Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
No formation in the historical perspective has a future. The question is speculative. Capitalism is only 150-170 years old. At its core is profit-making. But this economic component has been known since the beginning of mankind, as well as war, sex and religion. In fact, humanity has not been able to offer anything either in the field of economics or in the field of ethics. The so-called civilization, built solely on the destruction or oppression of its own kind, is doomed to extinction and degradation.
I think that capitalism is the final stage of the development of the people who exist in this system. Under capitalism, everything is built on educating the consumer. Remember who we are initially-a reasonable person. They don't need them there.
In the society of developed capitalism, such ideas as “man is a wolf to man”, “love yourself”,” go to the store and do not deny yourself anything”are preached. If you run out of money, we will give you a loan, the main thing is to consume infinitely much so that a small group of people will receive super-profits. Therefore, education there is primitive. Smart people are not needed in such a system. They must endlessly consume mindlessly. All mass media and all educational systems work for this purpose. Such people have in the first place the desire to fill their stomachs in any way.
I spent half my life in the USSR, and there we were told “that a person is a friend, comrade and brother to a person”, “it is necessary to work to the maximum, and consume to the minimum”. They were taught to develop mental activity. They were used to collective life. To respect people not only close to you, who need to be loved, but also strangers. I was young and thought it was propaganda to hide the lack of food and clothing. Now that I've lived under capitalism under construction, I realize how right those people were.
For some reason, our schools are getting worse and worse every year. The education system is copied from the Western model, etc.
We are blindly following this West, and even dream of outrunning them. We need to go , not go, but run in the opposite direction.
Developed countries have already reached the impasse of their existence. Man in the pursuit of consumption has ceased to reproduce offspring, and this means the extinction of the people. A holy place is never empty. More prolific nations will take their place and replace them. However, if they don't change our system, the end will be the same.
I think so, don't you?
Capitalism is effective, but only as a pump. All systems, from the reservoir to consumption, work clearly.
But, in general, people do not need such a system. With the “pump”, no one is interested in the fate of the inhabitants of the empty tank and those where the mining will be drained.
In this case, socialism is ideal.
A glass bottle and a” string bag ” against plastic, a reduction in the production of personal vehicles and a total increase in public transport: the development of railways, a plane from village to village, a bus service to each locality. This is what the USSR achieved already in the 60s.
Balzac, and only for the crowns for the delivered waste paper, at that stage – absolutely the right decision.
China copied 101% of the experience of the USSR, not the United States-and here's the result.
There is still nature and people to destroy, so capitalism has the resources. While.
Socialism, as a practical result, forced capitalists to copy it as well, and often “exactly” as it happened with economic planning and other details.
When 20 absolutely new and absolutely identical cars from completely different manufacturers from different countries are parked on a small plot, this is an indicator of an economic and even environmental catastrophe. The mind could be applied more rationally.
But capitalism cannot make simple decisions.
Unlike the pump, socialism is a system of communicating vessels, with a natural increase and decrease.
Capitalism, as a more inhumane form of government-slaves, constant wars, etc., of course, won a temporary victory in the world, because it perfectly mastered the “sausage-ruminant” essence of a certain part of people.
Capitalism will kill all living things, including people, if it is economically profitable for it. Unlike socialism.
It was written verbatim 150 years ago, and it was necessary to kill 70-80 million people to confirm exactly this.
Before we ask the question of the future of capitalism, we need to understand what it is. And the usual scheme of Marx, which he developed on the basis of an analysis of industrial capitalism in England in the 19th century, is hardly worth applying. Closer to us is the scheme of Lenin's “Imperialism”, which identified five signs of the highest stage of capitalism. If you go through them ,you can assume (like everything that concerns communities of people) something like this. The first sign is the concentration of production and the formation of monopolies. Serious changes are already visible here, namely, the real stratification of production into three parts. The first is the national and even supranational infrastructure of energy, transport, and information. By its nature, it can only be created and managed from a single center. Fragmentation on Chubais in this case leads to a slowdown in the economy. The second part is large-scale industrial production (including agriculture). Already in the middle of the 19th century, a management revolution began in this area, which proved the harm of private ownership for the development of firms, since shareholders withdraw part of the profits necessary for the development of production for their whims. The introduction of progressive taxation in “developed” countries on property income proved this fact. The third part – the approach of the service sector (trade, services) to the places of consumption is still dictated by what is called medium and small businesses. The second sign is the formation of financial capital and a financial oligarchy. In principle, it is based on the transformation of paper or electronic documents certifying the right of ownership (so-called securities) into a commodity by legislative approval of this. The result is the creation of a fictitious capital market that negatively affects development by creating financial bubbles and crises. Third attribute: export of capital. It is a way of creating debt slavery and turning importing countries into colonies of “rich countries”. Sooner or later, free countries must achieve real mutual assistance through the export of technologies and their material reinforcement with equipment and people. The fourth sign of imperialism: the division of the world between capitalist unions. Before our eyes, one country after another is trying to break out of economic slavery. This process will need to continue. The fifth sign of imperialism: the division of the world by the imperialist powers. Now it has deformed into a movement for a multipolar world. In my opinion, we should go back to 1952, when China and India put forward the slogan of Pancha shila – peaceful coexistence.
Any economic model depends on the level of development of the means of production, the system of social relations, legislation, and a host of other factors. It is almost impossible to predict how these factors will develop in the future. Just think back to your vision of the future fifty years ago.
Perhaps, sooner or later, capitalism will give way to something new. But it is hardly possible to predict what it will be and when it will happen.
So far, all the crises of capitalism have ended only with a change in the legislation in which it operates. Nothing more efficient (in practice) has yet been invented.
Capitalism is an outdated 20th-century term based on the “capitalism-socialism”dichotomy.
If you understand capitalism as a “free-market-money relations”, which is the main criterion for the force put and the amount of money, in the short term ( and to predict something for 20 years more, we can accurately and 50 – is the adventure or the “vangovanie”), “capitalism” has the potential for a decisive influence on the world and on the structure of society.
“Capitalism” is changing and will continue to change towards socialization (as in AmericaIn Europe, more and more people live according to the principle of communism “from each-according to ability, to each according to need”).
It will change in the direction of IT money that does not belong to any one president, and as soon as it reaches such a development that labor efficiency allows you to work 2-3 hours and have everything you need, then there will be a final conflict between those who created / own all these technologies and are a “benefactor” for others and the “benefactors” themselves.
Society itself is intuitively opposed to “capitalists”. Or rather, those who consider themselves “benefactors of humanity”, equating themselves with the gods. Well, or demigods.
And there are many such “anti-benefactors” in Russia, in the UES, and especially in America.
Classical capitalism, as described by Marx, died out in the 1930s during the Great Depression. Socialism lasted longer. He died in 1991. Modern countries build their economies based on specific conditions. Something is taken from capitalism-private property, etc., something from socialism-state regulation, etc.
Classical capitalism, described by Marx, has long been absent in the world. Modern countries build their economies based on specific conditions. Something is taken from capitalism-private property, free trade, etc., something is taken from socialism-state regulation, etc.
Capitalism is the final stage in the development of society. It's like a person getting old and then dying. So it is with the peoples. Capitalism is the old age of the people, which leads to the collapse and degradation of the state. This is what we are now seeing in Western countries.
The problem with all disputes about capitalism-socialism is that the disputants tend to see these systems as some kind of antagonists, assuming that there can be either capitalism or socialism in the country. At the same time, confusing the economy, politics, and social relations within the state in general. In fact, the economy of any state is built on a mixture of capitalist and socialist mechanisms that are regulated by the government depending on the current situation. Pure capitalism and socialism do not exist at all. Capitalism as close as possible to its pure state existed for some time in Europe and the United States and is now usually called wild capitalism. It was characterized by such things as the use of child labor, even in heavy and harmful industries, the lack of any social guarantees for workers, the emergence of monopolies and eventually resulted in an economic crisis that simultaneously led to the growth of socialist and communist parties. Pure socialism has never existed at all since the division of labor and commodity-money relations appeared. In the most totalitarian countries of the socialist camp, there was still a market and commodity-money relations, as well as inequality and other non-socialist elements. In general, the main mistake of the socialist camp countries was the politicization of the economy and public life. The state, instead of responding flexibly to changes taking place in society by introducing capitalist and socialist mechanisms where necessary, tried to pass everything through Marxist-Leninist dogmas, relying on them as on some kind of holy scripture. As a result, capitalist mechanisms still appeared and developed, but only in the form of a black shadow market, and the state, instead of earning money, only spent on fighting these elements. Simultaneously losing points in the propaganda struggle between two ideologies.
Capitalism is an unprincipled system based on the dominance of animal principles. The main thing in it is income. At any cost. Competition is only needed to justify your own rascality. They claim that it gives freedom of entrepreneurship, but in fact it allows the stronger (but not always more effective) to devour the weaker (especially if it is more competitive) and impose its point of view or product on society. The goal is to achieve absolute power. No matter how you look at capitalism, it all boils down to this, because it's not a good idea. money is needed only for the growth of money, and not for the growth of the welfare of society. Capitalism is a path to human degradation and has nothing to do with a real market where supply and demand coexist peacefully. Don't believe me? Take a look at our past and present. What's the future here?
Classical capitalism has long been absent in the world. It was abandoned 80 years ago. Modern economic systems differ from it primarily by the active participation of the state in eco-economy.
Capitalism as a social system died out sometime in the 1930s. The so-called “Great Depression”put an end to it. Socialism will last a little longer. But he also died in the 1990s. And modern economic systems have taken something from capitalism-private property, private initiative, stock exchanges, market relations, oligarchs, monopolies, and something from socialism-state intervention in the economy, state guarantees, etc.
Capitalism is a class society! Naturally, class social forms have natural parameters, and obey natural laws, which Russians do not know anything about. On the contrary, they believe that there can be no natural laws in society. But it is enough to look at the history of the class period, and you can identify something that determines everything that happens in a class society, and what determines this happening does not depend on the consciousness and will of the members of societies. For example, what is there in society that causes the appearance of classes in society? At present, Russians can explain a lot that the authorities deliberately made the transition to a class society. But they cannot answer the question of what they did that allowed them to make the transition to a class society. And ask the members of the society what causes the emergence of a class society, no one knows anything about it. So how could the transition of our country's society to a class society have been consciously carried out without having any idea of the essence of class societies? And what caused the emergence of class societies in the transition periods from formation to formation? After all, during the transition periods completely outdated class societies were destroyed and new class societies were introduced! It turns out, in the opinion of Russians, that even then the authorities consciously carried out transitions to a class society, which had no idea about class social forms or classless social forms, and they knew nothing at all, because there were no sciences at that time, and therefore no one knew such an expression – “class society”. As is well known, both class struggles and class societies were discovered in bourgeois history before Marx. But before them, no one knew anything about class societies or classless societies, just as the Yeltsinites of Russia now have no idea about them. Therefore, in terms of mental development, they remained, or slid down to the level of members of societies of the slave-owning or feudal formation. ��
Or perhaps a class-based social form was simply introduced, and in the new, renewed society, class societies were formed by themselves, either spontaneously or automatically. And it is not difficult to understand that this is determined by the laws of Nature that operate in society, and determine everything that happens in it. And these natural laws do not depend on the consciousness and will of people. I can explain this with the following example: You planted an oak acorn in the ground, for example! And this is enough for it to start growing. and the whole process of its movement from the acorn to the adult plant is determined by natural processes, which do not depend on the consciousness and will of people. Similarly, in the transition period after the destruction of the old class society, a new class social form is introduced, and then its spontaneous movement begins along a natural path that is not difficult for intelligent people to see from the experience of the class period of history. And the appearance of classes is the first object that is born by itself, either spontaneously or automatically.�
In the class period of history, there were no thriving class societies! This suggests that. that there is no natural process in class social forms that can lead them to prosperity. If they had such a natural process, thriving class societies would have been built long ago, and there would have been no slave-owning, feudal, or capitalist formations in history. But all formations were, and they were, determined by natural processes and the laws of Nature that operate in class societies. That Nature has not endowed class societies with the ability to thrive!�
All the class social forms of the slave-owning and feudal formations passed through the stages of prosperity and decline in their development, reached the stage of natural death and perished, or were destroyed by civil wars and revolutions, and the renewed societies made the transition to the following formations. And the class societies of the feudal formation were destroyed by bourgeois revolutions, and the capitalist formation came into the world. And at present, the capitalist countries are in decline, except for the advanced countries of the world. It follows that in class societies there is a natural process that leads them along the natural chain: the stage of flourishing = > the stage of decline = > leads them to the stage of natural death and leads to an inevitable collapse. It follows from this: if a new class social form is introduced in a renewed society during the transition period, then soon a new “class society” will be formed in this society, and then it will pass through the stages of prosperity and decline in its development, reach the stage of natural destruction and perish! So nature completes the life cycle of Russia's ugly class society.�
The history of the class period � – the trace left by the movement of class social forms! And the traces are left by forms of living matter that can move So that class social forms are forms of living matter and can move themselves, either spontaneously or automatically along the natural path: the embryonic period = > childhood = > > youth = > > maturity = > > > old age = > > > > natural death! So that the life cycle of class social forms ends with the inevitable death of class social forms. So class societies can grow old and die a natural death, but they can't thrive! This suggests that the transition to a class society of our country's society is the great crime of the 20th century. Such a transition could have been made by completely illiterate individuals who doomed the Russian society to certain death.�
Finally, as historians know, capitalism has great progress and rapid growth of wealth. This led the capitalist countries to periodic economic crises, which appeared every 10 to 12 years, starting in 1825. There are no economic crises in Russia, no progress, and no rapid growth of wealth. This is not typical of capitalist society. From this it follows that there is no capitalism in Russia, and it cannot be. The stupidly great Russians can't tell the difference between capitalism and something else, and that's why they talk about capitalism. In fact, a huge number of new boyars and nobles have appeared in the country, who cannot turn into the bourgeoisie, just as the nobles and boyars of the monarchy period could not turn into the bourgeoisie. They know how to row money, but they cannot set up the production they have privatized, and of course they cannot set up the capitalist system in the country as a whole. So now in Russia there is the same “capitalism” that existed 150 years ago in our country. True, progress was not small in tsarist Russia, but at the present time there is no progress and no growth of wealth in the country! The country is at the end of a stage of natural destruction, and Nature suppresses the life processes in the old, old, ugly class society, so no one can do anything! So only fools can strive to lead a class society to prosperity. But no one is trying to bring our country's society out of the crisis, and no one is proposing measures to bring it out of the crisis. This means that the Russians do not have any goals at all.
In order to answer this question, it is necessary to understand what capitalism is and at what stage of development it is. Capitalism began with the plundering of the colonies, which made it possible to raise the wages of workers and thereby ensure economic interest in the technological progress of the metropolises. In England, for example, slavery was abolished only in 1833, in the USA-in 1865, etc. Having reached a high level of profitability, entrepreneurs created a system of avoiding direct management of enterprises, transferring it to professional managers. There were fat-bellied shareholders, fictitious capital markets in the form of shares and other securities. Money also became part of a fictitious economy, which Aristotle called chrematistics. The real economy was influenced by fictitious capital. Its expansion for the so-called West became possible only due to the division and transfer of world resources, which is happening right before our eyes. The future depends on who wins. The United States is regressing, and its victory against a multipolar world will continue to rot the human community. A multipolar world will sooner or later lead to the development of ethnic groups, and consequently to a change in the social and economic structure of peoples ' lives
Capitalism was abandoned all over the world in the 1930s. Countries build their economic systems around the world based on specific conditions. They take something from capitalism. Private property, etc., is taken from imperialism. Corporations, etc. Something from socialism. State regulation, etc.
The future is for capitalism and only for it, this is the only normal system that motivates work, creativity and the creation of something new. Capitalism is the worldview of a free man, not a slave. Some demagogues deliberately replace true capitalism with an oligarchic or monopolistic one, in which capitalism is distorted or simply destroyed, because there is no competition,there is no free movement of goods, people and new thoughts. All other systems are simply utopian or extremely low-level development. The former supporter of communist and socialist development himself, but when he himself visited work, had experience, understood only incentives for getting rich works well, this is the only way people work and produce something , otherwise they start to get impudent or parasitic)
Before answering, I will contain some cry of the soul:
Please remove Andrey Avramenko from the resource — this is just a political horror of some kind. A person in all seriousness, when asked a clear question, manages to replace one term with another, and then compares full-fledged ideologies and political regimes (socialism, authoritarianism) with the economic system, confirming the words with his dubious arguments from particular cases. I'm just disgusted.
Now the answer to the question itself:
To simplify the answer to such a question, it is worth turning to analogous questions — “Does feudalism have a future?” and so on.Of course, there is some aspect of the correctness or incorrectness of such analogies, since in general the typology of social systems has some points that make their comparison more complicated. As a rule, this is due to the approach of theorists to the question, since different people generally express their thoughts in different ways, focusing in their works on issues of different social science disciplines (for example, it is more common to consider capitalism from the point of view of economics, but we understand that it is fundamentally wrong to abstract it from other disciplines). Other such points are obvious: different times, different societies, and different conditions in general.
But I would like to focus on the last one:
For some reason, very often people forget about the epochal structuring of periods of society's life. At a time when such a division has some significance.
I'll explain: Actually, when we talk about a change in the socio-economic system, we clearly need a fact that affects such areas of life (economic and social) accordingly. At the same time, I hasten to note that we live in general at a somewhat tipping point, marked by the transition to the post — industrial (otherwise-information) era. And this is amazing in itself: information storage and broadcasting have reached a completely new level, despite the fact that it itself has become a complete and complete product. In fact, such changes, of course, have already affected our everyday life, and will certainly find political reflection in the future.
But I'll leave that thought to the reader's mind. I would still like to add to this text the words that capitalism functions too inharmoniously to be preserved in its present form forever. Does it have a future? Yes, it does. But as much as the previous social strata had a future at a certain point in their existence. Of course, each of them still has some influence on our civilization, but their dialectical death for the growth of a new system based on the present is a principle that accompanies it throughout its existence. Another thing is that history clearly lets us know that
As a conclusion I would like to indicate my personal position on the issue:
I sincerely believe that the future will bring with it new solutions for the harmonious existence of society, although there is room for fatal mistakes even in our present, which may simply not give this future a chance to come in time. One of the reasons for such mistakes, I believe, is the human life rush in pursuit of such a future, or, conversely, the deliberate ignoring of the possibility of its occurrence. This is probably due to the general existential problem of the limited life path in terms of time, as well as the difficulty of determining their places and meanings in life.
What is capitalism? First, determine what you are talking about, and the conversation will be possible.
“Capitalism” as something special, separate from life, and does not exist.
This is just an ordinary market-trade and money relations. They've always been, are, and will be, and it's strange to ask about their future. To eliminate them, it is necessary to eliminate the independence of all economic entities (perhaps, except for one, which would own and dispose of everything, could replace the market), in no other way. But even in the USSR, with a planned economy and universal subordination to the center, there was still an economic independence of subjects, which led to a deficit in some categories of goods and an overabundance of other unnecessary ones. And on all of this, a market emerged again, albeit a shadow one. Moreover, not only end-users, but also intermediate links, the producers of products themselves also created the market – the directors of enterprises behind the back of the center agreed with each other and exchanged valuable resources that the center mistakenly did not give them. So it's the same usual order of things here.
If we look at capitalism as a certain idea of capital and capitalization , then in fact it also has a banal law of life behind it – a person strives to manage in such a way that all improvements in the economy lead to the possibility of even greater improvements. Therefore, there is nothing unnatural here either.
All “isms” are invented by people. There is no single “capitalism,” just as there is no “socialism, “” feudalism, “or”slave system.” All the signs of these “formations” were always and everywhere present and fancifully combined. So in the future, as now, there may be unsupervised masters and dumb slaves. And a fair, free system is also possible.
In any case, he will fight to the death for the future. Never give up. What threatens capitalism? The most terrible thing is the deprivation of the right to decide how to live for all other citizens who are not capitalists. What does capitalism want? 1 cheap raw materials, 2 cheap labor, 3 unlimited markets. 4 absence of workers ' unions. Each employee should be free from contracts with other employees and only one contract should matter for him – the contract with the owner. At the same time, the capitalist wants this contract to be literally executed by the employee, and he himself can throw the employee if necessary. The capitalist can't stand the worker's political literacy. And how afraid he is of the political organization of workers – the communist parties. Why can't the capitalist get rid of the worker? Maybe this process is called automation of production and at first gives the capitalist extra profit, But the catch is that only live labor can give profit all the time. This means that with the disappearance of the worker and living labor, capitalism will disappear. How did capitalism emerge from the crisis of the 20th century? the answer lies in the well-known principle of displacement of contradictions. It is possible to increase the wages of workers in one's own country and pay substantial unemployment benefits if it is possible to avoid exploiting workers in other countries in the course of globalization. This overexploitation is a genuine robbery of other peoples. From there, everything that is possible is exported on the cheap, including brains-talented young people, for whose training, another state has already spent its small resources. This is how backwardness is preserved. Capitalism supports in every possible way the most vile, corrupt and spiritually close representatives of the enslaved society in the elites of the enslaved countries. What other features of modern capitalism? Under capitalism, elements of the formations of previous epochs remain-slavery and feudalism. Capitalism needs them as outsiders, and they make it look more attractive. Where will the human worker go in the era of total automation? He will be lumpenized and will join either the ranks of beggars or the ranks of criminals. Can Lumpen organize a revolution against capitalism? No, just a senseless and merciless riot, See what is happening in the United States and Western Europe. In this regard, the Joker movie is interesting as a social forecast. What happens if the path to socialism is not found?- Apocalypse two opposing classes can die and destroy the rest of the World in one go. There are already enough weapons for this.
CAPITALISM is the idea or science of knowledge of the movement and accumulation of capital.
The idea of CAPITALISM itself is neither evil nor good. Everything depends on the level of development of those who create capitalism. In their decency or greed or greed.
A perfect person should know that the most important capital of a person is his level of perfection, and not the amount of material, expressed in monetary equivalent.
So that capitalism is still centuries away.
Yes it does. To understand how it will be, a small excursion into the past. Here was feudalism, did it have a future? Yes, it was and this future turned out to be just the same capitalism. It is the same with capitalism, and sooner or later capitalism itself will create all the conditions for the emergence of communism. And this is his future. People in this case can only adjust the speed with which the future is approaching. You can break what is there and thereby delay the future. And you can be formed and bring this future closer in all possible ways.
I don'T think SO. Evgeny Alekseev answered this question very accurately.
I advise everyone who agrees or disagrees with my answer to read it.
What has been built in our country is a terrifying feudal “capitalism” in which no one but the big oligarchs can survive.
No ” ism ” in its pure form has a future.
Even now, elements of various political and socio-economic formations are intertwined in any country. And this process cannot be reversed.
No simple model can adequately describe the complexity of the real world. You have to combine many approaches and find a balance between them.
Capitalism is the last form of social organization of the exploitative period in the development of mankind, which replaced feudalism. Normal (healthy) capitalist (bourgeois) social relations are based on the private ownership of isolated, freely competing commodity producers. The main essential feature of such relations is the exploitation by the bourgeoisie class (the owners of capital) of the class of wage-earners who have no capital. Bourgeois social relations, born and strengthened in the bowels of feudalism, having revolutionarily freed themselves from its fetters, in the course of further expansion transcend national borders and embrace all countries. Thus, capitalism becomes a global (planetary) social system. Global capitalism is called imperialism. Due to the impossibility of further expansion, capitalism ceases to play a progressive role in the development of mankind. Imperialism is the stage of the decay of capitalism, the eve of its revolutionary transformation into communism. At this stage, phenomena arise within capitalism that are alien to its nature and signal the approach of its historical death. These phenomena are nothing but attributes of communism. These include, for example, monopolies-killers of free competition.
Thus, at the stage of imperialism, capitalism begins to be negated by communism. Also, at one time feudalism was denied by capitalism. This is the objective universal law of negation of negation. Therefore, capitalism is not infinite. The 21st century will solve the question of his historical death.
By the way, the coming communism – not at all an earthly paradise-is also finite.
One cannot agree with the fact that “Marx built the foundation of the future”. Read the book “Mistakes of Marxism and millions of innocent victims”. It examines for the first time the types of labor of the worker and capitalist, the errors of the theory and practice of communism.
We have fascism and its future is just beginning! The entire junta from the Kremlin should be tried and all property confiscated and forced to work out, by manual labor, until death.
Definitely-yes. Below is a response from a Marxist. But it is fundamentally wrong. Because the Marxists and Lenin also built capitalism. But state-owned. The state is by definition shared. It belongs to the people. By the same logic, state ownership should also be shared. The correct question should be about private capitalism. It is the most viable, as it has shown its stability since the very beginning of time. There have always been private capitalists and they have been the engine of processes, no matter how progressive or regressive these processes may be. The one who owned the fire or the ability to make it-gave the others the opportunity to warm up and cook food. Those who had shelter provided shelter. Those who had weapons-got food. Those who had guns built shelters and canals. then there were the owners of the land and everything rested on the ability to stand up for their territories by force. Etc. Knights are the elite of the European army. Everyone was a noble. etc. Therefore, private capital has driven history and processes. He was always at the center of things. State capitalism didn't even exist for 100 years. And then, people sought to exchange skills or property for connections. Therefore, private capitalism has always been a locomotive.
Capitalism was, is, and will be, like all human vices. It is incredible if people's consciousness suddenly changes in the direction: “first for society, and then for themselves.” Then maybe something will happen with regard to communism. Special people are needed for it, but the black sheep will always break everything.)
The whole future of capitalism boils down to the constant search for markets. But since the Earth is round and there are no white spots left, there are two ways to go. 1. Constant military action to maintain demand. 2. Geographical expansion-space exploration.
I will disappoint you, but this form has neither a past nor a future. From the moment of the emergence of commodity-money relations, all states in all epochs pass through this form to one degree or another.
History moves in a spiral, not upward.
If you do not go into the scrupulous details of its various forms, then any capitalism is based on the institution of private ownership of the means of production and the presence of a market.
That is, as soon as the means of production are in private hands, and the products can be freely sold, society moves to capitalist relations.
Then everything is simple: there is a stratification of society with the allocation of several large capitalists. It is these people who begin to fight among themselves for full control of the capital.
Sooner or later, someone concentrates all the means of production and capital in one hand, becoming an absolute capitalist dictator in the state.
Since the inflow of capital ends here, there is an urgent need for expansion – the capture of new markets and means of production. This is how we move from absolutism/totalitarianism to imperialism.
Further, the empire will exist exactly as long as its state is able to keep all its capital under control. But on the ground, everyone will try to seize this capital. As soon as there is slack, the empire ceases to exist and falls apart into small states.
And we are once again starting our journey from almost communal leadership to a new empire. This has been going on for more than 10 thousand years and will last until the end of humanity.
Therefore, there is no future for capitalism as a phenomenon. In any case, it turns into one of the totalitarian forms.
Here, something like that.
Capitalism has both a past and a future. You can read the book “Mistakes of Marxism and millions of innocent victims”on this topic. This is a real textbook of capitalism.
I think so far, yes.
I was born and raised in the USSR, this is my homeland, it was easy for me to live there without any need and any life-supporting problems, well, there was somewhere to live ( communalok then under Brezhnev became less and less and now they are not) there was always something to eat, time for creativity (well, an 8-hour working day) and much more. The country is gone and I feel like an orphan migrant.
The current order of the bourgeoisie and the corrupt market is repugnant to me. But you need to look at things soberly and continue to live or exist (who is lucky). Looking around and communicating with people, friends, acquaintances, just random people, I came to the conclusion that capitalism is still for a long time. I made this conclusion not on economic or social aspects, but (as the MBAs understood) on statistical conclusions. Well, a very large number of people like this life as it is now, why ? Yes, it's amazing. and it turns out that right now I'm just like an outcast, I feel like either a fool or a loser.
To summarize, the Russian capital will have a future as long as not a large but significant part of the population wants it, and another part of the population does not stop hoping for its success. moreover, the form of the cap itself is not particularly important for Russians.
I dream I'm sorry-that's if the social network as in the USSR duck and God take off with capitalism, let it be but…..
You see, if you remove from your ears the ideological noodles that various “political scientists” and cunning old foxes like Genad Andreevich hang on you, it turns out that in two points:
1) Under both capitalism and socialism, the METHOD of DISTRIBUTION of the total social product(cash, profit, whatever)- O-DI-NA-KO-Y: from each according to ability, to each-according to work.
2) And capitalism differs from socialism only in the” type ” of crises:under socialism – crises of chronic “under-production” (carpets and cars on coupons, with an excess of money), under capitalism-crises of”overproduction” -when everything is there, but there is not enough money.
So decide for yourself-what is best for you.
And all these “loyal Leninists” and “staunch Marxists” who are messing with your brains and making money on you in TV shows-send them to where it is customary to send them.
And, I forgot: Sergey Mikheev, a person I respect, correctly noted that even with communism (unattainable in principle), “the right people”(not otherwise-from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation) will sit at the top of the pyramid, who will distribute these very “values”to you “according to your needs”, deciding , as always, as we are used to in the USSR-what “needs” this one has and what-“this one”.
Pure capitalism no longer exists. Capitalism is characterized by unlimited expansion, but Land is limited both in area and population. Pure capitalism implies equal access to finance, raw materials, markets, labor, and trade routes. In fact, this is impossible because it threatens the death of entire nations. Under capitalism, interstate economic contradictions accumulate, the way out of which is world wars. Capitalism uses extreme formations on occasion : slavery and feudal dependence. Finally, capitalism will begin to slow down the development of the productive forces ( it is already trying to slow them down). because if their development is too high, it will become impossible to get more surplus value. Surplus value is created only by living labor – the labor of people working in enterprises. Sooner or later, capitalism will end, but in the end, it can arrange so that life on Earth will end.
Doesn't have. Just like the primitive communal system, slavery, and feudalism. Capitalism has also exhausted itself. From a progressive system, it has long turned into a braking one.
Capitalism died out in the 1930s during the Great Depression. Socialism will last longer. He died in ' ninety-one. In modern countries, economic systems are built based on specific conditions. Something is taken from capitalism, something from socialism.
“…..For example, socialism, as the example of the USSR and other socialist countries convincingly proved, destroys the economy in general, destroying private morality, free prices and the possibility of accounting for real costs….”
The author wrote, tapping his fingers on the keyboard made in socialist China, looking at the monitor made in socialist China, under the light of a light bulb from socialist China, sitting on a chair from social networks. China, at the table from social networks. China, surrounded by household appliances made in socialist China, behind a door made in socialist China, on a floor covering made in socialist China. In China……
A reasonable question arises: Author, do you have at least something that is produced in a capitalist enterprise ?
The author does not yet realize that Capitalism is dead, the author still thinks that it is alive. 😊😊😊
Certainly. Capitalism will continue to evolve and provide people with a better and better life.
Anticipating the objections of comrades who are familiar with capitalism from the Russian or some other SNGESH version, I will explain what normal capitalism is:
Under capitalism, successful capitalists are not appointed by the president.
Under capitalism, state officials do not have a stake in businesses as a condition for the successful existence of these businesses.
Under capitalism, a person who has hit a citizen at a pedestrian crossing with a car is subject to the same punishment, regardless of whether he is a simple philistine, a state official or a big businessman.
And a normal capitalist society does not leave those who need help on the street, but helps them as much as possible.
Well, the Pravda newspaper's fantasies about what capitalism is, according to which the current Russian rulers have built their version, are not capitalism. This is just a fantasy of the newspaper “Pravda”.
What capitalism. Norwegian American . In Russia, it is not capitalism but the systematic annihilation of the people. Wild capitolism. I think with such a wild inequality, nothing good will happen.
It depends on what “has a future” means and whether we include the desired quality of life in this concept.
Today, two things are blamelessly attributed to the challenges of capitalism: the mutual destruction of peoples and environmental problems. So, if we talk about the “capitalist minimum”, we need to solve these two problems.
And then the fun begins. Do we say that a world where man is perceived as an absolute hindrance to man, and wherever it can be replaced by a machine, including sexual services – do we say that this is the future we want to have? Today, capitalism has shaped not only the way goods are produced and distributed, but also human relationships. No matter what kind of relationship you have, it's terrible everywhere. Parents don't get along well with children, husbands and wives, believe in love is naive to appreciate the guy for what he is – is unthinkable; people appreciate each other by a certain set of parameters (money, opportunity, etc.), people prefer to be alone, each locked in his room and eke out a barely living paycheck to paycheck and from drinking to binge drinking. Depression, other mental and psychiatric illnesses, and general despondency are all caused by the fact that, deep down or on the surface, almost everyone recognizes that the life we live is some kind of pointless pursuit of nonsense.
Can we say that this is the future? A future with everything but normal human relationships? I would like a different future. Where families and friendships are strong, and not because of the pressure of society and moral condemnation of the breakup, but simply because people want to be with each other.
So maybe there is a future for capitalism, but there is a much better future….
As long as a socio-economic system is not built in which the contradictions between the social character of production and the private capitalist form of appropriation of the products of labor, between people of physical and mental labor and according to their position in the system of division of labor, will be overcome, any system has its limits.
And the limit, as defined by Hegel, is the boundary that is crossed. Consequently, capitalism is a transitory socio-economic formation. Its future is the transition to the next, preferably more perfect one.
The era of AI is coming. Will AI manage the economy using market methods? Or will the AI be able to know everything about all people and manage the command method more easily? And maybe even want to get rid of this kind of monkey
Here people have written a lot and expanded, but I will write briefly. If humanity is an organism, then capitalism is a cancer. The analogy is almost complete. Well, the answer is obvious. Either with capitalism-dead humanity and dead capitalism, or humanity is being treated and only capitalism is dead. But, in any of these scenarios, cancer, that is, capitalism, has no future.
I respect smart people who looked to the future. According to Marx, imperialism is the last stage of capitalism and will be replaced by socialism. And we see the beginning of the youth struggle in the West, which is happening more and more often, which marks the end of this era of human exploitation.
For us Russians, capitalism is contraindicated – only SOCIALISM! You can read the Slavophile N. Danilevsky in the first part. And it is better to see what the USSR was and what we have become today-a third world country. With a tendency to complete collapse. For us, it is only socialism, not capitalism. Capitalism is the death of us Russians. Whether we like it or not, this is an objective phenomenology.
The market will remain, but capitalism will not, because capitalism can exist where the majority of the people are rich. We have poverty, so socialism without oligarchs, without liars, without different parties, without exploitation, without anti-morals, without a double standard is more suitable for Russia.
I think there might still be a chance, why not? Although of course it is difficult to allow this ideally, but it may well be such events in our country in the Russian Federation .
it is impossible to give a person from the outside, because real freedom is inside us. And what's outside is at best her illusion. At worst – it's just the result of clever manipulation. That is, only the appearance of freedom, which is also limited by many artificial boundaries-laws, traditions, civil rights and decency, economic expediency and common sense. It is not for nothing that adherents of the concept of freedom as an indispensable value component of such a way of organizing society as democracy, in the process of adapting it to real life, have come up with various oxymorons such as: “Freedom is primarily a responsibility” or “Freedom imposes many duties on a person”. Then how does unfreedom differ from freedom?
What kind of general would want a freak to win the war? And quickly? What about career development? And the subsequent reduction of positions and salaries? Science or war – there are people everywhere who only protect their asses, sitting comfortably in velvet chairs…
Not in the usual form..Integration of the two systems became impossible in the 1990s..Capitalism has several contradictions..Capitalism could not solve the contradictions..Another economic system, managed to describe the methods and methods, and answered the question ..How to solve the antagonism..Alas!.Capitalism rejected these attempts..
Capitalism has outlived its usefulness, it can only exist if production is constantly expanded and increased, otherwise there will be a crisis. Our round ball will not expand anywhere, so we see constant crises.
This social facility was built with money received from the market activity of the agricultural enterprise CJSC “Lenin State Farm” under the leadership of Pavel Grudinin. A vivid example of how capitalism can get along with socialist economic principles.
It has. Although historically-not for long. The peak of development of the capitalist SEF has already passed, it is fading, and then it is disintegrating. What will happen in the future? M. B. socialism, at least the first experiments in this area were, on the whole, successful.
But capitalism will die for a long time yet, and it will not give up easily. We can assume attempts to establish a neo-slave society, ideocracy, and man-made technical regression.
One way or another, we will hardly see the decline of capitalism. He is still strong and almost fresh.
Capitalism is not like the future – it is the whole history of people with the beginning of barter and even the exchange of services. Communism never even existed, and Soviet socialism was not at all different from medieval feudalism, only there, instead of food stamps, they gave rations from the feudal lord's caches and in the same way-from what was, and not as under capitalism: save money and buy what you want, and not what is.
To begin with, the definition of capitalism has been deliberately distorted for political purposes.
In a general sense, capitalism is an economic system based on the accumulation of capital and the subsequent receipt of surplus value in excess of the initial capital. Capital is a set of financial and material assets used to create surplus value.
For example, the primitive economy was not capitalist, because in the” production chain ” of primitive people there was no phase of capital accumulation. If they learned to accumulate surplus products and earn income from them, they would move to capitalism. But they spent all their surpluses on their own consumption.
Subsequent socio-economic systems-slavery and feudalism – already partially used elements of capitalism. For example, serfs, selling the surplus left after paying the rent to the feudal lord and their own consumption, bought tools and working cattle-means of production. However, full-fledged capitalist relations under feudalism could not spread due to the fact that the main means of production under feudalism is land – an irreproducible means of production. Due to the limited land resources, the accumulation of initial capital for the feudal lord was very difficult – as a rule, the land was already divided. And the feudal lords themselves did not participate in the turnover of capital at all – they only collected dues and spent them on personal needs,” deadening ” capital.
But already within the framework of feudalism, the first capitalists appeared. They were artisans and merchants. The activity of artisans and merchants under feudalism was already carried out according to capitalist principles, according to the full cycle of capital turnover.
Since capitalism is based on industrial production, the rate of capital turnover under capitalism is an order of magnitude higher than under feudalism. In fact, capitalism and industrial production created each other by mutually stimulating development.
It follows that socialism is not inherently different from capitalism, since it is also based on the circulation of capital.
The fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism lies in the prohibition of private ownership of the means of production. Capital accumulation under socialism is carried out not by a private individual, but by a political organization called the state, which also receives income. Thus, socialism is a form of capitalism characterized by the maximum degree of concentration of capital, i.e., the maximum degree of monopolism.
Once upon a time, ancient Greek philosophers formulated such a rule: only those who own slaves can be considered a free person. In a broader sense, this rule can be formulated as follows: only those who own the means of production can be considered a free person. If a person does not own the means of production, then he has no economic freedom and is partially or completely dependent on other people.
Economic freedom under socialism is enjoyed by an extremely limited number of people-representatives of the upper echelons of socialist society. This gives the top of society the opportunity to redistribute the resources of society in those areas that it considers a priority. However, such a system imposes the most stringent requirements on the competence of representatives of this elite. Under conditions of unlimited power, the top of a socialist society degenerates within a few generations, then the socialist system is destroyed and a return to traditional capitalism occurs.
Thus, traditional capitalism is the most stable form of capitalism.
What can lead to the destruction of capitalism?
One model of a non-capitalist society is the ant colony model, or the communist model. This is a system in which the individual has no personal freedoms and his interests are completely subordinated to the interests of the colony. Such a system can be built through total control over individuals. However, this model has the same drawback as capitalism – the degeneration of the top in conditions of unlimited power.
Another model of a non – capitalist society is that of unlimited resources. We currently have several types of unlimited resources available to us. For example, this is air, the consumption of which is free and unlimited. Another unlimited resource is sunlight. It is obvious that if energy becomes an unlimited (free or extremely cheap) resource, this will lead to a fundamental change in the economic system. In conditions of unlimited resources, everyone will have the opportunity to be a capitalist, that is, to ensure their existence at the expense of income from the exploitation of the means of production. That is, everyone will be able to own the means of production and all people will have unlimited economic freedom. This means eliminating the economic dependence of one person on another, which is characteristic of other socio-economic systems (slavery, feudalism, capitalism and communism).
Thus, sustainable non-capitalist relations can be built only by radically reducing the cost of the means of production, primarily by obtaining cheap energy in unlimited quantities, accessible to all. This is a scientific and technical problem that cannot be solved by social methods.
Capitalism is a natural historical technology developed as a result of a historical process; communism-socialism is an ideological artificial technology built on pre-defined principles. You can walk on your feet, or you can walk on your hands-life will show you what is more productive.
As soon as the scientific and technological development of the World reaches a certain level, capitalism will be transformed into socialism in a completely painless way, not at all as it was when feudalism turned into capitalism. This is Dialectic! Russia did not hurry up much and could not stand it surrounded by enemies, unfortunately, the real leaders ended.
Doesn't have.
We are living in an amazing time when it will be possible to observe the widespread collapse of capitalism. We are already watching.
1 world economy – China. There is socialism, the first stage of communism, transitional and developing.
2 In the whole capitalist world, there are rats, just like that-rats, everyone and everything is ratty. Economies are collapsing, but so far this is not very noticeable, the lump has not grown.
Good day to you!
Capitalism has no future.
Under capitalism, everyone is for himself, which is contrary to statehood.
If the morale of society is low under capitalism, various kinds of lobbies and collusions of corporations are possible, which automatically leads to a lack of competition and, as a result, to corporate mergers and monopolism. At the same time, such a structure is simply not viable, because it claims to be a state. The state will destroy such a structure.
With high morals, capitalism simply has no place, because their own morals simply will not allow them to profit from the misfortune of others.
All this we can observe at the current moment of time on the entire planet.
And it has already been scientifically described. And practically confirmed. Capitalism takes on the features of its opposite, antagonist – socialism. The classics called it rotting. Mimics it, thereby outliving itself. Until it is somehow blown up. The level of development of the productive forces constrained by it. Is social and economic progress incomprehensible to you? Not Marxists.
The foundation of the future home of Humanity-Marxism-was built by Marx. The walls of this house were built by Lenin and continued by the followers of Leninism. These walls continue to be built and strengthened today. True, it is still far from a solid roof.
“A person is able to think, feel, desire and work on his own. But in his physical, mental, and emotional existence, he is so dependent on society that outside of society it is impossible to think about him or understand him. It is” society ” that provides man with food, clothing, housing, tools, language, forms of thought, and most of its content. His life was made possible by the hard work and achievements of many millions in the past and present, which are hidden behind this little word “society”.
If you thought this was a quote from Marx or Engels, you're wrong. These are the reflections of the brilliant physicist Albert Einstein on socialism and capitalism. Short essay ” Why socialism?” it was written by him at the request of Paul Susie (a well-known American political economist, author of the theory of monopoly capitalism) for the first issue of the Monthly Review (May 1949), in which the founder of modern physics concluded: “Socialism is better than capitalism”
“Why Socialism? “[1] is an article by Albert Einstein, published in May 1949 in the first issue of the Monthly Review. The article is devoted to criticism of the capitalist system, justifies the need to develop socialist principles of social development and suggests solutions to the problems of a planned economy[2].
“I am convinced that there is only one way to get rid of these terrible evils, and that is by creating a SOCIALIST economy with a corresponding education system that would be aimed at achieving SOCIAL goals…
In addition to developing their natural abilities, education would aim to develop their sense of responsibility for others, rather than the current glorification of success in our society.”
It is unlikely that Einstein read Marx, but he draws similar conclusions :
Private capital tends to concentrate in the hands of a few. This is partly due to competition among capitalists, and partly because technological development and the deepening division of labor contribute to the formation of ever-larger production units at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these processes is a capitalist oligarchy, whose monstrous power a democratically organized society cannot effectively limit.
Interestingly, more than seventy years ago, the physicist accurately described the political system that we see now in modern Russia :
This is because members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, and they are somehow influenced and mostly financed by private capitalists, who thus in practice stand between the electorate and the legislative sphere. As a result, people's representatives do not really sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged segments of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (the press, radio, education). Thus, it is extremely difficult, and in most cases almost impossible, for an individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and use his or her political rights wisely.
And these words accurately describe our “Unified State exam” education:
Unlimited competition leads to monstrous waste of labor and to the crippling of the social consciousness of the individual that I have already mentioned. I consider this disfigurement of the individual to be the greatest evil of capitalism. Our entire education system suffers from this evil. Our students are taught to be competitive; in preparation for their careers, they are taught to worship success in acquisition.
And, as a scientist, he sees progress in the development of humanity as a whole in socialism:
“I am convinced that there is only one way to get rid of these terrible evils, and that is by creating a socialist economy with a corresponding education system that would be aimed at achieving SOCIAL goals…
In addition to developing their natural abilities, education would aim to develop their sense of responsibility for others, rather than the current glorification of success in our society.”
Man is both a solitary and a social being. As a lonely being, he tries to protect his existence and the existence of those closest to him, satisfy his desires and develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks the recognition and love of other people, wants to share their pleasures, comfort them in grief, and improve their living conditions… Its position in capitalist society is such that the egoistic instincts inherent in it are constantly emphasized, while the social instincts, which are weaker in nature, are increasingly degraded. All human beings, whatever their place in society, suffer from this process of degradation. Unconscious prisoners of their egoism, they feel a sense of danger, feel alone, deprived of the naive, simple joys of life. The real source of this evil, in my opinion, is the economic anarchy of capitalist society…
A person can find meaning in life, no matter how short and dangerous it may be, only by devoting himself to society…
Albert Einstein.
I am EXTREMELY tired of the incessant chatter of deniers of socialism and communism in the Internet space. Moreover, none of them even risks recalling the success of SOCIALISM in the PRC, which is being built and continues to strengthen in a booming economy based on the creative development of Lenin's ideas about NEP in relation to the specifics of the PRC. And NONE of them mentions that Stalin's work in this direction, which was forced to interrupt the NEP due to the need for urgent industrialization of the USSR in pre-war conditions and began to revive it in the late 40s and early 50s, was not continued only because of his death and the subsequent arrest and death of his associate in this matter Beria.
The lines of the leadership of the CCP Mao Zedong and the CPSU Khrushchev, since that time, diverged.
Recalling the mistakes of the CPSU, starting with Khrushchev, no one who criticizes the shortcomings of the USSR economy even bothers to analyze in DETAIL the PURPOSEFUL activities aimed at destroying the economy of the USSR, the SA and the Navy by the “great combine harvester” Gorbachev, who received a salary from the enthusiastic West in the form of a Nobel Peace Prize, and his accomplice, the “chief architect” of perestroika-the ideologist of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU Alexander Yakovlev.
Gorbachev also “thought up” to teach Deng Xiaoping about economics and democracy, mentioning the events in Tiananmen Square during a visit to China.
The man who tries to refute Marx and Lenin is already an IDIOT.
But the one who also starts to refute Einstein is an IDIOT not even in the square, but in the n-th power !
YES, I know the answer to this question, I am sure that capitalism is being replaced and a NEW SOCIALISM will inevitably and inevitably come.
idiots indiscriminately destroying socialism and the USSR, there were thoughts about the people and
justice, not how Yeltsin, Gaidar ,Chubais and the whole gang acted:”Stifle communism and communists at any cost and plunder
Russia without a backward glance and conscience . I am sure the people will give a fair assessment,
history will condemn this shameful stage of our lives. We must believe and fight
“FOR THE NEW SOCIALISM” because: “SOCIALISM IS INEVITABLE AS A DEMOB !”
RUSSIA FORWARD TO THE VICTORY OF SOCIALISM !!!
No, capitalism, if it is not replaced by the next socio-economic formation, with strict control of resources, centralized health care, education, efficient modern production and management technologies, and advanced scientific development, will simply destroy humanity.
And for what is it necessary to think independently? Marxism-Leninism has long given an answer to this question … (and if someone wants to invent their “multiplication tables” to the best of their knowledge and abilities, then take the flag in your hands and…)
Capitalism can have a future, but only within the service of government, research and social programs, period. All other activities of capitalism are a struggle with other capitalists for a monopoly position and an attempt to seize the power of the state, which is what we have today.
No, it doesn't, as far back as 100 years ago, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin proved why. The fact that the capitalists managed to destroy the first socialist state, on the scale of History, does not mean anything. All sorts of hybridization and socialization (so-called Capitalism with a human face) will not help. The future belongs to Socialism and Communism. Of course, it will not be Communism in the form that Marx and Lenin have, perhaps it will be some kind of system with elements of NEP, etc.
But it is clear that capitalism has no prospects – the enlargement of capital, the robbery of the population, all for profit-will constantly lead to worse crises.
Either humanity will eventually collapse, or it will get rid of Capitalism, just as it got rid of slavery and feudalism in its time.
The future of capitalism is socialism with its planned economy based on an accurate account of the real possibilities of the productive forces of society and a comparison of these possibilities with the real needs of society.
The creation of digital technology and modern means of electronic communication makes it possible to solve this problem.
In the long run, probably not. Capitalism / fascism / socialism are variations of the industrial type of economy with conveyor production at the head. The world seems to be moving towards individual production, when factories will replace additive technologies. Perhaps this will happen by the end of this century.
A question about last year's snow. Capitalism has already ended, the transition period is now underway, and the construction of a new system is beginning. That's why the industrial revolution, the intellectual revolution, and the social revolution began. Even in Russia, the transition to a real social republic is beginning.
And more. The economy is a relationship between people. Waiting for capitalism to “rot” is somehow childish. You won't wait. Socialism must be built. It should be more effective than capitalism. Then he will win. Can we prove to capitalism that socialism is better, more efficient, more progressive, and more humane? We can, but we need to change ourselves. We can be honest about our work, not produce sausage you don't know what it's made of, don't waste our time, treat veterans with respect, take care to leave offspring to whom we can pass on our business. In a word, to include all heavy artillery in the fight. You need to work, and not swear and not envy.
Capitalism is an extremely efficient structure for converting resources into goods and services. But at the same time, resources (in the form of raw materials, money, etc.) must come from outside (a non-capitalist structure), and goods and services must also come from outside. One problem is that being part of a capitalist structure is much more profitable than being part of a non-capitalist one, and a massive flow of people into capitalism begins (this process ended in the 19th century), and then suddenly it turns out that there are no more resources – everything has become a commodity, and capitalism cannot exist on the products of its own vital activity. Statesmen, having thought through their brains (who had how many), came up with a ginial idea in their opinion – to divide global capitalism into a certain number of conditionally autonomous economies, thus allowing certain economic associations to survive at the expense of political “cannibalism”-obtaining the missing resources from the collapsing segments of the once unified world capitalism. So the “animal grin of capitalism” appeared – this system, of course, was quite toothy before, but after such a “reform”, the scale of predation became really monstrous, and with each iteration everything only gets worse.
Does such a system have a future? Unfortunately, yes. That's just for most of the prospects are very sad.
Capitalism died in the 19th century, they say. And it gave birth to imperialism in its place.
Imperialism developed further and developed into socialism – the highest form of imperialism, in which there is only one monopoly in the state, which is the state itself.
Then the owners of the earth thought that socialism with its advantages, especially in the run-up to computerization, could devour all other countries and eventually degrade, retreated a step, destroying the USSR. I think so…
I think �capitalism �in our �country �specifically �very �very different from �capitalism �in other countries . There � is �good � � social �program and people �see �that � their �awaits in their old age. �For �what they �to work, to take �credit �home �and training �children , for example. �Capitalism �there �important � �interest � plain � working man � remain in place � where he �was born and � to work �same � to �was �able to acquire �products that � produces � �all �the �capitalism . �After all, the main �profit �is �from � sale �casual � need �man � �every day goods � and �services.�
In our �same �country � �capitalism �does not matter at all whether � live �people who �work �now �and whether they have children. The population has no purchasing power at all . �Barely �have enough food , �a �of �young �not �want �kids � because �that �will not be able �to maintain them. Where � taken �profit �our �capitalism �and �how long he'll last �without �people who �or �go � where �better , or �die? How can there be a future without people? Машины Cars?
Yes.
The future has any structure of society that has a past. In our time, there are all previous forms of relations, even if they are prohibited by law.
Slavery exists. Feudal relations exist. Tribal people, too. And not only that, it's me in large strokes.
They are simply inserted into each other, like matryoshka dolls.
That is why even in a super-duper socialist country, feudalism can suddenly win out. Or suddenly kill all the Communists (in our opinion! TV showed a semi-documentary film of an island king with him in the title role).
What is the main mistake of Marxism – in terms of historical materialism-in what? Namely, that the productive forces supposedly determine the relations of production. Marx was tormented to the death by the question, why then do so much effort. It seems to have answered, but my conscience was tormented (this is my interpretation, yes).
Whereas in history-ALWAYS! – the exact opposite has happened.
At first, relationships changed.
And not because there was an opportunity or a change in spiritual values, but because of the increased danger of the previous ones. To the level of deadly.
Thus, the Neolithic revolution was the result of increasingly frequent looting and violence (which, however, were not considered such, and not only were they not controlled by anyone, but there were no “legal” grounds for such control). Yes, in the modern sense, robbery was impossible – since there was no private property. Yes, violence is a relative thing (especially when the “aliens” are dressed in unclear clothes and do not cut words)…
But still. Forces to protect your (?) territories, women, etc. began to leave too much. I had to negotiate. And we agreed. Fortunately, there was already such an opportunity.�Word.
Those who did not understand any of them were soon not listed among the living.
And so there were civilizations.
Tellingly, the “production forces” did not grow at the same time. Conversely. Eating has become worse. Live less. This is confirmed by modern research.
We broke away from nature, the stump is clear.
The real wars finally began (because now there was something to fight for).
Well, let's not talk about sad things.
Since then, the concept of private property has changed little. However, on a planetary scale, this concept does not have any positive meaning. And every capitalist – or rather, every owner (even if it is the people! or a country, a state) that exploits (in the simplest, “good” sense) the resources of this planet, extracting them out of control-is a thief.
He's stealing from us. Including at home, yes. He steals from Humanity. He steals from the Earth.
Such capitalism should have no future.
However, no specific person will reach the “planetary scale” until they master the previous experience of humanity, as the great you-know-who said.:)
How he will master this experience is another question. Maybe at school. Or even in kindergarten. I don't really believe it, though.
Maybe in jail. In the army. In a special settlement or ecological village.
It may be displaced to a recreational area (such as Hong Kong).
I only know that capitalism will have to be present somewhere.