The End of Capitalism is Already Starting

[motonoggin]

https://www.fastcompany.com/40467032/the-end-of-capitalism-is-already-starting-if-you-know-where-to-look

 

[motonoggin]

[motonoggin]

Before capitalism emerged in Europe, there was feudalism, a radically different system in which nothing–neither land nor labor–was for sale, and serfs orbited their feudal lord like ribbons tethered to a maypole. Feudalism’s inhumanity was different from capitalism’s: Instead of being unable to work and earn money to pay for rent and necessities, serfs were dependent on the lords for their livelihoods and their schedules and for a piece on land upon which to labor. Their stability was contingent on the lord’s generosity or lack thereof.

Sometimes, serfs would get squeezed, Wolff says–maybe a serf who was permitted to work his own land three days a week was cut down to two, and had to work on the lord’s the rest of the time, struggling to feed his family. Those serfs would run away. They’d jet off into the forests around the manors, where they’d encounter other runaway serfs (this is the origin of Robin Hood). That group of runaways, who’d cut ties with the feudal system, would establish their own villages, called communes. Without the lord controlling how the former serfs used their land and their resources, those free workers set up a system of production and trade in the communes that would eventually evolve into modern capitalism.

 

“The image of the transition from feudalism to capitalism was the French Revolution, and that was part of it,” Wolff says, “but it wasn’t the whole story. The actual transition was much slower, and not cataclysmic, and found in these serfs that ran away and set up something new.”

[racinfarmer]

Pity bump.

[motonoggin]

“The move toward co-ops and the change in consciousness I’ve witnessed in workplaces and among my students are the two mechanisms of transformation that are now underway globally, and I’d like to say–it’s more a wish than anything else–that it’s too late to stop them,” Wolff says. “And the sheer beauty of this is that nothing fuels this movement more than capitalism’s own troubles, and the displeasure, disaffection, and anxiety it produces.”

^^^This is precisely why the fall of capitalism is inevitable. 

[Zambroski]

Moto, can others post in this too?

[MiSledder]

4 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Moto, can others post in this too?

He'll get back to you as soon as he docks the SS Socialist

[Zambroski]

4 minutes ago, MiSledder said:

He'll get back to you as soon as he docks the SS Socialist

 

[motonoggin]

20 minutes ago, MiSledder said:

He'll get back to you as soon as he docks the SS Socialist

Can always count on you for the lowest common denominator. 

[Anler]

4 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Can always count on you for the lowest common denominator. 

His contributions are unequalled!

But whatever system of commerce you begin it will always evolve into something unfair. Capitalism is the only way for anybody to get an opportunity to go as far as they want to in life. A system that just treats everyone the same would get boring quick. 

[motonoggin]

57 minutes ago, Anler said:

His contributions are unequalled!

But whatever system of commerce you begin it will always evolve into something unfair. Capitalism is the only way for anybody to get an opportunity to go as far as they want to in life. A system that just treats everyone the same would get boring quick. 

Yeah, fairness and shared prosperity would be so boring we might actually begin to evolve again. 

[DriftBusta]

1 hour ago, motonoggin said:

Can always count on you for the lowest common denominator. 

he makes a valid point  

[motonoggin]

7 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

he makes a valid point  

 

[motonoggin]

[JEFF]

8 hours ago, motonoggin said:

Yeah, fairness and shared prosperity would be so boring we might actually begin to evolve again. 

Explain how that would even be remotely "fair" How do you propose the workload gets spread? I know you want to spread the wealth equally. How do you subdue the animosity between people? The people with high work ethic vs those who have none? 

[motonoggin]

Just now, JEFF said:

Explain how that would even be remotely "fair" How do you propose the workload gets spread? I know you want to spread the wealth equally. How do you subdue the animosity between people? The people with high work ethic vs those who have none? 

Human behavior is largely a response to conditions. Change the conditions and you change the behavior.

[MiSledder]

4 minutes ago, JEFF said:

Explain how that would even be remotely "fair" How do you propose the workload gets spread? I know you want to spread the wealth equally. How do you subdue the animosity between people? The people with high work ethic vs those who have none? 

[JEFF]

3 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Human behavior is largely a response to conditions. Change the conditions and you change the behavior.

So you think lazy people will just start pulling their weight? Got it. 

[MiSledder]

2 minutes ago, JEFF said:

So you think lazy people will just start pulling their weight? Got it. 

No, he requires people with a work ethic to be ok with it

[motonoggin]

Just now, JEFF said:

So you think lazy people will just start pulling their weight? Got it. 

Well, let's concentrate on a small minority and rob everyone else of a secure future because you're concerned that *someone* *somewhere* may get something that you don't think they deserve.

[motonoggin]

There really isn't any point debating it.

Capitalism will fall. It is inevitable. 

No amount of attacks on me personally will change that fact. 

 

[MiSledder]

3 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Well, let's concentrate on a small minority and rob everyone else of a secure future because you're concerned that *someone* *somewhere* may get something that you don't think they deserve.

So everyone is entitled to a secure future, regardless of effort ?

[ArcticCrusher]

12 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Human behavior is largely a response to conditions. Change the conditions and you change the behavior.

Umm, no.

[motonoggin]

[Highmark]

10 hours ago, motonoggin said:

Before capitalism emerged in Europe, there was feudalism, a radically different system in which nothing–neither land nor labor–was for sale, and serfs orbited their feudal lord like ribbons tethered to a maypole. Feudalism’s inhumanity was different from capitalism’s: Instead of being unable to work and earn money to pay for rent and necessities, serfs were dependent on the lords for their livelihoods and their schedules and for a piece on land upon which to labor. Their stability was contingent on the lord’s generosity or lack thereof.

Sometimes, serfs would get squeezed, Wolff says–maybe a serf who was permitted to work his own land three days a week was cut down to two, and had to work on the lord’s the rest of the time, struggling to feed his family. Those serfs would run away. They’d jet off into the forests around the manors, where they’d encounter other runaway serfs (this is the origin of Robin Hood). That group of runaways, who’d cut ties with the feudal system, would establish their own villages, called communes. Without the lord controlling how the former serfs used their land and their resources, those free workers set up a system of production and trade in the communes that would eventually evolve into modern capitalism.

 

“The image of the transition from feudalism to capitalism was the French Revolution, and that was part of it,” Wolff says, “but it wasn’t the whole story. The actual transition was much slower, and not cataclysmic, and found in these serfs that ran away and set up something new.”

  We are closer to dependency than we are your definition of actual "communism."