Showing posts with label democratic leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democratic leadership. Show all posts

Late Stage Capitalism, Extinction Bursts, and What Comes Next

Everywhere online, people are declaring that we are living through “late-stage capitalism.” Usually, what they mean is simple: things feel unstable, exploitative, unequal, and increasingly absurd.

They’re not wrong. Societies unstable, business is exploitative, income inequality is bad, and politicians are doing increasingly absurd things.  

But I think many people misunderstand what “late stage capitalism” actually means — especially if we look at capitalism through the lens of Das Kapital and modern behavioral science.

image of a person walking out of a hell scape through a door into a more hopeful future.

Ironically, what we are experiencing may not be the end of capitalism, but rather one of the predictable crisis points in its evolution.

And understanding that matters because panic rarely helps societies evolve wisely.

Marx Wasn’t Predicting Stability

One thing Marx understood correctly is that capitalism is not a stable system. It expands, concentrates wealth, generates inequality, experiences crisis, adapts, and then expands again.

The boom-and-bust cycle is not a bug in the system. It simply is something that is predicted to happen from time to time as capitalist systems grow, evolve and adapt. 

Over time, capital tends to become concentrated. Wealth and power becomes concentrated too because large concentrations of capital can outcompete smaller ones. But eventually that concentration creates instability:

  • consumers lose purchasing power,
  • workers lose security,
  • institutions lose legitimacy,
  • and economic shocks become larger and more widespread.

At that point, correction becomes unavoidable.

Historically, those corrections are painful:

  • unemployment,
  • market collapses,
  • political unrest,
  • social anxiety,
  • institutional distrust.

But history also shows something else: societies often emerge from these crises with reforms that improve life for large numbers of people.

The Great Depression helped produce Social Security, banking reforms, labor protections, and stronger safety nets. The 2008 Financial Crisis triggered major conversations about financial regulation, inequality, healthcare access, and economic precarity.

Progress rarely happens because systems voluntarily surrender power during times of comfort. More often, systems change because instability forces adaptation.

The Extinction Burst

This is where behavioral psychology provides an interesting lens.

In behavioral science, there is something called an extinction burst. When a behavior that used to work stops producing the desired result, the organism often responds by intensifying the behavior before finally changing course.

A child screams louder before giving up a tantrum.
A gambler doubles down after losses.
A toxic workplace becomes more controlling when employees begin resisting.

Systems do this too.

When capitalism encounters instability, it often intensifies its own core behaviors:

  • more extraction,
  • more monetization,
  • more consolidation,
  • more financialization,
  • more pressure for growth,
  • more concentration of wealth.

This can feel terrifying when you’re living through it. And understandably so.

But intensification is not always evidence that a system is permanently winning. Sometimes it is evidence that the system is struggling to maintain equilibrium.

That does not mean collapse is guaranteed.
It does not mean utopia is guaranteed either.

It means we are living through a period of pressure and adaptation.

Is it Really Late Stage Capitalism?

It is worth noting that what many people online call “late-stage capitalism” is not what Das Kapital actually predicts. Marx did not argue that capitalism would simply become miserable and then suddenly collapse. He believed capitalism would continue evolving by increasingly socializing production itself — creating vast interconnected systems where labor becomes more collective, coordinated, and interdependent over time. 

In Marx’s framework, the truly “late” stage would likely involve much broader forms of communal or worker ownership of the means of production than we currently see. Interestingly, we are beginning to see early versions of this emerge through employee-owned companies, cooperatives, profit-sharing models, open-source collaboration, and highly networked forms of collective production. But these models are still relatively limited within a system where ownership remains heavily concentrated with individuals. 

In other words, if Marx’s model is even partially correct, and so far everything he predicted would occur has, we may still have significant instability and painful corrections ahead before a more genuinely communalistic economic structure becomes dominant.

Stay Calm — But Prepare

I suspect another correction is coming.

Not because I think civilization is ending, but because concentrated systems eventually destabilize themselves. Historically, they always have.

The important question is not whether change is coming.

The important question is:
What kind of change will follow?

History shows that crises can produce remarkable human progress:

  • stronger protections for workers,
  • better public health systems,
  • more democratic participation,
  • broader access to education,
  • expanded civil rights,
  • stronger social safety nets.

But crises can also produce fear, scapegoating, authoritarianism, and cruelty.

That is why preparation matters.

Not panic.
Preparation.

We need emotionally resilient people who can think clearly during instability.
We need communities that cooperate instead of fracture.
We need leaders capable of long-term thinking rather than reactive fear.
And we need humanistic values guiding what comes next.

Because economic systems are not forces of nature. They are human creations. They evolve according to the incentives, behaviors, and values we reinforce.

If a correction is coming, then this is not the time to surrender to doomscrolling and despair.

It is the time to ask:

  • What systems actually help people thrive?
  • What structures reduce unnecessary suffering?
  • How do we preserve freedom while increasing stability?
  • How do we ensure technological and economic progress benefits humanity broadly instead of concentrating into fewer and fewer hands?

Those are the real questions of the future.

What Comes Next Is Not Automatic

One of the biggest misunderstandings people have about history is believing that progress is inevitable.

It isn’t.

Progress requires participation.

Every major improvement in human society came from people who chose to build better systems after periods of instability:

  • labor organizers,
  • reformers,
  • educators,
  • scientists,
  • policymakers,
  • community leaders,
  • ordinary people trying to solve practical problems compassionately.

The future is not predetermined.

But history suggests that periods of instability often become turning points. They force societies to reconsider what is sustainable and what is not.

So yes — stay calm.

But prepare.

Because corrections create openings.
And what fills those openings depends on us.

What leadership of the commons can teach us about leadership and governance in general

 I had the pleasure of interviewing Randal Joy Thompson the other day for the International Humanistic Management Association. She was talking about Leadership on the Commons: Lessons for Government, Corporations, and NGOs.


You can view the video here: https://www.ignited.global/ihma/blog/leadership-commons-lessons-government-corporations-and-ngos  The link includes her slides and other resources mentioned during the presentation.

I really enjoyed her presentation.  One of the main questions we got and that I really liked her answer for had to do with whether or not leadership of the commons equated to some form of socialism.  She said no. Exactly the opposite actually. Leadership of the commons is actually - self leadership.  Socialism/Communism is government control of the commons and the means of production. In contrast, commons leadership is actually, us taking it upon ourselves to come together and decide together how to manage things. It's democracy, at the local level. This sort of leadership is about freedom for the group. It reminded me of some of the statements made in the Federalist Papers about how people in the USA practice democracy at all levels.

Commons Leadership requires a specific set of skills or rather a change in the way we think about how we make decisions and the ethical framework we use to make decisions.

It often arises organically and locally in response to a problem. It happens when people come together to solve a collective problem. If you watch the video, you will hear me talk about a near miss of an ecological disaster in my community. The response to this was collaborative. The problem was 60 years in the making. No one currently caused the problem. But we collectively had to figure out how to fix it. And it is getting fixed, finally.

Anyway, here are my notes on what is required to lead on the commons:

  • Think of things as larger – whole – complex systems. 
  • Proleptic – anticipate and open to positive future.
  • Need for homeostasis – creating stability
  • Shift away from egocentric to ecocentric of all the interconnected elements. 
  • Leading Proleptically - Lead with a glimpse of the future – what is that – how do we create it?  How are we influencing systems.
  • Based on Ubuntu – relationships embedded in an interconnected system. 
  • Mutual benefits to everyone and all subsystems and society and earth.
  • Power to rather than power over. It’s about empowering. 
  • Concept is more expansive than commonly understood.  Diverse resources to strengthen capacity

Implementing this

Practical 1: Create an ethical agreement about interactions to govern the community. Groups should discuss: What are our ethical principles? It is critical for the community to decide what the values are and what are the ethical principles through which they want to interact.
Practical 2: What matters – in an ecological way – whole system approach. See my above notes.

Individual responsibility

Finally, I asked her what the 3 things are she would want us to change as we think about ourselves as leaders.

1) Examine own perspective first
2) Do you see the interconnections between your organization and others organizations and do you include that in your deliberations?
3) Are you willing to really sit down and look at your ethical values?

I thought this was an excellent list. I talk to people all the time who want to create unity with others and end divisions. But what they really want is to change other people. They don't want to change themselves. They just want everyone to agree with them. That isn't actually how leadership works.  Real leaders make space for disagreements and look for the foundational ethical principles that bind us together so that we CAN work towards a common goal together despite our differences. 

So, what are you doing, to examine your own perspective? 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...