Mar 22, 2007 9:46:11 PM cite

I do think that one has to understand that neither Capitalism nor any other Monetary System based on current values like e.g. gold or silver will create a fair environment for the growth of mankind.

by hope4

Mar 21, 2007 4:46:41 PM cite

Capitalism and socialism are systems to organise a world. I don't think we can decide rationally "What's after capitalism?" until we are clear what purpose we want the "new" system to meet. Which comes down to deciding what sort of world we want. I have done a lot of work with vision building (There is an article on www.nickheap.co.uk) and discovered that when there is enough trust and connection, people agree about what they want. This works with teams and organisations. It ought to work globally. A nice question might be, "It's a Wednesday in 10 years time and as you listen to the news on the radio you think this is amazing, all the things I wanted to happen are happening. What would you be hearing?" So, what would you be hearing? What sort of world do you want? When we know this, we will know what system we need to deliver it.

by nickheap

Mar 19, 2007 7:11:23 PM cite

It seems to me that a question such as what comes after capitalism suggests that we have already maximised the benefits of capitalism. We should be asking the questions that perhaps generations before us thought would be answered with the emergence of modern industrial nations: how can capitalism make our lives better? I have seen that some people have mentioned this idea that their needs to be a refocus on how capitalism is practised. It is unfathomable that large amounts of wealth that can be ammassed by individuals while others can literally starve to death. Yet these people with so much feel no responsibility because they have 'earned' their money. Let's start big: the top-flight footballer who plays two games a week and then practices another 4 days a week from about 9:30 to 12:00 can earn anywhere from about 10,000 euros to 100,000+ euros. Of course he earns that money. But we don't even need to be that extreme. The average person earning an average wage is better off than most of the world's citizens. And I appreciate that poverty is relative but there are millions, if not billions, livingin absolute poverty - with absolutely nothing. In general we, the ordinary people, are everything that is wrong with capitalism. We buy into the lifestyle without putting demands on how it should function. Do we question where the products that we consume on a daily basis (food/clothing/etc.) come from. Do we question why production costs which are so low should reap such big turnovers? Why is that when we say workers should be paid a fair wage that companies try to neutralise our protests by claiming higher wages would mean higher retail prices. We should be saying: No...higher wages should mean less profit for you extremely wealthy directors and shareholders...the chocolate I buy will now be fairtrade chocolate...I will not buy Ronaldinho's replica Barca jersey for 70 euros so he can earn a fortune. We should be asking ourselves why has capitalism become an excuse for exploitation. There is nothing wrong with maximising profit as long as social consciousness is at the base of this concept. Capitalism is still young and as such is typically selfish but hopefully it will continue to grow and mature. However, to do that capitalism needs the active participation of the people...we cannot sit by idly and hope for the emergence of good leaders with a strong sense of social responsibility to adopt better fairer economic policies...history has proved that is futile. We need to put demands on our leaders, on corporations and on consumers to ensure that all society (not just our city, county, state or country) receives a fair deal. We should not make the mistake that capitalism is inevitable, though that may be the case for the forseeable future. We have to ensure that 'ethical capitalism' comes to fruition and that the world does not become disillusioned with an economic system that actually can give people a good deal. I think the question we should be asking and trying our hardest to influence is: What will capitalism be when it grows up?

by retter13

Feb 25, 2007 2:41:18 PM cite

It is obvious that the present prevailing economic system is not able to sustain itself, it is self-destructive (e.g. see the UN-report on climatic change). "Capitalism" is not based upon the common good of all and everything, including nature, but on money as a value in itself - apart from its purpose of allowing the exchange of goods and services - and the belief (myth) that by serving one's own interest the whole is served best (Darwin, Adam Smith). We can observe right now that this myth is not true. Humanity is challenging itself right now to find a new answer. The answer to the posed question cannot be found in economic terms. The root of the problems we are facing as humanity lies in our basic prevailing belief system, which is: we are all separate physical beings, we have to fight for survival, we are superior to nature and rule over the earth and have a right to do whatever we want. This belief system is basically a Western one. If that is so what then is a saving belief system? We are all spiritual beings and one by virtue of our intrinsic nature and origin. Life upon earth is ultimately meant to manifest our spiritual nature of oneness, beauty, abundance, love. We understand more and more that nature is an infinitely complex undertaking of cooperation and connectedness, which to destroy we are presently doing our best. It is our choice to learn from our past mistakes and change our destructive belief systems. It is our choice to destroy our habitat and future or to create a new beautiful world expressive of our true nature. Capitalism would then be replaced by a system of intensiv cooperation and caring and respect for each person and thing in this world. The three capital values "freedom, equality, fraternity" would finally find universal expression.

by Sirius

Feb 23, 2007 11:23:45 PM cite

YOUR GARDEN! - It satisfies all your primary basic needs ... eating, drinking, fresh air. Invite some friends or have your family there - the basic need of socialisation is staisfied. Should you not like the term YOUR garden, since it implies ownership ... well, go in everyones's garden - NATURE. Your basic needs can be satisfied there as well!

by __anon_70489252

Feb 21, 2007 4:14:21 PM cite

I hear some people saying: “Then comes the really times of freedom and socialism…” (Sorry for my laughter about this matter – like I heard that twenty-five years too long.) Other people I hear asking: “What the hell is capitalism? What capitalism?” - You knows, if someone is sleeping deep, do not wake up without a special danger! And other people mean: “After that capitalism will comes some other capitalism and so on and so on. The evolution herself is it, what we call capitalism, when we are feeling at a loss, and what we call performance or luck with pleasure, when we are favoured. You can proof that by the same persons, if you want.” I like to think, that is the best argumentation, especially when we imagine our self the real future develops similar like the circumstances in the Star-Trek-Universe in imagination. General could be watched in the most of science fiction literature and movies, the social circumstances are nearer to the idealized visions of socialism as real capitalism, we all know from our ones experiences. But we should not forget: Visions are that, wishes at best, not reality-formed circumstances. When we remind us about the fact, that only the smaller half of all people in our society is working for the subsistence of their selves while the other half can live from produced surplus, so we can see, that in future this part will growing more and more. The members of society, who can claimed, they would be exploited from the others, will be dwindling away in times. So can the society change herself from capitalism to beautiful-ism - if you want so! But only, if there goes not too much revolutions between.

by Edgar

Feb 8, 2007 3:01:56 AM cite

Who ever said that what we have now is capitalism, whatever that means, since in so many decisions and activities around the world, full capitalism is obviously not ruling. When and where can for instance a Brittish citizen sell his citizenship to an interested Argentinian at an expensive price and then go out and buy himself a cheap Tanzania citizenship, so that he can invest his profits in that land in order to really push it forward so that his grandchildren can inherit a fortune? After the whatever we now have, hopefully we could have something better… if we just keep working at whatever we have, and forget the notion that it just can just be replaced with something else, only supposedly something better.

by Per Kurowski

Jan 30, 2007 11:09:42 PM cite

We are already well along in entering a new kind of economy based not on the scarcity of things but the scarcity of something we each need and desire, namely attention from other human beings. This divides people into two classes, which can crudely be referred to as stars and fans. I have been arguing this for quite awhile now. See goldhaber.org and references there. The mistake made by most contributors to this dialogue is to see the only possiblities as capitalism and socialism; that might be neat, but why should it be? Dyadic class systems existed before capitalism, and new ones can exist after it. Is this progressive? Not necessarily, since progress is always a question of what is measured. But there are definitely some ways in which the Attention Economy will be/already is better.

by mgoldh

Jan 29, 2007 8:04:46 PM cite

The problem with a question like this is that it often forces those who respond to do so from one side of a two-sided issue. The responses will often be predictable based on one's captalist or socialist affiliations. what is worth remembering, and I present this from within a progressively liberal perspective, is that civilization and society owe their existence to the exchange of goods between parties and the abilitiy to shape and alter this system to satify each group's potential needs. Individual societies have a responsibility to sustain theirselves first, followed by a moral obligation to positively affect those outside their direct sphere of influence. These are the pronciples established through the limited and narrowly applied benevolence of American foreign policy as well as the underlying purpose of the United Nations. Capitalism cannot fade away and cannot be replace by any other system of governence. it is the method through which nations and peoples aquire the necessary goods and services to survive which would otherwise be inaccessible to them without it. Capitalism is as vital to the progression of humanity as is sufficient food and clean drinking water. The question we should really be asking is, "How can we make capitalism work better?"

by dac7

Jan 28, 2007 5:48:49 PM cite

Capitalism has several different meanings. "After capitalism" implies capitalislm meaning the current system. There is no way to know how government and the economy will change. The system can continue indefinitely without any "after". Fred Foldvary

by foldvary

Jan 28, 2007 12:24:19 AM cite

Capitalism as Communism and other ways to conduct human life and activities are concepts that have intrinsic values that relate to a populace in a time frame. But the common denominator in the downfall of these systems is corruption for personal greed, advancement, or power. Thus, one must look to the spiritual or ethical evolution of Man. By my reconning, we're not doing doing so well. In spite of centuries of religious support (?), laws to govern the people for order and justice, there remains hate, suspicion, deceit, Us versus Them mentality, wars conducted for revenge or hidden agendas masked as noble causes, lack of concern or charity for the poorest of people..... How to change the heart and soul of one man so that he truely sees? How to change many hearts and souls so that they respond honestly, ethically to solve problems? We are certainly heading for a major crisis, and crisis has, in the past, propelled us to the next stage of existance. However, what's left after we trash the place? The environment is going downhill pretty fast now. When nuclear devices are set off in the Middle East, what do you think is going to be left to work with?

by marianne

Oct 2, 2006 8:41:43 AM cite

Wow, I like this Question. Also there are a lot of answers posted on this question. However most of them tended to say “I don’t know what’s after capitalism”, or people in favor of socialism, humanism, localization, and even those who this “there is nothing after capitalism” capitalism is it, or worse capitalism will kill us all we’ve already doomed ourselves mentality, or it’s a never ending cycle there is nothing better then repeating what we already know over and over again. Of course any of these could be right, but most of them are kind of depressing to keep reading. I like the people who tried to think of something after but the reoccurrence of old ideas like traditions kept coming up. I not saying that communism and socialism doesn’t have good qualities, I’m just saying it’s like people can’t move passed the old alternatives presented. That is what I think that is depressing. Here’s my take: Why hasn’t anyone ever heard or had the guts to utter “Anarchy” or “Anarchism”? Sure you can say that there hasn’t been any real economic critiques that came from any Anarchist, and that it seems up until recently that most Anarchists relied on the old Communist and Socialist critiques of Capitalism. Though something new is now being born, to where it’ll take us no one knows for sure. Some call it the “Gift Economy”, others “Participatory Economics”, then again even the “Localization” of stuff has its Anarchist roots and values as well, as well as the people who believe in a “value system”. Again no one has the absolute answer for this. I can attempt to give you a glimpse of what my understanding is. I see things as ever evolving; there most likely is something after capitalism. I also believe humans will not stop there, we will always grow and learn and create new things and ways of doing and being. The reason I brought up Anarchy/Anarchism is because based on its fundamental values I would propose that the following should be tried: Why not a system of free exchange, as in everything is free to everyone and everything? Just like it once was, in the beginning when humans came into existence. After all no one really can own land or the water or the air, sure capitalist would like us to believe you could harness them and monopolize them and then sell them back and keep people in oppression through denying them their living right to such necessities. They think anything can make them money, and money is freedom. But a lot of us have figured out that money is only paper and ink, it is us that decide to give it value at the expense of our selves and our planet. We oppress our very selves by not acknowledging that it’s just paper and ink, or data in the electronic cyber space, just ink written down to represent numbers that we gave names to. Though this time around we actually know what we got before we squander it. A free system of sharing, of giving, of receiving, of recycling but with no expectations projected onto others, only expectations of our selves. For everyone contributes in their own unique way and how they wish to contribute. No one is meant to be judgmental and say well you don’t do this therefore you are not contributing. That would be a form of control so “NO”, then it wouldn’t be free, and free has to be voluntary which is the opposite of controlled I would say. Just because one person doesn’t see value in what another person chooses to do doesn’t mean that person is wrong or lazy, it just means we have different definitions of what we think is worth what. I believe we can all help each other provide the basics for one another. It’ll be like walking into a street market but you’re free to take what you want and how much you want, and you are very welcome to bring what you would like to share as well. Even though we can not understand all the exchanges doesn’t mean they are not of all equal value, there is always equivalent exchange in a free giving system. Nature is a free giving system, it’s sustainable because it is a circle. Nature doesn’t demand something our of what it gives it knows that an equivalent exchange will take place no matter what it gives or how much it gives. Take for example if a person produced corn because they loved to eat corn, they could take what they produced and keep what they wanted, the rest they can give away. I’m pretty sure someone would get sick of eating nothing but corn, and they would be foolish to let extra corn rot. The most logical thing to do is give what they will not need or use to others, and when doing so look to see what others have brought to the table and then take what they need. Like say they didn’t have sugar, I’m pretty sure someone out there will have and give them sugar and they can take as much sugar as they think they need or want. This would rely on people participating locally to a great degree, but it’ll also rely on networks with other local communities. If you’d like to look to an old example you can look with how Native American tribes traded with other tribes for a similar but not exact model. Don’t get me mistaken for bartering though, it would be foolish to go back to bartering, again everything is priceless and everything was meant for everyone and everything else on this planet. Just because we are human doesn’t give us the right to control it. To just rely locally would be foolish too. There will always be something that someone else or some other group or some other area of the world made or has that another might not be able to make themselves, due to either lack of knowledge or lack of locally available resources, or even the fact that everything is unique and nothing will ever match the uniqueness of someone else’s knowledge, item, or whatever. So whatever one lacks the other needs and they can help support each other. In a simple way, just think FREE, FREE, FREE. People will do stuff because they want to, and they do what they like naturally, I also believe we are social creatures and like to share our joys, our joys can manifest themselves in anything from food to a computer to art to emotions but we always love to share those joys. The think we would need to learn is to become mature enough to realize that we shouldn’t limit us from sharing our joys to just our families, friends, and local communities, but to open up to everyone everywhere. Just like in Dropping Knowledge we will find that helping people outside of our circles will in the end help us as well. If you are one to think that humans are too selfish to achieve such things, then I say to you this: Is it not selfish to help someone in need? When you know if they get on their feet then they will be able to help themselves and you have a better life? This understanding indeed means one needs to have an open mind and a degree of maturity. Though if you look at giving something away as an unselfish act, I think you’re wrong. By helping others you also help yourself, even if you do not notice it right away. For my self to become truly free, everyone and everything else has to be free with me, so to achieve my goal I will selfishly help others to achieve it with me so that I too can benefit from the same freedom I hope to attain. I know that if everyone is not happy, then I too will not be happy, I think for me it’s a fact that sooner or later I will become unhappy if others are not happy. Some systems of “Free Shares” have already been started. Just look around. No one has drawn up a blue print or a map, because a lot feel like such things should be a proposal not a rule, and should be built upon and expanded. Also everyone will have their own ideas and they will make it reality in how they see fit. If yall are interested in more, I am working on a project to have a working living example of this… just contact me if you can. After all the more people who help out the better!

by AnarchyAm

Sep 29, 2006 11:07:11 PM cite

This is sort of like asking: ‘What’s after dinner?’ we won’t know until we’ve cleaned up the mess, maybe more dinner.

by RedSevenOne

Sep 10, 2006 8:02:28 AM cite

We are living already in a new area of consciousness even if it is not seen by a lot of people and not seen at all by mass media. This new area brings the power of the individual choice into the foreground. What have been considered as "magic" will be pure knowledge available for everyone who dares to look inside - so to speak. With this knowledge all ...isms are no longer necessary.

by mbl

Sep 9, 2006 6:35:05 PM cite

My proposal is to allow states to take property of all industrial and logistic facilities and lend them back to private enterprises or produce in their interests. The states take the advantage of first money, but further they get the possibility to control directly the circumstances of labour, the amount of environmental pollution and can give benefits to innovative new products or concepts. The enterprises take even bigger advantages. They can reduce their staff to a minimum which only includes management, desighn and marketing, this decreases bureaucratic efforts. Then does it take much less money to invest into new projects(factories are no longer to be built, just to be hired) But most important: They can expand freely without fearing to collapse or overexpand, because they can get rid easily of each and every piece of industry within months, without loosing investment or having workers to go on strike. I consider this system easy and practicabilly and to be the future of economy. Especially looking at developments in robotic sciences, which bring forth machines that are capable of producing not one single but several different things, only depending on what is required. - Technologie enpowers the proposed system, because it will enable industry to shift production from one article to another by simply reprogramming(not rebuilding) the assembly lines. This was a long answer to a short but important question and my opinion of the economic future. Good bye and thank you for reading.

by .......OMalley

Sep 9, 2006 3:56:49 PM cite

postcapitalism.

by AvB

Sep 9, 2006 12:50:44 PM cite

When capitalism stand for the becomming of capital so stands optimism for the becomming of an optimal situation. In an optimism state we acknoledge the powers of capitalism and we will use them. At the same time we ask ourselvess; " Are these actoins at this moment the best for all life?", "Is this the most optimal situation for all?" In the optimism state we try to make our view as wide as it can get. In the optimism state there is no thinking in therms of: "We and them" there is only "We" It is all life we are looking at. Written by Adrianus

by Adrianus