Future of the world

is capitalism eternal and undying or will it give way to better system in a Hegelian dialectical understanding

>capitalism is failing as people don't believe in free market solving problems.

I don't think the failure of capitalism has anything to do with a lack of faith in it's ideology. I think it has a lot more to do with wealth inequality, the exporting of political instability to the third world through labor exploitation, and the rapid deterioration of the nature.

People's faith in capitalism seems pretty fucking strong. Zizek likes to use the whole "running off a cliff while not looking down" cartoon gimmick as a metaphor for current capitalism.

isn't this social policy, not fiscal?

good i think it will lead to a sort of second dark age but it will be better for humanity because for many reasons civilization needs to collapse once to rise stronger and better like a phoenix

syndicalism, with direct democracy

the capitalism failing meme would make more sense if people were starving (instead of obese) in a disproportionate amount of countries

in fact, the countries where starvation occurs (due to failure of the populations to properly deploy capital, whose resources are then then cannibalized by the US/Chinese), can simply migrate to successful capitalize countries

If there were a real capitalist crisis besides reading too deeply into American Psycho, it is that the current system works so well at allocating capital that the owners of capital are on almost cruise control

For every willing middle class citizen who has risen from poverty is a new opportunity to buy into index fund dividends, which are effectively paying perpetual dividends to intelligent investors

there is no system that can fairly assess the value of capital (or it's deployment) while rewarding the intelligent

the intelligentsia continues to benefit from capitalism, and every discovery made by them benefits the whole as long as the young students are willing to learn while the children of the rich fall into the traps of abundance and substance abuse

when people dont believe on market economics but believe in private ownership and capitalist superstructure they turn to fascism like they are doing right now

But educating them's expensive, and the somewhat educated and somewhat hungry but definitely aware and addicted are ripe for revolution. Starving peasants don't have the energy for mass rebellion.

>due to failure of the populations to properly deploy capital, whose resources are then then cannibalized by the US/Chinese

This is the crisis of capitalism. The exploitation of the developing world to fuel luxury at the center of the empire. That you blame on the developing world (their "failure to properly deploy capital"), rather than seeing it for what it is, the systematic exploitation of the many for the few, shows how deep capitalist ideology goes. It's like stabbing someone with a sword, and then blaming them for falling into your weapon.

Nick Land pretty much nails it on the head in Fanged Noumena.

Wow and here we are, giving away millions in foreign aid to prevent food shortages when all we had to do all this entire time was sending an educated fellow like yourself to inform the natives to >simply migrate to successful capitalize countries

> Starving peasants don't have the energy for mass rebellion.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum

if capitalism were only fueling luxury at its core, it would have no base

and yet its base is billions of people who are fed, clothed, sheltered, willingly distracted every day by a government that is increasingly providing for them so long as they get along with their neighbors

but it's working, look at Europe

where were the millions who fled to the porsperity safety of the Soviet Union?

a system that is able to dispense with millions (pennies) in foreign aid to a continent with 60% of the arable land on the planet, you're right that does seems flawed to me

we should stop the people who are using the land to feed millions of people [evil foreign conglomerates who feed the locals] and instead give it to friends of the Warlord / President for Life in the region instead [who feed... no one]

I'm not , but consider that relative inequality is growing so fast and so much that it is indeed akin to fueling luxury being capitalism's core. I say "relative" because it (the capital) obviously gets people better off than any other system, and it also makes sure that most survive. But a caste system with much more gap inbetween classes than any other in history has been created.

The billions who are being fed and distracted look at the so called benign providers and see much more wealth than any merit would justify, and this wealth is bigger than the combination of everything they all have, even after putting it all together. This situation obviously causes a feeling of insult regardless if these lesser people are being benefitted or not from the system. They are not being benefitted *enough* compared to the ones providing benefits. Now I am strictly not arguing for communism here at all, just saying that wealth inequality could exist but has no reason to exist in the level it has right now.

I think that the current state of inequality is a totally valid point but includes context of the rising standard of living; continuing to live becomes a sick joke in that you are perpetuating your pointless lot in life, true, much like in previous times; but you are able to do so in a much more painless/enjoyable way compared to being in a jungle, ready to be eaten.

In terms of "solutions", besides taxing owners of capital heavily directly (as opposed to blanket taxation of highly skilled workers who own no/limited capital, like Doctors, who, let's face it, are running as fast as they can to attain capital in the most virtuous way possible), the system only "corrects" itself through determinism of the players and through the players "flipping" the board. Of course, if you flip the board, you do not necessarily end up in a fair and balanced utopia, but a different set of figureheads who seem to have nicer things than you do. Most of this ends up not through material capital but through intellectual capital. But I'll focus on determinsm.

If you want everyone to have a deterministic outcome-- by which I mean letting people make massive mistakes not once but perpetually if they choose-- you have to have diminishing returns on social programs to inevitable isolate specific members of the population. That doesn't mean you can't attempt to educate them, but as the network of players shares more and more information, specific players naturally outwit the others through sheer access to information, and others do the opposite. The best outcome for everyone would be zero determinism so that no one could make obvious mistakes that lead to drains on the welfare system. Every robot makes the same calculated maneuvers and is corrected when it fails. Communism would work perfectly for a distributed system of artificial intelligence (or even distributed post-humans), but not for homo sapiens.

Back to solving inequality through deterministic means: as long as education and incentive structures are available, the number of chairs in specific upper level positions will increase but not faster than the turnover rate of the population. This is not mutually exclusive to capitalism. However it means vast amounts of money kept under a household are of course distributed as the members of the household grows, and I think many people take the human aspect of the bourgeoisie for granted in terms of how quickly the middle and upper middle class can pick a family clean of it's worldly possessions once the family members are no longer "fit" enough to allocate their capital correctly

In extreme shortage of liquidity where governments have to provide surpluses of fiat currency to the public so the economy can actually function, the hoarders lose a greater gross of their wealth due to inflation.

But a system based on repaying debt with greater value will continue to produce this. This is not necessary to capitalism but to the current global financial paradigm that involves nation-states agreeing on fixed financial instruments (through centralization and the amplification of massive concentrations of intellectual capital)

Check this one out. It's not that no one is in control. It's that no one doesn't even try:
youtube.com/watch?v=9aLQPNPlK5M

I think that Bauman was right. We're living in an interregnum.

>free markets solve problems
the only problems "markets" solve is selling a shitty product

you can buy all the crap you want, youre still a horrible person

I think we're too close to it to tell how technology will effect social organisation. I don't think you'll see any 20th or 19th century system re-employed. far left and right, even liberalism, has changed so much from the 20th and I can see those projects developing further. post-left is already talking about symbolic interactionism as a replacement for identity for example. I don't think collapse is possible in a globalised world, there will always be centres of productivity for people to move to.

This is unironically a great quote, and I hope it rings true

I would be okay with this. Get rid of the undesirables, and let the top end of the bell curve propel humanity into a new enlightenment. I wouldn't be in that strata, but it will be better for our species in the long run, provided measures are taken to diminish adverse effects to radiation.

It literally doesn't matter whether you like capitalism or fight tooth and nail to preserve it, the internal contradictions of capitalism as an economic system can NEVER be fixed.

See you either in hell or in communism.

poverty is increasing worldwide if you take China out of the equation

the crisis of capitalism IS material, read marx

>buy into index fund dividends, which are effectively paying perpetual dividends to intelligent investors
With whose labor? Retard.

>capitalism is failing
>let's replace it with something much worse!
Communists are so dumb

There is no difference between Capitalism and Socialism. Both rely on the worship of money and lifelong employment. The only meaningful imminent change is Apocalypse.

How do we into post scarcity

we're already there

Beyond the problem of losing what has been gained, an apocalyptic event of that magnitude capable of driving us back into a second Stone Age would invariably lead to the extinction of humanity as a whole.

Earth is due for another extinction-level meteor. Likely in a few hundred years. If we don't get off the planet before then, humanity is doomed, and if we nuke ourselves into a dark age, we'll never recover fast enough to avoid it.

This is also ignoring that we've depleted the earth of fossil fuels, so reclaiming the industrial age would be incredibly difficult.

Neoliberalism for the next 200 years until full automation

I am indian and poverty in india has definately decreased and is decreasing steadily

not sure if you are implying that labor is unable to invest its savings, seems like you don't think very highly of the labor class

google murray bookchin

Social libertarianism fixes all problems with capitalism and leaves the good parts.

The only tricky part is getting away from the "work is good for you" brainwashing.

>Communism failed in the last century

Where?

What? "Social libertarianism" Is currently breaking down in Scandinavia, we've literally ran out of money to keep it going.

Only because you let in a bunch of Arabs.

Denmark didn't let in a bunch of Arabs and are suffering similar problems despite having even more absurd tax rates than Sweden.

Urban areas become islands of civilization amidst rural disintegration. Automated production leaves manual laborers behind, and the third worlders in particular are excluded from a fortress West.

Where is all the fucking money going?

Breaking down but what definition? Most countries look like hellholes compared to Scandinavia and will look even worse. Swedens debt is just 40-50 of the GDP which is basically nothing. It's similar for Finland and Denmark. The only noteworthy problem in Sweden is probably the housing.

Besides, while Denmark is pretty close to social libertarianism, they lack UBI to ensure that work is fully voluntary.

>The only noteworthy problem in Sweden is probably the housing.
That's why according to the UN Sweden will become a 3rd world country by 2030.

>Where is all the fucking money going?
Excessive public sector employees and inefficient public services.

Aren't this the same UN predictions according to which Poland will become relevant?

how the fuck do you tax a loaded country at 60% over 55k and still run out of money? If we could tax that much in burgerland we would have a functioning health care system and so much military spending even the Right would be happy.

>capitalism is failing
Says nervous communist for the 1321140123413084th time in the last 100 years.

With your taxcode you could've make it 99% and you still won't have any more money since it's too easy to avoid.

Nobody in this thread has got it right so far. Probably within the next 100 years or so, the exponentially fast development of technology will allow for the creation of strong AI, which in turn be able to use large amounts of processing power to improve themselves and create a superintelligence. The superintelligence will become far stronger and smarter than all of humanity combined and nobody really knows what will happen then. Will it create world peace and a utopia for humans? Will it kill us all for any number of reasons? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

>libertarianism
>ever good
It's an absolute cuck political ideology on both sides of the spectrum. Leaving things up to the individual will always, always end poorly. Every Libertarian I've known has been about as equally insufferable as a liberal.

We have enough historical examples to see that it's the best we can do so far. Limiting the freedoms of individuals never ended good.

1,2 or 5. Hopefully the former two.

everywhere

unless youre one of those "communism was never tried" morons, in which case free market capitalism was never tried

Lol unironically thinking that the age in which we will see mass automation and Ai is going to lead us out of this rich getting richer poor getting poorer dilemma we are little waltzing into a form of slavery unimaginable as seen by many leftists and /pol/ fags who honestly believe we are enacting social change with social media or meme elections(parties and candidates) it's been signed away this idea of a social impact a long long time ago. It's this looming dystopia and hellish non thinking future we should write about in way Huxley and Orwell could have never emulated.

Glad Yarvin set him straight..

Look idk OP but Its time to accelerate F A S T E R

I feel like politics will evolve into a state of absolute bizzare complexity that even politicans will have no power to change anything really. We're already heading in the direction where the west is stagnating. Just a century of terrible bureaucracy and mediocrity. Mass immigration doesn't help either,

>capitalism is failing

it degenerated into pseudo command economy that runs on debt, people with guns, and fertility rates

>We're already heading in the direction where the west is stagnating.

I think we're actually there at this point. We thought our economy could grow forever but we've basically comodified everything that was needed and we don't really need to build anything at this point, considering also climate change and soil erosion. Our GDP is only growing thanks to the third sector, which is basically shit that alienates us way more

subject becomes object and object becomes subject

technofascism

Anything but commieshit the world really does not need to go down that road again

Ideally a right libertarian / ancap utopia but I really don't feel humanity is at a point of consciousness where it would be possible

Just go full fash fuck it, I want to see a legit fascist america what's the worst that could happen honestly

>all the left wing idiots in this thread

History does not go in cycles, it doesn't have a direction or an arc. There is no right side of history and there is no inevitable outcome.

It doesn't matter how much you insist, or blather on about 'late' capitalism. You've been calling it late for a hundred years.

>I want to see a legit fascist america what's the worst that could happen honestly
Ask Russia

Collapse, followed by more primitive, fragmented little civilisations

>"failing" capitalism
>"late" capitalism
>"post-scarcity" capitalism
>"unmanageable" capitalism
>"immoral" capitalism

lmao

>Just go full fash fuck it, I want to see a legit fascist america what's the worst that could happen honestly

nuclear winter