• @0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    When there is enough critical mass that sees that this shit ain’t working… so, never most probably… or after a nuclear war or another global catastrophy. People tend to look in retrospect only when faced with huge problems.

  • DarkGamer
    link
    fedilink
    29 months ago

    Through abundance it will defeat itself by working too well. Approaching full automation the only way for capitalism to survive is via UBI, otherwise there will be no consumer markets. When we have enough productive capacity and sufficient UBI that everyone is wealthy without having to work, a society like the Federation from Star Trek becomes possible. When everyone has enough wealth that hoarding it becomes meaningless, we might achieve something like a communist society.

    • MxM111
      link
      fedilink
      09 months ago

      “Hoarding” or controlling resources will be always meaningful. There is limited amount of accessible matter, and even if all basic needs of every human is satisfied, people have inspirations to do things, including BIG things, and for that they need resources. The only way we might have something like communist society is if AI takes control, and no human is controlling anything of a value. Kind of like a “Culture” series of books by M. Banks. Or if we go completely virtual, but even then, the computation resource is of the value…

  • cum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    29 months ago

    When the old people die out

  • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️A
    link
    fedilink
    -29 months ago

    Tell American conservatives to tax Mike Bloomberg and other anti gun billionaires 70% and use the money to buy guns for poor people. America will become communist overnight.

  • @cheese_greater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    23
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    It seems as if capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. Not saying I know a better way per se but its in there all the same

    Edit: to put it in Pokémon perspective: capitalism is Ghost type and its super-effective against Ghost type

      • @PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        59 months ago

        The concept of enshittification.

        Granted, the concept applies specifically to platforms, but the idea is basically what capitalism is:

        • Be good to everyone
        • Be good to suppliers (supply-side economics)
        • Be good to shareholders and, subsequently, alienate both users and suppliers of content. The platform collapses.

        Late-stage capitalism is when shareholder wealth is maximized at the expense everyone else. So you have 3 billionaires with 50% of the wealth of all humanity or something, the middle class squeezed into oblivion, and a roiling undercurrent of pure fucking rage ready to sever heads like watermelons from a vine.

        • Lvxferre
          link
          fedilink
          29 months ago

          Applying the concept from the micro (enshittification of the platforms) to the macro (enshittification of the economic system) is brilliant.

            • Lvxferre
              link
              fedilink
              39 months ago

              So why isn’t my glass of Campari drifting randomly across the table, under Brownian movement??? [/shitty drunkard joke]

              Serious now. On economic matters I think that you’re right.

        • PlzGivHugs
          link
          fedilink
          29 months ago

          Is there actually any record of this destroying the capitalist system though? To my knowledge, every time this happens, its just replaced with more extreme and violent capitalism.

            • @nintendiator@feddit.cl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              19 months ago

              That’s not how it works. Nor it is useful, since a more extreme and more violent capitalism causes more, worse victims until it, in your terms, “collapses” - that is, is replaced by an even worse capitalism.

      • Capitalism, minus a strong guiding hand as described by Adam Smith, invariably leads to monopolies, or near enough. When that happens, either through a single strong monopoly or a small group of companies, the market doesn’t work and price gouging rises. You don’t have to look further back than the past couple years at inflation. Every study I have seen blames inflation almost completely on price gouging and market failing to work for consumers. Think record prices (and corresponding record profits) of companies across the board. If you want specific examples, check out the long history of Walmart and the negative effects its stores have on local competition and local earnings. Or the profit taking of gas companies. Or super market chains. Or…

        People who love Capitalism always seem to have missed high school history/econ and have this ignorant belief that laissez-faire is the best. Even though proven to be shitty. This belief in trickle down bullshit has resulted in 50 trillion dollars going from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. If that’s not capitalism destroying itself, I’m not sure what else to say.

        Or as Leonard Cohen sang so succinctly,“The poor stay poor, the rich get rich / that’s how it goes / everybody knows.”

        • @JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          19 months ago

          Is that capitalism destroying itself tho? I mean in a purist way, what you describe is capitalism changing so it does do something but what it ends up in is called late stage capitalism so did it really destroy itself or merely “evolved”? Yes in that stage it is worse for 99.99% of people compared to before but maybe that’s somewhat intended? And most importantly is that stage (more) stable or not.

          • @Untitled4774@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            The vacuum can only suck up crumbs for so long until it runs out of crumbs.

            In other words, the greedy aren’t letting capitalism be the cycle system it needs to be, it’s a funnel.

            Either the crumbs will run out and the system will collapse, or people won’t take kindly to giving up their final crumbs and overpower the vacuum.

            Any one sane person is only a few missed meals away from acting insane. Any sane society is only a few missed meals from falling apart.

            • @JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              29 months ago

              Yes but you really didn’t answer my question. It’s also debatable if we’re anywhere near that point at this stage

              • @Untitled4774@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                29 months ago

                If a structure is stealing bolts from its lower structure to further amass a larger structure on top it is going to collapse.

                A closed system designed to be a cycle that doesn’t return anything to the bottom will eventually collapse.

                If rain never comes to replenish the earth the clouds are only stuck with each other to canibalize.

  • @ultranaut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    19 months ago

    One of these days they are going to finally sell us the rope. Or, I think Marx was probably right and eventually the productive capacity of capitalism will grow so extreme that something new and different emerges from it. Basically, capitalism probably doesn’t work post-scarcity. As far as when, possibly never but probably sometime in the next few hundred years if we don’t collapse our civilization first and get stuck Mad Maxing the wasteland.

  • @tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    -1
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Well, there are some fairly reliable maximum bounds, I suppose:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

    There is a strong consensus among cosmologists that the shape of the universe is considered “flat” (parallel lines stay parallel) and will continue to expand forever.[2][3]

    The ultimate fate of an open universe with dark energy is either universal heat death or a “Big Rip”[12][13][14][15] where the acceleration caused by dark energy eventually becomes so strong that it completely overwhelms the effects of the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong binding forces.

    Neither a universal heat death nor a Big Rip — and we expect one of the two to occur — seems likely to be conducive to capitalism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

    The heat death of the universe (also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze)[1][2] is a hypothesis on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe will evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy, and will therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy.

    The theory suggests that from the “Big Bang” through the present day, matter and dark matter in the universe are thought to have been concentrated in stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters, and are presumed to continue to do so well into the future. Therefore, the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, and objects can do physical work.[15]:§VID The decay time for a supermassive black hole of roughly 1 galaxy mass (10¹¹ solar masses) because of Hawking radiation is in the order of 10¹⁰⁰ years,[16] so entropy can be produced until at least that time. Some large black holes in the universe are predicted to continue to grow up to perhaps 10¹⁴ M☉ during the collapse of superclusters of galaxies. Even these would evaporate over a timescale of up to 10¹⁰⁶ years.[17] After that time, the universe enters the so-called Dark Era and is expected to consist chiefly of a dilute gas of photons and leptons.[15]:§VIA With only very diffuse matter remaining, activity in the universe will have tailed off dramatically, with extremely low energy levels and extremely long timescales.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

    In physical cosmology, the Big Rip is a hypothetical cosmological model concerning the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of the universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, and even spacetime itself, is progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future, until distances between particles will infinitely increase.

    In their paper, the authors consider a hypothetical example with w = −1.5, H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc, and Ωm = 0.3, in which case the Big Rip would happen approximately 22 billion years from the present. In this scenario, galaxies would first be separated from each other about 200 million years before the Big Rip. About 60 million years before the Big Rip, galaxies would begin to disintegrate as gravity becomes too weak to hold them together. Planetary systems like the Solar System would become gravitationally unbound about three months before the Big Rip, and planets would fly off into the rapidly expanding universe. In the last minutes, stars and planets would be torn apart, and the now-dispersed atoms would be destroyed about 10¯¹⁹ seconds before the end (the atoms will first be ionized as electrons fly off, followed by the dissociation of the atomic nuclei). At the time the Big Rip occurs, even spacetime itself would be ripped apart and the scale factor would be infinity.

  • @nintendiator@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    89 months ago

    There’s currently no external forces that can defeat capitalism.

    We have to do it on our own. Eat the rich. Guillotine the techno-feudal lords. Confiscate and coöperativize their infrastructure resources.

  • Boozilla
    link
    fedilink
    English
    429 months ago

    My hope would be that we can transition peacefully to a hybrid model with the rising power of unions, gradual emergence of worker cooperatives, and increased demand for socialized health care and affordable housing.

    However, I think it’s more likely that things will have to collapse first. Especially with violent accelerationist types doing their thing. Unfortunately, it’s far easier to destroy systems than it is to repair them.

    • @SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      -79 months ago

      My hope would be that we can transition peacefully to a hybrid model with the rising power of unions, gradual emergence of worker cooperatives, and increased demand for socialized health care and affordable housing.

      None of this has anything to do with capitalism tho.

      Like, capitalism can and should be the economic engine driving these positive outcomes.

      • @pl_woah@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        49 months ago

        The current strategy of venture capital is not success, but sabotage

        It’s not good enough for you to be doing well, you have to strangle the competition and introduce yourself as an unremovable bottleneck

        For example, becoming the intermediary between concerts and concert goers. The fees charged and the trouble caused is worse than if they hadn’t been there.

        Amazon makes examples out of any business that dare challenge it’s dead zone around it.

        VC money is meant to crush the competition and lock in the consumer to charge rent.

        Why would they ever want worker control, or unions?

        Why would the private healthcare industry ever stop lobbying against socialized healthcare? Why would a capitalist success ever lead to the political change necessary for it when the doctrine of capitalism is privatization

        Why would any commercial real estate firm allow affordable housing to exist when they can scalp it on investment properties and leave them empty? Why build affordable housing when the margins are small?

        Capitalism isn’t a savior, it’s just locally optimal to the people with capital.

        • @SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -29 months ago

          VC money is meant to crush the competition and lock in the consumer to charge rent.

          This is not anything close to correct lol. VCs specifically do not invest in mature companies or they aren’t VCs.

          Why would any commercial real estate firm allow affordable housing to exist when they can scalp it on investment properties and leave them empty? Why build affordable housing when the margins are small?

          All housing built helps other housing come affordable because it increases supply. You are correct that there is little purpose intentionally building less valuable housing

      • @JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        29 months ago

        I mean not really? Because currently capitalism as an economic engine is actively preventing these outcomes. And basically by design. How do you explain that?

        • xigoi
          link
          fedilink
          09 months ago

          A lot of capitalist countries have free healthcare. So how is capitalism preventing that?

          • @JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            19 months ago

            Because in those countries it was regulated enough?

            The question you need to answer is why countries like the US don’t and if you disagree that capitalism didn’t have anything to do with it

            • xigoi
              link
              fedilink
              39 months ago

              Well yes, regulation is often needed to ensure that markets remain free and the USA is a great example of how that can fail.

              • @JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                19 months ago

                The USA is also a good example how the markets can get in the way of the regulation and of free markets. The players in the free market don’t really benefit from being in a free market. They have every incentive to change that.

    • Lvxferre
      link
      fedilink
      79 months ago

      You probably know it, but just in case that you (or anyone reading this, who might agree with you) don’t: give the texts of The Fabian Society a check. They’re rather close to what you’re proposing with a peaceful transition; I have my criticisms against it as a Marxist strictu sensu, but I bet that you’ll have a blast with it.

        • Lvxferre
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I’m proposing to check their texts out because it’s a good way to get theoretical background to back up your beliefs, if you believe in a peaceful transition. (Here’s a link to a good one, by the way.)

          It’s also useful for Marxists, given that Marxism always interacted with other left-wing trains of thought. So by reading this stuff you get a better historical context on why Marxism defends some policies instead of other policies.

          • @JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            39 months ago

            Yea I wasn’t doubting you, I just wanted for your to add some small explanation/context as to what these texts had

    • @TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      19 months ago

      I have reservations about unions. While it does give employees bargaining power, it sometimes does it to a fault. We see this with police unions in the US as it stops bad apples from getting proper punishment, and as a result, they get slaps on the wrist. I imagine that it would be equally as hard to fire somebody in other industries like medicine unless there’s a 3rd party (like an arbitrator or court) enforcing these decisions.

      Also, without any legislation in the US, I’d argue that unions will stay incredibly difficult to form, and even if they do, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they can negotiate with companies fairly. Companies out there (I believe Dish is an example) have spent 10 years stalling negotiations with unions, and it’s all practically legal.

  • @HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    69 months ago

    It’s unlikely to happen without some kind of apocalyptic event. Communist societies works very, very well on a small scale; you can have communes with maybe as many as a few hundred people, because everyone is connected to everyone else. That all falls apart when you start talking about anything bigger. Capitalist societies don’t seem to need that direct relationship in order to function.

    I think that the best we can hope for is some kind of reform that blends parts of capitalism with socialism, and sharply constrains that rights of the capitalist class.

    I don’t think that we’ll even get that though; I think we’ll get Cyberpunk 2077.

  • Call me Lenny/Leni
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19 months ago

    I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily better, but communist idiosyncrasies seem etched in all the most capitalist societies already, and this will almost certainly grow from that.

  • I think there needs to be a catalyst that can’t be known in advance. Right now, too many people have too much to lose. If something changes that, then we can bring down capitalism. Something like mortality for only the top 1% “might” do it, but probably not since the people who need it are the old people, who are also to old to fight. So it needs to be something that causes the young people to have nothing to lose.

    • FaceDeer
      link
      fedilink
      -19 months ago

      If the “1%” was to suddenly magically die, that would just mean that the 2% becomes the new 1% and carries on. I think there needs to be a more fundamental change. Something better than capitalism will need to come along, and so far it’s hard to say that any of the alternatives we currently have fit the bill.

  • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    19 months ago

    I think capitalism will be defeated the next time we completely forget what happens every time communism defeats capitalism.

  • @qooqie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    When 99% or less of the population can’t work or make any money. What I mean by this is the economy mainly driven by robots/rudimentary AI. The top 1% will be angry and try to keep it as is, but as history has taught us humans really like the guillotine in such situations

      • FaceDeer
        link
        fedilink
        -79 months ago

        Ironically enough, Elon Musk - posterboy of “rich fuckheads” - actually does live in proximity to his workers. I read a while back that he’d sold off all his houses and lived in the same rental properties that his on-site engineers used.

        • I read that he sold his real estate and was staying in a place owned by another billionaire while looking for a place. That was a couple of years ago, I don’t really follow that fuckhead.