What does the future hold for capitalism?
Wasn’t it competition that Adam Smith wanted to create 250 years ago when he laid the foundation for capitalism? Today, this competition is mainly quantitative. Economic growth is necessary to generate wages, social benefits and, of course, profits. After all, politicians have promised to secure our prosperity.
Technological development has now overtaken the market. For several years now, global networking has made it possible for everyone to communicate their needs directly to producers, who deliver goods just in time. This was not the case until a few years ago. Until then, it was necessary to take goods to the market, where they had to be purchased with wages. We no longer need this market today.
We have a perfectly functioning model: reproduction. There is no market within the provisioning of families. What is needed is made. With care for people and the earth. No one would think of offering their family a choice of three meals a day just so that more is eaten and thrown away. No one cleans the bathroom twice in a row. So we see that it works without the market.
The big question is: how do we get there before the earth goes under?
Let’s do it just like in families. The housewife or househusband does not write invoices to their family members, nor do they do payroll accounting.
What would happen if we did the same in the economy? Worldwide, from one day to the next? Just like food in families, all products in the economy would then be free. There would be no need to advertise gifts, and competition would focus on developing durable and recyclable products instead of overproduction. Everyone would be provided for unconditionally.
We would hardly notice this transition to a post-growth society, because it would not require socialisation. Property would lose its exclusive function all by itself, because the income from property could no longer be used to buy anything. All that remains is responsibility.
The assumption of unlimited needs
A frequently raised objection to models of income-independent or free provision is that the elimination of prices and income would lead to an immeasurable increase in demand. This assumption is implicitly based on the idea of unlimited human needs and correspondingly unlimited consumption behaviour.
However, this idea is not empirically or theoretically tenable.
Needs versus demand
Economic theory often fails to distinguish between needs (use-oriented needs) and demand (payable demand). In capitalism, needs appear exclusively in the form of demand, i.e. as a variable mediated by income and prices.
Overproduction in capitalism is therefore not an expression of excessive demand on the part of users, but the result of a supply-driven mode of production. Production is not primarily aimed at meeting existing needs, but at realising exchange value and securing capital appreciation.
Supply-induced overproduction
Empirical evidence shows that the central mechanisms of today’s overproduction lie on the supply side. These include in particular:
- planned obsolescence, which artificially shortens the useful life of products,
- aggressive and psychologically optimised advertising, which creates new needs or reinforces existing ones,
- product differentiation without functional added value, which shortens sales cycles,
- institutionalised pressure for growth as a result of credit-based financing.
These mechanisms do not serve to satisfy needs, but rather to stabilise continuous sales markets.
Frugality as an empirical and anthropological constant
The assumption of unlimited needs also contradicts anthropological and sociological findings. In almost all societies, human needs are relatively stable beyond a certain material level. Studies on life satisfaction indicate that additional consumption above a basic level has only limited effects on well-being.
Frugality should not be understood as a moral category, but as a structural characteristic of human needs formation. People strive for security, social recognition, meaning and self-efficacy – not for unlimited material possessions.
Consumption behaviour under conditions of direct provision
Under conditions of direct provision independent of income, there is no incentive to compensate for status through consumption, as income and possessions lose their social signalling function. At the same time, advertising and branding lose their economic function, as it is no longer necessary to secure sales.
Under such conditions, material needs would likely be based on real usage requirements: durable, repairable and high-quality goods would replace short-term replacement consumption.
Overproduction as a systemic phenomenon
Overproduction is therefore not an expression of human excess, but the result of a system that depends on continuous capital utilisation. In a system where production is directly linked to real demand rather than sales, the structural incentive for overproduction is eliminated.
The fear of uncontrolled growth in demand thus fails to recognise the fundamental difference between a value-mediated mode of production and a use-value-oriented supply.
I would very much like these ideas to be the subject of a broad discussion and ask that you share this appeal.
Berlin, 10 January 2026 Eberhard Licht