an end to that classic model, because the functional realities no longer support that classic model. It's less about the principles behind it, and just about the functional reality.

One can only hope. For the libertarians and ancaps reading this THIS IS WHAT FREEDOM LOOKS LIKE. No gods, no master, no boss.

[Deleted]

You seem to like the Marx definition

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.

If you own a factory you own the means of production but by definition my labor which I own is also a means of production. I can quit and get a higher paying job, greed is my motivation, my means of production my skills and labor are the way I profit.

Any exchange that is an attempt to profit is capitalism.

That is a misconception, your labour is not profit but an exchange of goods. You exchange your goods (labour) and you get paid for them, you did not make a profit on your labour as you where paid the cost of your labour and nothing more. If you get a better job that pays more you do not make more profit but are simply offered more money for your goods (labour).

[Auxora]

This article is way over the top doom and gloom. It's evidence for the supposed collapse of capitalism is Trump winning the election and climate change, or underemployment. Capitalism is strong, and the world will always have various events going on. We've also survived pretty awful Presidents recently on both sides (Carter, George W), so I'm sure we'll survive Trump. Capitalism also isn't dependent on the EU breaking up or not breaking up as the article suggests, it wasn't even formed until 1993. I think it's easy to be concerned, but the article underestimates the power of the capitalist economy.

The middle-class/upper-class gap is probably the biggest problem, but it's not an easy one to solve. And really people like to think it's a recent development but the gap between the working class and the barons goes back to the 1800s. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, etc. were as relatively rich and powerful if not more so than the super-rich today and capitalism survived. That's why nothing is rising to replace it, it's not collapsing or else a replacement system naturally would develop through social evolution to fill it.

[Independent voter]

That is a misconception, your labour is not profit but an exchange of goods. You exchange your goods (labour) and you get paid for them, you did not make a profit on your labour as you where paid the cost of your labour and nothing more. If you get a better job that pays more you do not make more profit but are simply offered more money for your goods (labour).

What if I make more money laboring than my labor is worth? Or I'm a businessman who contracts with other businesses? Like a consultant? What if I shop my labor around and get better wages? What if I get training and can demand $14 an hour instead of the $10 I was making.

Labor is just another resource like any other.

[Endus]

What if I make more money laboring than my labor is worth? Or I'm a businessman who contracts with other businesses? Like a consultant? What if I shop my labor around and get better wages? What if I get training and can demand $14 an hour instead of the $10 I was making.

Labor is just another resource like any other.

Yes, but that doesn't make it a means of production, which is what you were arguing. By definition, it is not.

[primalmatter]

How is it collapsing exactly? The author doesn't make that clear.

[Independent voter]

Yes, but that doesn't make it a means of production, which is what you were arguing. By definition, it is not.

You're using a definition from Marx back in 1850.

Here's today's definition: Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.

"Wage labor" is a central part of capitalism. What's the difference between me making earthenware jugs and selling them to a business and me working for a business? There is no difference. I give the business goods and the business exchanges money for them.

[Torto]

I see that kind of comment made all the time, and it's wildly incorrect, and demonstrates a complete failure to understand what "capitalism" actually is.
-snip-

OMG I agree with an Endus comment. It truly is the end of the world.

[Deleted]

What if I make more money laboring than my labor is worth? Or I'm a businessman who contracts with other businesses? Like a consultant? What if I shop my labor around and get better wages? What if I get training and can demand $14 an hour instead of the $10 I was making.

Labor is just another resource like any other.

You never get paid more then you are worth, to them you are worth that pay, your goods are just that valuable to them. You are not a businessman if you work a wage job on your own, you are just a poor bastard without a contract. If you work for a contractor then the contractor is the guy who profits of your labour. A consultant is also paid for their services, maybe their advice is golden and maybe it is crap, it doesn't matter as they are paid for their services, there is just no profit.
And as i've said earlier, if you get a better job then you have better goods to sell so you get more money for better goods.

Profit is when you create a surplus. Say you are a contractor and someone hires you to redo their kitchen. You buy all the materials, hire a guy to do all the work (the poor guy i mentioned without a contract) and then you bill the people you did the work for. This all cost you lets say 5000 bucks, this includes the costs of hiring someone to do the job and paying you for the time you spend on the project and of course the materials. You charge the people who hired you 10 000 bucks, this means that you now have 5000 bucks profit.

Labour is not a resource, it is a good you can sell. Labour is only a resource for people that are making profit of said labour, not for the labourer it self. You do not get to keep the profit that you earn for the company that you work for.

- - - Updated - - -

You're using a definition from Marx back in 1850.

Here's today's definition: Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.

"Wage labor" is a central part of capitalism. What's the difference between me making earthenware jugs and selling them to a business and me working for a business? There is no difference. I give the business goods and the business exchanges money for them.

The difference is the profit. If you make jugs and you sell them you control the means of production and therefore the profit you can make on the product. When you are making your own vases you can sell them directly to the retailer and keep the profit for your self instead of making the vases for your boss who then sells them (with a profit of course) to the retailer.
When you make the vases your self you are selling vases, but when you are labouring for someone else you are selling your labour and skills, not the vases you make. Those get sold by your boss.

[Skalm]

No, the state giving money to a welfare recipient lacks greed as a motivation, the state isn't making a profit.

Uhh..yeah they are.

Profit doesn't just have to be in $$$

Their profit is that by giving people shit for free, these people will keep electing them to office. Which they then profit even more from.

[Yunru]

When buble will burst, people will start using internet money (like bitcoin).

Unlike the current money. they are limited by how much you can create in total, while money just keeps getting printed.

As it stands now, dolar will die soon, since there are no limits on printed inflation. (and it will cause a huge problems to nations who lack their currency)

We are producing to much junk (china creates the most of it), that breaks to soon and get replaced fast. It also gets recycled to slow.
When we run out of specific resorce, there may be a huge colapse. (probaly not oil, since it can be made on farms, but it can cause starvation)

[Glorious Leader]

You're using a definition from Marx back in 1850.

Here's today's definition: Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.

"Wage labor" is a central part of capitalism. What's the difference between me making earthenware jugs and selling them to a business and me working for a business? There is no difference. I give the business goods and the business exchanges money for them.

Voluntary exchange is is no way necessary to capitalism. Capitalism can and did function with slavery. Actual real voluntary exchange is anethema to capitalism. It would undermine wage labor.

[Kellhound]

Definition of capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
or
: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

It goes beyond just the means of production.

[Total Crica]

Uhh..yeah they are.

Profit doesn't just have to be in $$$

Their profit is that by giving people shit for free, these people will keep electing them to office. Which they then profit even more from.

You would have a point if everyone's votes mattered.

[Endus]

Definition of capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
or
: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

It goes beyond just the means of production.

And yet, the ownership of that means of production is central to your own definitions.

Nobody said that was the sum of it, but it's a core component; you can have market systems with free exchange of goods for profit and have it not be capitalist, if the means of production are collectively owned; that would be market socialism.

There's nothing about the existence of markets, or the generation of profit, that is fundamentally capitalist in nature. Capitalist systems generally rely on those, but they're not capitalist in and of themselves; you cannot look at a system, identify only that there is market action in that economy, and declare it to be capitalist as a result.

[Nadiru]

One can only hope. For the libertarians and ancaps reading this THIS IS WHAT FREEDOM LOOKS LIKE. No gods, no master, no boss.

That's like the Good End, but we're not particularly close to it yet. For reference, Bad End looks something like this:

-Modest basic income.
-Can't get a job due to automation.
-Can't create jobs because nobody has any disposable income to reward that job creation.
-You get what massa says you get and the only alternative is for you to kill yourself.

[Deleted]

@Hubcap Do you believe that Black Markets didn't exist in Communist systems, as well?

[Sunseeker]

I could write a thesis on why this guy is wrong, but most of it would be addressing the fact that he is conflating a lot of things he shouldn't and not applying the proper definitions of them. So instead, I will simply direct people to http://www.dictionary.com/ and https://www.wikipedia.org/ because although I vaunt the efforts of earlier posters, they really are doing little more than supplying the proper definitions of words (the purpose of a dictionary) and supplying the proper definition of socio-economic concepts (the point of Wikipedia).

So I highly suggest any time the author uses a big word, you just go look it up and you'll see why he's mistaken (but not wholly wrong).

[melodramocracy]

Automation itself will be the final nail in capitalism's coffin. Ironic, as it exists as the most efficient model of said economic theory.