<Capitalism has already been superceded
Some sort of bureaucratic managerial mixed economy exists in all major developed economies today. It is the inevitable political development at this stage of history owing the the current level of the productive forces. The central economic impulse isn't the further development of the means of production in order to *produce commodities.* As it stands, only a fraction in the labor force is set to work in producing commodities. A larger percentage is involved either in the realization of value or the social maintenance of power - that it's to say, and increasing proportion of the population is as divorced as ever from production and increasingly devoted to employment in the tumorous and parasitic outgrowths of the economy. Likewise, an ever increasing proportion of the economic surplus is devoted toward the expansion of the infrastructure of services and, more importantly, control. An increasing social investment occurs in fields like marketing and sales, security (ranging from web3 doorbell cameras to rent-a-cops to state militaries), media in it's wide variety of forms, psychological and sociological research, and 'governance' on both a local and international scale. In Gramscian terms, this is an explosion in the size and importance of the state vis-a-vis and over the forces of the productive economy. That is to say, the *capitalists* (which developed and began to supercede the lorded administers of feudalism during the 16-18th centuries) have themselves begun to be superceded by a growing, new, highly technological, secular, and 'scientific' administrator and managerial class.
The primary aim is always power. For a brief period in history, the private ownership of the means of production - to be a capitalist - was the best means to amass power. However, in the sort of post capitalist future that is emerging, those who control (but perhaps not directly 'own') large levers of the economy and structures of control form a sort of oligarchy that simple seeks - directly - to expand its control.
This impulse is increasingly turned inward and against all forms of life, up to and including increasingly levels of power against it's own citizenry, with more and more elements of daily life intertwined with technology, control, and economy.
As a phase in the mode of production, this is a sort of toothpaste that's not going back into the tube. But it doesn't have to be terrible.
The solution - a sort of 'sucks least' option - is vitalistic socialism. Politically, this would be a sort of meritocratic uniparty-led government which pursued a classical progressive agenda - that of fostering a better population of better individuals.
Some sort of 'mixed economy' with a corporatist state is inevitable. The question becomes, what social aims should it serve. Rather than promoting servility or the sacred cow of equality (whole maintaining a de facto ruling elite - as has always been the case, even in Marxist Leninist states), vitalistic socialism would strive toward national and individual improvement through self-actualizing struggle.
<Futurism vs Conservativism
There's no point in trying to recreate or even hold onto the past. Certain lessons of practical wisdom ought to buy taken from the past, but we must keep our eyes forward. And successful society in the future is one which uses social technology which to facilitate individual development and freedom.
<Vitalism vs Equality
The primary impulse of all old leftism, the stale mixture that has produced nothing good over the last 100 or so years, is a vague impulse toward "equality."
The alt left sweeps this away. We support vitalism. We want a system that promotes a vigorous and creative life of speed, challenge, and even pleasure - one which truly fulfils the Marxist goal of the free development of the individual. While the current order promotes a degree of security (and hence stagnation leading to decay), alt left socialism promote revolutionary struggle as an ongoing end, not just a means. Vitalistic socialism utilizes the power of the state to craft higher forms of mankind - both on an individual and collective level.
There is no egalitarian endpoint of utopian communism marked by a harmonic 'end of history' via the termination of struggle. It's naive to believe classes, castes, and hierarchy will ever disappear. Rather, the alt left desires a socialism of continuous struggle, one in which competition and class is consciously promoted to the end of excellence and greatness.
"Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win, Dare to Struggle More" is our motto. The alt left represent the true path of revolutionary struggle, now and in the future.
Space communism of a master galactic race
Endless conquest of the universe while honing the human spirit is the teleological goal of the alt left. But we must first destroy the metaphorical bugman within before we are ready to face literal bugmen beyond our galaxy.
<Tldr anti egalitarian socialism is the way
Look, you have to get over this idea that there is a "system" which is uniform and immaculately planned. Capitalism is referent to a situation in which centers of wealth are the dominant political unit, rather than holders of land and feudal armies. "Capitalism" was never even quite the full domination of capital, as there were multiple competing interests. Money did not unilaterally dictate what modernity became, and capitalism did not begin at some imagined Year Zero where everyone was equal. From the outset, modern capitalism entailed the rise of large banks and interests, which competed with each other until there was an interest which ruled the British Empire. "Capitalism" as we know it is effectively the British Empire, as everyone else understood the market system in different ways and adapted to their situation as they saw fit.
I have my theories as to what this is and presently write on the topic, but I'm back to the drawing board to flesh out my philosophy. The interests which rule in any society are not mere ideas or conceits about what they are, but actual substantive things and the people who act in accord with those interests, whose aims are not tied to any particular interest out of necessity. A capitalist is not ideologically fanatical to uphold "capitalism" in some preferred state, or even capital as a concept. It is perfectly possible for a capitalist to win capitalism and unilaterally declare an end to anyone else having money, which is what we're living through today. The oligarchy does not want to preserve the pretenses of capitalism for a lot of reasons, and every argument to suggest they do is based on the most specious reasoning. You can talk to the people who know finance shit and they're not convinced capitalism is a thing; they speak openly of managing society from on high and the people as either serfs or residue to be removed.
All of these narratives ignore the gigantic fucking siegeworks that took the place of "society" as it was imagined before. Society is no longer an assembly of actual human beings, but a pretense of ideas held by interests which are utterly alien to most of us. This is stated explicitly in the propaganda strategy of the liberals, just read Public Opinion to know what they really think. That shit is in the public domain.
supersede the textwall, post a tl;dr
I'm a slow reader, convince me your post is worth my time
There's a tldr at the end of OP
Niger. Do you even read the posts you reply to?
>The solution - a sort of 'sucks least' option
this sounds too much like neo-liberal lesser-evil-ism, as in a ratchet where every time the lesser evil is chosen it gets a little bit worse, until eventually the compounding effects create the worst possible world.
>Some sort of 'mixed economy' with a corporatist state is inevitable.
We're not going to keep state and corporate organizational structures. They are terrible, especially the corporate stuff, that have all the bureaucratic downsides of the Soviet State apparatus without any of the upsides.
We're going to make modal-organisations instead. Basically it's an organization that has a bunch of different modes, that are activated by changes in the material conditions. Because each mode only has to work for a narrow range of situations, organization can be much simpler with low administrative overhead. Each mode will have different people in charge, and that means that abuses of power can also be defined as material condition that changes the mode.
>It's naive to believe classes, castes, and hierarchy will ever disappear.
Maybe hierarchy doesn't have to fully disappear, like in Star Trek where space-ships still have a command hierarchy, but classes and castes, those will go in the dustbin of history.
To me this is gibberish. You're not the first person to suggest something like this, there used to be a vitalism movement
<vitalism, school of scientific thought—the germ of which dates from Aristotle—that attempts (in opposition to mechanism and organicism) to explain the nature of life as resulting from a vital force peculiar to living organisms and different from all other forces found outside living things. This force is held to control form and development and to direct the activities of the organism. Vitalism has lost prestige as the chemical and physical nature of more and more vital phenomena have been shown.
I've never really understood what vitalitarians want. Can you maybe put it in materialist terms.
Do you want to lower somatic stress perhaps ?