Is capitalist democracy really "the end of history"?

[DanTex]

Wondering what people thing about Francis Fukuyama's thesis these days. A brief summary is that capitalist democracy is the best and final way that history is ever going to find, in terms of ways to organize a society.

In my opinion, he's probably right in the short-to-medium term. There certainly isn't anything on the horizon to challenge it. The kinds of changes and degrees of variation people are talking about range from Scandinavian-style socialism-light to the harsher American capitalism, but historically speaking these are very similar -- (somewhat) democratically elected governments, strong defense of property rights and private ownership of capital, and some kind of a safety net.

In the longer term (100+ years or more), I can think of two possible avenues where the status quo order might be challenged, assuming of course that we don't all get wiped out by global warming or nuclear war.

First, world government. Is the whole concept of the "nation state" going to become obsolete? The world is obviously becoming much more interconnected. Many small languages and cultures are dying, more and more free trade agreements seem inevitable, etc. But there are also very progressive reasons to support breaking down of borders, namely that if all humans are equal, then conferring huge advantages to some humans because they were born on one side of a border is simply unjust.

Second, robotics and automation. If we really get to the point that some people speculate is coming, where robots do most everything, and the only economic roles left for humans will be designing robots and owning robots, then something might have to give. Which could really change the economic system dramatically, possibly in very socialist ways. Will work become optional? What will that mean for society? Who knows.

What does everyone else think?

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Robots will soon be better at designing robots than humans.

A society where almoast all physical labor, highly skilled tasks such as surgery and dessign, is performed by robots will change the species in ways that can not be predicted.

[LittleBlue]

2. Watched Ex Machina

The plot has been done in various forms many times. But it does get you thinking about this sort of future.

We might be in trouble when we design an adaptable AI that is self-aware.

Work optional? That is how I've always viewed the inevitability of the movement toward automation and robotics

[kentuck]

5. Interesting concept.

The new definition of "work" will come about because of the friction between "automation and robotics" and the concept of "capitalist democracy". People will lose their present jobs and have to find another. There is a reason that wages have become stagnant over the last several years, in my opinion.

So, it is probably inevitable that we confront the concept of "work".

The way we work will probably change.

The question would be: How do we do this in an orderly way? Or are we meant to go thru the chaos of social disorder?

Does the present form of "capitalism" end?

Is the new world order one which tries to make wages and living conditions equally around the world?

It's mind-boggling.

[LittleBlue]

6. That thought is terrifying

Or are we meant to go thru the chaos of social disorder?

Socal disorder where the combatants are a largely impoverished 99% vs a 1% with robot killing machines

[kentuck]

8. The only solution I can see...

...is one where the government becomes much more involved than they are today.

If people have no jobs or means to survive, then the government will have to step forward , or we will risk a lot of social upheaval, in my opinion. The present "democratic capitalism" cannot resolve the problem.

Actually, there are a lot more unemployed and under-employed than the 5.4% that is given as the official number. There is a huge surplus of labor in our country, already.

The "government" will have one of two choices: We can give people a "guaranteed income" to survive on or we can ignore it and let the market run its course. I would think the latter would be a very risky proposition?

It will take a new kind of "socialism" to survive this threat to capitalism, in my opinion.

It would be a "bottom-up" demand economy, where everyone that wants or needs a job would be put to work. There are millions of jobs that need to be done. The least of these would be our infrastructure. A lot of young, healthy people could work on our roads and bridges. Many could work at carpentry and "winterizing" older homes. Many could work on farms to help with growing and transporting our food supplies. There is plenty of work for people to do.

If we do nothing, I could see half our people not being utilized in any productive way. Capitalism is about profits. Socialism is about people.

[immoderate]

3. Nah! Capitalism is unsustainable, and our rulers cannot tolerate democracy.

--imm

[Buzz Clik]

4. Francis Fukuyama wrote another book and modified his stance.

[yallerdawg]

7. Howard Zinn and Utopian Vision

From http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html

Let us imagine what radical change would require of us all.

The society's levers of powers would have to be taken away from those whose drives have led to the present state-the giant corporations, the military, and their politician collaborators. We would need - by a coordinated effort of local groups all over the country - to reconstruct the economy for both efficiency and justice, producing in a cooperative way what people need most. We would start on our neighborhoods, our cities, our workplaces. Work of some kind would be needed by everyone, including people now kept out of the work force - children, old people, "handicapped" people. Society could use the enormous energy now idle, the skills and talents now unused. Everyone could share the routine but necessary jobs for a few hours a day, and leave most of the time free for enjoyment, creativity, labors of love, and yet produce enough for an equal and ample distribution of goods. Certain basic things would be abundant enough to be taken out of the money system and be available - free - to everyone: food, housing, health care, education, transportation.

The great problem would be to work out a way of accomplishing this without a centralized bureaucracy, using not the incentives of prison and punishment, but those incentives of cooperation which spring from natural human desires, which in the past have been used by the state in times of war, but also by social movements that gave hints of how people might behave in different conditions. Decisions would be made by small groups of people in their workplaces, their neighborhoods - a network of cooperatives, in communication with one another, a neighborly socialism avoiding the class hierarchies of capitalism and the harsh dictatorships that have taken the name "socialist."

People in time, in friendly communities, might create a new, diversified, nonviolent culture, in which all forms of personal and group expression would be possible. Men and women, black and white, old and young, could then cherish their differences as positive attributes, not as reasons for domination. New values of cooperation and freedom might then show up in the relations of people, the upbringing of children.