[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '
')As you can see, this is very contemporary and has nothing to do with coal mines or Queen Victoria. Now I must really call it a day or SG will be spitting chips.

[SeaGypsy]

AD- my commune will have ethnobotanicals- lots of them from all over the world- as well as competing with yours for the annual local brewers cup Should your commune go to war with mine over such trivial matters- your mob will have the jitters and hangovers while mine works with the animal spirits and can stay awake for days on nothing but holy smoke and water. Keep this in mind and keep the battles to the brewer's Cup

[americandream]

Ibon

Capitalism is quite specific to the existing social relations. Fundamental to those social relations is the fragmenting of community to the base unit, the consuming individual. Then there is the endless quest to accumulate exponentially...and the exponential use of resources. Finally, all of this is gathered around the organisation of the masses as units of labour and consumerism, on a global scale. All of this emerges as infinite growth.

Were a set of social relations emerge to say underwrite small business with say a limited appetite for profit as a consequence of say limited energy for example, this would be something else and not capitalism. The supporting culture would emerge to underscore the limited profit rationale so as this would function as a system. These arrangements would reflect the material conditions that gives rise to them just as capitalism reflects its roots.....colonial era England when a whole new world of markets and resources were to be had and the sky was the limit.

How that would look is anyones guess but anything is possible. But it would not be capitalism. This paragraph neatly sums up my misgivings with any system involving profit, no matter how small:

It is also possible (at least in theory) to have a free market economy that is not capitalist. Such a 'market economy' would involve farmers, artisans and shopkeepers each producing a particular product that they would exchange via the medium of money. There would be no profit-making and no class division—just independent producers exchanging goods for their mutual benefit. But it is doubtful whether such an economy has ever existed. The nearest that may have come to it would have been in some of the early colonial settlements in North America. Some Greens wish to see a return to this kind of economy. We do not think that it is a viable alternative for modern society. Such a system would almost inevitability lead to capital accumulation and profit making—the definitive features of capitalism.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/ ... talism.php

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '
')How that would look is anyones guess but anything is possible. But it would not be capitalism. This paragraph neatly sums up my misgivings with any system involving profit, no matter how small:

[americandream]

Which is where you and I part company.

Capitalism in its last days will be red in tooth and claw as regards a whole range of issues including env ironmental constraints. I suspect that the favoured fall back will be geo-engineering with BAU. Someone on here was wishful enough to suggest that authoritarian forms will not be resorted to. Anything will be resorted to, to preserve the status quo. Many a cherished hope will be shattered and that is where systems are tested and change...this has always be the sorts of precusors to the change of human systems.

My only proviso to this is the climate and whether we will have a room to negotiate a new way of life. I am increasingly doubtful.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '
')How that would look is anyones guess but anything is possible. But it would not be capitalism. This paragraph neatly sums up my misgivings with any system involving profit, no matter how small:

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('h2', '
')And that's what keeps me coming back to peakoil.com, the question of what happens when one key resource, not too inaccurately called the master resource, or one of them, begins to rise in cost,

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'A')nything will be resorted to

[americandream]

Dialectic forces have always driven human systems (Kissinger has been a great architect for dialectic materialism in the ME. Where he has got the dynamic arse about face is failing to understand that you cannot make it happen. Material conditions dictate how it unfolds. One can only be prepared for the kickback.)

That will not change here. The only advice I can suggest is to be prepared to be disappoionted. But out of that arises opportunity (subject of course to the climate elephant.)

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', ' ')The only advice I can suggest is to be prepared to be disappoionted.

[americandream]

Lol. I don't really keep track of who is what here. I tend to come on here, post and go. The odd day I will hang around to complete an exercise.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', ' ')The only advice I can suggest is to be prepared to be
disappoionted.

[Quinny]

I agree with AD that ff are a multiplier, where I think we differ is that IMHO the power of the multiplier has become in some ways more critical than labour itself. I believe that the idea that post peak the world can continue to create the levels of surplus we currently enjoy by employing more people to replace our ff slaves is unrealistic.

[SeaGypsy]

Therein lies the rub Quinny. Reality is and has been for quite some time- we can easily feed clothe and shelter humanity at a nominal level- if the richer percentiles can be satisfied with a bit less. Are we going to have a more equitable foundation over time or less?

Some huge topics being just touched on here. Back to the OP for just a moment (lolz)- this is why I keep coming back- These truly fundamental questions which are so key to how we live and who we choose to live as in this strange and so oft paradoxical existence- a lot of folks here 'get' this stuff and can hold a conversation about it. A rare and precious ability I value very much in my fellow posters here. (Yep even you AD )

[americandream]

Capitalism has particular characteristics. Slavery is not one of them. Labur value extraction contemplates a sufficient exchange to facilitate the market. ME economies which still exhibit certain medieval characteristics are still largely feudal (for example the rules on usury.) Any post capitalist economy based on the use of slaves will be feudal and largely non-accumulative. Nazi Germany for example, was regressively feudal although Hitler characterised it as bourgeoisie socialism.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'I') agree with AD that ff are a multiplier, where I think we differ is that IMHO the power of the multiplier has become in some ways more critical than labour itself. I believe that the idea that post peak the world can continue to create the levels of surplus we currently enjoy by employing more people to replace our ff slaves is unrealistic.

[Quinny]

I wasn't suggesting slavery, but the use of technology and ff increases productivity to a level where goods and services are produced by a small fraction of the population. When we then hit a decline how can the current levels of (unreal) capital be generated. At that stage I believe the 'financial' economy will have to suddenly align itself with the 'real' economy which could cause it to break.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'C')apitalism has particular characteristics. Slavery is not one of them. Labur value extraction contemplates a sufficient exchange to facilitate the market. ME economies which still exhibit certain medieval characteristics are still largely feudal (for example the rules on usury.) Any post capitalist economy based on the use of slaves will be feudal and largely non-accumulative. Nazi Germany for example, was regressively feudal although Hitler characterised it as bourgeoisie socialism.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'I') agree with AD that ff are a multiplier, where I think we differ is that IMHO the power of the multiplier has become in some ways more critical than labour itself. I believe that the idea that post peak the world can continue to create the levels of surplus we currently enjoy by employing more people to replace our ff slaves is unrealistic.

[americandream]

1 All this talk of machinery and yet no one asks, why are they continuing to outsource to high labour availability, low wage zones. Machines will play a part where they are able to be applied (as they always have) but at the end of the day, until I see capitalists actually dispense with labour, I will stick with the facts. The labour situation remains classically exploitative...to the degree that they have to now put out suicide nets for these poor sods in places such as China. Even the services economy remains dependent on low wage India.

2 Within that context, I therefore contend that accumulation post collapse will fail due to the close links between labour's component of value and its consumerism...something that neutralises slavery. Feudalism will well re-emerge but capitalism will have hit the buffers.

It is in this context that Marx contemplates the possibility of a return to collectivism......which is not entirely out of the realms of reasonableness....subject of course to the risk posed by climate change.

However, these speculations about machines are just that. Until I see clear evidence of an abandonment of labour to the degree that outsourcing human labour disappears, I prefer the labour theory of value.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'I') wasn't suggesting slavery, but the use of technology and ff increases productivity to a level where goods and services are produced by a small fraction of the population. When we then hit a decline how can the current levels of (unreal) capital be generated. At that stage I believe the 'financial' economy will have to suddenly align itself with the 'real' economy which could cause it to break.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'C')apitalism has particular characteristics. Slavery is not one of them. Labur value extraction contemplates a sufficient exchange to facilitate the market. ME economies which still exhibit certain medieval characteristics are still largely feudal (for example the rules on usury.) Any post capitalist economy based on the use of slaves will be feudal and largely non-accumulative. Nazi Germany for example, was regressively feudal although Hitler characterised it as bourgeoisie socialism.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'I') agree with AD that ff are a multiplier, where I think we differ is that IMHO the power of the multiplier has become in some ways more critical than labour itself. I believe that the idea that post peak the world can continue to create the levels of surplus we currently enjoy by employing more people to replace our ff slaves is unrealistic.

[Quinny]

It still needs people to run the machines.

For the first time in my life I am currently working on a production line. The factory is closing soon and the jobs will disappear from our region. The reason. Firstly the parent group is shifting some production from Western Europe to Poland it does however need to keep close to the markets, so keeps it's expensive labour on in one factory which is installing 8 million euros of advanced machinery which will increase productivity significantly. The same machinery which is being installed in Poland which by the way is not actually offering the cheapest wage rates available.

I don't dispute that labour is still key, but contend that resources and oil in particular could potentially cause the fall of capitalism.

Not suggesting it's happening anytime soon, but imagine for a moment that we did fall off the plateau, are you suggesting that Capitalism would survive the ensuing crisis?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '1') All this talk of machinery and yet no one asks, why are they continuing to outsource to high labour availability, low wage zones. Machines will play a part where they are able to be applied (as they always have) but at the end of the day, until I see capitalists actually dispense with labour, I will stick with the facts. The labour situation remains classically exploitative...to the degree that they have to now put out suicide nets for these poor sods in places such as China. Even the services economy remains dependent on low wage India.

2 Within that context, I therefore contend that accumulation post collapse will fail due to the close links between labour's component of value and its consumerism...something that neutralises slavery. Feudalism will well re-emerge but capitalism will have hit the buffers.

It is in this context that Marx contemplates the possibility of a return to collectivism......which is not entirely out of the realms of reasonableness....subject of course to the risk posed by climate change.

However, these speculations about machines are just that. Until I see clear evidence of an abandonment of labour to the degree that outsourcing human labour disappears, I prefer the labour theory of value.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'I') wasn't suggesting slavery, but the use of technology and ff increases productivity to a level where goods and services are produced by a small fraction of the population. When we then hit a decline how can the current levels of (unreal) capital be generated. At that stage I believe the 'financial' economy will have to suddenly align itself with the 'real' economy which could cause it to break.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'C')apitalism has particular characteristics. Slavery is not one of them. Labur value extraction contemplates a sufficient exchange to facilitate the market. ME economies which still exhibit certain medieval characteristics are still largely feudal (for example the rules on usury.) Any post capitalist economy based on the use of slaves will be feudal and largely non-accumulative. Nazi Germany for example, was regressively feudal although Hitler characterised it as bourgeoisie socialism.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'I') agree with AD that ff are a multiplier, where I think we differ is that IMHO the power of the multiplier has become in some ways more critical than labour itself. I believe that the idea that post peak the world can continue to create the levels of surplus we currently enjoy by employing more people to replace our ff slaves is unrealistic.

[SeaGypsy]

BTW- for those interested in starting a sister group on f ace book. PM me- I don't have any wish to compete with PO.com nor to monopolize- if there is enough member interest- especially from long timer's here- perhaps this would be a good thing

[americandream]

I have been a Marxist since my teens (I am in my early forties) and have always been of the view that resourcing would bring down capitalism. In fact, resource failure is one of capitalism's fundamental contradictions (against the backdrop of seeming plenty.)

Without labour and access to the new world opened up by Victoria's England as well as the context of Anglo-Saxon law, globalisation would not have occurred, nor would have capitalism. Which explains why Marx chose the British library to be the seat of his endeavours when writing Capital.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'I')t still needs people run the machines.

For the first time in my life I am currently working on a production line. The factory is closing soon and the jobs will disappear from our region. The reason. Firstly the parent group is shifting some production from Western Europe to Poland it does however need to keep close to the markets, so keeps it's expensive labour on in one factory which is installing 8 million euros of advanced machinery which will increase productivity significantly. The same machinery which is being installed in Poland which by the way is not actually offering the cheapest wage rates available.

I don't dispute that labour is still key, but contend that resources and oil in particular could potentially cause the fall of capitalism.

Not suggesting it's happening anytime soon, but imagine for a moment that we did fall off the plateau, are you suggesting that Capitalism would survive the ensuing crisis?

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '
')
Whether the middle class is supported by creditors seeking growth or a fiat currency or from production of goods as in China the consumption per capita does in my opinion represent a reserve of energy that can be drawn down thus extending this plateau way out into the future.

Remove all non essential middle class consumption; food, sanitation, shelter, add a little for essential transportation and maintenance and what remains is the reserve we can draw down, allowing each generation to recalibrate what wealth means.

We can add another 2 billion and still ride this train for 2 centuries until a black swan event arrives.

I am only playing devil's advocate here to all those who perceive fragility in our global economic system.

[ralfy]

Also, American Dream gives very good points. Similar ones were raised in a thread about capitalism.