# What comes after capitalism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comes-after-capitalism/528428 "2010-02-10T15:38:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comes-after-capitalism/528428/81 "2010-02-16T21:23:06Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > Having an interesting debate on Mutualism in the UK at the moment, which seems an option away from the unaccountability of multinational corporatism. I guess in the USA that would be classed as communism or some such, but it’s had some good successes and may be about to develop with innovation. What is this “Mutualism”? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comes-after-capitalism/528428/82 "2010-02-17T19:20:24Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > OK, I can’t specifically argue with this. However, I must take exceotiuon to the rest. I want you to understand that, regardless of our diferences, [Dread Pirate Roberts]I have nothing but thenhighest respect for you[/DPR]. SO when I savage you unmercifully, it’s because you’ve posted inaccurate madness in text form. It is as if the Necronomicon was given a thorough editing by Cthulhu and then sent onto economics professors, who posted this and then were locked in cages where their mad rantings could do less damage. > > The middle class are made of people who “need to be told what to do”? No, no, no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no. No. No no no. > > The historical middle class were primarily solo operators who had literal bourgeous professions, like doctors and lawyers and some well-off merchants or skilled craftsmen. They had disposable income and usually lived in towns. > > This changed as economies altered. The new capital-investing class tended to rise up above them materially, but on the whole they kept their high status and participated in the industrial revolution. As time went by, the middle-class expanded downward both culturally and materially, to the point where even unskilled workers can somtimes accumulate considerable wealth. New financial instruments brought investing to the average man, who now had levels of education previously undreamt of by al but the wealthy. > > In fact, today, the process continues. Aside from the dificulties of the current economy and the fact that the current Congressional and Presidential fields are not very responsive to the needs of small business, there are more and more small; and medium-scale busineses which thrive alongside corporate giants. Moreover, numerous highly-specialized jobs exist at all levels which require and attract skilled employees. Everyone from phone technicians to network administrators and skilled customer service agents (and good ones are rare and valuable). > > To say these people “need to be told what to do” is unmitigated hubris. A good many of them possibly could be entrepreneurs themselves, and the numbers suggest a lot of them have tried or would like to. That most of them fail is a sign of a _healthy_ and competitive economy, and there’s no shame in it. I failed (the first time anyway), and I realy do not need anybody teling me what to do. But fi they ned something done and the price is right, I’ll take the job. I do not have an employer regardless of what anyone says. I work for one person: Me. > > You seem to have a very old-school view of employment. The peoply my age, we don’t go to work. We just take on contracts and view all jobs as temporary. We’re likely to outlive our “employers” anyway. The middle class is no longer, if it ever was, a clas of wageslaves. We are increasingly connected and able to collect information and make our own decisions. > > Let me point out two flaws with this: > > (1) You assume it _is_ a trend torwards socialism. I see a damn sight more people complaining that the government is in the way and is now part of the problems than I see campaigning for more welfare and fake “jobs” off the government dole. But granting this temporarily for the sake of argument. > > (2) You never ask whether this is a _good_ thing, either. > > I despise the bailout crap. I may have held my nose over TARP, but I was willing to acept it (though not that it’s starting to look like a certain someone’s administration trying to turn it into their own private bailout-whomever-we-want-with-no-oversight-slush-fund). But Porkulus was a fiscal and economic disaster, even by their own spin. I defeinitely do not thing the government is helping, although I think there are things they could do which would. Right now, the best-case scenario would be if they butted out and restored consumer confidence through some benign neglect. You referring to the benign neglect that gave us this mess? That was the Greenspan/Libertarian idea that took the system down. What we require is some strong regulation, some bank breakups and a few prosecutions. Then the people will slowly come back to trusting the pols. But so far the banksters are making out and walking away from the disaster without getting legal repercussions. They are back to their old ways . Even Paulson thinks the banks should not be too big to fail. that means he wants them broken up and regulated. he only made 800 million dollars in the mortgage and swap schemes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comes-after-capitalism/528428.md?page=4)