The Worlds Four Possible Futures...

[Oneaboveall]

Excellent article I found on the possible systems that will (possibly) replace the capitalist system in the future:

...One thing we can be certain of is that capitalism will end. Maybe not soon, but probably before too long; humanity has never before managed to craft an eternal social system, after all, and capitalism is a notably more precarious and volatile order than most of those that preceded it. The question, then, is what will come next. Rosa Luxemburg, reacting to the beginnings of World War I, cited a line from Engels: “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.” In that spirit I offer a thought experiment, an attempt to make sense of our possible futures. These are a few of the socialisms we may reach if a resurgent Left is successful, and the barbarisms we may be consigned to if we fail...

The author then goes on to list the four possible systems as follows:

Egalitarianism and Abundance: Communism
Hierarchy and Abundance: Rentism
Egalitarianism and Scarcity: Socialism
Hierarchy and Scarcity: Exterminism

The article, and descriptions of how each system works,can be read here:
http://jacobinmag.com/winter-2012/four-futures/

[AgentR11]

There is nothing egalitarian about what we are crafting as transition right this very minute. It is strong, powerful, well supplied, and absolutely hierarchical. It is a differently built one than past iterations though. It is much deeper; and its lower rungs of power/wealth are much more dependent upon the upper rungs than they have ever been.

People like to think that the dread "Powers That Be" will be taken out by some futuristic reset; but I think this is hogwash. TPTB have been in full transition mode for a couple decades now. Bit by bit, nibble by nibble, that which empowered a vast middle swath of the developed world is being obliterated.

I have a name for it, though those in its practice are as yet unwilling to speak it openly.

Its Feudalism.
Pure and simple; though this time with a significantly larger, more potent, but dependent lower nobility.

[JohnRM]

tl;dr

[AgentR11]

ts;dr

[AgentR11]

I will add this in comment to the linked article, and exterminism; the author is very much still attached to this 99% vs 1% thing. Somehow thinking that the guy that has a million or so in assets, has something in common with a low class slob, simply because the rich guy he works for happens to have a couple hundred million in assets. And nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does that 10%'er type not have anything in common with that slob; that slob will be seen as much more danger by the 10%'er than it will the 1%'er. Add to that even further; everything that 10%'er has is likely dependent upon the health and welfare of that 1%'er boss and/or his family.

Looking at charts of income and wealth, a clear point of divergence between the top 20% and the lower 80% is happening... NOW. The 80% are falling away, losing ground steadily every year; while the upper 20% are gaining, steadily, lower rungs of the 20 have more modest gains, but they are most certainly gains.

The view the author takes that the vast horde vs the tiny 1% ends up requiring an extermination sysetm. Remove the 99 vs 1 numerical silliness, and the rest collapses. And we end up with Feudalism. Even at worse, if the 80% revolt; they show up at the gates per sea and note, "why the heck are there so many guns behind that wall!" And then they go away. Simplified for posting, but the point is real. a 4 to 1 engagement against defensive holders of superior position, training, equipment, and supplies, results in the annihilation of the 4.

There will be no revolts in the coming Feudal world. The 80 will take their food coupons, go to the grocery store, buy their oatmeal, and get *** **** out of the way.

[Plantagenet]

... humanity has never before managed to craft an eternal social system, after all....

Humanity itself hasn't been "eternal," but nonetheless it has developed quite a number of subsistence cultures in different environments around the globe that for all purposes are extremely stable.

Probably the longest lived social system was developed by the Australian aborigines, who as far as we can tell developed a successful culture that survived in more or less the exact same way for over 60,000 years in a wide variety of environments across Australia.

[Loki]

And nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does that 10%'er type not have anything in common with that slob; that slob will be seen as much more danger by the 10%'er than it will the 1%'er.

No worries Agent, there will be enough guillotines to go around.....

[careinke]

a 4 to 1 engagement against defensive holders of superior position, training, equipment, and supplies, results in the annihilation of the 4.

Although I agree with your total premise, the above is simply not correct. It is WAY easier to attack than defend. As the attacker, you get to chose the time, the amount of force, point of attack, and you have the option of quickly retreating to fight another day. The defender has to defend everything, all the time, and loses the assets if he retreats.

You can even enhance your results using asymmetrical warfare.

This has been known to professional soldier since at least Sun Zu.

[SeaGypsy]

... humanity has never before managed to craft an eternal social system, after all....

Humanity itself hasn't been "eternal," but nonetheless it has developed quite a number of subsistence cultures in different environments around the globe that for all purposes are extremely stable.

Probably the longest lived social system was developed by the Australian aborigines, who as far as we can tell developed a successful culture that survived in more or less the exact same way for over 60,000 years in a wide variety of environments across Australia.

Where only the strongest 1 of each generation of men would share all the women with only the oldest 2 men, in most cases. Breeding controls were extreme compared to any other society ever known. This is the only significant single area of difference to many other tribal ancients.

[AgentR11]

Although I agree with your total premise, the above is simply not correct. It is WAY easier to attack than defend. As the attacker, you get to chose the time, the amount of force, point of attack, and you have the option of quickly retreating to fight another day. The defender has to defend everything, all the time, and loses the assets if he retreats.

Its not correct if you just look at the defense part. But that is the least important bit. And I'm not suggesting the 4 would fail to inflict damage.

The important bits were the fact that the 4 would be, and currently are, vastly outgunned, outsupplied, and out "agiled". I know I do tend to use the wall & mote visual in my text, but there really aren't any walls or motes other than in a cosmetic sense. It probably also implies a "waiting for the attack" concept, which just wouldn't be the case either. If such an engagement started there'd be plenty of "offensive" action on the part of the 20. Think something more along the lines of "defense", as in the 20 do not want to give something to the 80; and the 80 want to take something from the 20; but the desired thing can't simply be easily captured. Maybe something like the 20 are defending the Visa/AMEX cards in their wallets. I certainly don't mean to imply that the 20 would risk life and limb to defend a housing complex.

Needs work...

[AgentR11]

No worries Agent, there will be enough guillotines to go around.....

You just yoinking on my chain now.

[Plantagenet]

Where only the strongest 1 of each generation of men would share all the women with only the oldest 2 men, in most cases. Breeding controls were extreme compared to any other society ever known. This is the only significant single area of difference to many other tribal ancients.

Yes...I was hoping you would comment.

The aboriginal culture limits population growth in a number of ways-----something that modern political movements like "socialism" or "capitalism" don't have a clue about and something that modern cultures have abandoned.

Any future society that hopes to be sustainable must limit its own growth to the carrying capacity of the environment.

[ralfy]

I wonder if the writers are aware of peak oil. I found this when I used the search engine in the site:

"The Dialectic of Peak Oil"

http://jacobinmag.com/blog/2011/08/the- ... -peak-oil/

There appears to be little knowledge of EROEI, petrochemicals, or even the need for other resources (like water) to come up with other energy sources that cannot replace oil, or even what might be increasing demand for oil in BRIC and emerging markets not just for luxuries but even for necessities, never mind overall resource availability in terms of biocapacity compared to average resource consumption in terms of global hectares.

[vtsnowedin]

A bit from the original linked article.

What possible society could be so productive that humans are entirely liberated from having to perform some kind of involuntary and unfulfilling labor? Yet the promise of widespread automation is that it could enact just such a liberation, or at least approach it—if, that is, we find a way to deal with the need to generate power and secure resources. But recent technological developments have taken place not just in the production of commodities, but in the generation of the energy needed to operate the automatic factories and 3-D printers of the future. Hence one possible post-scarcity future combines labor-saving technology with an alternative to the current energy regime, which is ultimately limited by both the physical scarcity and ecological destructiveness of fossil fuels. This is far from guaranteed, but there are hopeful indicators. The cost of producing and operating solar panels, for example, has been falling dramatically over the past decade; on the current path they would be cheaper than our current electricity sources by 2020. If cheap energy and automation are combined with methods of efficiently fabricating or recycling raw materials, then we have truly left behind ‘the economy’ as a social mechanism for managing scarcity. What lies over that horizon?

Apparently the authors are totally unaware of peak oil or are in cornucopian denial about the future of energy supplies.
But there was this in just the second paragraph.

One thing we can be certain of is that capitalism will end

I really didn't need to read any further.

[radon]

And we end up with Feudalism. Even at worse, if the 80% revolt; they show up at the gates per sea and note, "why the heck are there so many guns behind that wall!"

Feudalism is not only an economic condition, it is a specific mindset, which was being formed over the course of many centuries. The power of the feudal was sanctified by the church, for one. The populace was illiterate and downtrodden, and challenging the existing order was a blasphemy.

That is quite different from the mindset that we have today.

Why go to the walls? Let them sit in their island and enjoy themselves. What one can do is to fence off a piece of the land estate that the big guy thinks that he owns. The big guy may send all his men to drive you off, but then his men may well reason that they will gain far more if they turn on the big guy himself. Especially if they have to deal with the "Occupiers of the Big Guy's Land" en masse. His men can be, so to say, democratically minded.

There is a story by Jack London, which I tried and did not find online. Read it ages ago. Basically, a group of gentlemen did some clever tricks and finished up owning the world, as per the legal papers. So they sit in a room and enjoy their triumph, and then a total stranger comes in and says something like: "Hi, gentlemen, would you mind vacating the room, we decided to set up a club here and we will have a party now." And they respond: "We are the new masters, the government, we own everything now." And the stranger says: "Oh, nice, congratulations, pleased to meet you! Now, would you please mind vacating this room so that we could have a party".

The big guy depends as much on the existing arrangements to preserve his position, as everyone else. Who needs his paper money in the world of scarcity.

[AgentR11]

Feudalism is not only an economic condition, it is a specific mindset, which was being formed over the course of many centuries. The power of the feudal was sanctified by the church, for one. The populace was illiterate and downtrodden, and challenging the existing order was a blasphemy.
That is quite different from the mindset that we have today.

Are you so sure about that? I'm not at all convinced of the difference. The Church thing has been upended of course, but the same social structure that it facilitated back then, has mostly re-formed again. And it has reformed in a way that no longer cares whether the rabble protest or not.

Why go to the walls?

Yeah, I regret using that visualization, it creates too many false assumptions.

Let them sit in their island and enjoy themselves. What one can do is to fence off a piece of the land estate that the big guy thinks that he owns. The big guy may send all his men to drive you off, but then his men may well reason that they will gain far more if they turn on the big guy himself. Especially if they have to deal with the "Occupiers of the Big Guy's Land" en masse. His men can be, so to say, democratically minded.

While there is an occasional example of such, more often, "his men" have families that are absolutely dependent upon the "Big Guy"'s success and welfare. It is in their self interest to protect the assets and capabilities of the "Big Guy". And again, I'll object to this "en masse" thing; a 4 to 1 encounter is much different than a 99 to 1. And most of the four are not going to risk their lives while their kids are still relatively well fed and not dieing. Its just not realistic to suggest such an outcome in a country where a significant amount of government effort is dedicated to insuring that we don't drown ourselves in grain. The "Big Guy" is not going to permit the rabble's children to starve; thus the rabble father will remain more interested in flipping his burgers, feeding his kids, watching football, and drinking cheap beer; sorry, but that is the way of the world. Don't expect the "Big Guy" to screw up; because he won't.

There is a story by Jack London, which I tried and did not find online. Read it ages ago. Basically, a group of gentlemen did some clever tricks and finished up owning the world, as per the legal papers. So they sit in a room and enjoy their triumph, and then a total stranger comes in and says something like: "Hi, gentlemen, would you mind vacating the room, we decided to set up a club here and we will have a party now." And they respond: "We are the new masters, the government, we own everything now." And the stranger says: "Oh, nice, congratulations, pleased to meet you! Now, would you please mind vacating this room so that we could have a party".

Again the fallacy of overwhelming numbers. 4 to 1 is NOT overwhelming in that way. 4 to 1 when most of the 4 are comfortably fed and can get out of the rain when they want, is beyond fantasy to suggest violent uprising. In the US, that "group of gentlemen" isn't ten or a hundred, its a good fifty million. If the rabble do show up at a particular club for instance and take over, the group of gentlemen leave, turn off the power, call the police, and receive an insurance company check later that covers the damages. The structure of modern America has taken away the ability of the rabble to do anything at all of consequential to our new nobility.

The big guy depends as much on the existing arrangements to preserve his position, as everyone else. Who needs his paper money in the world of scarcity.

Now you're getting closer to seeing it here. Its a fully dependent relationship; but where the failure is, is in understanding where the dependency lies. The "Big Guy" is dependent upon a very solid web built within the social structure of the upper 20% of the asset holders. He's not a king; and is not vulnerable in the way a king is; rather, there are a good 1-5 million "Big Guys" in the US, depending on how you look at it. Their income and assets are dependent upon the productivity and investment judgement of the full 20%; and the 20% are fully dependent upon the wealth, activity, and security of the "Big Guys".

This new form of aristocracy is much more resilient than old monarchical or power-lord type Feudalism. Instead of one king and a few hundred dukes and such; this time around, we have no king, a few thousand princes, a million or few dukes, and a good fifty million or so landed retainers. Its an amorphous blob of nobility.

Funny thing is, its clear for anyone that would like to observe, the upper 20%, the full fifty million or so of them, are getting raises, improved benefits, larger bonuses, easy credit, even in the midst of this economic disaster; slip off just a little, and you find falling incomes, demotions, loss of hours, job cuts, unemployment benefits, food stamps, houses that are underwater, dependency on the public school system for their children's education. The separation is still modest, but the curves in the charts are devastating. If the trends were temporary, it might not be so notable; but I see no reason that these trends won't only continue, but accelerate. They are self reinforcing.

[Cog]

Great post Agent. The top 20% will do practically anything to stay in that position because the next step down results in terminal poverty.

The 99% versus the 1% is pure myth.

[The Practician]

Nice post agent, But I can't really see much real difference between your "neo- feudalism" and the "neo-liberalism" that the radical left has been warning us about for years. Either way, I'd say its pretty dead on as far as the direction we're headed in. I do have some doubts as to just how "resilient" such a system will be in the face of peak oil and other resource constraints/environmental degradation. Obviously it has a better chance than the mass affluence of today, but I can't help but think that, in north america at least, a neo feudalist/neo liberal regime that manages to maintain technological advancement and wealth for the top 20% will probably have a lifespan measured in decades rather than centuries.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Great post Agent. The top 20% will do practically anything to stay in that position because the next step down results in terminal poverty.

The 99% versus the 1% is pure myth.

Yes indeed.
We, or at least you, me or Agent know that...
99% v. 1% story is complete heresy.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I do have some doubts as to just how "resilient" such a system will be in the face of peak oil and other resource constraints/environmental degradation. Obviously it has a better chance than the mass affluence of today, but I can't help but think that, in north america at least, a neo feudalist/neo liberal regime that manages to maintain technological advancement and wealth for the top 20% will probably have a lifespan measured in decades rather than centuries.

Wealthy peoples don't really need advanced technology to be happy.
They often dislike excessive technology as well, albeit they certainly love selected high tech toys.

Say it that way:
When I was a member of worker class, I owned (and carried with me) a mobile phone.
Once I got a bit better off (by no means rich, just well off enough not to need *job* and not to need *bank*), I have thrown my mobile away... and I have also thrown my TV away.

That doesn't prevent me from buying or facelifting old lathes and mills or constructing electric furnaces capable of work up to 2000*C, all just for fun, to get rid of time which I don't know what to do with...

I actually observe an interesting thing:
The poorer you are the more critical modern technology is for you to function with everyday tasks.
Wealthy peoples hardly need an extensive civilization or infrastructure which is coming with it.
When said infrastructure is around they are using it, many of them enjoy using it, but it is not critical for them.
Average lifespan of the wealthy only moderately increased during last 200 years.
For the poor difference in lifespan between then and now is enormous...

All what wealthy peoples *really* need is workers to work and customers to buy.
And what these customers are buying is of secondary relevance.
They may buy i-pods and it is fine but if they are buying potatoes and you sell a lot of those it is about as good.
I don't see any difference.

Wealth is a *relative* issue.
You are comparing yourself with others and as long as you come within higher bracket (say 10-20%) you will be a *well off guy*, go to top 2-5% and you will be *wealthy*, go to top 0.1% and on the top of being wealthy you will also be powerful...

Now lets talk about *rich*...
There are not many *rich* peoples on the world these days and very few (if any) in the US.
Rich peoples as per good old definition are those who can run a war on their government and finance it out of their own resources...
So maybe 0.00001% of earthlings are *rich*...