Will capitalism collapse?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

I voted that it would collapse mainly because that we could only hope. America is under allot of stress and this new stimulus bill, I almost guarantee will not work (thus throwing another billions of dollars that we dont have, right down the drain) I think something big is going to happen.

[eisidisirock]

I wish it would but i dont think it will ever happen.

[Djehuti]

I don't believe that capitalism will collapse by itself, but it is a system with internal antagonisms that over and over again will weaken the system. But I think that only the organized working class could actually make capitalism disappear. (and a "collapse" without a strong revolutionary movement would not be a good thing anyway)

We are unfortunatly quite weak at the moment, I find it hard to believe that we will succeed during this crisis, but we do have a great chance to grow so that we will be in a much stronger position in say 10-20 years. We must stop laughing at the system fucking up and start organizing instead, put in the next gear. Time to get serious.

[Rjevan]

As much as I hope capitalism will collapse (and better today than tomorrow!) I don't think so. Maybe this type of capitalism will collapse but I'm sure the liberals will do their best to hold capitalism alive, even if they have to restrict it a little bit. But still, it would be capitalism again.

[Comrade B]

Hehe, take a look at the national debt. I don't think this dip will cause its death, but honestly, some day someone is going to need some money back, or people are going to realize the US will never pay them back and stop giving out loans. Once the loans stop going out... what will the US do to save itself?

[BlackCapital]

Nope. It'll probably wind up as some stupid off shoot of welfare capitalism.

[walterrich]

I won't hold my breath.

Maybe next recession.

[Psy]

Yeah. It looks like the liberals will try to hold off a popular revolt by introducing "welfare" schemes and some token haranguing against CEO's, who are not the real problem at all.

Yet the audacity of the bankers is derailing that strategy. Bankers are not hiding the fact that they are the ruling class, they are also not hiding their total contempt for all classes beneath them.

[DancingLarry]

Not without help. Push, comrades, push!

[DancingLarry]

The liberals and social democrats already had most of a century in which their synthesis was dominant--and failed. I call it the 20th century synthesis, in which private capital and capitalist economics remained predominant, their impact buffered slightly by a degree of business regulation and redistributive welfare state programs. This synthesis was necessitated by the rising left movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and globalized in the wake of the Russian Revolution and the Great Depression. However by the late 20th century, the objective factors which had led to the emergence of this synthesis had changed. In the capitalist countries deindustrialization took hold, changing the organization of production and the socialization of the working classes. Notably, the self-organizations of the working class, unions, community organizations, genuine labor and socialist parties withered along with industrialization. At the same time the political, economic and intellectual failures of "existing socialism" led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and its appeanages. With the internal and external challenges to capital neutralized, the Reagan-Thatcher era saw a sort of post-industrial Restoration of the unchecked dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and laissez-faire capitalism. However, this Restoration period is proving to be short-lived, as the economic nostrums of the 19th century, however appealing they might be to the current generation of capitalists in terms of allowing for a new round of primitive accumulation, simply aren't applicable to the modern, fully globalized, instantaneously financed capitalism of the 21st century.

However, I don't believe any attempt to restore welfare statism of the sort of the 20th century synthesis will succeed, as the social and economic basis on which it was founded is gone. That's why the Reagan-Thatcher regime was able to collapse that synthesis with a mere wave of the hand. Trying to resurrect the 20th century synthesis will prove to be a case of building a house on the sand.

[Bilan]

I could not find another thread discussing this issue, but looking at the current global recession, do you think the capitalist system (specifically, the USA) will finally collapse under its own weight, like the Soviet Union?

The Soviet Union didn't collapse under its own weight?



I find a few people hoping that it will collapse, but my thinking is that liberals will rescue it in a sham New Deal type "rescue package for the people".

I don't know what you mean by this.

[Bilan]

what the hell is this shit about liberals?
Liberalism is not some sort of ideology which has the upper hand on the development of capitalism. That doesn't make any sense.

[NecroCommie]

The collapse of the capitalism is inevitable, but it will not be done within the western world. The third world countries are already up to their necks full of capitalism, and if the western world tries to squeeze out even more, something is going to happen. And the moment the third world countries start to gain their rights, the western world will collapse (after all, our "wellfare" is based on inadequate human rights in the third world). Capitalist "wellfare" is also based on non-stop economical growth. However, we all know it is impossible to sustain such growth in the long term, due to the fact that planet earth is a limited resource, no matter how endless it seemed in the 1800's. Sooner or later the earths resources will dry out, and the world is forced to abandon consumerism. Capitalism will collapse, and if not, it is destined to enforce dramatic attitude changes.

I do think that socialism (whether it will be called socialism or not) is inevitable, but I do not think it will be done during this crisis. Perhaps next time.

[bcbm]

we do have a great chance to grow so that we will be in a much stronger position in say 10-20 years. We must stop laughing at the system fucking up and start organizing instead, put in the next gear. Time to get serious.

I agree with the last sentiment but I think the time line is off. 10-20? I think we can see a massive upsurge in class struggle in the next year and become a serious threat again. Like you say, we just need to get serious in our organizing and push forward the antagonisms that have been handed to us on a platter.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is unlikely that capitalism will ever collapse of its own accord, as there are always going to be weapons available to the bourgeoisie by which they can stabilize the system and restore profitability, including fascism, which destroys workers organizations in order to drive down wages, and a strengthening of imperialism, which leads to the more intense exploitation of the global periphery and provides outlets for surplus capital. The question of whether the current crisis will lead to capitalism being overthrown and replaced with socialism depends entirely on the actions of the working class, and the ability of socialists to assume a leading role and direct popular resentment and frustration against capitalism instead of allowing workers to fall into the hands of the bourgeoisie. It is unlikely that the bourgeoisie will be able to manage the crisis by restoring the welfare state, because bailing out the financial sector has already led to a huge increase in government debt, and so the bourgeoisie may be compelled to resort to coercive measures (such as those mentioned above) in order to maintain control of the situation and safeguard against the threat of social revolution. This crisis differs from those which have taken place in the past in that it is the first crisis taking place in the context of a globalized economy, and so no country will be able to escape its effects.

[Dr Mindbender]

it will collapse, but whether or not we or fascists take advantage of it is up to us.

[Psy]

It is unlikely that capitalism will ever collapse of its own accord, as there are always going to be weapons available to the bourgeoisie by which they can stabilize the system and restore profitability, including fascism, which destroys workers organizations in order to drive down wages, and a strengthening of imperialism, which leads to the more intense exploitation of the global periphery and provides outlets for surplus capital. The question of whether the current crisis will lead to capitalism being overthrown and replaced with socialism depends entirely on the actions of the working class, and the ability of socialists to assume a leading role and direct popular resentment and frustration against capitalism instead of allowing workers to fall into the hands of the bourgeoisie. It is unlikely that the bourgeoisie will be able to manage the crisis by restoring the welfare state, because bailing out the financial sector has already led to a huge increase in government debt, and so the bourgeoisie may be compelled to resort to coercive measures (such as those mentioned above) in order to maintain control of the situation and safeguard against the threat of social revolution. This crisis differs from those which have taken place in the past in that it is the first crisis taking place in the context of a globalized economy, and so no country will be able to escape its effects.
The problem is that the current negitive rate of profit means even if the capitalism could get workers to work for free would still result in negitive growth, there is just way too much capital chasing after too few surplus value no mater how much capitalist exploit workers. The only solution to save capitalism is the destruction of capital so fewer capital is chasing surplus value, yet capitalists are refusing to allow their fictional capital be destroyed and have turned to the bourgeois states to prop up the value of their fictional capital that is deeping the crisis.

[Potemkin]

I don't think capitalism will collapse from this economic situation. There are too many social welfare programs -- even in the US -- that will keep it from happening. This is quite a different situation from the Great Depression. Also take into account the waning influence of labor and the ability of capitalism to coopt movements, and you have an uphill battle.

Murray Bookchin and others argued that advanced capitalism will not collapse due to internal contradictions, such as economic crises. By looking at the recent past, we can see that he was right. Since the Great Depression, capitalism has become more managing. There are social "safety nets" in place that didn't exist in the 1930s in the US.


Defying all the theoretical predictions of the 1930s, capitalism has restabilized itself with a vengeance and acquired extraordinary flexibility in the decades since World War II. In fact, we have yet to clearly determine what constitutes capitalism in its most "mature" form, not to speak of its social trajectory in the years to come. But what is clear, I would argue, is that capitalism has transformed itself from an economy surrounded by many precapitalist social and political formations into a society that itself has become "economized." --Murray Bookchin, "Radical Politics in an Era of Advanced Capitalism"

Principally an economic model (duh), capitalism has worked its way into all aspects of society, becoming a dominant form of society, as well (though really it doesn't replace our social relations so much as destroy them, turning immaterial needs that were once fulfilled by society into material needs satisfied by the market -- i.e. friendship now becomes MySpace). This allows capitalism to coopt movements and redirect worker/consumer outrage.

Bookchin would argue that because of this, capitalism has been able to regulate almost all aspects of our existence -- particularly our relationships (to goods, to each other, to authority, etc.). Therefore, it is able to manage us during economic crises that come about due to its own internal contradictions (as we are currently seeing; where is the revolution? Even in Iceland, all that has come about is a change in government).


. . .[W]e cannot any longer ignore. . . the present day reality of a managed capitalist system -- managed culturally and ideologically as well as economically. . . . Far from having an internal source of long-term economic breakdown that will presumably create a general interest for a new society, capitalism has been more successful in crisis management in the last fifty years than it was in the previous century and a half.

The classical industrial proletariat, too, has waned in numbers in the First World,. . . in class consciousness, and even in political consciousness of itself as a historically unique class. . . . To live with the hope that capitalism will 'immanently' collapse from within as a result of its own contradictory self-development is illusory as things stand today. --Murray Bookchin, "Radical Politics in an Era of Advanced Capitalism"

This, in a nutshell, is the current economic critique from a social ecology standpoint.

So, I don't believe that this is the economic crisis that will bring down capitalism. I believe the impetus for the overthrow of capitalism lies in the external crises that it causes -- namely, environmental/economic destruction. I'd love to talk about this with anyone interested. For more about these ideas PM me or see:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1280
http://www.revleft.com/vb/consumer-consequences-t101434/index.html

However, what would happen if this crisis was the downfall of capitalism? Would it just get rebuilt? Is the revolutionary left loud enough, strong enough, coherent enough, and immersed enough to have any say in what the next form of society will take? Djehuti has already touched on this issue. To me, it's a rather scary thought. I don't think we laid the groundwork as we should have. The consciousness just isn't there yet.

[AJLaw]

The collapse of the capitalism is inevitable, but it will not be done within the western world.....

....I do think that socialism (whether it will be called socialism or not) is inevitable, but I do not think it will be done during this crisis. Perhaps next time.


I agree that capitalism is bound to fail no matter what, despite all the actions the US government is trying to take (the stimulus bills for example).

Capitalism has a few directions it can go but they all lead to failure. I believe the first and most likely direction capitalism will take is through its natural cycle. The efficiency of a capitalist economy fluctuates throughout time, which has been obvious over the past 100 years. It has been said that The Great Depression was no where near as bad as what the US is experiencing today.

If the US economy survives this recession and possible future depression, it will only last so much longer until it is faced with a more extreme economic crisis. After a while, it is going to get to a point to where the US economy is going to fall.

Another reason capitalism is bound to fall is directly through its economics. Capitalism is based on free trade and so on and so on. With the world's natural resources being used up at an unbelievable rate, the idea of supply and demand will be exaggerated. There will be a high demand for necessities such as oil and possibly even food. At this point, a capitalist economy can either choose to fall or choose to adopt Socialism which would obviously be a working solution.

And one more reason capitalism could fall is through force. Some sort of national (hopefully universal) realization could spur the beginnings of the Revolution... but of course you all already know about that... :D

[dmcauliffe09]

Honestly, no, at least not under is own weight. Russia collapsed because it was the biggest socialist economy in the world but it stood alone and had no backing from other large socialist economies. The United States is not the only capitalist nation in the world, and it therefore has something to fall back on. Capitalism now is indeed in a weakened stage, and now is the time that we must force it to collapse.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Capitalism will collapse.
Maybe not now, but it will.

[Red Solidarity]

The only way to destroy capitalism is by way of global revolution. At least change has happened in Latin America and that should inspire us all.

[dmcauliffe09]

Capitalism will collapse.
Maybe not now, but it will.
That's easier said than done.

[Scary Monster]

Down with capitalism! As youve all said, capitalism will eventually fall. And im sure you all know what Karl Marx said (not a direct quote), put simply- Capitalism will go through many crises before it eventually collapses, no matter what is done to try to prevent this..
This is the second crisis. And with every crisis, it will get worse until the working class becomes aware and gets stirred up enough to revolt and take control. Socialism is the only way to go! :cool:

[Q]

It will never collapse under its own weight. Instead it'll try to find ways to "solve" its internal contradictions. That is, by making working people pay the price.

If capitalism would just crash and dissolve under its own failure, what would then be the point of being a socialist? The crisis only points out why it is evident to change the system.

[coda]

no, it will be averted this time, albeit to a weak teetering Capitalism which will later be taken down by a communist revolution.

[cyu]

Capitalism is just a social structure. It is propped up by people who support capitalism and it is shaken by people who oppose capitalism. The more people trying to prop it up, the more likely it will go on. The more people shaking it, the more likely it will topple over.

...the same is basically true of any social structure :)

[Psy]

It will never collapse under its own weight. Instead it'll try to find ways to "solve" its internal contradictions. That is, by making working people pay the price.

A near perfect storm of crises are forming on the capitalist class, really all this missing is large scale militant workers. Capitalism is melting down at a alarming rate mostly on its own, capitalism has gotten so rotten it probably won't really take much from workers to bring capitalism to its knees.



If capitalism would just crash and dissolve under its own failure, what would then be the point of being a socialist? The crisis only points out why it is evident to change the system.

That assumes capitalists won't form a new system in the evet capitalism completly fails them.

[Niemand]

The question of whether or not capitalism will collapse in the United States, at least, is a very valid one. The Dow recently closed at an 11 year low (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/dow-11-year-low-reached_n_168638.html). What this means is that capitalists in the U.S. are treating Obama's bailouts and stimulus as death knells of modern capitalism and therefore we will see a crisis that will make the thirties look like a picnic. Even leading capitalists are realising this trend. George Soros said that this crisis resembles something more along the lines of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and will be far more severe than the Great Depression (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/dow-11-year-low-reached_n_168638.html).

Of course, the Soviet Union wasn't anywhere near socialism at the time of its demise, but it was still scrapped entirely for what seemed much more stable at the time. Now, as the material conditions, according to Mr. Soros, are ripe for such a change in the U.S. as there is no concievable bottom for this catastrophe, should it not follow that socialism should replace our feudal capitalism? Perhaps. Things are looking so bad that even, master of inflation Paul Volcker is speculating that this crisis may well be worse than the Great Depression. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/paul-volcker-financial-cr_n_168772.html)


But what does all this mean to the common working man and to the prospects of real socialism in the foreseeable future? While this site is a mere microcosm of the socialist movement, it is quite simple to see that we don't appeal much to the average worker. We're all hung up on dead Russians and just spout theories and essays formulated and written almost a century ago. This appeals to the average American far less than the lies and crimes committed by the ruling class as it all seems a little too Russian and smells of Soviet oppression. What we need, in short, is a makeover.


We need to stop arguing over the same old, drawn out arguments, and focus on today. For a moment, let's forget about Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin and Kerensky. Let's focus on today. Let's formulate our own theories and ditch the old and totalitarian fantasies of long dead Leninists and Stalinists. We need new ideas because the time is now ripe for agitation. I think we'd all be surprised at just how radical the average American is becoming now that the illusion of upward mobility is gone and most are drowning in debt.

[Coggeh]

As much as I hope capitalism will collapse (and better today than tomorrow!) I don't think so. Maybe this type of capitalism will collapse but I'm sure the liberals will do their best to hold capitalism alive, even if they have to restrict it a little bit. But still, it would be capitalism again.
I don't see why people would hope on this forum that capitalism would simply collapse , their is a lack in many countries of a real socialist movement . Which poses the question Socialism or Barbarianism . Which is more likely if capitalism collapsed tomorrow .

[Greenman]

The danger, as stated above, is that a collapse of the current form of capitalism might at the current time, (with the current balance of class forces in the most important economies and lack of development of alternatives, and the deterioration of social conditions brought on by the rapacious nature of nihilistic late capitalism) lead to a relapse across wide parts of the globe to pre-capitalist conditions of feudalism or barbarism - as seen in some "failed states" at the moment. The narrative of history is not uniformly linear or progressive.

Alternatively, particularly in the advanced economies where the bulk of the global ruling class have their homes, families and material assets the temptation to exploit the fascistic tendencies of distressed elements of the other classes might prove too strong for those keen to protect their privileges, and lead to a new, technologically advanced and hyper-exploitative totalitarian form of statist neo-capitalism. When the technological means of control are available, but economic conditions lead to a serious threat to continued bourgeois rule, will the ruling class rely on the soft power controls that suffice most of the time today?
The other question is as someone raised above, about the need of the system for destruction of "surplus" elements. We know how this has been achieved in the past!
We had better hope that it is only a "war on climate change" that the governments are going to use to try and refloat economies. The question of whether either the economies or the problem of climate change will be positively or negatively affected by this likely strategy is another one.
As Rosa said, the question of Socialism or Barbarism raises its head.

[cyu]

"Socialism or barbarism?" The answer is easy: get off your butts and do something about it. We shouldn't be here speculating or predicting, we should be promoting leftist thought, discussing strategies, propaganda, and actions - saying "barbarism" is just defeatism - if you're going to be a defeatist, you might as well not come to this forum.

[Glorious Union]

It will colapse! That is my hope anyway. Whoever said we cannot hope? :D

[Q]

A near perfect storm of crises are forming on the capitalist class, really all this missing is large scale militant workers. Capitalism is melting down at a alarming rate mostly on its own, capitalism has gotten so rotten it probably won't really take much from workers to bring capitalism to its knees.

That assumes capitalists won't form a new system in the evet capitalism completly fails them.
Capitalists have indeed, under heavy pressure, tried another system. That was fascism. And they too don't long back to those days, albeit for different reasons. In fact, this is one of the bigger reasons (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-02/10/content_7458688.htm) why (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/14/content_10820353.htm) the (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90002/96417/6593851.html) more (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE51C2FG20090213) serious (http://html.rincondelvago.com/crisis-and-protectionism.html) currents (http://appablog.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/fao-financial-crash-could-deepen-food-crisis-protectionism-less-aid-not-a-solution/) of (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0217/1224241279253.html) the (http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/nn_127670/Content/EN/Artikel/2009/02/2009-02-19-merkel-barroso__en.html) bourgeoisie (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/americas/2009/02/04/194546/Merkel-warns.htm) warn (http://in.reuters.com/article/asiaCompanyAndMarkets/idINDEK00006020090129) against (http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesource/ViewAsset.action;jsessionid=D3E8EB61A1D9D2CAAC768D 2167E5DC30?viewAsset=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fpages%2Fbrowseaction%2FsearchResults.jsp&cnnId=04082967&searchResultsActionBeanClass=com.cnn.imagesource.a ction.search.BrowseActionBean&damId=4082967) protectionism (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,607457,00.html) (there are many more links).

[Bilan]

I should have probably specified American liberals, who are the equivalent of social democrats of Europe. The US liberals usually compromise a little towards social programs, while the conservatives are brazenly supportive of capitalist interests.

They can't just "save" capitalism from its crisis. Neither can conservatives, free market lunatics, protectionists, or anyone else.

[Bilan]

For those who want a more indepth answer on this contemporary crisis, see this: The most serious economic crisis in the history of Capitalism. (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/2009/136/crisis)



Can the state save the capitalist economy?

When an individual becomes bankrupt, he loses everything and is thrown out onto the street. A company locks its gates. But a state? Can a state become bankrupt? After all, we have never seen a state shut up shop. Not exactly. But being in cessation of payment, yes!
In 1982, 14 deeply indebted African countries were forced to officially declare themselves in cessation of payment. In the 1990s, countries in South America and Russia were also in default. More recently, in 2001, Argentina crumbled in its turn. Concretely, these states did not cease existing, and the national economy didn't just stop either. On the other hand, each time it happened there was a sort of economic earthquake: the value of the national currency fell, the lenders (in general, other states) lost all or part of their investment, and above all the state drastically reduced its expenses by laying off a large number of civil servants and by temporarily ceasing to pay those who remained.



Today, numerous countries are at the edge of this abyss: Ecuador, Iceland, Ukraine, Serbia, Estonia... But how goes it with the great powers? The governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, declared at the end of December that his state was in a "fiscal state of emergency". The richest of all the American states, the "Golden State", was ready to lay off 235,000 of its public employees (and those who are left are going to have to take two days of unpaid holiday a month starting on 1st February).



Presenting this new budget, the ex-Hollywood star warned that "everyone will have to agree to make sacrifices". This is a very powerful symbol of the profound economic difficulties of the world's leading power. We are still far away from a cessation of payments by the American state but this example shows clearly that the great powers' economic room for manoeuvre is today very limited. World debt seems to be reaching saturation point (it stood at $60,000 billion in 2007 and has swollen by several trillion dollars since); obliged to continue in the same direction, the bourgeoisie is thus going to provoke devastating economic shocks. The FED has lowered lending rates for 2009 to 0.25% for the first time since its creation in 1913. The American state is thus loaning money almost for nothing (and even at a loss if you take inflation into account). All the economies of the planet are calling for a "New Deal", dreaming about Obama as the new Roosevelt, capable of re-launching the economy, like in 1933, through an immense programme of grand public works financed... by credit[28]. The bourgeoisie has been regularly launching plans based on state debt equivalent to the New Deal since 1967, with no real success. And the problem is that such a policy of forward flight can lead to the collapse of the dollar.

Today there are many countries who doubt the ability of the US to repay their loans and are being tempted to withdraw all their investments. This is the case with China which, at the end of 2008, threatened, in very diplomatic language, to stop propping up the American economy by buying Treasury Bonds: "Every error about the gravity of the crisis will cause problems both for lenders and borrowers. The country's apparently growing appetite for American Treasury Bonds does not mean that they will remain a profitable investment in the long term or that the American government will continue to depend on foreign capital". And this, in a few words, is how China threatened the American state with cutting off the flow of Chinese dollars which has been feeding the US economy for several years. If China carried out its threat[29], the international currency chaos that would ensue would be apocalyptic and the ravages on working class living standards gigantic. But it's not only China which is beginning to have doubts: on Wednesday 10th December, for the first time in history, the American state had all sorts of difficulties in finding a loan of $28 billion. And since the coffers of all the great powers are empty, staggering under the weight of interminable debts and ailing economies, on the same day the same problem hit the German state: for the first time since the 1920s, it had the greatest difficulty in finding anyone willing to loan it 7 billion euros.
No doubt about it: debt, whether household, company or state, is just a palliative and it doesn't cure capitalism of the disease of overproduction. At best it allows the economy to get out of jail but only by preparing ever more violent crises. And yet the bourgeoisie is going to carry on with this desperate policy because it has no choice, as was shown, for the umpteenth time, by Angela Merkel's declaration on 8th November 2008 to the international conference in Paris: "There is no other way of struggling against the crisis except by accumulating a mountain of debts", or again by the IMF's chief economist Olivier Blanchard's latest statement: "we are in the presence of a crisis of exceptional breadth whose main component is a collapse in demand (...) It is imperative to re-launch private demand if we want to prevent the recession turning into a Great Depression". How is this to come about? "Through an increase in public expenditure".
But if not through these recovery plans, can the state still be the saviour by nationalising a good part of the economy, such as the banks or the car industry? Once again, no. First, and contrary to the traditional lies of the left and the extreme left, nationalisations have never been good news for the working class. At the end of the Second World War, there was a big wave of nationalisations aimed at putting the apparatus of production on its feet again after all the destruction and at increasing the tempo of work. We should not forget the words that Thorez, General Secretary of the French Communist Party, and then vice president in the De Gaulle government, threw at the working class in France, especially those in the nationalised industries: "If miners have to die at their post, their wives will replace them", or "Roll up your sleeves for national reconstruction!" or again "strikes are the weapon of the trusts". Welcome to the wonderful world of nationalised enterprises! There is nothing surprising about any of this. Since the experience of the Paris Commune in 1871, revolutionary communists have always shown the viscerally anti-proletarian role of the state:
"The modern state (...) is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head.".[30]
The new wave of nationalisations will bring no benefit to the working class. Nor will it allow the bourgeoisie to return to long-term growth. On the contrary! These nationalisations presage ever-more violent economic storms on the horizon. In 1929, the American banks that went bust took with them the savings of a large part of the American population, plunging millions of workers into poverty. After that, to avoid such a debacle happening again, the banking system was divided in two: on the one hand, business banks which financed companies and worked in all kinds of financial operations; on the other hand, savings banks which took the money of their customers and put them in relatively safe investments. Now, swept away by the wave of bankruptcies in 2008, these American business banks no longer exist. The American financial system has gone back to what it was like before 24th October 1929! When the next storm breaks, all the banks which have so far been kept going thanks to partial or complete nationalisations risk disappearing, but this time taking with them the meagre savings of working class families. Today, if the bourgeoisie nationalises, it's not to put through a new economic recovery plan but to avoid the immediate insolvency of the mastodons of finance and industry. It's a matter of avoiding the worst and saving the furniture[31].
The mountain of debts that has been building up over the last four decades has become a veritable Everest and nothing can now prevent capital from sliding down its slopes. The economy is truly in a disastrous state. That doesn't mean that capitalism will collapse overnight. The bourgeoisie will not let its world disappear without reacting: it will try desperately and with all possible means at its disposal to prolong the agony of its system, without concern for the ills that this will inflict on humanity. Its mad flight into debt will continue and here and there may still be short moments of growth. But it is certain is that the historic crisis of capitalism is changing its rhythm After forty years of slowly descending into hell, the future will be one of violent convulsions, of recurrent economic spasms shaking not only the countries of the Third World but also the US, Europe, Asia...[32]
The slogan of the Communist International in 1919 is more relevant today than ever: "for humanity to survive, capitalism must perish!"

[Qayin]

So if capitalism fails,what are we up against?

capitalism 2.0?
or
globalized fascism?

as the leaders of the anglo-american elite rush to establish their order once more

[ckaihatsu]

What we need, in short, is a makeover.

We need to stop arguing over the same old, drawn out arguments, and focus on today. For a moment, let's forget about Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin and Kerensky. Let's focus on today. Let's formulate our own theories and ditch the old and totalitarian fantasies of long dead Leninists and Stalinists. We need new ideas because the time is now ripe for agitation. I think we'd all be surprised at just how radical the average American is becoming now that the illusion of upward mobility is gone and most are drowning in debt.


Just as Americans laugh derisively at the sclerotic bureaucratic culture that characterized the U.S.S.R. in its latter decades, I think we'll be able to judge the downslope of the world capitalist economy through the same kind of cultural indicators.

We saw the birth of the mass countercultural movement as far back as the '60s when the postwar boom gave rise to the existential question of how mass culture should look given the society's historic material abundance. Since that high point nations and capital have been able to fabricate justifications for their existence by spinning in the gray area of the uncertain downslope, well away from the clear-cut reality of the '60s economic pinnacle.

The anti-Bush opinion that welled up around 2005 -- solidified with the administration's pathetic indifference to the Katrina disaster -- is the best indicator of current popular sentiment. We need to continue to monitor the relationship between the official political culture and that of public responses to it to get the best sense of how independently people feel about their own futures.

Right now Obama's upholding of the Bush torture doctrine could be a breaking point for those who decided to hold their breath as the new president took office. As Marxists we've known all along -- and have said as much -- that the new administration would *not* be changing policy in the slightest. Given our current reality of cartoon-like falls of stock charts and profitability, even the most moderate, stay-the-course types will necessarily have to be feeling some beads of sweat breaking out on their skin right about now.

"Collapse" isn't quite the right word, except maybe for the economic component. We have to emphasize that the economy -- in whatever form -- is the circulation system and lifeblood of the politics and makeup of society itself. The economic crisis precipitates a profound *existential* crisis for *every person* in society because the meltdown of the conventional economic framework throws into doubt *every* component of our roles and material dealings with each other, since they are normally mediated through this nation- and currency-based apparatus.

My question, albeit rhetorical, is *not* "Will capitalism collapse?", but "How soon until people start laughing and getting angry at the charade-in-progress being acted out by the White House and Wall Street?"

We saw a brief collective seething at the extortion / "bailout" amounts before the election season asserted itself around the beginning of autumn, 2008, but there may soon be a new, larger political fiasco that could provide the impetus for a renewed round of rightful outrage and turn to independent proletarian consciousness and inter-reliance, away from the bourgeois political circus of farce and distraction.

Certainly the Democratic Party is now walking on eggshells, trying their damndest to keep internal cohesion while also maintaining a calm public face as they engage in continuous back-room negotiations with their right flank, now a shadow of their former selves after the bankruptcy of their "War on Terrorism".





With the internal and external challenges to capital neutralized, the Reagan-Thatcher era saw a sort of post-industrial Restoration of the unchecked dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and laissez-faire capitalism. However, this Restoration period is proving to be short-lived, as the economic nostrums of the 19th century, however appealing they might be to the current generation of capitalists in terms of allowing for a new round of primitive accumulation, simply aren't applicable to the modern, fully globalized, instantaneously financed capitalism of the 21st century.


This is an excellent summation, and now, in the Information Revolution era, politics is starker than ever since more people have ready access to it, and increasingly on their own terms. People will be realizing that no amount of official economic shenanigans can ever hope to overshadow their own, independent political activity as collectively mobilized, militant workers who are focused on factory occupations. Besides the increasing tide of factory actions there's a growing movement of grassroots activists battling home foreclosures and evictions, with the state's enforcement agencies backing away from using their official physical force to keep people out of their homes.

This is the kind of politics we should be looking for, and agitating for -- public opinion can quickly pivot over to mass populist support for the self-activity of workers and activists on the ground, and against the traditional, property-protecting coercive force of the state.


Chris





--




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[peaccenicked]

We need to look at the so-called Law of uneven and combined development. Capitalism
is not a universal, as such. It is the dominant mode of production, in most societies. Yet
imperialism and finance capital have made epochal changes, signified by super-exploitation and fictitious capital.
The latter in its pursuit is destroying the financial basis Imperialist "Big Nations" such as the US and the UK and those who copied them too closely as an economic model. ie Iceland, Ireland.
Fictitious capital became the dominant form of capitalism. In these countries.
In turn countries that have become industrialized such as China, India, or countries that have not deindustrialised, France, Germany, etc have lost export markets, this is causing a global down turn.

The question is not " is capitalism collapsing?" The question is the world decoupling from unipolar imperialism?
What will that look like? Will the world be better off without those "washington bullets''
mowing down people like Che Guevara and Salvador Allende. Out of Iraq and Afganistan. US bases out of the rest of the world.
We are in the throes of witnessing era changing events.
There will be revolutions. We are at the beginning. The Iceland government has moved to the left but it has to severe ties with the IMF and Nato. On Saturday 120,000 people marched in Dublin against the economic recession.
There is no end in sight.
In the UK some economists are saying that unemployment will explode in July which will precede a collapse of the pound.
In the US, Obama is following a Keynes forgetting that Keynes was not a product of
deindustrialization. Leaving the US a prisoner to debt and when todays deflation and inflation are not tied to the economic fundamentals ie the vast increase in the volume of the money supply against huge increases in the drop of production:
(220,000 retailers in the US are on the way to foreclosure)
the stage is set for hyperinflation and the collapse of the US dollar. Is not a matter of if but when.
The manipulation of the market by the US fed cannot change the fundamentals.
This is why the US is becoming like the former USSR every day. Not the USSR had much to do with Market fundamentals, but to-day neither has the US.
We are witnessing the disintegration of an unsustainable entity.
This is worse than collapse. Collapse implies that you can stand up and roughly look the same.
The US will never be the same again.

[Psy]

Capitalists have indeed, under heavy pressure, tried another system. That was fascism. And they too don't long back to those days, albeit for different reasons. In fact, this is one of the bigger reasons (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-02/10/content_7458688.htm) why (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/14/content_10820353.htm) the (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90002/96417/6593851.html) more (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE51C2FG20090213) serious (http://html.rincondelvago.com/crisis-and-protectionism.html) currents (http://appablog.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/fao-financial-crash-could-deepen-food-crisis-protectionism-less-aid-not-a-solution/) of (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0217/1224241279253.html) the (http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/nn_127670/Content/EN/Artikel/2009/02/2009-02-19-merkel-barroso__en.html) bourgeoisie (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/americas/2009/02/04/194546/Merkel-warns.htm) warn (http://in.reuters.com/article/asiaCompanyAndMarkets/idINDEK00006020090129) against (http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesource/ViewAsset.action;jsessionid=D3E8EB61A1D9D2CAAC768D 2167E5DC30?viewAsset=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fpages%2Fbrowseaction%2FsearchResults.jsp&cnnId=04082967&searchResultsActionBeanClass=com.cnn.imagesource.a ction.search.BrowseActionBean&damId=4082967) protectionism (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,607457,00.html) (there are many more links).

Capitalists demand protectionism when they are losing to other foreign capitalists which is why in the US productive capitalists (that are losing to foreign capitalists) are demanding protectionism while the finical capitalists (that are dominating foreign capitalists) are against it. Protectionism in itself is not fascism if it were then Germany leading up to WWI would have been fascist (which they weren't).

[Charles Xavier]

Capitalism will never collaspe on its own. It'll need a big push from the working class... those of you sitting around and not actively working in the mass movements are not going to find the revolution without hard work.

[Greenman]

Interesting bit today on Guardian Comment Is Free site from Will Hutton (journo-economics writer close to British Prime Minister, Brown) It is basically what Hutton thinks Brown will/should be asking of the forthcoming G20 meeting - (my emphasis added)


And it will need every member country to pre-agree that it will obey IMF instructions – including G7 countries like the US, France and the UK. China should be told that if it wants more clout then it must make the reminmbi a fully-convertible reserve currency; otherwise it must remain outside the world's inner councils.In other words every G20 country, including the US, needs to recognise their interdependence and responsibility. They must deploy co-ordinated government heft to underwrite broken banks and shattered confidence. Their actions can be cemented by a strengthened IMF to which they cede genuine economic sovereignty – and which itself must become more accountable. Then Brown's global bargain might get some economic purchase and put a floor under the global economy. Brown faces formidable obstacles to make the April summit rise to the challenges, but his task as chairman is to confront world leaders with these truths. It will demand risk, leadership and courage. But better that than generalised guff. The circumstances demand no less.


So basically, a puff piece for Brown. But notice the prescription for the New World Economic Order. Basically a binding global "structural adjustment" programme! Won't that be fun! And the IMF is going to be "more accountable" to whom?
What seems to be illustrated here is that the ruling class and their mouthpieces are thrashing around and sinking, but grasp desperately to what they see as a liferaft - a global economic dictatorship of the IMF!:mad:

[nuisance]

Capitalism cannot collapse, it has to be abolished.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Yes but as i look around i start to feel that nothing will change and that all these posts on here are nothing and will do nothing but hopefully one day they wont be in vain.

[ckaihatsu]

And it will need *every member country to pre-agree that it will obey IMF instructions* – including G7 countries like the US, France and the UK. [...] In other words every G20 country, including the US, needs to recognise their interdependence and responsibility.


The G-20 countries * wish * they could get it together enough to have an IMF umbrella, but they can't. See:





The G-20 summit being held in Washington today takes place amid the worst economic and financial breakdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Notwithstanding the rhetoric about the need for a new Bretton Woods Agreement and calls for the remaking of the international financial system, the summit will provide no solutions to the rapidly deepening crisis. On the contrary, in the absence of any coherent program, it may well see the divisions among the major capitalist powers widen.


And even if they could pull it together despite near-zero growth, they've already slipped behind the leader of the pack, China, in their sick, macho global rat race for bragging rights.



China should be told that if it wants more clout then it must make the reminmbi a fully-convertible reserve currency; otherwise it must remain outside the world's inner councils.


That's the give-away -- allow me to paraphrase: "China, you can't join our special, super-cool club (that's now lagging behind you in growth) if you don't open up your vaults to the rest of us through your currency, the renminbi."

This is the equivalent of a soft trade war because the G-20 countries have been *****ing about China for years now. China has been keeping its hoarded value off the books and away from its currency. China has been exploiting its workers so brutally that it undercuts the global competition *everywhere* and has now amassed the bulk of manufacturing business for consumer goods, particularly for the U.S. and E.U. markets.

Nonetheless these countries, particularly the U.S. and China, are locked together as a result of these trade relationships, which all exploit and oppress the working class. Despite their spats they're still on top and we aren't, so that says more than anything else.

Because of this evident economic inter-dependence I'd like everyone to SHUT THE FUCK UP about so-called "hyperinflation" -- it's *not* going to happen because these are major economies, not Argentina or Zimbabwe. I addressed this scare-mongering bullshit at this thread:


Some early signs of hyperinflation

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1345073&postcount=17

[Psy]

Yes but as i look around i start to feel that nothing will change and that all these posts on here are nothing and will do nothing but hopefully one day they wont be in vain.

Capitalism has been undergoing changes for decades as capitalists has they have yet to solve the crisis of a falling rate of profit and have been only been able to postpone dealing yet now capitalists have no way to delay with dealing with the falling rate of profit. We are going to have huge changes in the next decade as the old arrangement between the proletariat and bourgeoisie has no future, the bourgeoisie simply can't lend workers money to consume anymore. The real question is not if thing will change (they will) but who is going to decide how things change is going to be the workers or the capitalists?

[ckaihatsu]

Capitalism has been undergoing changes for decades as capitalists has they have yet to solve the crisis of a falling rate of profit and have been only been able to postpone dealing yet now capitalists have no way to delay with dealing with the falling rate of profit. We are going to have huge changes in the next decade as the old arrangement between the proletariat and bourgeoisie has no future, the bourgeoisie simply can't lend workers money to consume anymore. The real question is not if thing will change (they will) but who is going to decide how things change is going to be the workers or the capitalists?


This is really the point -- it boils down to this, which we've known all along, but which more and more people are going to become conscious of, very quickly, because of the ongoing, worsening crisis of capital.

People are going to realize that the real world is becoming like a game of Monopoly where they're going around and around in circles without really ever having a chance to land on any square to play the game. When this happens it * doesn't matter * how much Monopoly money there is printed, or who owns what -- the point is that all that *most* people actually own is a shoe, or a hat, or maybe at best a car....

Everyone, even Marxists, needs to understand that a ruling class will use any invention or fiction they can to hang onto power, in whatever form. That's why it *requires* a conscious, mass effort to strike the final blow to overthrow capitalists' rule once and for all. Here's one of their techniques currently in use, fractional reserve lending, similar to credit extension:





Every currency has a *different* reserve ratio. If I recall correctly, the U.S.'s has now *dropped* to something like 8%, or a 12-to-1 ratio of currency-to-reserves. This is because it has increasingly needed *credit* to pay for its imports from sellers like China. By *lowering* the amount of reserve value it *officially* needs to keep on hand, putting * 12 times * that value out into the economy, it is over-extending the *actual* value, in reserves, that it has on hand, relative to China's * 6 *-to-1 ratio. This is in addition to the U.S.'s massive national debt and current accounts deficit.

[Bilan]

So if capitalism fails,what are we up against?

It's not a question of ' success' or 'failure', you're working a fictitious paradigm which wont lead you to any conclusive material ending, but just throw you further into abstraction.
But, to clear up for the sake of it, if we operate within the 'fail' /'win' paradigm, capitalism is 'successful', it has established itself all over the world.
If Liberal Democracy comes under threat (speaking from the West), then the manifestation of the capitalist reaction will be relative to the size of the threat.



capitalism 2.0?

What does that mean? Dominace of Capital over labour the second time?




as the leaders of the anglo-american elite rush to establish their order once more

The 'race' isn't really of much importance when discussing the repercussions of a heavy capitalist crash (no, not 'destruction', but crash). More likely class conflict will become much, much more open and violent. That doesn't mean communist revolution, nor a victory for the working class, either. It's results are variable depending on, well, alot of things.

[Bilan]

Interesting to note that the majority of people (in terms of single options) voted for "Yes, it will collapse", though combined No, one.
But I have to ask, despite this poll asking the wrong question - and I don't think everyone here is quite comprehending the sheer impact of what a real collapse of Capitalism is, nor how it can be 'saved' - just what do people think Capitalism "collapsing" entails, and why?

[ComradeOm]

What does that mean? Dominace of Capital over labour the second time?Given recent events it looks like an ever closer marriage between state and capital... perhaps to the point where market mechanisms are irrevocably superseded by a state-directed financial nexus. Lenin's predictions as to state-monopoly capitalism might finally be realised

Obviously the 'Capitalism 2.0' tag is somewhat misleading (we're probably well past 3.1 at this stage and going into Vista) but capitalism adapts and changes much of its structural form every few decades. It remains to be seen whether this is just another exercise in shedding skin

I found the thoughts of New Capitalism (PDF) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/16_12_09_new_capitalism1.pdf) from Robert Preston of the BBC to be interesting. Not that I necessarily agree with them, of course, but its an indication of the way many capitalist theorists are thinking. What is not in question is that we are in the middle of a period of profound change


But I have to ask, despite this poll asking the wrong question - and I don't think everyone here is quite comprehending the sheer impact of what a real collapse of Capitalism is, nor how it can be 'saved' - just what do people think Capitalism "collapsing" entails, and why?As far as I'm concerned the last 'collapse' of capitalism, or the last time it came close, was the first few decades of the 20th C. The combination of intense competition (WWI) and the Great Depression shattered capitalist structures throughout most of Europe. Capitalism as a whole survived but it took decades to re-establish the liberal environment of the fin de siècle. Those decades saw war, revolution, and suffering on a genocidal scale

One thing that's always stuck in my mind was Hobsbawm writing on why he became a Communist in the 1930s. He describes how there was this all-prevailing feeling that capitalism was tottering and without a future; people were actively casting around for alternatives. He himself more or less fell into Communism in the absence of other alternatives; what with capitalism dying and fascism obviously not appealing to a Jewish immigrant

[Bilan]

Given recent events it looks like an ever closer marriage between state and capital... perhaps to the point where market mechanisms are irrevocably superseded by a state-directed financial nexus. Lenin's predictions as to state-monopoly capitalism might finally be realised

That doesn't really sound like a 'new form' of capitalism.
It implies that the state will be working more blatantly in the interests of capital - and therefore, part of the subordination of the working class.
That should not be recognized as 'new'. That is old. It is a return to the blatant coercive nature of developing capitalism (e.g. see this Capital, Chapter 10, section 6 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S5)).
I'm not overly damiliar with 'state-directed financial nexus'. Is that from Imperialism?





As far as I'm concerned the last 'collapse' of capitalism, or the last time it came close, was the first few decades of the 20th C. The combination of intense competition (WWI) and the Great Depression shattered capitalist structures throughout most of Europe. Capitalism as a whole survived but it took decades to re-establish the liberal environment of the fin de siècle. Those decades saw war, revolution, and suffering on a genocidal scale


What structures are you referring to here?
I find you're implying Capitalisms ideological integrity was crushed by this, rather than its structures. would you mind elaborating?

[ComradeOm]

That doesn't really sound like a 'new form' of capitalism.
It implies that the state will be working more blatantly in the interests of capital - and therefore, part of the subordination of the working class.
That should not be recognized as 'new'. That is old. It is a return to the blatant coercive nature of developing capitalism (e.g. see this Capital, Chapter 10, section 6 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S5))That's not what I was getting at. There's no question that today's state works in the interest of the capitalist class - from which it takes its form and directions, etc, etc - but there remains a distinction between the two. I think we are about to witness an end to state as a semi-independent actor on the economic stage. That is, the two (corporation and government) will truly become indistinguishable as the state's direct influence on the real economy continues to grow at a startling rate


I'm not overly damiliar with 'state-directed financial nexus'. Is that from Imperialism?The phrase is my own but essentially I'm drawing on Lenin's Imperialism (who in turn drew on Hilferding, Hobson, Bukharin, etc... I keep meaning to read those works) for the relationship between the state and finance capital. Today we've reached the point, unthinkable just a year or two ago, where it is the state that controls the vast flow of capital that sustains the capitalist economy. Nationalising car makers is one thing but banks are the 'nerve centres' of the capitalism. This is just unparalleled in a liberal capitalist economy


What structures are you referring to here?
I find you're implying Capitalisms ideological integrity was crushed by this, rather than its structures. would you mind elaborating?By structures I mean the various institutions that capitalism relies on to survive. Most obvious is the state, and its various bodies, but also the various exchanges that comprise the market

The most obvious result of WWI was the collapse of the various empires of the East. In most cases state authority simply vanished, however temporarily, and in Russia the capitalist class itself was swept away. Revolutions were rife in the après-guerre world and the new capitalist states established in the wake of Versailles were extremely weak. Capitalism survived but it did so barely in these regions. Any 'ideological weakening' was the result of real economic and political problems. The Weimar Republic, for example, was an incredibly weak state that was threatened from both left and right before simply being discarded by German industrialists

When the Great Depression arrived it greatly weakened the Western powers but simply destroyed the unsteady state edifices in Central and Eastern Europe. In the face of economic turmoil the states collapsed into dictatorships. The result was fascism, protectionist blocs, and ultimately another war

I'm convinced that future historians will look back at two world wars as a single civil war in which European capitalists tore their system to shreds and then fought to piece it together again

Edit: You know that capitalism is out of its comfort zone when Gordon Brown might as well be taking economic advice from this man (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/04.htm) ;)

[Cumannach]

But are the banks actually being nationalized or are they just being taken into state custody until their debts have been paid off by the taxpayers, so they can immediately privatize them again? It wouldn't even be suprising to see them returned to the very same shareholders afterwards at the end of it all, those hard done by shareholders whose property rights were so rudely and unfairly impinged upon by the government and the politicians. :crying: I mean that's socialism you're talking about there we all know what happens with that.

[ckaihatsu]

President Obama, unfortunately, is the musical chairs, or hot-potato president, inheriting the pre-eminent sinkhole of the new century. With the following statement he is now decidedly on the defensive, overshadowed by the economic cyclone that practically has a fixed street address.





Autos, health care, energy top a busy agenda

BY TODD SPANGLER • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • February 25, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Saying the economic crisis "will not determine the destiny of this nation," President Barack Obama on Tuesday laid out a bold, wide-ranging agenda for America and said he is "committed to a retooled, reimagined auto industry that can compete and win."

http://www.freep.com/article/20090225/NEWS15/902250406/1285/Obama+vows+++We+will+recover+


The teeter-totter over semantics -- *is* it a 'nationalization', is it *not* a 'nationalization' -- is going nowhere soon, and there's *absolutely nothing* that can replace its grip on the news, either. The "need-for-a-new-9-11" environment is back, and we're going to see the political climate quickly falling in behind the economic one.





The banking system is the most acute expression of the inherent anarchy and irrationality of the capitalist system, which is rooted precisely in the contradiction between private ownership of the means of production and finance and the social, and global, character of production.

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/pers-f25.shtml


More horrifying than the possibility of renewed tensions leading to world war is the possibility that it *won't* happen -- that the worldwide financial system, such as it is, stays relatively chummy with the leaders of major countries, and those leaders with each other. In the absence of growth the ruling elite may very well decide to sit pat and turn the world over to daycare.

For those of us who prefer a more dynamic, forward-looking engagement with the future there will be increased opportunities for pointing out the obvious -- not only that the emperor has no clothes, but that he isn't even going anywhere.

[Crux]

I could not find another thread discussing this issue, but looking at the current global recession, do you think the capitalist system (specifically, the USA) will finally collapse under its own weight, like the Soviet Union?

I find a few people hoping that it will collapse, but my thinking is that liberals will rescue it in a sham New Deal type "rescue package for the people".
Capitalism does not collapse purely of it's own I'm afraid. That's where we come in.

[bretty]

I don't believe that capitalism will collapse by itself, but it is a system with internal antagonisms that over and over again will weaken the system. But I think that only the organized working class could actually make capitalism disappear. (and a "collapse" without a strong revolutionary movement would not be a good thing anyway)

We are unfortunatly quite weak at the moment, I find it hard to believe that we will succeed during this crisis, but we do have a great chance to grow so that we will be in a much stronger position in say 10-20 years. We must stop laughing at the system fucking up and start organizing instead, put in the next gear. Time to get serious.

/agree. Capitalism won't collapse, the process of neoliberalism and the peripheral effects of this on countries will, however, I think over time reach a real climactic. I don't know if capitalism will necessarily be destroyed by this, but it is inevitable that some growing circumstance will come out of the current degenerative cycle.

[Orange Juche]

Now, I hate hate hate capitalism. I find it to be disgusting, disturbing, and evil.

But.

I don't see it collapsing any time in the forseeable future. Most people (at least in America) are too invested in their Blackberrys and reality television, and are too stupid, to even see that they're getting fucked now. As it gets worse, they'll cling on the first thing or politician that seems to sound good that promises to get them out - and believe me - the people with the dough aren't going to let anti-capitalists anywhere near that possibility.

I see fascism to be FAR more likely at least in America, than anti-capitalism will be for a while. Its horrible, but true.

[political_animal]

Apart from Marx declaring out of hope 150 odd years ago that it was 'inevitable' that capitalism would collapse, is there any actual evidence for this to be the case? I can see the inherent contradictions within the capitalist system but I fail to see how the conditions could occur where these contradictions would be so grave as for the system to collapse in on itself.

Further, it is surely harder now for this to happen than in Marx's day. Only 3% of capital physically exists. The rest is only theoretical in that it exists on computer screens. If there comes a time - and I don't see that happening soon - where there was such a liquidity problem for the major capitalist economies of the world, they could simply 'invent' more capital.

The 'crisis' is a crisis for the people of the world who are losing their livelihoods but this is presented as the 'system' having a crisis, masking the reality that it still continues unabated, shares are still traded, banks still exist and multi-national corporations still make huge profits. It is used to scare and control people in to thinking their future is tied in to the continuing existance and dominance of the capitalist system, that there is 'no alternative'. This is the challenge to all of us.

[RedScare]

I don't see it collapsing this time, the liberals will charge in an try to patch it up. However, it sets the stage for a bigger crisis in the future, I believe.

[Dr.Claw]

I think capitalism will collapse, but when... I don't know it could be tomorrow(sometime very soon), because the all of the world governments are in a very fragile state right now but if liberals keep patching things up, I'd say its safe to say within the next 100 years or so but this is just my hypothesis (i seem to have alot of those) based on what is going on.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't see it collapsing any time in the forseeable future. Most people (at least in America) are too invested in their Blackberrys and reality television, and are too stupid, to even see that they're getting fucked now. As it gets worse, they'll cling on the first thing or politician that seems to sound good that promises to get them out - and believe me - the people with the dough aren't going to let anti-capitalists anywhere near that possibility.





Apart from Marx declaring out of hope 150 odd years ago that it was 'inevitable' that capitalism would collapse, is there any actual evidence for this to be the case? I can see the inherent contradictions within the capitalist system but I fail to see how the conditions could occur where these contradictions would be so grave as for the system to collapse in on itself.


Well, the point here is to ask what is giving the current ruling apparatus its legitimacy. Obviously more and more people are able to live their own lives just fine from the ground up, and digitally enhanced. They *don't* need to hear about the woes / baggage of the ruling establishment (Democrats), nor do they need a pressuring, scare-mongering protection racket looming over them, either (neo-conservatives, Republicans).

My take is that the Information Revolution is now in full bloom due to the maturing, and lessening in price, of hardware (and secondarily, software). The establishment has been fighting and ignoring this societal development all along the way, but now it's mainstream and accepted as a regular part of consumer culture. This is an independent, empowering development that is obviously *separate* from anything the government has been offering -- recall that Gore desperately claimed to have invented the Internet (or that the claim was foisted on him by the Republicans) -- regardless, it's an indicator of how detached and lagging the official political culture has been from this empowering development.

*Moreover*, and because of this factor, I don't think that most people are nearly as clingy to (official) politics as they may have been in the past. These days it's the *establishment* that's on the bottom, increasingly trying to administer shock treatments to revive public interest in its crap, compared to the '90s....





I see fascism to be FAR more likely at least in America, than anti-capitalism will be for a while. Its horrible, but true.


No, I disagree with this altogether. People are more self- and community-empowered than ever before in human history, and a fascist, controlling apparatus would have the *most* difficult time ever trying to corral public opinion (like "herding cats"). The antiwar sentiment to the (Second) Gulf War kicked in and had effect in record time: from '01 to '05, or well within 4 years. And look at the stunt they had to pull, the instantaneous *pulverization* of the World Trade Center towers, in order to pull the public over to their side...! Their fascism was effective but short-lived, and now, already yesteryear.





Further, it is surely harder now for this to happen than in Marx's day. Only 3% of capital physically exists. The rest is only theoretical in that it exists on computer screens. If there comes a time - and I don't see that happening soon - where there was such a liquidity problem for the major capitalist economies of the world, they could simply 'invent' more capital.


Just because capital is non-physical doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- I don't doubt the integrity of the data information systems, but we can all doubt the validity of the value-extending, *economic* mechanisms that the ruling class uses to mitigate the contradictions of capitalism -- meaning credit, the political decision-making process of who receives credit, and the fractional reserve lending system, in particular.

And the crisis of capitalism right now is *not* a liquidity crisis -- it's a *solvency* crisis, because credit has been over-extended (bad loans), which creates severe *valuation* problems -- in other words, what's stuff worth when there's too much of it and you don't know if you're going to get paid back for any of it....

And, more fundamentally, since the crisis necessitates the shrinking of costs, that means layoffs, and *that* means the drying up of markets (purchasing power) for all the stuff that's been produced....





The 'crisis' is a crisis for the people of the world who are losing their livelihoods but this is presented as the 'system' having a crisis, masking the reality that it still continues unabated, shares are still traded, banks still exist and multi-national corporations still make huge profits. It is used to scare and control people in to thinking their future is tied in to the continuing existance and dominance of the capitalist system, that there is 'no alternative'. This is the challenge to all of us.


Well, it *is* the system in crisis -- bank profits are drastically down -- there's no hyperbole in that statement, and it's *not* a political invention. It's an objective dynamic of capitalism itself, and the ruling class would rather *not* have to deal with something like this -- it's outside of their control, and thus, a crisis. Sure, it's *used* for political mileage, to browbeat people into thinking that their interests are tied into the continuation of this decaying system, when in fact our interests are quite separate from it. Workers have organized and taken over the infrastructure in past decades, instead of allowing the corpse of capitalism to rot all over their lives....

[John Lenin]

http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/56/l_fd5fbccb8fa22407c760ce0dff0345dc.jpg


... Let's hope so

[Bilan]

Please don't post things like that. This is a discussion.

[Rebel_Serigan]

Will capitolism collapse? That is the age old question for all of us isn't it. I think that capitolism will never collapse on its own. There are too manybashed people and government officials with gold in thier pockets to let such a lucrative system die. They will patch it up until we gain enough support and cause capitolism's collapse. You can repair a breaking statue forever, but all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put it back together if we turn it to dust and build our own in its place. In short capitolism will colapse, but not on its own, we need to give it a violent push when the time is right.

[ckaihatsu]

[The people] *don't* need to hear about the woes / baggage of the ruling establishment (Democrats), nor do they need a pressuring, scare-mongering protection racket looming over them, either (neo-conservatives, Republicans).


I'd like to add to this by saying that the official politics can only take on one of two types of cultures (or a mixture of the two): it's either going to be a *political* culture, meaning that it directly reflects the *actual* dealings and channels of power of the political system, or else it will be marketing / p.r., in the style of the prevailing societal (bourgeois) culture of the time.

I'll just briefly note that the mainstream culture, being a decaying Western one, is pathology-oriented, and so, in the absence of real growth / progress, or an *objective* analysis of the problems of society (class), it purposely aims low and focuses solely on the domain of *individual* -- and, voila, we have therapy culture.

Therapy culture is the epitomization of the sick, abusive mindset of a habitual abuser, or of people in a codependent relationship. Unable to see beyond the confines of their own room and relationship one (or both) of them will be the dispenser of both lashings and salve (physical and/or emotional), in a never-ending cycle of hyper-drama, pain, and faux-relief from the abuser.

Doesn't this sound just like the Democratic Party?...!

So, my *point* is, that, in the absence of any *real* *politics* to report back to the people, the official political culture must rely more heavily on the *personalization* of the official political world, most notably in the president, senators, whatever.

This brings the presentation down to the realm of interpersonal dynamics and psychology. The public is lulled into the storyline of a psycho-drama involving the major political players of the day, along the lines of a Jerry Springer show -- (think Clinton / Lewinsky).

Between this approach and the tough-guy Republican approach we have the makings of a severely psychologically abusive treatment of the public that cycles from hyper-drama to pain to therapy culture faux-relief that is utterly gut-wrenching and disgusting. Welcome to the world of stage-managed, soap-opera politics -- anything to make you take your eyes off the prize...!


Worldview Diagram

http://tinyurl.com/acacs4





Will capitolism collapse? That is the age old question for all of us isn't it. I think that capitolism will never collapse on its own. There are too manybashed people and government officials with gold in thier pockets to let such a lucrative system die. They will patch it up until we gain enough support and cause capitolism's collapse. You can repair a breaking statue forever, but all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put it back together if we turn it to dust and build our own in its place. In short capitolism will colapse, but not on its own, we need to give it a violent push when the time is right.


Capitalism is basically at a standstill now, with near-zero, or even sub-zero growth rates (GDP). As you, the reader, may or may not know, the importance of economic growth is that it is objectively necessary in order to keep up with an expanding population. As the population increases this means that there *must* be an enlarging of the economy to keep pace, including job growth. If there isn't then it is a de facto *shrinkage* since the population has grown while the economy hasn't.

Because the Declining Rate of Profit is a dynamic inherent to capitalism -- think of it as akin to engine braking in a car -- we're now seeing a crisis that *no* politician can manage to control.


A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

http://tinyurl.com/2bvq3a


Capitalism as a whole only *really* collapses, like any regime, when the masses get tired of sitting on their hands, and decide to take action -- either semi-consciously or consciously -- to organize to overthrow the old, paralyzed system and construct a new one of their own.

[REVOLUTIONARY32]

International armed revolution is the only way we can smash capitalism. With comrades in Greece Ireland and Palestine currentlty engaged in armed revolution this needs to spread with the reemergence of Marxist revolutionary factions all over mainland europe to strike at EU and NATO.We need to see at least one capitalist regeime over thrown in Europe and a true socialist state set up.If this were to happen it would open the eyes of other europeans to the benifits of a socialist society and no doubt the workers would organise and we might see a bright future

[John Lenin]

Please don't post things like that. This is a discussion.
I wasn't aware that images were banned or that a message could not be encapsulated within a visual.

The picture captures what I would write much better than any words.

[ComradeLands]

It is clear that capitalism is in severe crisis, however to declare its collapse as an inevitability is totally false.

Whilst capitalism has a tendency in which the rate of profit falls, this does not mean that the rate of profit would fall so drastically that capitalism would collapse. This is due to the fact the capitalism has an ability to bring itself out of crisis through offsetting the fall in the rate of profit i.e. cutting wages, intensifying work, laying off workers.

These measures cannot hold off the fall in profitability forever. When the in internal contradictions of capitalism become so intense, crisis happens. Only through the destruction of capital (human and machinery) amongst other measures can profitability be restored.

There are two key consquences of this,
1) Capitalism whilst a crisis ridden system can restore itself.
2) The only way in which capitalism can restore itself is through attacking the working class.

The task of revolutionaries is to show the working class this fundamental problems with the system at a time in which these attacks will take place and show how the working class can take the struggle not just in defence but to take the struggle against capitalism itself.

[Psy]

The problem is that capitalists have tamed workers through allowing them to consume more through credit, I don't workers will take the sudden huge drop in living standard well.

[ComradeLands]

However with no serious international party capable of being a legitimate political leadership for the working class, we will simply see economist defence against attacks with limited success due to TU bureaucrats, reformists etc.

There is a severe crisis of leadership of the working class which will result in disaster. There will be sponteous uprisings that is a given however they will be easily crushed without revolutinary leadership capable of not falling into reformism or minimum demands but to push the working class to fight against capitalism completely.

[cyu]

I don't workers will take the sudden huge drop in living standard well.
Yes, whenever the most recent bubble pops (also known as "the business cycle" in capitalist terms) there will be a drop in the living standard for the general population. However, for leftists who want to set up an economy without capitalism, the conventional wisdom is that the living standard will improve for the general population once capitalism is history.

[ComradeLands]

However capitalism doesn't destroy itself, that can only be achieved by the working class.

[Psy]

However with no serious international party capable of being a legitimate political leadership for the working class, we will simply see economist defence against attacks with limited success due to TU bureaucrats, reformists etc.

There is a severe crisis of leadership of the working class which will result in disaster. There will be sponteous uprisings that is a given however they will be easily crushed without revolutinary leadership capable of not falling into reformism or minimum demands but to push the working class to fight against capitalism completely.

The problem is the capitalists current has no intent in bargaining with the proletariat, the capitalists are actually attacking UAW for not rolling over completely to their demands and only fighting for a longer time frame for when the UAW surrenders all its gains, this has caused many autoworkers to feel they have been betrayed by the UAW.

[Angry Young Man]

How are liberals going to introduce welfare reforms when there's no pot to piss in? If a country is bankrupt (Iceland, for example) where will these reforms' funding come from?

So I have to say now time like the present.

[ComradeLands]

They can't, and in countries where the governments do have money to spend, that pot is dwindling rapidly for example in Britain. As soon as that the country becomes bankrupt then public services are going to get demolished.

[Dr.Claw]

If a country is bankrupt (Iceland, for example)
I heard about this... where can I find out more?

[redarmyfaction38]

I could not find another thread discussing this issue, but looking at the current global recession, do you think the capitalist system (specifically, the USA) will finally collapse under its own weight, like the Soviet Union?

I find a few people hoping that it will collapse, but my thinking is that liberals will rescue it in a sham New Deal type "rescue package for the people".
not sure about the usa, but if obama is following the same policies as gordon brown, then capitalism will collapse.
the "solution" to the credit crisis seems to be more credit financed by govt.
credit raised from future taxation instead of future earnings.
this is a lot like maxing out your credit card and taking out another to pay it off.
sooner or later you are faced with the inability to pay.
imo, the task for us "revolutionaries" is to build and organise ready for that day.
"socialism or barbarism".

[cyu]

If a country is bankrupt (Iceland, for example)

I heard about this... where can I find out more?


Here you go: http://newsfrettir.com/

[ComradeLands]

Capitalism won't collapse, unless the working class have anything to do with it, it can easily enough push us further and further into barbarism to save itself, unless we act united and organised internationally.

[Coggeh]

"Socialism or barbarism?" The answer is easy: get off your butts and do something about it. We shouldn't be here speculating or predicting, we should be promoting leftist thought, discussing strategies, propaganda, and actions - saying "barbarism" is just defeatism - if you're going to be a defeatist, you might as well not come to this forum.
I agree , which is why I and many other members of this board are in an organisation. Its quite critical in this point and time really .

[robbo203]

I could not find another thread discussing this issue, but looking at the current global recession, do you think the capitalist system (specifically, the USA) will finally collapse under its own weight, like the Soviet Union?

I find a few people hoping that it will collapse, but my thinking is that liberals will rescue it in a sham New Deal type "rescue package for the people".


Capitalism is not going to collapse of its own accord. There are two basic arguments that have been put forward time and time again to claim that the system is headed for collapse - underconsmption theory and the falling rate of profit theory. Both are flawed theoretically speaking. Economic crises are capitalism´s way of purging itself of surplus productive capacity from time to time - a state of affairs that arises because of disproportional growth between different sectors of economy which leads to sectorial overaccumulation which in turn has knock on consequeneces for the economy generally. But recessions always create the conditions for the restoration of economic growth and profitability

I have been looking at a landmark pamphlet produced by the Socialist Party of Great Britain in 1932 called "Why Capitalism will not Collapse" (go to their website at www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org) and look at their downloadable pamphlets). This pamphlet is interesting from a historical perepective. One of the points it makes is that ever since the early 19th century every crisis had given rise to prophets of doom, predicting capitalisms imminent collapse. They were all proven wrong´

The only way you are going to get rid of capitalism is by consciously organising as a class to get rid of it

[Psy]

Capitalism is not going to collapse of its own accord. There are two basic arguments that have been put forward time and time again to claim that the system is headed for collapse - underconsmption theory and the falling rate of profit theory. Both are flawed theoretically speaking. Economic crises are capitalism´s way of purging itself of surplus productive capacity from time to time - a state of affairs that arises because of disproportional growth between different sectors of economy which leads to sectorial overaccumulation which in turn has knock on consequeneces for the economy generally. But recessions always create the conditions for the restoration of economic growth and profitability

I have been looking at a landmark pamphlet produced by the Socialist Party of Great Britain in 1932 called "Why Capitalism will not Collapse" (go to their website at www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org) and look at their downloadable pamphlets). This pamphlet is interesting from a historical perepective. One of the points it makes is that ever since the early 19th century every crisis had given rise to prophets of doom, predicting capitalisms imminent collapse. They were all proven wrong´

The only way you are going to get rid of capitalism is by consciously organising as a class to get rid of it
The problem is a overall decline in the rate of profit due to a overall decline in commodity values and rising amounts of fixed capital, meaning you don't have full recoveries. This current crisis is far too early and far too deep since capitalism wasn't able to fully recover from the stagnation of the 1970's and the bust cycles in the early 80's, 90's and 2000's meaning the in the long term capitalism is heading towards a zero profit rate were profits are impossible and M-C-M' would become M-C-M that provides not incentive for production when that happens capitalism would official be dead and capitalists would have to resort to another means of production to maintain their class rule.

[robbo203]

The problem is a overall decline in the rate of profit due to a overall decline in commodity values and rising amounts of fixed capital, meaning you don't have full recoveries. This current crisis is far too early and far too deep since capitalism wasn't able to fully recover from the stagnation of the 1970's and the bust cycles in the early 80's, 90's and 2000's meaning the in the long term capitalism is heading towards a zero profit rate were profits are impossible and M-C-M' would become M-C-M that provides not incentive for production when that happens capitalism would official be dead and capitalists would have to resort to another means of production to maintain their class rule.

Although it is still early days yet compared to the Great Depression the current recession is still lightweight and capitalism certainly got out of that one. Saying that capitalism is heading towards zero profit rate does not mean it will ever arrive there. Well before then a lot of counteracting tendencies that Marx spoke of will kick in - not the least of which is increasing the rate of exploitation. As the industrial army swells the downward pressure on wages will mount, restoring profit margins in the process. Come to that, capitalists themselves as a last resort have always got the option to cut their own personal consumption to ensure the overrding process of capital accumulation.

Besides I dont think it is very useful to talk in generalised terms about the rate of profit. You have to disaggregate the figures In every recession, not every firm is doing badly . Some may be thriving very nicely, thank you very much; others plodding along as usual; and still others struggling to survive

If hypothetically the profit rate were to reach zero and stay there then yes it would be difficult to see capitalism surviving. But capitalism´s demise would also mean that there would be no more capitalists who are afterall functionaries of capital

[Psy]

Although it is still early days yet compared to the Great Depression the current recession is still lightweight and capitalism certainly got out of that one. Saying that capitalism is heading towards zero profit rate does not mean it will ever arrive there. Well before then a lot of counteracting tendencies that Marx spoke of will kick in - not the least of which is increasing the rate of exploitation. As the industrial army swells the downward pressure on wages will mount, restoring profit margins in the process. Come to that, capitalists themselves as a last resort have always got the option to cut their own personal consumption to ensure the overrding process of capital accumulation.

Yet higher exploitation of workers drives down commodities values in the long run as workers have less capital to spend on commodities, higher exploitation only drives up profits in the short run before other capitalists follow suit.



Besides I dont think it is very useful to talk in generalised terms about the rate of profit. You have to disaggregate the figures In every recession, not every firm is doing badly . Some may be thriving very nicely, thank you very much; others plodding along as usual; and still others struggling to survive

But if capitalism as a whole is not functioning it means that eventually all capitalists will be in crisis as it ripples through the systems.



If hypothetically the profit rate were to reach zero and stay there then yes it would be difficult to see capitalism surviving. But capitalism´s demise would also mean that there would be no more capitalists who are afterall functionaries of capital
Yet if capitalism ends due to zero profit it wouldn't mean the capitalists would just cease to exist, the capitalists would abandon capitalism for a system that allows them to maintain their privileged class position without having to worry about a failing capitalist market taking it away.

[robbo203]

Yet higher exploitation of workers drives down commodities values in the long run as workers have less capital to spend on commodities, higher exploitation only drives up profits in the short run before other capitalists follow suit..

Not sure I follow what you are saying here. What drives down the value of a commodity is primarily technological innovation resulting in the cheapening of the products of industry. Workers dont have capital to spend on things - thats what makes them workers and not capitalists!. What they spend is their wage or salary and this is ultimately determined by the amount of socially necessary labour time required to prpduce and reporduce the workers labour power in marxian terms. Wages can fall below their value of course and in a recession this is what tends to happen but what that means is that the reduction in costs that the capitalist derive as a result helps to restore the conditions of economic growth



But if capitalism as a whole is not functioning it means that eventually all capitalists will be in crisis as it ripples through the systems. .

But dont you see - a crisis means purging the system of excess productive capacity and in the process re-creating the conditions for economic recovery. This is what happened with every crisis in the past without exception. Like Marx said there are no permanent crises. The deeper the crisis goes, the further it ripples through the entire economy, the more effectively does it purge itself of excess capacity.

Capitalism will not collapse. There is absolutely no reason to expect it ever will. It has to be got rid of consciously and politically by the working class as a whole and not some vanguard elite.

It concerns me that so many people seem to think that capitalism will somehow collapse. This only helps to obscure what desparately needs to be done if we are to move towards a post capitalist and communist world.

[Psy]

Not sure I follow what you are saying here. What drives down the value of a commodity is primarily technological innovation resulting in the cheapening of the products of industry.

No what drives down commodity value is productivity.



Workers dont have capital to spend on things - thats what makes them workers and not capitalists! What they spend is their wage or salary and this is ultimately determined by the amount of socially necessary labour time required to prpduce and reporduce the workers labour power in marxian terms.

Haven't you been following the recent crisis? Workers were given capital in the form of credit based on inflated asset values of their homes. Capitalists were more then willing to hand over credit to workers for homes as they though house prices would inflate indefenitely.



Wages can fall below their value of course and in a recession this is what tends to happen but what that means is that the reduction in costs that the capitalist derive as a result helps to restore the conditions of economic growth.

Yet as wages fall consumption falls means over production rises, meaning exploiting workers more just causes commodity deflation as there it causes more supply then demand while lowering the labor value of the commodity.



But dont you see - a crisis means purging the system of excess productive capacity and in the process re-creating the conditions for economic recovery. This is what happened with every crisis in the past without exception. Like Marx said there are no permanent crises. The deeper the crisis goes, the further it ripples through the entire economy, the more effectively does it purge itself of excess capacity.

In this crisis nothing has been purged, the capitalist are now considered too big to fail by the bourgeois states so the bourgeois states are protecting the capitalists from losses by throwing money at them and have made it clear they will keep throwing government money at the capitalists till they become profitable again.



Capitalism will not collapse. There is absolutely no reason to expect it ever will. It has to be got rid of consciously and politically by the working class as a whole and not some vanguard elite.

It concerns me that so many people seem to think that capitalism will somehow collapse. This only helps to obscure what desparately needs to be done if we are to move towards a post capitalist and communist world.
Capitalism has a problem of going two steep back and one step forward every cycle, it was never able to fully recover to its peak during the long boom and with the recent crisis I doubt Capitalism would be able to fully recover to what it was in the mid 1990's

[robbo203]

No what drives down commodity value is productivity. But productivity increases are due in large measure to technological innovation



Haven't you been following the recent crisis? Workers were given capital in the form of credit based on inflated asset values of their homes. Capitalists were more then willing to hand over credit to workers for homes as they though house prices would inflate indefenitely.

Capital is wealth used or invested to produce more wealth. Credit is not capital if used for consumption purposes

.

Yet as wages fall consumption falls means over production rises, meaning exploiting workers more just causes commodity deflation as there it causes more supply then demand while lowering the labor value of the commodity.
.

But production doesnt continue rising if market demand falls. it drops away. Production slows down and even reverses. Surplus capital is scrapped or sold off cheaply. Eventually conditions are restored that will allow the economy to pick up again. This is what always happens. Like Marx said - there are no permanant crises

.

In this crisis nothing has been purged, the capitalist are now considered too big to fail by the bourgeois states so the bourgeois states are protecting the capitalists from losses by throwing money at them and have made it clear they will keep throwing government money at the capitalists till they become profitable again.
.

But lots of firms have gone bust. Havent you read the papers or seen the news. Why do you think unemployment is on the rise. What do you think happens to the fixed capital when workers are laid off. Yes governments are throwing money at certain key sectors like banking and the automobile but that hasnt stopped banks and automobile companies going bust. Some have already. And there are plenty of other industiries that are not getting this kind of state aid

.

Capitalism has a problem of going two steep back and one step forward every cycle, it was never able to fully recover to its peak during the long boom and with the recent crisis I doubt Capitalism would be able to fully recover to what it was in the mid 1990's

There were people in the 1930s who were making precisely this point. The Great depression then was far worse than what we have now. Yet capitalism recovered

[ckaihatsu]

Capitalism has a problem of going two steep back and one step forward every cycle, it was never able to fully recover to its peak during the long boom and with the recent crisis I doubt Capitalism would be able to fully recover to what it was in the mid 1990's





By TIM PARADIS – 3 hours ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Investors' despair about financial companies and the recession has brought the Dow Jones industrial average to another unwanted milestone: its first drop below 7,000 in more than 11 years. The market's slide Monday, which took the Dow down 300 points, was nowhere near the largest it has seen since last fall, but the tumble below 7,000 was nonetheless painful.

The credit crisis and recession have slashed more than half the average's value since it hit a record high over 14,000 in October 2007. And now many investors fear the market could take a long time to regain the lost 7,000.

"As bad as things are, they can still get worse, and get a lot worse," said Bill Strazzullo, chief market strategist for Bell Curve Trading. Strazzullo said he believes there's a significant chance the S&P 500 and the Dow will fall back to their 1995 levels of 500 and 5,000, respectively.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gHs5OM3gFG_DytQQZFbWfgPT08MAD96M5CRO0





For the past thirty years hyper-exploited Chinese labor -- numbering in the hundreds of workers in a single sweatshop room and living in squalid company-town dormitories -- has provided the adrenaline shot for world capital -- especially for U.S. debt, which has been able to balloon on credit with China as its patron.

This extreme shafting of millions of workers is the only thing that has kept consumer prices down, as it's underwritten the massive expanse in credit that we've seen manifested as a rolling bubble of credit that has boosted stocks, then the dot-com sector, then telecom, then energy, housing, commodities, and now mergers and acquisitions.


Sweatshop workers in overcrowded dormitories and factories in China's swollen mega-cities do not a market make -- as with all workers, they do not get compensated for the full labor value of what they contribute to the value of the goods and services. *Additionally* there's a huge markup from the cost of manufacturing to the retail price -- workers *cannot* afford to cover these additional steps of extortion, through prices, to be able to buy what they made, with their wages. And consumption in advanced economies is running on credit, or fictional funds -- that means it's not really markets anymore, but more of a bank-command decision-making process over the provision of flows of credit.

So then where do new markets come from? Either from the destruction of oversupply, through world wars, unemployment, and mass death (of labor), or from the widespread mobilization of state force to impose slavery / feudal / ultra-exploitative work conditions.

Note that the entire rolling bubble of credit that I refer to in my quote above has now become completely depleted, bringing the Dow Jones back to pre- share bubble / rolling bubble levels.



I agree , which is why I and many other members of this board are in an organisation. Its quite critical in this point and time really .


I maintain that RevLeft *is* an organization, though it's not localized nearly enough. I would prefer to see more ongoing, local struggles, like the general strike in Guadeloupe, looped through RevLeft (or similar discussion boards) so that the discussion and organizing of global revolutionary activity can be centralized and in public view.

[Psy]

But productivity increases are due in large measure to technological innovation

Not always, the solution to the stagnation of the 1970's was to shift production to more primitive sweatshops that exploited workers more. The factories in China are far less advanced the US factories in the 1960's yet these factories have refused commodity prices by being more productive in the sense they are able to produce commodities cheaper.



Capital is wealth used or invested to produce more wealth. Credit is not capital if used for consumption purposes

Which is what capitalists were trying to get home owners to do, invest in their home to get more wealth out of their home so the finical capitalists could take the lion share of the profits caused by rising house prices.



But production doesnt continue rising if market demand falls. it drops away. Production slows down and even reverses. Surplus capital is scrapped or sold off cheaply. Eventually conditions are restored that will allow the economy to pick up again. This is what always happens. Like Marx said - there are no permanant crises

As production falls consumption falls, since the 1970's capitalism was artificially held up by workers consumption beyond their means.



But lots of firms have gone bust. Havent you read the papers or seen the news.

Not the large capitalists.



Why do you think unemployment is on the rise. What do you think happens to the fixed capital when workers are laid off. Yes governments are throwing money at certain key sectors like banking and the automobile but that hasnt stopped banks and automobile companies going bust. Some have already. And there are plenty of other industiries that are not getting this kind of state aid

The result is this crisis is not going to solve the systemic problems thus the crisis wouldn't being the conditions for a new boom cycle.




There were people in the 1930s who were making precisely this point. The Great depression then was far worse than what we have now. Yet capitalism recovered
Capitalism never has fully recovered to rate of profit during the long boom do you honestly think after this crisis capitalism will?

[political_animal]

Capitalism never has fully recovered to rate of profit during the long boom do you honestly think after this crisis capitalism will?

You presume that there is a finite limit to demand, consumption and profit. As the world population continues to grow, so, logically, the market grows. As the Chinese economy becomes progressively more capitalist and markets in other 'third world' countries are opened up to trade and relaxation of regulation through demands made by the IMF for loans, it means that ultimately there is a demand for more 'stuff'. This then produces extra areas of profit for capitalists to exploit.

The current crisis isn't a crisis in capitalist profit, it's a crisis in credit. Whether personal credit or institutional credit, which has been allowed to rise through de-regulated markets. Of course, in the short term, the effects of a credit crisis affects liquidity and market confidence but there is no reason to presume that markets/profit rates cannot return to - or even surpass - previous levels, due to the ever growing market in the form of world population growth.

[ckaihatsu]

You presume that there is a finite limit to demand, consumption and profit.


Under a market system, with market dynamics -- including Marx's Declining Rate of Profit -- there most certainly *is* a finite, self-limiting limit to profit, and therefore to demand and consumption as well.





Simply put, Marx argued that increased investment in and growth of constant capital (factories, machines, land, buildings, raw materials) relative to variable capital (labor) reduced the margin of surplus labor time with respect to total capital (constant capital plus variable capital). Since surplus labor time is, according to Marx, the source of surplus value, and since profit equals surplus value divided by total capital, then the tendential fall in surplus labor time relative to total capital results in a tendential fall in the rate of profit.[1]

Even as investment in constant capital increases productivity (i.e. the margin of surplus labor relative to regular labor, and thus of surplus value relative to variable capital), it reduces profits (i.e. the margin of surplus value relative to total capital). The capitalist then responds by investing more in raising productivity, which in turn reduces profits further, and so on and so forth, in a vicious cycle of diminishing returns.

This tendency, in concert with the other dialectically interrelated crisis factors developed in the course of Marx's overall critique of capital, eventually leads to a catastrophic breakdown in the capital cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall


A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit [2-page diagram]

http://tinyurl.com/2bvq3a





As the world population continues to grow, so, logically, the market grows. As the Chinese economy becomes progressively more capitalist and markets in other 'third world' countries are opened up to trade and relaxation of regulation through demands made by the IMF for loans, it means that ultimately there is a demand for more 'stuff'. This then produces extra areas of profit for capitalists to exploit.


Under capitalism there's no demand, or expanding demand, if the (Third World) workers are not paid enough in wages to cover the extortion-high prices that goods and services are sold for. Layoffs and cuts in take-home pay only exacerbate this reality.





The current crisis isn't a crisis in capitalist profit, it's a crisis in credit. Whether personal credit or institutional credit, which has been allowed to rise through de-regulated markets. Of course, in the short term, the effects of a credit crisis affects liquidity and market confidence but there is no reason to presume that markets/profit rates cannot return to - or even surpass - previous levels, due to the ever growing market in the form of world population growth.


There is no reason to presume that markets / profit rates *will* return to previous levels. You're basically suggesting that capitalism is a perfect system that responds in direct proportion to the increase in world population without missing a beat.

If this were the case then there would never have been (several) depressions in the 19th and 20th centuries, or the crisis of bank solvency that we're seeing today.

[Bilan]

You presume that there is a finite limit to demand, consumption and profit. As the world population continues to grow, so, logically, the market grows. As the Chinese economy becomes progressively more capitalist and markets in other 'third world' countries are opened up to trade and relaxation of regulation through demands made by the IMF for loans, it means that ultimately there is a demand for more 'stuff'. This then produces extra areas of profit for capitalists to exploit.

The current crisis isn't a crisis in capitalist profit, it's a crisis in credit. Whether personal credit or institutional credit, which has been allowed to rise through de-regulated markets. Of course, in the short term, the effects of a credit crisis affects liquidity and market confidence but there is no reason to presume that markets/profit rates cannot return to - or even surpass - previous levels, due to the ever growing market in the form of world population growth.

Population growth is not the only thing that determines whether or not profit can be exceeded, nor does it necessarily mean that Capitalism is "safe".
Let's take this quote from Capital as an example.


The value created by a working day of 12 hours is a constant quantity, say, six shillings. This constant quantity is the sum of the surplus-value plus the value of the labour-power, which latter value the labourer replaces by an equivalent. It is self-evident, that if a constant quantity consists of two parts, neither of them can increase without the other diminishing. Let the two parts at starting be equal; 3 shillings value of labour-power, 3 shillings surplus-value. Then the value of the labour-power cannot rise from three shillings to four, without the surplus-value falling from three shillings to two; and the surplus-value cannot rise from three shillings to four, without the value of labour-power falling from three shillings to two. Under these circumstances, therefore, no change can take place in the absolute magnitude, either of the surplus-value, or of the value of labour-power, without a simultaneous change in their relative magnitudes, i.e., relatively to each other. It is impossible for them to rise or fall simultaneously.

If we apply this to the growth of population, the logical outcome is that a growth in population does not necessitate a growth in Surplus value unless the value of labour, inturn, diminishes (which it usually does). But that also limits the reach of the market, because the value of the labour has diminshed because of a growth in the quantity of Labour, and (presumably) the wages of the workers diminish, and therefore, the ability to purchase it (at the same prices, presuming the Surplus value extracted from the product has risen - e.g. 3 Shillings (necessary) - 3 Shillings (surplus), to 2 shillings (necessary) - 4 Shillings (surplus)) has also diminished, and therefore either the a/ the product can't be sold or b/ the amount of surplus extracted from it has to be diminished relative to the amount of labour, and therefore the value of it diminishes.

Essentially, just because there is a larger population, doesn't mean that the surplus value is going to increase unless the surplus value can be increased relative to the reduction of the value of labour.

[ukuli]

If you mean will the capitalism collapse due to this crisis, then my answer is: Most likely not, though it is possible.

If you mean if the capitalism will collapse eventually, then my answer is: Yes. But it will probably take a couple more crises like this one, so it might happen around 2040 or so. As it seems like it has a major disfunction every 15 years. And in every crisis the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

[robbo203]

If you mean will the capitalism collapse due to this crisis, then my answer is: Most likely not, though it is possible.

If you mean if the capitalism will collapse eventually, then my answer is: Yes. But it will probably take a couple more crises like this one, so it might happen around 2040 or so. As it seems like it has a major disfunction every 15 years. And in every crisis the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

Capitalism will not mechanically collapse of its own accord. It might collapse due to some external factor but there is no internal mechanism that fatally foredooms it to collapse. The only way you can get rid of capitalism is by the working class consciously organising to get rid of it.

The two primary internal mechanisms that have been adduced in support of collapsist notions are 1) underconsumptionism and 2) the falling rate of profit. These have both been comprehensively rebutted.

Underconsumption which basically argues that the incomes of capitalists and workers combined are insufficient to buy back the consumer goods produced by industry ignores producer goods that capitalists buy from each other. The Marxian notion that the sum of all commodity prices must equal the sum of all values rules out the possibility of a systemic deficiency of purchasing power

The tendency for the rate of profit to fall is nothing more than a tendency which is effectively checked as Marx points out by various counter tendencies. In any case, the rising organic composition of capital is far to slow a process to account for the suddenness of crises.

Crisis are ultimately caused by disproportional growth between different branches of industry - sectoral overaccumulation - resulting from the uncoordinated nature of capitalist production. What crises do is purge the
system of surplus productive capacity and in so doing re-establish the conditions for economic growth to ensue.

There are no grounds for supposing that capitalism will collapse in this crisis or any other to come. Prophets of doom have been saying this since the early 19th century but it hasnt happened. To suggest that it will happen because the workers are getting poorer is questionable. In what sense poorer? In absolute terms are US workers poorer now than they were in the Great Depression of the 1930s? I doubt it. But if workers are getting poorer then presumably what you are implying here is that they will become more politically motivated to get rid of capitalism. That is a possibility but this is not the same thing as saying that capitalism will collapse of its own accord

[Lynx]

'Collapse' was not meant to be construed as 'cease to exist' :confused:

[Psy]

Capitalism will not mechanically collapse of its own accord. It might collapse due to some external factor but there is no internal mechanism that fatally foredooms it to collapse. The only way you can get rid of capitalism is by the working class consciously organising to get rid of it.

The two primary internal mechanisms that have been adduced in support of collapsist notions are 1) underconsumptionism and 2) the falling rate of profit. These have both been comprehensively rebutted.

Underconsumption which basically argues that the incomes of capitalists and workers combined are insufficient to buy back the consumer goods produced by industry ignores producer goods that capitalists buy from each other. The Marxian notion that the sum of all commodity prices must equal the sum of all values rules out the possibility of a systemic deficiency of purchasing power

The tendency for the rate of profit to fall is nothing more than a tendency which is effectively checked as Marx points out by various counter tendencies. In any case, the rising organic composition of capital is far to slow a process to account for the suddenness of crises.

Crisis are ultimately caused by disproportional growth between different branches of industry - sectoral overaccumulation - resulting from the uncoordinated nature of capitalist production. What crises do is purge the
system of surplus productive capacity and in so doing re-establish the conditions for economic growth to ensue.

There are no grounds for supposing that capitalism will collapse in this crisis or any other to come. Prophets of doom have been saying this since the early 19th century but it hasnt happened. To suggest that it will happen because the workers are getting poorer is questionable. In what sense poorer? In absolute terms are US workers poorer now than they were in the Great Depression of the 1930s? I doubt it. But if workers are getting poorer then presumably what you are implying here is that they will become more politically motivated to get rid of capitalism. That is a possibility but this is not the same thing as saying that capitalism will collapse of its own accord

The crisis is one of over production, there is simply too much industrial capacity in the system and the contracting of production is only making over production worse, meaning we are in a negative feed back loop, as factories go idle demand drops causing more factories go idle that causes demand to drop more that causes more factories to go idle and so on.

As for the idea that capitalism can recover fully that is laughable, capitalism has yet to fully recover from the crisis of 1968, there is a overall trend towards the boom/bust cycle leading to M-C-M were profits are impossible meaning sooner or later capitalism would be impossible as commodities would be too cheap and there would be too much fixed capital, remember the exchange value of commodities is based on labor value thus as capitalists increase their efficiency in extracting surplus value out of workers they lower the exchange value of commodities.

[cyu]

The crisis is one of over production, there is simply too much industrial capacity in the system and the contracting of production is only making over production worse, meaning we are in a negative feed back loop, as factories go idle demand drops causing more factories go idle that causes demand to drop more that causes more factories to go idle and so on.


I think one of the problems is that once capitalism had set property ownership in stone, then other people are forced to produce more and more useless things in order to make a living.

For example, say some agribusiness owns vast amounts of farmland and is already producing more than enough food for everybody. Maybe there isn't enough farmland left for anybody else to use, or maybe the agribusiness can simply outcompete any other small-scale farmer trying to enter the market. What's left?

Well, there is no other recourse than to find a non-farming related occupation. Maybe it's entering a factory producing plastic toys for people's dashboards. However, as you can see, this job is really pretty useless - nobody really needs plastic toys on their dashboards. So how is the entire sector of useless industries sustained? Advertising. The goal is to convince the people in the agribusiness to trade you their stuff for your plastic toys.

So you've got overworked plastic toy makers and you've got overworked agribusiness employees. This is measured as an increased GDP and considered "increasing prosperity" by some idiots.

So after the bubble pops, of course, the plastic toy makers would be among the first to go - it's much easier to cut back on spending for toys than on spending for food. Maybe the remaining plastic toy makers would redouble their efforts at advertising, trying to convince the food producers that they should buy more toys.

The food producers meanwhile think, "why should I help you unemployed toy makers? I have to work for my living, so you should too." So they go back to working their 80 hour weeks, while the unemployed go back to "working" their 0 hour weeks. Capitalism is "brilliant", eh?

As I see it, either there are industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should train as many of the unemployed that it can to fill those industries... or there aren't any more industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should let the people take a f**king break.

[DaughterJones]

It's coming and it's either coming by revolution or evolution and i hope to God it's be revolution. What I mean but it coming to an end by evolution is this consumer capitalism cannot be sustained and if we continue living the way we do frankly the earth will find a way to purge it's self of whats destroying it namely us. The only thing we can hope or pray for ( for those of us who do that) is that the people wake up and revolt before it's too late but honestly I dont see it happening because we like our toys too much....im learning not to depend on buying shit to make me happy as well but its a battle.

[Monky]

Capitalism WILL NOT fail until complete globalization occurs. It has started, that is why we are where we are today. When the working class in the US has the save standard of living as those we pay to make our shirts in cambodia, then you'll have your revolution. But that's still a far way off my friends. You're going to have to wait a bit longer.

[ZeroNowhere]

Crisis are ultimately caused by disproportional growth between different branches of industry - sectoral overaccumulation - resulting from the uncoordinated nature of capitalist production. What crises do is purge the
system of surplus productive capacity and in so doing re-establish the conditions for economic growth to ensue.
Wait, but isn't this simply because this leads to a falling rate of profit or, I suppose, a temporary retraction of the market demand for consumer goods?

[Mike Morin]

The New Deal did not save Capitalism although there were some relatively good aspects to it.

World War II saved Capitalism. Under Obama, we can feel somewhat assured, I hope, that he will not escalate the aggression and the relatively limited fighting to the level of World War and the level that such stimulates an economy and disposes of unemployed workers.

If we do see an escalation under Obama, it will be a high-tech warfare, thus stimulating the economy, but it will be lost because there is not the willingness of American youth to man the battlestations especially when it comes to ground troops.

Hopefully Obama will see the light of world socialism, withdraw all troops from everywhere, and eventually we (the entire planet) will disband the miltaries. (Correct this fact if it is wrong, but the USA spends more on military then the next 23 countries combined).

Evolution to world socialism is the answer for the people that inhabit what is known as the USA, and for the rest of the world.

I have a transition plan for the USA, working in accordance with the rest of the world.


Mike Morin
Peoples' Equity Union

[redarmyfaction38]

The New Deal did not save Capitalism although there were some relatively good aspects to it.

World War II saved Capitalism. Under Obama, we can feel somewhat assured, I hope, that he will not escalate the aggression and the relatively limited fighting to the level of World War and the level that such stimulates an economy and disposes of unemployed workers.

If we do see an escalation under Obama, it will be a high-tech warfare, thus stimulating the economy, but it will be lost because there is not the willingness of American youth to man the battlestations especially when it comes to ground troops.

Hopefully Obama will see the light of world socialism, withdraw all troops from everywhere, and eventually we (the entire planet) will disband the miltaries. (Correct this fact if it is wrong, but the USA spends more on military then the next 23 countries combined).

Evolution to world socialism is the answer for the people that inhabit what is known as the USA, and for the rest of the world.

I have a transition plan for the USA, working in accordance with the rest of the world.


Mike Morin
Peoples' Equity Union

obama is a capitalist, bought and paid for by capitalism, he will do what the capitalist companies tell him to do, just like george bush.
he won't give a shit how much death and destruction it costs the worlds peoples and he won't withdraw from iraq or afghanistan nor will he allow any kind of "socialist" developments in south america, he'll continue to finance terror there and across the world in order to protect the interests of the system he represents.
some HARD LEARNING is in store for the american proletariat.

[robbo203]

Wait, but isn't this simply because this leads to a falling rate of profit or, I suppose, a temporary retraction of the market demand for consumer goods?

Yes but the operative word is that disproprotional growth "leads to" these things. It is the ultimate cause of crises even if crises also involve a falling rate of profit and a contraction of market demand