What Features Will a True Post-Capitalist Society Not Have?
Many people on the Left describe themselves as “post-capitalist” by espousing an entirely new economic system that is “post-capitalism.” I am among them, because it is becoming increasingly clear that we need to move past the current system.
Why Does Capitalism Need to Go?
Capitalism was a progressive system for the pre-industrial era in which it was established following the one-two blows of the (First) American Revolution and the French Revolution that began soon afterwards. When established late in the 18th century, capitalism took the place of a system called feudalism. That economic world order had also worked in its day but recent advances in production had made it obsolete and regressive, thus resulting in one of human civilization’s major revolutions that began in North America and Europe.
Because of that many Americans revere capitalism as something akin to holy writ because they connect it in their mind with American-style political democracy, since both were established more or less simultaneously. Hence, they seem to believe that one day replacing capitalism with a new economic world order, even as it once replaced feudalism, somehow constitutes shitting all over the accomplishment of the Founders and the intangible principles which America is supposed to be all about: freedom, civil liberties, and the ability to pursue one’s goals and happiness.
They therefore presume that capitalism and all its notable features — private ownership of productive property, commerce, the commodification of items and services that are intended to be bought and sold via money, the existence of separate economic classes — were intended to be eternal.
It was not, and Thomas Jefferson himself made that clear in the Declaration of Independence when he said:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them…
… governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
… all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
In fact, when the Constitution was eventually written, the Founders took Jefferson’s words to heart by being careful enough to include Article V, the Amendment Clause. This key provision of the Constitution provided the American people with the legal right to initiate a revolution if the vast majority of them came to agree that a point in history was reached where the system they established was no longer serving the common good. Jefferson described this as not only a right but an ethical obligation on our part.
So, no, the Founders never intended capitalism to be eternal. They could not conceive the precise nature of the changes that would come in the distant future, but they knew from experience of having lived through and helped foster a world-changing revolution that major changes of some sort may indeed one day occur.
What Major Change Did Capitalism Create That Established Its Obsolescence?
What was the change that productive advances from capitalism brought about? That would be the Industrial Revolution, which was a huge game-changer for humankind.
Why? Because now for the first time in human history technology and production advanced to the point where we could produce an abundance for all via mass production of goods. And providing required services also became far more efficient as a result.
Hence, real scarcity was all but eliminated from human civilization, and our lives no longer needed to revolve around that as all pre-industrial civilizations did. Consequently, it was now technologically possible to eliminate poverty and all forms of material inequality from global human societies at long last.
Accordingly, the once useful and admittedly necessary tools of money, private ownership of the (once far simpler) tools of production, and high stakes competition embedded into everyday living now became as obsolete as the appendix in humans.
In fact, the continued existence of capitalism into this new technological milieu now necessitated enforcing artificial scarcity to protect profits and continue a now-archaic economic status quo. The ruling class that controlled the education system, the production of textbooks, and much of the mass media also had to go out of its way to promote aggressive forms of propaganda and nihilistic schools of philosophy (e.g., Social Darwinism) to rationalize ideologies that glamorized avarice and competition, and which served as apologies for selfishness and greed.
These measures served to continue the numerous forms of misery, debasement, inequality, and warfare that were common features of class rule beyond the point where they were materially unavoidable due to previous limits on productive capacity. This made the system go from progressive-for-its-time to regressive, archaic, and destructive. At this writing, it has lasted for roughly 150 years longer than it had to (much as feudalism and ancient chattel slavery before it lasted far longer than they had to for the same reasons; hence Jefferson’s remark, “… mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”).
But automation has now advanced to the point where it’s clear that capitalism is on the verge of collapse, and cannot be forced into continued existence by various fiscal-based tricks and propaganda for much longer. Capitalism is going to fall whether the conservatives, other neoliberals, and “self-reliant” Horatio Alger-wannabes like it or not. As a result, many on the Left are now recognizing this and talking about establishing a post-capitalist society and what it may look like.
That is a good thing. However, there is a major problem: they are so inured to the capitalist way of doing things that they appear unable to envision a “different” system without most or all of the features that describe capitalism, or at least class-divided systems in general.
So, since we cannot and should not propose an exact blueprint for how such a system would operate before it is planned and established by the majority of the people based on conditions that will exist at the time, we can describe what an actual post-capitalist society will not include.
What Features Must a True Post-Capitalist System Be Without to Truly be Considered Post-Capitalist?
In order for a future economic system to be considered truly progressive and fundamentally different for this era of advanced automation and our ability to produce an abundance for all, here are the attributes that must not be part of it, with a brief description as to why.
No money.
Money is not necessary in a post-capitalist Economic/Industrial Democracy because a medium of exchange serves no useful purpose once we can mass produce all that we need. Consequently…
No buying and selling.
If many items or services, let alone all, are still commodified and people cannot have them if they lack “funds” to “pay” for said products or services, then we are simply living in yet another variation of capitalism. Which leads to…
No private ownership of industries and services.
If such is the case, and individual people or small groups as opposed to the collective body of humanity, have control of the automation and disbursement methods or outlets we all depend on, and run them for what amounts to personal enrichment… then the system described is not post-capitalist but simply more of the same as we have now.
No class divisions.
If you hear talk of “rich” and “poor” people, or “haves and have nots”, or proponents of said system talking about “less of a divide” between the haves and have nots than is the case today, then capitalism has not been truly moved on from. Those people are talking about a “different” system that nevertheless operates on principles they are used to, as opposed to those that will truly make use of today’s technological advances. And those advances can eliminate material want from everyone on this planet, not simply “more” people than today.
No centralized command structure whose job is to impose order by force.
If the future system is described as having leaders who are essentially commanders that have full control over a professional police force and military, and have the power to enforce their will on the majority of the population, then we have certainly not moved beyond class rule.
Leaders of the future will be duly elected by all the people based on their competence to plan production and distribution in a manner that is approved of by the vast majority. That means power evenly disbursed among everyone, which goes along with equal access to the resources. A command or “vanguard” class will by necessity be a privileged demographic. In contrast, elected managers will receive no material compensation beyond that of anyone else, will be fully recallable at any time a simple majority feels it is warranted, and their plans will be listened because such people earned respect by repeated competent decision-making — not because they have the power to force what they want on the vast majority.
A system that takes care of all the people, provides them with work they enjoy and much leisure time to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and gives all of them a voice in society, will not produce a huge sub-population of people who are violent, mistrustful of their neighbors, criminally inclined, mentally ill, or seeking intoxication as an “escape” from a reality that is very harsh to them. Order imposed by force is only necessary in a class-divided society.
If any of the above are still part of a “post-capitalist” society discussed by someone on the Left that you know, they are not truly thinking in a progressive way. They are predicting a future that maintains what they know, and one that will not be all that different from what we have now. A change to a system that truly replaces capitalism in the way capitalism replaced feudalism before it (and feudalism replaced ancient chattel slavery before it, etc.) will have fundamental differences from what we see today, all of which modern technology makes very possible.