Azamat Akmatoff

This conversation is closed.

What is next? The future of capitalism.

Used to be:"Money is on the top of everything, the succesful is the one who gets it at any cost, no ethics are welcomed!"
"How can we make more money?"
"How can we make these guys pay more?"
These are the outdated questions, it doesn't work this way in today's world of business. Prefering money (evil) for people (for good) is killing/killed capitalism!
So, what's next? I personally think that the next formula for a success will be somewhat like this:" What is good for people is good for business too!" Thus, business people should/will start caring about people.

Please, people, what do you expect from near future (of capitalism), share with us?!

  • thumb
    Mar 21 2012: Well in other parts of the world outside of the U.S. (not including countries that have U.S. intervention) they are more open to social, economic and political change and they will not hesitate to do so...There is a reason why N. Europe is home to some of the happiest people on the planet.

    Now in terms of the U.S. I'm actually quite concerned about this because anything sort of political ideology outside of capitalism is mentioned it causes its quite taboo to talk about communism, socialism and anarchism....

    The funny thing is, many people in the U.S. are starting to realize how forlorn capitalism is. People are starting to see the true colors of those at the top but these same people are not open to possible alternatives that requires equal distribution of resources or even something that does not require money at all.

    The reason why I emphasize the U.S. very much is because they have a major impact on the rest of the world and a collapse of this country would not be a great thing for the world....but then again it may spell the end of capitalism in which I'm all for
    • thumb
      Mar 21 2012: taboo? in the US? heard about the occupy movement?
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: Oh yes, its is very taboo...all because one mentions it and protest does not mean that its accepted...

        but you'll be surprised how many people are opposed to the occupy movement in the U.S.

        I also mentioned that it is taboo to talk about socialism, communism and anarchism, which very few people from the occupy movement advocate ( I have met many socialist and anarchist in the occupy movements out here in California). A few of my anarchist friends were involved in the occupy L.A. movement and they were trying to establish something similar to an anarchist type of community, in which the local law enforcement found out and started following them around everywhere, so yes it is very taboo.

        but what I was referring to was people who politically identifies themselves by a particular political ideology (such as from the Tea Party as well as the liberals and conservatives).

        Just imagine, from a political standpoint in the U.S., that an individual who was running for political office identified themselves as a non-believer in Christ and stated they are influenced by anarchist thinking. How do you think the country would react to such an individual? Do you think this person would eve get elected to the political position they are running for? Of course not, which is quite perplexing considering that the U.S. prides themselves on providing equal opportunity.

        I'm not sure if you follow U.S. politics but if you do think about how Obama's health care plan is all of a sudden thought to be similar to what Hitler did in the Holocaust....

        do you still think there is no taboo?
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2012: look, either you are wrong, or all the rejected american people swarm in on internet forums. because this forum, reddit, news websites' forums and all that stuff are loaded with socialists, communists, left-anarchists and such.

          good thing that you are reminding me of obama. didn't you notice that he has serious anti-capitalist sentiments? and socialist policies?
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: check this out:

        The link I provided for you shows you what happens when people with anarchist thinking come together and talk about direct action, challenging the state and occupying buildings in the U.S.

        Secondly any anarchist and socialist in the U.S. will tell you that the most challenging thing for them to do is get people to understand what these terms really mean and the ideology behind it because of the negative stigma that surrounds both political ideologies. In the U.S. its really all about capitalism and it creates a certain way of thinking...

        In regards to Obama, he has liberal tendencies but I wouldn't deem him an anti-capitalist and nothing in his policies leans towards socialism, unless you consider wanting to help out the poor and taxing the rich socialist but then again isn't this the purpose of government (looking out for the interest of the whole)?

        you can give me all the social media websites relating to anarchism that you want but this does not disprove anything that I said. I more than understand that I'm not the only person who have anarchist thinking and non-christian values but by living here I have much personal experience and many accounts of others who know of such a taboo, so unless your telling me my experiences are nothing more than delusions than I think I rest my case.
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2012: what can we learn from this article? FBI requested information about someone related to something. i don't like government organizations, but that is non-information.

          obama policies and such: "I don't know when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness", he said. hm. nice thinking. what about extending state provided medical services? it does not count as a socialist policy?

          here is my bet: 50% of people in anarchism sub-reddit are americans. you see things too dark. the rest of the world is even worse. the sad thing is that america is still the flagship of freedom in the world, and it tells some things about the world.
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: You've totally missed the point I was trying to make with the link (which I would have thought was impossible being that I gave you a brief explanation of what was really going on considering I was once an active member of that forum) but your entitled to your opinion.

        Two things about your Obama statement:

        (1) "I don't know when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness"

        I would have never guessed that not wanting people to look out for their own personal self-interest at the expense of others was a bad thing, let alone a socialist remark. Speaking out against selfish behavior is not socialist policy.

        (2) "what about extending state provided medical services? it does not count as a socialist policy?"

        So that fact the fact that one individual wants health care for everyone else is socialist. The fact that he thinks health care is a natural human right and his way of bring it about is something you have a problem with?

        I understand why you and many other people would deem such a policy to be socialist but unless Obama is campaging and is openly stating that he is a socialist and he transforms the country in that way, then I'll believe he is one. but the fact that he wants to help out the poor does not sound socialist to me. The fact that he wants to help out the middle class indicates that he is trying to maintain and save capitalism.

        and even if he was socialist, why would this be a bad thing?

        I'm not seeing things too dark. It wouldn't make a difference if 90% of people on reddit were anarchist, the government wouldn't allow them to have that much power.

        You can talk about how great America is and how fortunate I am to live here. I've heard it all before but I cannot support a country that rose to the top through genocidal, systematic manipulation and corruption. You can if you want to but I'm not.
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2012: 1. who do you think he referred to?

          2. if an individual wants to grant medical services from public money, he is a socialist. by definition. it is not even debated. what we are talking about??

          if he is a socialist, it is not a problem for me. but claiming that socialist thought is taboo, when your president is a socialist, is at least questionable. you know, there are a lot of places between taboo and leading ideology. socialism, communism, anarchism, even anarcho primitivism are not at all taboo in the US. they are considered either acceptable, or even respectable, but as the worst case, silly-billy ideas.

          free market capitalism, on the other hand, is despised, condemned and ridiculed on regular basis. but still not taboo.
      • thumb
        Mar 22 2012: by your definition, the entire institution of capitalism in America is socialist being that millions of tax payers money is used for many resources but of course many people tend not to look at it this way so what do I know.

        The moment Obama comes out and state the he is a socialist then I'd agree with you but the fact that he held people accountable for being selfish, does not qualify him as a socialist. He's the President, its his responsibility to do so.

        Let's assume that your correct that Obama is a socialist. such a fact still does not repudiate what I stated about socialist ideology being taboo and the fact that millions of people still protest against this does tells me that socialist thought is still not accepted. Secondly, Obama did not run on a socialist platform. He merely appealed to people's interest because the country was going downhill and people were desperate. All he had to do was say the right things to end up in the White House.

        So in other words, if Obama was openly socialist and still got voted in, we would not be having this discussion.

        If you were to do a poll and ask Americans "what is anarchism" I can say with confidence that 90% would reference chaos and disorder (in other words they don't know what it means). So to tell me that its not taboo is pretty flabbergasting in my eyes.

        I can tell, that we are going to keep going circles with this: all I can say is that the facts are there and the evidence is right in front of me because I experience it almost everyday so if that doesn't convince you then I don't know what else to say.
        • thumb
          Mar 22 2012: being socialist is not black and white. after the shameful debacle in the soviet bloc, unlikely that anyone will propose pure socialism soon. also unlikely that anyone will brag about being a socialist. but the idea is not at all dead, and they sneak they way back for long time.

          and yet again you confuse being neglected with being taboo. talking about homosexual marriage in iran is taboo. holocaust denial might be taboo. global warming denial ... sorta taboo. but come on. anarchism? noam chomsky is professor emeritus at MIT. socialism? do you really think that any social circles would cast me out for advocating state-control over the economy? most certainly i would meet respect and head nodding. try, on the other hand, argue against the minimum wage, or state control of the financial sector, and learn the hard way what taboo is, and how colorful the vocabularies of your friends are.
      • thumb
        Mar 23 2012: ok there a few things I think we need to shelve

        one, I never said that socialism has taken a back seat, I just simply stated that the its not a widely accepted Ideology in the U.S. for the reason that it is taboo and the fact that people do not understand it..

        the case with Chomsky at M.I.T is really an exception and I could give you a reasonable and common sense explanation as to why this is the case:

        For one Chomsky is a brilliant mind, so any school would be a fool to turn him away.
        Secondly, It's M.I.T., they are reasonable and understand what Anarchism. If you really study anarchism, it really is reasonable and there is nothing bad about it. M.I.T. realizes this so its not a problem. The reason why it's an exception is because many schools do not talk about anarchism (or atheism) and when they do they do a horrible job at it.

        Also keep in mind that Chomsky rarely talks about anarchism anywhere. He does not really mentions it in his debates and when he did talk about it at M.I.T. to students he did not want to spend a lot of time on the topic because he realizes the reception that it receives. Also Chomsky has somewhat of a disregard for American anarchist so he never really talks about it to an American audience. On top of that Chomsky's book "Chomsky on Anarchism" I had to order online along with all my other anarchist books. If it wasn't taboo I should be able to walk in to the book store and by it on the shelf

        I see where your going so this is my response;

        Imagine an individual running for President or the public office on the basis of anarchist ideology (which means the end of government and public religion) and secular humanism.

        Or running on a socialist ballot in the U.S. on the basis of universal health care and free education.

        You can't tell me that such an individual would stand a chance of winning in U.S politics. Its too systematic for that. If it wasn't taboo and there was equal opportunity, then we would not be having this discussion.
        • thumb
          Mar 23 2012: i can only repeat myself. you have no idea what is to be rejected, what is taboo. you can't tell apart being in minority, being not recognized from being taboo. can we say that alternative views don't get proper recognition in the US (and anywhere else)? yes. but this does not make it taboo.

          taboo is saying that sweat shops or child labor are good things. that takes courage. being anarchist is rather ... trendy these days. i assume some guys are anarchists only to impress girls. try to argue for free markets in order to get a date, and see how far that gets you.
      • thumb
        Mar 25 2012: ta·boo
           [tuh-boo, ta-] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural ta·boos, verb, ta·booed, ta·boo·ing.

        proscribed by society as improper or unacceptable: Taboo language is usually bleeped on TV. Synonyms: prohibited, banned, forbidden, proscribed. Antonyms: allowed, permitted, permissible; sanctioned.

        prohibited or excluded from use or practice: In art school, painting from photographs was taboo.

        (among the Polynesians and other peoples of the South Pacific) separated or set apart as sacred; forbidden for general use; placed under a prohibition or ban. Synonyms: sacrosanct, inviolable.

        If you really fail to see how this fits what I've been arguing, then I think we should respectfully end this discussion...
      • thumb
        Mar 26 2012: ok

        but last I checked I'm the one who is actually living out here in the U.S.
        • thumb
          Mar 26 2012: and that is an argument how? now we arrived at a point that you just say: you don't know that, i know that, trust me?
    • thumb
      Mar 23 2012: Thank you for sharing your opinions with us Mr.Hawkins.
      I was thinking, maybe we don't really have to name them as they are already named; capitalism, socialism, or whateverism... Maybe it's time for big guys to think/care about people, not about their own images, policies, money, companies... Idealogies, policies do not change a thing, but people do! If Obama and business world start caring about people, many things may change... this is my humble opinion!
      • thumb
        Mar 26 2012: you exactly have the same mindset that I do have and what is disappointed is that any possible alternative is rejected on the basis that people are just too comfortable with this system, despite the fact that they are more than aware that capitlaism is a flawed system..
      • thumb
        Mar 26 2012: you exactly have the same mindset that I do have and what is disappointed is that any possible alternative is rejected on the basis that people are just too comfortable with this system, despite the fact that they are more than aware that capitlaism is a flawed system..
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2012: If capitalism continues to evolve in a way we witness , we can expect total disappearance of middle class in the capitalistic part of world. Rich will become richer and poor will become poorer. People will need jobs desperately and employers will set up almost impossible job demands on employees. Who survives-keeps the job, who doesn't - well...
    Maybe I sound defeatist, but that is how I see things. I am no businessman or anything of that sort, I am just observing current state of affairs. Correct me if I am wrong :)
  • Mar 28 2012: Hello, I live in a third world country. I have to say I share the same point of view of the author of this talk. The future of capitalism is pretty dark, and unless we start to think as a whole we could still do something for our planet and ourselves, of course. You speak about the US as the leader, at some point you're right. People all over the world are looking that capitalism is not the future anymore. We need something else, but we're missing the essential, which in my point of view is education. We need to talk more about other ideologies, even if they sound as utopia! I'm really tired of this frickin system. I'm tired of waking up every day and knowing that I have to work a lot and accomplish little. People you have to see the big picture. Capitalism must end. We need a change. We all live in this world, and what you do over there affects here, and viceversa.
  • thumb
    Mar 21 2012: Off topic: The video has nothing to do with the title, I just like it :).
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2012: capitalism never worked like that, and will continue to work like that, depending on what your actual point is.

    capitalism is a misnomer, free enterprise with private ownership would be a more appropriate term. money never was on the top. the top is always the personal "psychological" gain of people. that is, the satisfaction of wants. for some people, stacking up money might be the most satisfactory thing to do, but it is not the point.

    the real question of economics is how to produce more goods (things that satisfy wants) with using less resources. how do we know which goods people want, and which resources to use and how? we need a calculation system to track back personal valuations of goods to their required resources, and the resources those resources require, and so on. the capitalist solution for that is the price system. if a good is more wanted, its price gets higher. as a result, it will be more profitable to produce it. some production capacities will be redirected to that area, which increases the price of everything else, which in turn make them a little less wanted. in effect, the entire economy re-adjusts itself to produce more of the wanted good, and less of everything else.

    it can not be farther from the truth that this process prefers money to people. it in fact benefits people, as the number of goods produced will more accurately reflect the actual preferences people have.

    but to understand it, we need to see through money, and take the next step in our thinking. always be ready to take the next step, and ask why, until you finally get to real reasons.
    • thumb
      Mar 20 2012: Mr. Pinter, I have a question for you, are you a businessman?
      For a businessman, what's the actual motivation for doing what they're doing (a business)? For Microsoft, it's the money, but for Steve Jobs (r.i.p.) (Apple) was to make something useful, cool, new, innovative, and many other reasons which comes before money...Now, we see/know the differences between these two companies.

      I wasn't really talking about Supply and Demand Laws.
      I'm after people's opinions about what do they expect from future capitalism?
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2012: i'm not a businessman, though i have a small percentage ownership in the company i'm working for. motivation is always manifold. success, money, doing it better, and so on, i could not tell it apart. they come together, they are bound.

        this oversimplification that microsoft has a goal to make money, and apple to innovate does not make too much sense. microsoft is very innovative and user oriented too. and apple is also known for "dirty" business tactics.

        i understand that you wanted to talk about the future. but you also made some points about the past and the present, and since i believe these claims were false, i attempted to correct them.
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2012: Thank you for sharing your opinion!
          So, what do you think will happen near future with capitalism?

          ps: I'm not againts the free market or private ownership!
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2012: what will happen? in the short term, capitalism will continue to slowly drown as the strong arms of growing statism holds it stronger and stronger.

        then, either it will advance forward to dark dictatorships or, through a sort of wakeup, we finally embrace freedom one again.
      • Mar 21 2012: Of course it's always easy to poke hole in any theory or idea or opinion if you're allowed to just make up completely false things and use them as facts. Have you actually picked up Apple's 10-K document and read through how they conduct business? It's available at, I suggest you do, maybe you can stop lying.

        Then you can take a look at the ownership structure. Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners, 70%. Apple's interest would not be money? Please! Wasn't steve fired because he didn't run it as the owners wanted?

        You also fail to see the marketing strategy in the company? Take one very likeable person, associate him with innovation and design (instead of profits and business), create an opposition (evil microsoft), promote it as a service to mankind, sell for huge profitmargins while everyone praises the non-profit, honorable goal of the company?
        • thumb
          Mar 23 2012: You are right and I'm wrong! I haven't read those documents about Apple or Microsoft. I'm just an end-user and feel this way about their products... And am aware that they have many other products which I don't/didn't use... and they have billions of dollars...
          I should have talked about only certain products, thank you for correcting me...
          Don't accept me as the one who advertises certain companies... I just like to know people's opinions about companies, theories, idealogies...I might be ignorant, that's why I've opened this under "Questions", because want to learn from people...
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2012: Hi Mr. Westerberg, I totally agree with your saying: "Change is necessary!" And, in my opinion, we don't really have to name it as socialism, capitalism, it's going to be a really different next-ism and will be all about people, all about caring! The good is taking over the bad!
  • Mar 20 2012: Hi Azamat
    I agree with your prediction as basic formula for success. The challenge is getting everyone to think that way. The future of capitalism requires fundamental and systemic changes to maintain its effectiveness. Most of the first world economies are reliant on growth as their measure of success. The inverse of this is typically a contraction which causes recessions and the like. There is currently no mainstream balanced approach where we can have a high quality of life that doesn't rely on economic growth.

    It is ignorant to think that growth in a finite planet is has infinite potential. At some point humanity will reach a tipping point whereby we will have learn to live from renewable methods of life instead of relying on technology to band aid our way through, burning bridges as we go. I do not know what the economical classification would be (capitalism, socialism etc) but it will be defined when it is happening.
    So the future of capitalism won't be a smooth ride and change is necessary. The other alternative simply won't be a good outcome for humanity.