If we are now living through the last breaths of neoliberal economic theory in practice, what new system will replace it as the prevailing orthodoxy of capitalism?
Socialism.
I was going to say socialism too, but I thought it too glib.
Socialism, most definitely.
If by neoliberal economic theory you mean the general system of “free market with some government controls, plus welfare”, then I’d say that the problem is three-fold:
First, the relative decline of the United States from its post-WW2 peak. We’re still spending like it’s 1965, even though Europe and the Pacific rim are now as much our economic rivals as they are our partners. The USA is suffering from severe “imperial overstretch” as Paul Kennedy termed it.
Second, the world economy is suffering from a shortage of cheap energy. Petroleum is slowly giving out and we don’t have an inexpensive alternative yet. High energy prices are stifling everything else.
Third, automation has increased to the point where there simply may not be any replacement jobs. Mechanization of farming was both caused by and resulted in agricultural labor becoming industrial labor. Increased industrial automation led to a movement from blue collar to white collar work. But now even white collar work is being impacted and it’s hard to see what might replace it. Not everyone can be a successful doctor, lawyer, stock trader or entertainer. Some have speculated that we might actually be in the nascent stages of a “post-scarcity” economy where human labor simply isn’t a vital factor anymore.
My guess is that “welfare” in one form or another will expand: raised minimum wages or tax-subsidized work, indefinitely extended unemployment insurance, etc.
Hope this isn’t too much of a hijack, but let’s say that our Big Enemies in the Cold War weren’t Socialist, and our disagreement with them was over something unrelated to economic philosphy.
It’s pretty easy and common for people to demoize “socialism” because of our history with the USSR.
If not for that, would we already be well along in the process of slipping in to a comfortable form of socialism?
Antisocialist feeling in America, even quite hysterical antisocialist feeling, long predated the Cold War. See the First Red Scare.
Ok, then let me edit the premise a bit…if socialism hadn’t previously been associated with left-wing radicalism, how likely is it that we’d have already adopted it today.
Or maybe this is just a stupid question…entirely possible considering how my day is going.
It was always LW radicalism by definition, but the radicals inspired more moderate social democrats/progressives, to whom we owe modern welfare states – or, in some cases, we owe welfare states to conservatives/reactionaries who were frightened of socialism and attempting to preempt some of its demands. That is why Bismarck created UHC in Germany. The same dynamic was probably in play in the New Deal, to some lesser extent; at any rate, FDR did crib several planks from the American Socialist Party’s platform, such as Social Security.
In the long run, localization, especially given peak oil, credit crises, and environmental damage.
What do you mean by “localization”? The growth of the local foods trend to the point where a significant portion if most people’s (Americans’? everyone’s?) food is grown within a certain geographic radius of oneself?
That in itself would be a pretty radical shift. But perhaps by “localization” you mean even more than just about food. Or not. I’m genuinely curious!
It’ll be more than just food, and it will take place in the long run due to the crises mentioned.
Oh please, the last thing we need is anti-modernism of the leftist or the rightist variety.
Hopefully the New Deal liberalism/old-school social democracy that was unafraid of thinking big and strongly embraced modern science and the ideal of progress.
Where is this impression that neoliberalism is dying and needs replacing?
The distinction between neoliberalism and so-called socialist capitalism seems as fine as a hair on my chinny-chin-chin.
The current system isn’t going anywhere. We will continue with a moderately-regulated economy until the bifurcated have’s and have-not’s become too quarrelsome.
Where we go from there is anyone’s ominous speculation.
Curious that you equate modernism with increased centralization.
The old “bigger is better” mantra, despite poor performance of the glorious Progressive policies of yore.
I don’t accept the premise, but then again I don’t understand the premise because the terms have not been defined.
What I raised is not based on anti-modernism but the results of industrial capitalism.
Can you explain exactly what you mean by “localization”? Do you mean a reversal of globalization, wherein economic activity is confined to small areas instead of crossing national borders, or what?
The only Progressive-Era policy I can recall that didn’t work was Prohibition.
His notion is that, due to increased energy costs–that is, Peak Oil–we won’t be able to ship goods across oceans and continents anymore, and so if you want an iPod you’ll have to make due with one built within a hundred miles of you.
Which is nonsense. The amount of energy it takes to run a container ship across the Pacific Ocean is a small fraction of the cost of an iPod. There will always be plenty of energy to run container ships, even if the energy costs are two or three or ten times greater than they are today.
For hundreds of years–more like thousands of years if we go back to the Roman Empire–goods were transported across the oceans. It was often cheaper to ship goods from one end of the Mediterranean to the other than it was to transport them overland a hundred kilometers. And so the Roman plebes were fed grain from Egypt. That sort of thing isn’t going to change just because the price of crude oil gets higher and higher. At some point wind powered transport becomes cost effective. Yes, a clipper ship filled with iPods from China seems anachronistic, but it makes much more sense than trying to make them in your backyard.