The author assumes we have 'capitalism' to begin with. Even talks about big banks etc.<p>Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of 'capitalism'. An industry, arguably the most aggressively capitalistic.<p>Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism).<p>He mentions big companies using public data, most of that public data is generated, collected and shared openly by private companies to start with. I'm not even sure what his point was there...<p>Then he talks about alternative currencies, something which bloomed in response to flailing, devaluing state currencies. Which is just about the most free-market response to state currencies...<p>The next paragraph he references briefly the 'sharing economy', something pioneered and spearheaded by companies such as Airbnb and Lyft. Truly great success stories of consumer capitalism.<p>"The solutions have been austerity plus monetary excess. But they are not working." - What? Our public spending has increases by £50bn, how is this 'austerity'? The cuts have slowed down our public spending and even that has made us one of the strongest economies in Europe. So I'm not sure where he's getting the 'not working' from.<p>"Even now many people fail to grasp the true meaning of the word “austerity”. - Oh, the irony.<p>Most of the fluffy scenarios he describes, whereby private individuals make voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements with each other, is almost the very definition of capitalism!
From the fine article:<p>> individualism replaced collectivism and solidarity<p>I find myself wondering if I am part of a remaining few who treasure that. I value self-sufficiency over dependency, moreso as I get older. I have come to realize that there can rarely be an imposed collective benefit that didn't come at the expense of at least one individual. The answer to "is it worth it?" will be dependent on which one you ask. Likely the same for "is it moral?" if I had my guess.<p>That said, I don't think individualism can last forever. The fast exchange of ideas gives incredible power to well coordinated groups. Will it descend into mob rule? Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. We see regular examples of internet mobs taking down powerful people and companies. The recent Pao take-down comes to mind here. People have their opinions on whether or not it was justified, and mine is irrelevant here, but to me what is most striking was the sheer effectiveness of it. Eventually "we" will figure out how much power we wield and put it to use on targets of more consequence than the CEO of a cat picture website. Occupy could have really shaken things up with the right leadership in place. They were tactically effective, but lacked a leader to put them to effective use to achieve an end.<p>I think the time of the collective is fast approaching. As long as it's a volunteer collective, I have no issue. If it's forced at the threat of violence, I think my opinion would differ. I am not convinced that history inspires confidence on this one.<p>edit: small clarification
The 20th century, in contrast to past centuries, was an experiment in progressivism. The idea that the state can be used by the masses to improve the well being of individuals over what can be achieved in a situation of economic liberty. So what came of this? We're finding out is that the power to regulate, is also the power to grant special favors. That giving this power, even to a well intended political class, was resulted in a poor outcome for us.<p>I find it interesting that the EU took over the currency, interest rates and inflation are set by state actors, and that now we're seeing articles such as this one that blame economic liberties for the failure of the system.
I find the article lacking. Author makes a bunch of controversial yet unsupported statements. Even if they're true (something he doesn't really bother proving), the logical links from one to the next are missing.<p>Ie I can't even dismiss it as typical Guardian progressive ranting - because there is no coherent story to dismiss, more of a hot-potch of terms.<p>Putting it down in the 'not even wrong' file.
>Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information is abundant. The system’s defence mechanism is to form monopolies – the giant tech companies – on a scale not seen in the past 200 years, yet they cannot last. By building business models and share valuations based on the capture and privatisation of all socially produced information, such firms are constructing a fragile corporate edifice at odds with the most basic need of humanity, which is to use ideas freely.<p>This is a fascinating dynamic. How do you charge for information when nearly anyone can replicate it for free?<p>* Novelty - sure you can get civ4 for 2 dollars, but civ5 is "more desirable".<p>* Punishment - hexrays blacklisting engineers that use IDApro without a license.<p>* Technical - DRM it is only mildly effective, but architectural solutions such as gmail or WoW have a low piracy rate.<p>* Rewards - benefits to compliance, such as steam backing up your saved games and giving you hats.<p>If a nation were to completely ignore IP law would that provide a competitive advantage to that nation?
This statement seems odd to me:<p><i>Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information is abundant.</i><p>I don't understand how this follows. Wouldn't having more information mean that prices form <i>more</i> correctly?
We've been hearing about the impending “end of capitalism” since the beginning of merchant capitalism in the 16th century. Mercantilism still thrives even when commodities are produced by non-capitalist production methods.
The success of Uber, Airbnb, Ebay, Amazon underwhelms his argument. Information technology, and really the internet, have worked around traditional anti-capitalistic forces like taxes and regulation very effectively.
Awesome to see such an expression of technological optimism informed by social concern. A rare thing these days.<p><i>they have struggled to describe the dynamics of the new “cognitive” capitalism. And for a reason. Its dynamics are profoundly non-capitalist.</i><p>I believe the author refers to Yann Moulier Boutang's theory, espoused in his book <i>Le capitalisme cognitif</i> (translated in to English as <i>Cognitive Capitalism</i>): <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Capitalism-Yann-Moulier-Boutang/dp/0745647332" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Capitalism-Yann-Moulier-Bout...</a> .. I actually had it sitting on my bookshelf here in China (had to wait for the translation to come out before ordering) .. must remember to read it now!
It's interesting the Greece and 2008 global crises are usually brought up, but important to note that with capitalism comes a need for responsibility - especially regarding debt, and those failures were a result of irresponsiblity on the part of the governments and actors involved - not a defect of the capitalist system itself. In both cases, taking on massive debt and quite simply, living beyond one's or a state's means.
Full-on, spot-on, and a huge "hell-Yeah."
I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need to build a really big damn space ship.
(buildtheenterprise.org)
you can't run an economy on information alone. you can't eat information, or haul lumber with it. Information is just a lever that makes hauling lumber or producing food more efficient.<p>Author needs to get out more.
"Postcapitalism is possible because of three major changes information technology has brought about in the past 25 years. First, it has reduced the need for work,"<p>The need for work hasn't reduced, it's just changed.<p>The issue is that someone will need to be doing the work and the people doing the work aren't going to put up with giving the majority of their pay to the rest of society (that don't need to work) for very long.<p>This idea will eventually lead to total wealth distribution and then the issue will be how you decide to split up the money.<p>Do we then need to have control on the number of kids a person can have? How about risky behavior (so health care costs aren't that high)?<p>Also, who decides how it's split up?<p>All of the articles about basic income and 'post capitalism' only take into account what will happen in the very beginning, which might seem like it's working.<p>They never discuss the long-term where 3 generations of families are living off of the system and the continued dependence of more and more people. What happens when the number of people on basic income vastly outnumbers the amount of people working? Will the government force people to work? A revolution? Starvation??<p>Capitalism is not perfect, but it's the one system that not only brought us the most technology and advancements, but also brought the most people out of poverty.<p>Most of these ideas aren't new. They have been tried and failed and are now just being re-packaged and prettied up into something that seems more palatable.