"In the post-capitalist society it is safe
to assume that anyone with any knowledge will
have to acquire new knowledge every four or
five years or else become obsolete."
-- Peter F. Drucker, Post-Capitalist Society
I think this is true now. So, just what is a Post-Capitalist Society??
I think it means we move from an economy based on selling physical stuff (e.g. ovens, TVs, cars) to one organized around, and dominated by, selling information. There is tons and tons of data, and people will pay each other to organize, make sense of, an create actionable "intelligence". We will still need ovens and cars, but those sales will play a smaller role in total GDP (gross domestic product).
QUOTE-
In Post-Capitalist Society, Peter Drucker looks at the period we are leaving behind - The Age of Capitalism - and discusses the shifts and transformations that are affecting politics, business and society itself. He points out that we must be aware of these changes if we are to reap the full benefits from future opportunities. He speaks of how knowledge is the resource of society today, rather than a resource and why this makes our society Post-Capitalist. He states how if knowledge is the key concept in our future society, the ‘person’ will be central because knowledge, although stored in books and databases, is actually embodied in a person.
and now I must ask, what is this post-capatalist you speak of. Since we are still selling and purchasing things. It is just a different set of things.
This may be the best question I have ever heard.
The STAR TREK world is a Post-Capitalist world. The replicators make them stuff at command.
|
and now I must ask, what is this post-capatalist you speak of. Since we are still selling and purchasing things. It is just a different set of things.This may be the best question I have ever heard.
The STAR TREK world is a Post-Capitalist world. The replicators make them stuff at command.
yet the federation still trades for raw goods such as dilithium crystals and such that the replicators are unable to make or make at such quality as to be useful. People still use a form of money, at least they did on deep space nine, that was not replicatable. So they still had a somewhat capitalistic society. Just not one with which we would do well in.
"In the post-capitalist society it is safe
to assume that anyone with any knowledge will
have to acquire new knowledge every four or
five years or else become obsolete."-- Peter F. Drucker, Post-Capitalist Society
I think this is true now. So, just what is a Post-Capitalist Society??
Marxist or no, the most casual observation is sufficient to conclude that we do not, in fact, live in a post-capitalist society. The reasoning you use to conclude we must live in a "Post-Capitalist Society" (and can therefore presumably describe one) is invalid. Consider:
In a post-capitalist society, people breathe.
People breathe now.
Therefore, we must be living in a post-capitalist society.
and now I must ask, what is this post-capatalist you speak of. Since we are still selling and purchasing things. It is just a different set of things.
I'm with you. As long as we still have commodities, and people still strive to compete to have the most, we still have capitalism.
Seriously though, I've never understood how information can become the new consumer item. There is no world I can imagine where people will need to know who won Survivor more than they need food or clothing. We may become post-consumer, and I sincerely hope we do, but post-capitalism is still a long way off.
The only way I can see to truly abandon capitalism is for everyone to stop competing with each other to see who has the most stuff. It's not about changing what we're competing for, it's about placing others ahead of your self. That's post-capitalist, and I think we can all agree the human race is not ready for THAT.
|
|
I can see an Agrarian society that is set up in a large group of communal habitats, that could pull this off. But only under very strict policies and in a limited communistic way. I have even heard that small groups like this can become quite successful. Although instead of progressing forward I think that to have this type of society it would work best as a group or groups of luddites. I personally do not know if I could live like this. or if many others could outside of extreme religious and or fanatic groups.
I don't think Post-Capitalist equals zero trading. Now that you mention it the STAR TREK world seems to be a Post-Capitalist society.
The replicator takes care of all basic needs, but one can still 'trade' for the really rare stuff. And, of course with races who would not understand Post-Capitalist concepts.
I think many communists regard themselves as "post-capitalist".
Without an functional communist society we really don't have much to go on here, though.
I suppose there are communes out there that could make the claim.
I think many communists regard themselves as "post-capitalist".
Without an functional communist society we really don't have much to go on here, though.
I suppose there are communes out there that could make the claim.
I disagree that Post-Capitalist means Communism or that it means Socialism.
I think many communists regard themselves as "post-capitalist".
Without an functional communist society we really don't have much to go on here, though.
I suppose there are communes out there that could make the claim.
I disagree that Post-Capitalist means Communism or that it means Socialism.
I can't tell if you're replying to me, except you quoted me.... hmmm. Hard to tell. Anyway, my post speaks for itself.
To extend my post a bit: I think a pure "no property, everything is publicly owned" communism that you only find in sci-fi novels where production has been completely automated and machines and robots run our lives could easily be labeled "post-capitalist" in that by its very nature it must come after capitalism has created the means to produce things so easily.
I think many communists regard themselves as "post-capitalist".
Without an functional communist society we really don't have much to go on here, though.
I suppose there are communes out there that could make the claim.
I disagree that Post-Capitalist means Communism or that it means Socialism.
I can't tell if you're replying to me, except you quoted me.... hmmm. Hard to tell. Anyway, my post speaks for itself.
To extend my post a bit: I think a pure "no property, everything is publicly owned" communism that you only find in sci-fi novels where production has been completely automated and machines and robots run our lives could easily be labeled "post-capitalist" in that by its very nature it must come after capitalism has created the means to produce things so easily.
I was replying to you.
But, in the sci-fi world examples you give, we already have a name for that system: socialism.
I'm still working on the definition here, and not trying to debate any conclusions. So:
The definition I'm trying to make is Post-Capitalism does not equal Communism or Socialism (even if these types of systems appear in the future after our current Capitalism).
I'm saying Post-Capitalism is a system directly related to Capitalism, and derives from it.
So, you giving the name Socialism (or Communism) the name Post-Capitalism doesn't quite fit. For example, we have already had communist and socialist societies in the past, so saying that simply because this type of system will appear again in the future it has to be Post-* (in this case Post-Capitalism) doesn't quite fit.
Has anyone read the book?
Has anyone read the book?
LOL
Strictly speaking, capitalism is an economic system whereby the means of production (or capital) are privately held. A post-capitalist society would therefore be one that has started to transfer ownership of the means of production to the public. However a precise definition of capitalism is the subject of controversy. I personally like to point to the fact that we have public schools, public roads, a public police force, etc. as evidence of a post-capitalist development. Also take into account corporate welfare as evidenced by the bailouts. Not a capitalist move. Sadly, instead of socialism, the American version of post-capitalism seems to be a corporate imperialism, where government is being rendered obsolete/impotent by multi-national corporations' ability to participate in the political process, and their ability to outsource jobs exploiting cheaper labor markets.
Zo
I'm still working on the definition here, and not trying to debate any conclusions. So:
The definition I'm trying to make is Post-Capitalism does not equal Communism or Socialism (even if these types of systems appear in the future after our current Capitalism).
I'm saying Post-Capitalism is a system directly related to Capitalism, and derives from it.
So, you giving the name Socialism (or Communism) the name Post-Capitalism doesn't quite fit. For example, we have already had communist and socialist societies in the past, so saying that simply because this type of system will appear again in the future it has to be Post-* (in this case Post-Capitalism) doesn't quite fit.
Post capitalist society is Drucker's term for what most of us would call the information age or a service economy. In short a system dominated by information, knowledge and, hence, education. It is, as Nasty Pajamas says, what follows capitalist industrial society, not a form of Marxism. It is what we are transitioning into now. He was very bright, very quotable and very influential. Still is, actually. Management studies, society, that type of thing.
... A post-capitalist society would therefore be one that has started to transfer ownership of the means of production to the public. ...
Thanks, the idea that transfer of ownership is happening helps a lot.
I can see that slowing happening in our new 'information economy'.
... A post-capitalist society would therefore be one that has started to transfer ownership of the means of production to the public. ...Thanks, the idea that transfer of ownership is happening helps a lot.
I can see that slowing happening in our new 'information economy'.
*sigh* Drucker's post capitalist society has nothing to do with Marxism or the transfer of the means of production to the public. It is simply what comes after capitalism. Drucker speculated about the rise of the information age (he refers to it as the "knowledge society"), and the service economy, things like that. That he predicted (I hate that term...) things as accurately as he did is why he's influential. He was the big guns at the Claremont Graduate School. Business management. Not exactly a bastion of marxism.
Here's a link to a good, short, abstract of his book, "Post-Capitalist Society":
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=528370
I'm saying Post-Capitalism is a system directly related to Capitalism, and derives from it.
So, you giving the name Socialism (or Communism) the name Post-Capitalism doesn't quite fit. For example, we have already had communist and socialist societies in the past, so saying that simply because this type of system will appear again in the future it has to be Post-* (in this case Post-Capitalism) doesn't quite fit.
=)
I was not talking about socialism, in fact I didn't even use the word. And by communism I just meant the state of mind where people have "no property". Honestly, it was an off the cuff post. Also, in my first quote I just suggested that they (communists) see themselves that way... I was making no argument for it. That was one reason your statement puzzled me.
I think your sense of taking "post-capitalist" as a derivative is quite sensible though. The problem is that because we are speculating all of this is just theory and little splinters of 'what if'--and even in reality arguing that this is derived from that is not always easy. So I don't really see the point in disagreeing with anyone here (as your first post did). That's the other reason your statement puzzled me.
FYI, following your first post I did stipulate that the communism that I'm thinking about was one that relies on a manufacturing system which, in my opinion, could only be produced by capitalism. A system in which production has become so efficient that it virtually eliminates cost, as has already been suggested, exists in Star Trek.
Also, you said that the sci-fi world examples I gave were socialism. But I didn't really give any examples. You also said that my example existed in the past, but it certainly did not, because there has never before existed a system with a perfectly efficient manufacturing system that requires no labor. So... ummm... I don't get what you're going after here. Communism: I'm thinking in and of itself you're right it is not post-capitalist. I just said communism to relay where my thinking was going: I was not arguing that communism in and of itself if post-capitalist.
Anyway.
Building on what I said and thinking out loud (plz excuse my rambling): though there would be more or less equal access to materials in the ultimately efficient production system, it is not necessarily socialist because there is no labor invested in the production--so it doesn't really seem to precisely fit the term socialism.
Frankly, I think we need to remember here (not aimed at you NP) that capitalism denotes a system in which the means of production are privately owned and that their goods are traded in markets with the profits returning primarily to the owners and investors in the means of production. It's not just buying and selling (Crimson Jester I'm looking at you).
Because of the demonstrable and gradually increasing efficiency of this system I am imagining an endpoint. Some guy finally builds a factory that can produce without labor and resources, he can produce more factories identical to itself, and in doing so he eliminates further possibility of profit by turning it over to the people. It's oversimplified, yes. It probably impossible, yes. There are other problems, yes. That is just where I was going.
Now to go back to my first post, property could still be owned in what I've just envisioned, so for it to really be communist some other drastic change would also have to occur (in addition to the autofactories) for my pretend society to exist. So let's say you're right again--it need not be communist.
I think it could still be called "post-capitalist". Interestingly, people would still buy and sell things that could not be produced by factories, but it would be creative material made without a "means of production", it would be intellectual property.
So I guess you could have intellectual property, property as in land, but the means of production would no longer yield profits for the owners.
And in fact, back home in Canada, I have a book with exactly this kind of system in it. I just can't remember who wrote it or what the title is. Nor do I have any way of getting this title to you in the next six months.
=)
And... It sounds like what Drucker is talking about really isn't post-capitalist... but then I can't read his stuff cuz I don't have it.
Just to clarify a few semantics-related misunderstandings, Marxism does not equal socialism/communism. Marxist thought is a big tent, one facet of which describes the nature of human social evolution (historical/dialectical materialism) and HOW societies will transition from the industrial capitalism of Marx's time. Marxists do not all fall under the banner of "kill the rich, take their stuff." It was Lenin, not Marx, who made the fundamental assertion that the revolution of the proletariat could only be accomplished through violence.
Another assertion I'd like to make (reiterate, actually) is that there has never been a communist or even a truly socialist society yet. The strawmen that people point their damning fingers at (PRC, USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Democratic Kampuchea, etc.) are/were all demonstrably not socialist. Trotsky called the Stalinist USSR a deformed worker's state, others have called it state capitalism. Without an international basis there cannot be a truly socialist state. Every nation on this earth currently has socialist elements and capitalist elements. Some continue to possess elements of feudalism as well.
In every epoch of human social development, from Primitive Communism->Slave Society->Feudalism->Capitalism->Socialism->Communism and stateless communism there have been or will be those who oppose progress. They have, heretofore, been inevitably swept away. Very few of us wish to return to a feudalist state, or even a proto-capitalist state (think robber-barons of the 1800s). How then, can we assume that further social evolution will not occur?
Zo
Another thought on post-capititalism is that the current system could evolve where the state doesn't own all methods of production as in classical communism, but where the individual end up holding the methods of production.
We live in a demand economic culture: i.e.: We demand certain items, and manufacturies surface to supply those needs. If technology were to evolve to the point where we had self-replicating machines that could construct all our basic needs from the basic atoms available in, say, our soil, then much of our demand economy would wither. Pair it with a truly efficient self-contained/renewable dwelling-based power source (real solar/wind/ZPG/whatever) and some high-tech computing and *blam*! You are truly self-sufficient.
In this scenario the State would wither too, as there would be no reason for it. Polities would most likely either regress to small city-state structures as has been common before the rise of the nation-state, or actually go global, where the few dutites left (terrorism watch/ environmental stewardship/inter-citizen relationships/legal matters) would be handled by some post-UN-evolved governing structure. I would imagine an amalgamation of the two.
Is it evolved capitalism? Is it post-state Communism? It has elements of both, yet neither. It would be a new thing under the sun, and I'm sure it would have its share of headaches (humans are humans after all).
Damn I wish I could remember that book.
Damn I wish I could remember that book.
Charles Stross does a bit of extrapolating on this it in Accelerando especially post-Singularity/post-human.
Then there is Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age which goes into politics in China set during a period about 30 years from today.
Others like Vernor Vinge's world-next-decade book Rainbows End also touches on the shift of politics in the accellerating Information Age.
|
Another thought on post-capititalism is that the current system could evolve where the state doesn't own all methods of production as in classical communism, but where the individual end up holding the methods of production.
Like 3D printing? Already a few models exist that are about the same size as a 1950's television. I have also seen where some book stores over in the U.K. have print on demand machines that you take your manuscript or what ever in on a flashdrive and the machine will print and bind it for you.
A post-capitalist society is one where the "industrial giants" are no longer the giants.
There will not be another Henry Ford or Andrew Carnegie.
However, there is Bill Gates, and Larry Page and Sergey Brin (co-founders of Google).
Google doesn't have an industrial product like a car or a railway. Instead, it relies on new ideas to provide revenue. Because, really, once a computer program is written it never needs to be written again. Except to improve it . . . and that takes KNOWLEDGE. Not infrastructure. It takes someone who has new knowledge, not (necessarily) the person who wrote the original program.
Think of a car mechanic. Ford produces a car, but a mechanic could make a living just doing the same old repairs.
In a post-capitalist society, the mechanic will be required to learn computers. If he just keeps doing what he did, he will fall behind other, more knowledgeable mechanics who understand how computers run engines.
Yes, we're moving towards that society, because the people who "make it big" are making it big because of their knowledge, not infrastructure.
...
Okay I get that. Is this what Drucker is saying?
...Okay I get that. Is this what Drucker is saying?
Basically, yes.
Drucker did a lot of research on the science of management and leadership. One of the challenges of the post-capitalist society is that workers have a lot more power at their disposal, so how does one continue to manage and lead a team to success?
In the Industrial Age, Henry Ford had the power. He was the one who owned the the building and the machines. Workers could be relatively unskilled and yet produce a wonderfully complex piece of equipment.
Today, and going forward, a worker needs to keep his knowledge base up with the times. A programmer at Google needs to stay ahead of current trends, but it also means that a star performer can pretty much name his own price. Up until a new technology comes out that makes the star performer redundant.
If you can write a crypto program to prevent hackers stealing customer data, you'll make a bundle. But only until the hackers find a way through that program. Then, you'd better have something else waiting.
The quote from Drucker is accurate. Do you believe that the era of working 40 years for one company is over? In the 16 years since I graduated college, I've worked for seven different companies. Have you transitioned from your previous career into something new? I know I have: I am a chemist, but now I'm working with computers (coding for electronic laboratory notebooks, to be precise).
Hope that helps.
In response to another post, regarding socialism/communism as systems where the means of production are owned by the State . . . .
In a knowledge economy, the means of production are people's brains. A collectivist society would need to enslave it's population in order to have a functioning knowledge economy. Despite the pyramids being built, such tyranny doesn't usually result in a whole lot of effort on the part of workers. Even in an industrial society, workers don't work well if there's no reward. (Old Soviet Russian saying: We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.)
Which is why there aren't any Russian Googles, but there are a bunch of Russian hackers.
In response to another post, regarding socialism/communism as systems where the means of production are owned by the State . . . .
In a knowledge economy, the means of production are people's brains. A collectivist society would need to enslave it's population in order to have a functioning knowledge economy. Despite the pyramids being built, such tyranny doesn't usually result in a whole lot of effort on the part of workers. Even in an industrial society, workers don't work well if there's no reward. (Old Soviet Russian saying: We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.)
Which is why there aren't any Russian Googles, but there are a bunch of Russian hackers.
Interestingly, I am in the creative business on contract with a large company. Anything I cook up at work belongs to them. I am the means of production, but the owner keeps the profits. Sounds very capitalist to me.