by 
While doing some After Capitalism scanning over the weekend, I was surprised – or is it dismayed – by how many references there still are to “there are no alternatives to capitalism.” That was certainly true in the past, but we are seeing more and more ideas emerging about alternatives to capitalism.
NOTE: Regular readers know this. Can I ask you a favor? Can you forward this post to one person who you think might benefit from it? We’ve got to move the conversation beyond “there is no alternative” to a discussion on what alternatives do we prefer.
Here, we know three alternatives to capitalism are Circular Commons, Non-Workers Paradise, and Tech-Led Abundance. Granted these are broad images that are not yet fleshed-out economic systems, but they provide future visions that we might aspire to and work toward.
- Circular Commons provides an image of a future rallying around addressing the environmental issues of climate change and carry capacity.
- Non-Workers Paradise provides an image of a future centered on post-work.
- Tech-Led Abundance provides an image of a future in which accelerating technology creates an abundance of wealth the enables all to live at a much higher standard of living.
One could imagine a combination of the three as particularly powerful. Yes, agreed! They are kept separate in order to broaden the appeal: environmentalists are likely most drawn to Circular Commons; social and political activists are most likely drawn to Non-Workers Paradise; and tech enthusiasts are most likely drawn to Tech-Led Abundance.
There is much work ahead to craft plans to enable the transformations ahead. The three guiding images offered here are practical alternatives to capitalism. Let’s put to rest the old notion that there are no alternatives to capitalism once and for all … and start fleshing out where we want to go, and get to work building it. – Andy Hines
humans at their core use their limited resources to gain the most desirable outcome. this behavior is called economics and it is impacted by emotions like envy, jealousy, greed, and fear.
after that basic human behavior comes co-existing with others. co-existing is a spectrum from a collective focus to an individualistic focus with shades between the two extremes. collective approaches emphasize equality at a loss of liberty. individualistic approaches emphasize liberty at a loss of equality. co-existing is also impacted by human emotions like envy, jealousy, greed, and fear.
eventually we come to the people in society that want to shape it to fit their views. once again, impacted by envy, jealousy, greed, and fear.
you are not posing economic questions and answers as much as you are posing societal questions and answers. the real problems to overcome are differences in ideology. hopefully we learned in Iraq that not everybody cherishes what we call “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
until national boundaries (inevitable geopolitical conflict) are eliminated (centuries away) questions about how we overcome “limited resources” or “unevenly distributed resources” are irrelevant.
the real questions evolve around overcoming the conflicts associated with what the many and various societies consider to be the “most desirable outcomes”.