[Barbara]

Capitalism vs Socialism
To me, only an ideal communism (not sovietic, I mean) would save people and avoid the die off. Now kill me!

[Licho]

No communism no please, not again It was very inefficient and energy hungry. Of course central planning allows some interesting things, but prices didnt reflect real economic (or energetic) value and so it didnt make anything more efficient. Overally, with 5-years plans, it sucked. One year, there was not enough of toilet paper, because of some wrong prediction and other year there were tons of useless overproduced car tires.. There were situations where one group of workers was assembling something and other disassembling the same thing (say one group assembling car and other disassembling it back - if there was no demand for cars, communism ideologically required 100% employment so workers were given even useless jobs
If prices don't reflect economic value you could still have gas at 0.5$ during oil decline and economy working with key parts well supplied, but physical lack of oil in consumers market would cause black market to arise with corruption. This has happend in all communistic countries, things were often cheap but not availiable, you had to have good friends to obtain some more rare goods and skip the queue.
So some goverment regulation can make things easier and keep economy working during oil decline, but this doesnt mean we need to switch to stupid communism. During 40 years it ruined economy of my country and morale of people. Many people become lazy thieves because of this perverted regime (constantly thinking how to work less and gain more social security, how to skip taxes or find a hole in a law to steal in a legal way). During communism there was a popular saying "who is not stealing from state is stealing from his own family" - and this sums how it worked

[k_semler]

Even non-soviet style idealistic communism will not function correctly for primarily one reason, the reason is that the human mind is simply not evolved for what it entails. A pure communistic society, (again, not soviet), falls down to this one sentence: "Take only what you need, and contribute all you can." The human race works opposite of this sentence, namely taking all a person can, and contributing as little to the group, (or commune), as possible. While looking good on paper, (if you can manage to read the Communist Manifesto without going nuts trying to comprehend Marx's poor writings), it simply does not agree with the human desire to get as much resources as possible while not contributing anything to humanity's well being.

This is why Capitalism works. A person is concerned with working primarily for enough money to purchase the resources he wants, and as much power as possible. Most people do not work with the deep desire to make the planet a better place for everyone else while sacrificing thier own comfort level. Even within small groups there is competition for more resources than fellow community members. As Peak Oil has shown us, this is not sustainable in the long term, but it coincides with the human mind better. Capitalism is also what promotes invention and innovation. If I find a way to make life easier for people while making the work that they participate in more efficient, I want to get paid for my efforts. I will not simply release it into the public domain for anyone to use for free.

[Barbara]

Ok, maybe I was too generic...
What I think is that capitalism and our democracies simply can't deal with Peak Oil. We'll go to anarchy very fast. I don't love the thought, but the only way to deal with it is an authoritative govt with a collectivity perspective. The Ancient Romans, who invented Republic, in emergency times used to elect a "dictator" who ruled the country to the end of emergence. After, they restored Republic/Senate.
And I'm not talking of "authoritative" in a military way: just a govt capable of taking very hard decisions and put them straight in front of public opinion... "There's no other way than this. We'll do this effort, love it or not, we are forced to do it. No questions". Will it be possible? Or will us revolt to defend our right to go around in SUVs?

[gg3]

Agreed, Soviet-style communism was evil. However, capitalism that is predicated on indefinite growth, is also evil precisely because it is based upon an addiction to an impossible state of affairs. By analogy think of a drug addiction where the tolerance level goes up until it crosses the threshold of lethal dosage.

A week ago I posted a topic on economic models but it appears that although 50-some-odd people read it, no one responded. I've just posted another entry in the same topic to rescue one of my main points from the side-effects of being toward the bottom of a long posting. In my opinion this issue of economic structure needs to be dealt with ASAP.

[Leanan]

Socialism works only in fairly small groups: basically, tribes where everyone knows everyone else, and no one can abide the social pressure that comes with a reputation for being a free loader.

In fact, many cultures are not capitalist. We evolved to live in a socialist-type culture. Before agriculture - the farming of food that can be hoarded - there was no point to capitalism, because there was nothing you could "bank." Food you didn't eat would spoil, and "money" (in the form of beads or what have you) was nice during good times, but useless during bad times. So the way you saved for a rainy day was to bank the goodwill of your neighbors. Give them a share of what you have today, and they will share with you tomorrow.

That breaks down in agricultural societies, because with grains, you can store food - hoard wealth. You no longer need to depend on your neighbors for a safety net. Not to mention the anonymity that comes with high populations.

In any case, I don't see a dichotomy between capitalism and socialism. The U.S. is not a pure capitalist society. We provide for our poor and disabled, though not as well as Europe does. For some things, we agree that government control is a good thing. Even Libertarians don't think we should privatize national defense.

As for energy...it's at least as important as national defense, and there should be central control. Enron proved that deregulating the energy industry is a terrible idea. But we're still trying to do it - Democrats and Republicans both.

[Soft_Landing]

Excellent post Leanan. As k_sembler notes earlier

k_sembler wrote:

The human race works opposite of this sentence, namely taking all a person can, and contributing as little to the group, (or commune), as possible.

This is both partly true and partly false. It is true in-so-far as that humans will err towards taking more for little contribution as much as their society will allow (until they are punished by it).

Humans did not evolve in anonynous socialogical settings, but rather, predominently in tribal groupings of 60-200 people. These tribal people all would have benefited from limited exploitation of the group, but so much slacking as to be conspicuous would have led to ostracism. Our genes encourage us to find to the optimal social balance by pushing our tendency to exploit to it's very limits. If you think about it, it's a very good evolutionary strategy for extremely social creatures. Very simply, we need other people, we need to belong to a group. So genes that push exploitation to it's limits (until negative feedback arrives) is a simple heuristic that will locate the right outcome.

Of course, all this falls away when the possibility for anonyminity is introduced. Exploitation will increase as per it's tendency in proportion to the ability for society to seek retribution. What will happen to these people?

They will be successful. There's a good reason why our genes push us to be as exploitative as we can (until we sense a negative feedback) - because 'ideal' exploitation is highly sucessful - it increases the resources at your disposal.

So that's why, gg3, i'm not too worried about defining a new business system for a post peak world. Without oil or electricity - no travelling long distances with impunity, and no immersion into a TV or computer reality. Everyone will be a part of their communities again, and socialism style governence will work. In fact, it'll arise naturally.

Well actuallly, I guess it wont solve the problem of the tragedy of the commons, but that's another post...

[OilBurner]

I see capitalism as the good times girl. When she waves goodbye for the last time, then the most likely replacement is capitalisms evil half brother, the police state. Civil rights will be meaningless, naturally.
I don't see communism as a viable replacement, mostly because that system also requires vast energy inputs, witness Chinas ever growing oil consumption and the incredible inefficiencies in the old Soviet Union.
If society has moved sufficently backward then even a police state may not be viable, we'll probably see a return to mediaeval style feudalism with power bases held by local lords who will rule using fear and the power of the sword.

Isn't that a cheery thought for a Monday afternoon!!

[dmtu]

In the near term (for the USA) I think there will be a militarized police state required to protect certain resources while a certain level of anarchy ensues. This era will last until people have settled into their new roles (30% of the die off during this time). This may take as long as 20 years, meanwhile the central government weakens to the point of teetering on collapse. There will be far less social control in place in areas that are not important to the central government. The current monetary system will almost certainly have to collapse and some type of gold standard will replace it (in the 70s, Greespan liked the gold standard) Bartering will become more important and greenbacks, if there are any will have to be backed by something of value not purely based on psychological factors as they are now. I think personal freedoms will probably increase in the short term but people will become a slave to survival. At the end of the upheaval if all goes well communism and capitalism will not be sustainable but democracy or some form of it may survive.

[Cool Hand Linc]

I would be happy to live in a commune with you, Barbara LOL

I actually believe that IDEALLY a communistic form of society is good. I feel that the problem is when the greed of people begins to play into things that all forms of society fail.

I would be willing to vote for major changes here in my home land.

Barbara, To a large degree I agree with you. Major change at least in the mine set of people will be required to change the future picture of the world. Bigger isn't always better. Faster isn't always better.

An SUV with the biggest engine that goes faster and carries more people?

Seriously, many of the people who are aware enough to surf peak oil sites and have any level of understanding of what it is about could be good neighbors in a commune!

[Licho]

Well there are locally working socialistic communas (in Israel) but this system is not suitable to manage whole country.

[LinuxMan86]

Real Communism Can work, as i have said so many times to people i know - But the Material Conditions need to be there for it to function properly. In a Peak Oil situation - Capitalism would not function efficiently - therefore causing a restriction of rights by the central
government and making a bad situation even worse. As Capitalism
is based on Consumption and Growth, the idea that capitalism would
not be weakened by Oil Depletion is perposterous.

If a Proletarian Revolution is achieved in a Post-Oil Peak era - We
must go straight towards Communism. Socialism - Dictatorship of
the Working Class or Proletariat - would be unnecessary. But only
going for Communism - Real Communism - the Complete abolition
of the State and capitalism in general - is the only way true democracy
can be acomplished and maintained - to me.

Licho - The Kind of "Communism" you mentioned was in fact - Leninist
Socialism - Leninism only leads back to capitalism as it puts the so-
Called "Communist" party in power and it only establishes a new ruling class and "State Capitalism."

I'm a Communist By the way.

[Guest]

I think the keyword here is evolution not revolution

I'm sure we will keep whats good about capitalism and incorporate whatever we need from other systems or just make it up as we go along!

What we end up with will be something different again, but it will have to have a different foundation from capitalism (i.e. not endless growth and profit)

Martin

[Pops]

I wonder if instinct is made for communism?

Can a wolf pack survive without the Alpha Male & Female? Yes, they will simply select new ones if the original ones die. Do the Alpha’s have privileges? Yes

Is there a pecking order in the henhouse? Yes, and the one at the top is always the smartest. Does she have privileges? Yes

Don’t get me wrong; I’m no Anne Rand fan. But even in a small group setting of average – not self-selected individuals, there will be leaders, followers and complaining slackers.

In a larger group or society, the alphas simply have more of a base to draw their privileges from. It ain’t fair but what are you gonna do?


Edited for confusion.

[stop-the-world]

Barbara,

You original post put forth the idea that a slave system, communism would be the answer to this energy dilema. I cannot agree with such an idea.

The entire history of mankind has been ruled by the equation "freedom = progress and the elevation of the human condition while slavery = human suffering and economic stagnation". You suggest that we abandom freedom at the time we need it most; idiots in governmental positions of power are to decide what actions we individuals take to insure our survival under your solution.

Perhaps you might want to rethink your idea that some burecrat who has never planted a seed, nor stocked in a winters supply of firewood, in D.C. might know more about how to survive in the coming crisis than some Ozark hillbilly like me. I suggest that your own survival is a stake if you choose to rely on your masters to take into account you best interest when they themselves are scrambling to fend off starvation in the only way they know how; aggresion against those that have in favor of those in power.

Maybe I should just say, Wake up and smelll the roses."

P.S. Capitalism is the correct spelling, not capitolism.

[Pops]

Dilemma is the correct spelling, not dilema.

[EnviroEngr]

With the English Majors accounted for, and the grammar and spelling issues debated, I submit for consideration that we would do well to make our non-native-English speaking guests feel welcome and not discourage their participation given their likely lack of resources to provide sanitized contributions.

I will gladly re-edit posts that are cumbersome for the English-fluent among us for the benefit of unreserved expression by those less familiar with construction and usage. Having been a stranger in a strange land myself at one point, I know well the feeling on both sides of the language barrier.

For the sake of getting good ideas and thinking represented here (along with the corresponding discussion), I will do what I can to 'retranslate' where it is clearly indicated.

For those whose mother tongue is not English, let me know when and how I can help.

[EnviroEngr]

Last month's National Geographic had an article on South American ancient civilization rites and social structure.

There's no doubt about it, we have been sickeningly violent with one another since a very long time ago.

I'll have to excerpt some of it. Incredibly brutal. Nothing new under the sun.

[tkn317071]

Let's all agree that while the raw capitalistic tendencies of the PTB (powers that be) have recently been gaining dominance over the more socialistic tendencies, those socialistic aspects still exist, even in the good ol USA. In other words, there is no example of pure capitalism that one can point to and say, see, this is better than _(your)_ economic system.

Indeed, without the socialist aspects of this country (FDR's New Deal, Civil Rights Law, Social Security, minimum wage laws, 8-hour workday, etc.) I really can't imagine that America would be the great nation that it is today (though under current leadership, it seems to be heading the wrong way). Of course, capitalism has its positive aspects as well, providing incentives for innovation and whatnot. But capitalists need to realize that even they, with all their capital, still operate within a larger context, that of SOCIETY, and that their wealth is fundamentally dependent upon primarily, the rule of law, which has been known to be disrupted from time to time when things get too fubar.

When will we get past old, obsolete dichotomies and realize that balance is what is crucial? and anytime the balance tilts heavily to one side, systems fail and have to re-order themselves.

Given that capitalism has been dominating for awhile now, I tend to agree with Barbara that in the future we need some balancing socialism/"ideal" communism.

And stoptheworld, it seems like there is more slavery under capitalism, except for the few holders of capital, than under a more socialistic system. (no one is proposing a revival of the USSR, Soviet bloc type system)

[Guest]

hey stop-the-world;

How do you spell bureaucrat?