The Inevitable Evolution of Capitalism: Barreling Uncontrollably Towards a New Future

[Erik62]

3 hours ago, hntnhole said:

I can't recall which one just now - but one of the venereal diseases often causes skin problems, scarring, etc.  

Considering all the call girls, whores, prostitutes, loose tarts he's "been with" through the years, it's no surprise there's plenty to cover up on that corpulent bag of filth.  I'm surprised he has any money left, after paying for all the "working girls".  

Syphylitic CHANCRES (cank-ers) & please do not ask which stage they appear. I was nursing ID - Infectious Diseases back in 1981-83 & my brain has "gone west" with age 😢😁😁😁. 

[BlueSaphir]

4 hours ago, hntnhole said:

The R's may put up Vance in the next cycle, but he's not bright enough to pull it off.  Once the pestilence has left office, I think Vance will be reduced to a minor historical footnote.  He has demonstrated absolutely nothing of note, other than taking all that money from a gay billionaire <polite cough> to get elected to the Senate.

Trump wouldn't have a Veep that's at all capable of threatening his own position in any way.  Only a dullard like Vance - or similar - would be acceptable to Rump.  

Not to mention, I feel he’s very absent as vice president. 

[Messerschmittbf109]

On 1/20/2025 at 6:39 PM, rpup said:

No one wakes up with an inherent desire to contribute to capitalism. It isn’t part of our nature to view our time and energy as indispensable cogs in an economic system that has defined Western civilization for centuries. And yet, capitalism—rooted in principles laid out long before Adam Smith put pen to paper—remains the framework that dictates the rules of daily life for billions.

But what happens when that framework begins to crack?

Today, we see evidence everywhere: rising inequality, environmental collapse, and the increasing consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of a few. Climate change reminds us daily that our extractive approach to resources and labor is unsustainable. Meanwhile, technological progress, often celebrated as capitalism’s crowning achievement, seems to accelerate its contradictions. A system that once relied on widespread competition now thrives on monopolies and resembles something closer to 21st-century feudalism.

When these concerns are raised, the predictable counterargument emerges: “What is the alternative?” Skeptics default to this question, as though history has already exhausted every economic possibility. They point to the failures of past experiments—Soviet communism, Maoist collectivism, or even poorly executed welfare states—as if these are the only options.

But I reject this framing.

Or, I go boldly against the “No Alternatives” Fallacy.

The question, “What is the alternative?” assumes a false dichotomy: capitalism or chaos. It’s a question rooted in fear rather than imagination, designed to preserve the status quo rather than encourage exploration. What if, instead of clinging to what we know, we embraced the unknown?

Economic systems are not static. Just as feudalism evolved into capitalism, capitalism, too, will evolve—or collapse under its own weight. The alternative is not a return to failed systems but the creation of something new, informed by modern technology and guided by principles of equity and sustainability.

Take Scandinavia as an example. These nations didn’t achieve their current blend of capitalism and socialism through violent revolution or ideological purges. They evolved—gradually—by recognizing the importance of balancing individual enterprise with collective well-being. Universal healthcare, free education, robust social safety nets: these are not utopian fantasies but proven policies that work in the modern world. A perfect example this is not, as these countries are fairly culturally and socially homogeneous, but are socially still very much on the right track.

One solution: Living Contrary to Scarcity-centric Capitalism…

So, what can we do now? How do we, as individuals, begin to dismantle a system that feels so pervasive?

One way is to act in direct contradiction to capitalism’s demands. The system is only functional if we strive for unending productivity, participation in consumerism, and self- centered individualism. We can disrupt it by prioritizing rest, solidarity, and community care. This isn’t about opting out entirely—few of us have that privilege—but about taking what the system offers and advocating for more.

Millions rely on Social Security, SNAP benefits, and other programs designed to provide a safety net; yet these programs are deliberately underfunded and inadequate, often failing to keep pace with inflation or the rising cost of living. Social Security Disability Insurance, for example, requires recipients to wait two years before becoming eligible for Medicare—despite recipients’ having paid into the system.

This is by design. A system that barely meets basic needs surely reinforces the concept of dependency rather than empowerment. By collectively demanding improvements, we can expose and exploit these contradictions. After all, even the wealthiest beneficiaries of capitalism—those who eagerly accepted PPP loans during the pandemic—have no qualms about taking from the system when it serves them. Why should we?

… to understand the “Power of Collective Suffering”…

Our collective struggles under capitalism are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of a system in decline. Within our suffering lies power. Recognizing the shared nature of our experiences is the first step toward building solidarity and imagining alternatives.

The evolution of capitalism into something more just and sustainable won’t happen overnight, nor will it come from the top down. It will require experimentation, imagination, and a willingness to challenge deeply ingrained assumptions. It will also require action—however small.

We must be willing to advocate for stronger safety nets and equal rights for all. We do this by educating ourselves and others on how current systems work, how they fail, and we also stand up and take what we’re entitled to, not in the face of shame, and demand more. If we accept that time is finite, then surely we must also accept that our economic systems must evolve to meet the demands of the present, not the ideals of the past.

……For “A Call to Action”

Promoters often present capitalism as inevitable, natural, or eternal. History tells us otherwise. Systems change because people demand it, not because the biggest benefactors - those who are (privileged, connected, corrupt) and benefit the most - are willing to give it up.

“End stage capitalism” doesn’t mean the end of society; but the beginning of a new chapter— one that we must be willing to write.

So, let us imagine boldly, act collectively, and evolve together. Our alternative is not just another economic system. In just merely stating that our alternative is to aim for survival, surely sets ourselves up for the same failing scarcity economy that we currently have. We should raise the bar and aim for the abundance economy.

As someone who works very closely with GenAI and robotics, let me just tell you that the machines only get smarter from here, the capitalist now has managed to remove the only impediment ie labour from the market. Starting a new venture in the future will require accumulated capital, generational wealth i do not personally see "capitalism" and "AI" coexisting with each other. Is it easier for the rich to take a step down and meet us half way or the 99% to move up the capitalistic steps to the 1% ? 

Only Ayn Rand was smart enough to predict that incompetence and an ENVY of excellence will lead to dystopian social outcomes. Orwell thought we'd need total mind control, Huxley thought we'd need a permanently drugged populace, but Rand knew: all you need is resentment. And you can see that playing with the current presidency. 

[rawfuckingonly]

On 3/20/2025 at 7:09 AM, PozBearWI said:

Yes, I anticipate there will be a period of reconstruction.  Hopefully we can settle public expectations on the whole "owning other humans" thing that keeps coming to the surface.  Evidently that's for when money isn't enough?

The "whole 'owning other humans' thing"? What is that in reference to? The "thing that keeps coming to the surface" -What specifically are you talking about? That's in reference to what exactly?

_____________________________________________

The floor's still yours, man. 😐  Your answer please....

[hntnhole]

19 hours ago, Messerschmittbf109 said:

Is it easier for the rich to take a step down and meet us half way or the 99% to move up the capitalistic steps to the 1% ? 

Thank for that interesting commentary, (I'll just say 'airplane", ok?).  

I don't think the rich are at all interested in taking a 'step down', as you mention.  Nor do I think the wealthy are interested in meeting anyone 'half-way'.  Further, I think the rich are more interested in keeping the 99% down than they are sharing their excess.  

That said, and to the point, I think those holding vast wealth close to their hearts need a transplant, in order to spread the largess around more equitably.  If everyone gave 10% of their income to ameliorate the sorrows of the poor, those sorrows would disappear.  But that has never happened, and it won't happen in the future, since the more resources a person, a family hoards, the more they crave.  

So the answer to your question is, of course it's easier for the rich to step down than it is for the poor to climb up.  But it just doesn't happen unless there are some kind of benefits (i.e. tax write-offs) to compensate the wealthy if they actually part with some of their gold.  

[Erik62]

5 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Thank for that interesting commentary, (I'll just say 'airplane", ok?).  

I don't think the rich are at all interested in taking a 'step down', as you mention.  Nor do I think the wealthy are interested in meeting anyone 'half-way'.  Further, I think the rich are more interested in keeping the 99% down than they are sharing their excess.  

That said, and to the point, I think those holding vast wealth close to their hearts need a transplant, in order to spread the largess around more equitably.  If everyone gave 10% of their income to ameliorate the sorrows of the poor, those sorrows would disappear.  But that has never happened, and it won't happen in the future, since the more resources a person, a family hoards, the more they crave.  

So the answer to your question is, of course it's easier for the rich to step down than it is for the poor to climb up.  But it just doesn't happen unless there are some kind of benefits (i.e. tax write-offs) to compensate the wealthy if they actually part with some of their gold.  

Both Australia & the US populations suffer from a, "government provide but I won't pay syndrome", TAXATION. Lower economic groups want education, health etc & the wealthy want government support for private schools & beautiful big airports BUT, neither group want to pay THEIR SHARE of taxes. 

[hntnhole]

17 hours ago, Erik62 said:

BUT, neither group want to pay THEIR SHARE of taxes

I disagree.  

That may be the case in your country, but it isn't the case in the US. 

Here in the US, we're taxed on everything, no matter what level of financial security we enjoy or not.  We're taxed annually on our income, on our property, there are sales taxes of every single thing we buy - from groceries to clothing, and everything else you can name.  If taxation were voluntary, there wouldn't be any governments at all, including yours.  

It's when our contributions are simply taken away - for example, Social Security in the US - that troubles start.  You may already know this, but for any readers that don't. taxes are collected (via withholdings from our paychecks) beginning with our very first job, and ending whenever we retire.  It's only at retirement that US citizens can access their own earned money back, as SS monthly reimbursements on money we've earned from our very first day of employment.  In my case, it was when I began delivering newspapers beginning in the 5th grade.  

Thus, any American citizen who is employed has a portion of their wages deducted by the Social Security Administration, and from the very first day they are employed until the very last day before retirement, with the understanding that the Government will invest our S.S. taxes, and we will not only get our principal back, it will be with a portion of decades worth of interest as well.    

That's only one of the taxation contrivances, and there are plenty of others.  Of course, every other type of tax (sales tax, income tax, property tax for example) continues until the individual heads off to what you might call "their great reward in Heaven".  More, the great majority of Americans do not quibble about paying their fair share, since we enjoy many benefits derived from taxation.  

My friend, I enjoy your commentary on many subjects, but on this one, you are very much mistaken.  We want what we've been promised our entire lives, but more than what we're entitled to - what we've earned - would be unfair, just as chiseling on what we've earned would be unfair.  

[Erik62]

11 hours ago, hntnhole said:

I disagree.  

That may be the case in your country, but it isn't the case in the US. 

Here in the US, we're taxed on everything, no matter what level of financial security we enjoy or not.  We're taxed annually on our income, on our property, there are sales taxes of every single thing we buy - from groceries to clothing, and everything else you can name.  If taxation were voluntary, there wouldn't be any governments at all, including yours.  

It's when our contributions are simply taken away - for example, Social Security in the US - that troubles start.  You may already know this, but for any readers that don't. taxes are collected (via withholdings from our paychecks) beginning with our very first job, and ending whenever we retire.  It's only at retirement that US citizens can access their own earned money back, as SS monthly reimbursements on money we've earned from our very first day of employment.  In my case, it was when I began delivering newspapers beginning in the 5th grade.  

Thus, any American citizen who is employed has a portion of their wages deducted by the Social Security Administration, and from the very first day they are employed until the very last day before retirement, with the understanding that the Government will invest our S.S. taxes, and we will not only get our principal back, it will be with a portion of decades worth of interest as well.    

That's only one of the taxation contrivances, and there are plenty of others.  Of course, every other type of tax (sales tax, income tax, property tax for example) continues until the individual heads off to what you might call "their great reward in Heaven".  More, the great majority of Americans do not quibble about paying their fair share, since we enjoy many benefits derived from taxation.  

My friend, I enjoy your commentary on many subjects, but on this one, you are very much mistaken.  We want what we've been promised our entire lives, but more than what we're entitled to - what we've earned - would be unfair, just as chiseling on what we've earned would be unfair.  

  I will withdraw, with apology, for my assumption & inclusion of the US. Also adding that so many of your taxes are also our sales taxes. Australia's Fed government uses our wage taxes & product sales taxes for many nationally full / partially funded areas & we "expect" the state & fed governments to provide these services. 

  My intention was not so much, what taxes are paid but, how they are often harsh for many & unusually soft on others as direct taxes on money earnt. I will limit my next comment to Australia. Australians want the "luxury" of government provided health (hospitals & GP bulk billing), pharmaceuticals, education, transport (in Australia rail, ferries & buses), road systems, defence & emergency services (state & fed police only) but, to actually increase TAXES ON WAGES for their provision is a very sore point, as is extraordinary sales tax increases, eg: on nicotine & alcohol products. An example of additional sales taxes is that on nicotine products. A packet of 30 cigarettes will cost upwards of $50+ AUD. Something like a 63% sales tax mark-up. 

    I shall, in the future, attempt to avoid assumptions. I always appreciate your responses & commentary finding them very educational in understanding the current, dare I say, turmoil afflicting the US today. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Erik62