Is socialism the end game of capitalism?

[Henchman 21]

I was thinking today about the endgame of the wealth distribution game via Pareto distribution model. What happens when the mega wealthy acquire so much wealth that there is no meaningful wealth left for the average joe? I think the average joe would have to become fully dependent on the mega rich for all sustenance. This then becomes a form of socialism.
Did this happen already? I think it might have. Did capitalism hit its end game and if so is this form of socialism going to be our end game?
Honestly this was just a thought I wanted to explore, if it’s really stupid I’m sorry.

 

[Henchman 21]

It’s important to use a fractal analysis on the top 20% a few times to get to where we are, ie 38 people owning more wealth than the bottom 50% of the world.

 

[nicklebleu]

I think that it depends - it’s all about the terminology.

1. n.
   Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. n.
   The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.

If you take the first definition, then maybe yes, as long as the few that own everything are considered ‘the government’, but it certainly is not ‘owned collectively’.

And it certainly is not going to be as described in 2 - unless one moves away from the description of M-L and moves into what the Soviet system really was - an oligarchy disguised as socialism.

So I would call what happens as us being on the way of an oligarchy (and we probably are alreaday almost there), that works a bit like a feudal system from the Middle Ages: There is the ‘nobleman’ at the top, who owns everything and everybody, and there are ‘serfs’ under his dominion. It is up to a point in his own interest to keep the serfs alive.

The ‘democratic institutions’ are now just for show - mostly things happen along predefined outcomes (notable exceptions could be Trump and Brexit) - with the goal that the ‘serf’ doesn’t realize he already is a ‘serf’ and still thinks that the democracy is working.

 

[Henchman 21]

I was thinking of the power that Gates and Bezos have when I wrote this. Bezos can uphold product distribution until Gates allows small businesses to open (if that happens). Obviously I’m making some hypothetical leaps here but it looks like business might only be allowed if it’s within the feeding loop. (You work for me, I give you food and a wage which will then be circulated back to me). Of course it’s a bit more complex but this seems to hold some truth.

 

[Alejo]

No, I don't think it's a stupid idea to consider, I myself have been considering something similar. There has been quite a bit of talk about this "universal income" that would be controlled by the government and this is in effect doing away with private enterprise, maybe not completely but enough for it to have a large degree of control over everything.

I think we saw some of that in the US with these stimulus packages sent by the government, it was essentially free money for doing absolutely nothing. It always thought that if there was one point of contention to the idiotic and suicidal measures put in place to respond to this fictitious pandemic, it would be the fact that the economy is closed and people would eventually risk their safety to make a living ( as we already do every single day). But if the government intervenes and says: "if you only stay put, we'll cover your salary and you can order everything online", then this resistance dissipates.

And not only does it dissipate but it also creates in people the notion that they should also behave. Back in the USSR the imposition of their socialist system was sold to people (and imposed by force to the rest), as a response to a threat or a problem. The way these stimulus things were done today was essentially the same, here's a virus that "forced" us to close the economy and so here's the answer to your worries. And what if we kept that going forward?

A few months ago I would have said that it would be difficult to impose something like a hardcore soviet system in the US for instance, and back then I thought that people would present some form of resistance to the idea, but today I have seen people cheering for these measures and so today I am not really sure it would be that difficult.

 

[BHelmet]

I don’t think there is a traditional “ism” that describes what is emerging.

 

[Henchman 21]

I don’t think there is a traditional “ism” that describes what is emerging.

I sorta agree but history...repeats. I think I might have a circular theory therefore it’s just terminology that changes. Also I might be wrong... possibly more input is needed before we figure this one out.
I am the type who looks to unify if possible and I think this idea could be a tool of reconciling some left / right issues to turn them into a circle. Less enemies, hopefully more understanding.

 

[whitecoast]

Hi henchman, there's a few good topics about capitalism vs socialism here. Therein you'll find links to other books therein.

Capitalism and Socialism: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Moderator note: This topic has been split off from the Behe/intelligent design thread, specifically this post: Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design 3. Once the foundation stands, bring in electricity/the petrol engine and all that follows, which makes enlightenment...

cassiopaea.org

Mind Matters on youtube has a couple episodes about the history of wealth and social inequality, which are also highly informative. (They do cover topics related to pre-modern systems related to capitalism).

MindMatters: Origins of the Power Elite: Inequality and "The 1%" -- Sott.net

According to Walter Scheidel in The Great Leveler, the only ways to equalize the distribution of wealth effectively have involved violence on a massive scale: famine, war, state collapse, revolution. But how did things get so inequal in the first...

www.sott.net

MindMatters: Wealth, Violence and Hierarchy in the Roman and Chinese Empires -- Sott.net

The Roman elite were the original 1%. Status, wealth, power: the good life. Unless they happened to find themselves on a conscription list, in which case they were soon parted from their property, and their lives. The elites of the Chinese...

www.sott.net

MindMatters: Capitalism and Christianity: Demonic Forces, or Not as Bad as You Think? -- Sott.net

Is money evil? Is profit theft? Is poverty the only way to be holy? Then if so, some of the first Western capitalists - Cistercian monks running extensive factories - didn't get the memo. Today on MindMatters we delve a bit deeper into Rodney...

www.sott.net

MindMatters: The Great Peterson Vs. Žižek Debate: Ideological Slugfest or Meeting of the Minds? -- Sott.net

What happens when two of the biggest and best known minds in the Western world decide to come together under one roof and publicly debate one of the most contentious and divisive of all political ideological issues - Capitalism Vs. Communism -...

www.sott.net

As background for discussing the topic at the necessary level of sophistication, I would recommend the thread on R.G. Collingwood, and the necessity of approaching it from a historical standpoint instead of a scientific standpoint (since the former encompasses the later but not vice versa). Too often there's a temptation for ideologues to treat those terms as if they are rarified pure substances, rather than weighted down will all sorts of historical contingencies in how the concept is used and applied.