Dmitri Orlov's recent essay looks at the question, which ideology - Capitalism or Socialism - is best in a collapse scenario. (This essay is behind a paywall. I strongly recommend you subscribe $1/month to receive his remarkably good content.) Predictably, Dmitri comes out in favor of Socialism, given the wealth of essays he's written on the collapse of the Soviet Union and his comparisons with the United States. In this particular case, Socialism has a proven track-record. The Soviet Union may be gone, but the Russian Federation remains and its' people survived relatively unscathed. While the jury's still out on whether Capitalism will help the People weather an economic collapse, the odds of muddlin' through without a revolution or civil war don't look anywhere near as good.
From its earliest beginnings when, as John Greer so eloquently described, Mankind unlocked Natures' treasure-chest of fossil-fuel energy and unleashed a wave of wealth the likes of which had never existed before in Human history, the biggest single question has been; "What do we DO with it?" Capitalism and Socialism are simply the two ideologies that answered this question and survived the Darwinian selection process, to dominate political and economic thinking.
But which ideology "best", in a collapse scenario? Both ideologies are artifacts of Industrialism. They were both born out of the unique circumstances that enabled the Industrial Revolution and they'll both become irrelevant when Industrialism finally reaches the end of the Hubbert curve. There is no doubt that Industrial civilisation is in decline. And it has been, since it reached its' high-water-mark on 20th July, 1969. (Everyone alive at that time, remembers exactly where they were on that day.) No matter what the greenies and cornucopians say, Industrial civilisation is designed and optimised to run on fossil energy. Oil is to Industrialism, what water is, to your body; There is NO substitute! Peak Oil occurred in 2005. Peak Coal is right now. Peak natural Gas is less than a decade away.
So, when the industrial world finally splutters to a halt, with the fuel gauge reading "E", the socio-economic ideologies that evolved to answer the question "What do we do with all the wealth?" will be about as relevant as a bicycle is to a fish. The reality is, that the arguments between Capitalism and Socialism are just squabbling over deck chairs on a proverbial Titanic.
So, what socio-economic ideology would be "best" in a collapse scenario? The answer depends on a number of factors, many of which are variable and few of which are predictable - climate instability, for example. But what can be predicted with certainty is that whatever society succeeds ours, its inhabitants will have to get by without the vast amounts of energy that we command.
Think 95% less energy or more.
No fossil fuels means the end of "industrial" agriculture and that means that there will be less people. A LOT less people! Industrial agriculture is what enables seven billion Humans to inhabit this planet at the same time. Agriculture, without fossil fuelled machinery could optimistically support around one billion souls, probably fewer, given how industrial acricultural practices have degraded vast tracts of once fertile soils. That assumes that 90% of them are occupied growing food or directly supporting those who do. Hunter-gathering could support, at most, a few million, globally.
Abundant energy underpins the accumulation of vast pools of capital. Vast pools of capital enable the creation of enormous wealth. Without abundant energy, there won't be that much wealth to argue over. So, in a post-industrial world, the most pressing question is more likely to be "How do we survive?" And that's going to require answers that are completely different to those supplied by Capitalism or Socialism.
But there are answers to be had. The energy bonanza that enabled industrial civilisation is only a three hunderd year 'blip' in a Human story that stretches back for millenia and probably has less than a century left to run. Thousands of generations lived without the industrial conveniences we consider normal and while most would be considered 'poverty' by our standards. But people survived and sometimes even thrived. Three or four generations from now, people will need to live like that again.
Between now and then, is a period of slow (but accelerating) decline. Optimists will point to record stock market valuations and other such 'indicators' of 'prosperity'. But real, tangible wealth is in decline everywhere. Subtract all the 'wealth' generated by 'speculative' activity (particulary in the 'Financial' sector) and what remains is the actual, physical economy. It's not hard to see that the real economy has been in freefall for decades.
The question is changing. The critical question now, is "What do we do, to prepare for an era where we command less than 1% of the energy we now enjoy?" And that's going to require a new socio-economic theory.
