Could capitalism fail on its own accord?

[Dimentio]

It is obvious that capitalism is destroying one of its own bases of exploitment, namely the environment. It has made itself dependent on fossile resources, and thus will be unable to maintain an accelerating economic growth. It could not reform itself. It is basically screwed.

I would say 2050-2070. Unless we have started to drill asteroids after more fossile resources, civilisation will probably collapse, leading to some sort of post-capitalist system remniscent of Somalia, Bosnia, Lebanon, Yeltsin's Russia and Zimbabwe.

Could the system collapse on its own?

[Arise!]

The collapse is inevitable, and for the most part, it's self-induced. But it probably won't happen on it's own, other outside forces need to be acting against it.

[Dimentio]

The collapse is inevitable, and for the most part, it's self-induced. But it probably won't happen on it's own, other outside forces need to be acting against it.

Well, one reason I see to act against it, is that if no opposition is made, capitalism will probably drag human civilisation down when its collapsing. What would replace capitalism under such conditions is probably a sort of global war-economy, a return to self-sufficiency, and ethnocracies waging wars with each-other over resources.

[KC]

This is a non-question. Capitalism on its own accord includes classes and class struggle by its very definition.

[Dimentio]

This is a non-question. Capitalism on its own accord includes classes and class struggle by its very definition.

That is not what this discussion is about. The discussion is about whether or not it will fail by itself without the help of revolutionaries, which I think is very possible. Why I think revolutionaries are necessary is that if it collapses too late, we will not be able to build some sort of sustainable and equal society after it.

Most social systems which has been tried out includes some form of class system.

[butterfly]

if it collapses too late, we will not be able to build some sort of sustainable and equal society after it.

That's the sad truth. Now get ready for the VG theme song.

[Enragé]

It can, if it fucks up the world so much we cant live on it anymore.

Otherwise, we're going to have to make it fall.

[Red_Storm]

It is obvious that capitalism is destroying one of its own bases of exploitment, namely the environment. It has made itself dependent on fossile resources, and thus will be unable to maintain an accelerating economic growth. It could not reform itself. It is basically screwed.

I would say 2050-2070. Unless we have started to drill asteroids after more fossile resources, civilisation will probably collapse, leading to some sort of post-capitalist system remniscent of Somalia, Bosnia, Lebanon, Yeltsin's Russia and Zimbabwe.

Could the system collapse on its own?
The historical traectory has shown that capitalism has allways found a ways to transform itself in to another form, but normally, with the same exploatation relationes on one class to another. Belive me, for them, the resources are not problem for them. they will find substitutions for the fosile resources, the only thing that is an advantage to the working class, will be the small gap of time while capitalism is in transition, transition which will be governed by the use of substitute resourcess, step by step. I will try to be more specific some other time...

[KC]

That is not what this discussion is about. The discussion is about whether or not it will fail by itself without the help of revolutionaries

The class conscious vanguard of the proletariat is inherent within the class struggle. So again, this is a non-question.

[butterfly]

Class struggle will continue to exist under a feudal society, am I correct?

[Hyacinth]

It is not in principle impossible for capitalist as a system to self-destruct, though I think it a strange question from a revolutionary perspective, as just allowing capitalist to self-destruct (or waiting for it to) in no way prepares us for a socialist/communist society; there is a difference, at least in principle, between a post-revolutionary society and a post-capitalist one, the latter could, possibly, depending on the severity of the collapse of capitalism, simply lead us back to barbarism of some sort.

[butterfly]

Precisely. There will be no gain if it degenerates, lacking revolutionary basis.

[Vanguard1917]

It is obvious that capitalism is destroying one of its own bases of exploitment, namely the environment. It has made itself dependent on fossile resources, and thus will be unable to maintain an accelerating economic growth. It could not reform itself. It is basically screwed.

This 'natural limits to growth' argument has been proved to be incorrect over and again. Capitalism has shown itself to be very successful in overcoming 'natural limits' to its growth, through continual technological advancement.

I'd argue that the central barrier to capitalism's growth arises, not from an absolute lack of natural resources, but from its inherent contradictions as a social system. For example, while capitalism can overcome 'natural' obstacles to its growth through advances in technology, such advances themselves represent it with a problem in that they give way to the greater concentration of production (since small firms cannot afford to purchase the new technologies that the big firms can and are therefore driven out of the market), which challenges the very foundation of a system built on economic competition. This is an example of how it is social developments which intensify the contradictions of capitalism and are at the root of its problems.

[Dimentio]

This 'natural limits to growth' argument has been proved to be incorrect over and again. Capitalism has shown itself to be very successful in overcoming 'natural limits' to its growth, through continual technological advancement.

I'd argue that the central barrier to capitalism's growth arises, not from an absolute lack of natural resources, but from its inherent contradictions as a social system. For example, while capitalism can overcome 'natural' obstacles to its growth through advances in technology, such advances themselves represent it with a problem in that they give way to the greater concentration of production (since small firms cannot afford to purchase the new technologies that the big firms can and are therefore driven out of the market), which challenges the very foundation of a system built on economic competition. This is an example of how it is social developments which intensify the contradictions of capitalism and are at the root of its problems.

The thing is that the state plays a role in hindering such a form of monopolies by installing laws upholding competitive equilibrum between large firms. And while I agree that we basically have abundant resources and food production capacity, capitalism has made itself very dependent upon non-renewable materials which we could replace, but not without a serious dive in living standards.

[bretty]

I think moreso the natural limits to growth are not the factors to be worried about but more about conflict over capital, labour, and the degeneration of social and human capital.

However I think by definition suggesting 'by its own accord' must take into account people, otherwise one of the fundamental conflicts inherent in capitalism is unaccounted for, and one which has essentially been a fundamental element of conflict discourse.

[commyrebel]

It will fall on its own but not completely it will turn into a Fascist sate in which we will bring down. this what will probably happen this economy will plummet more then the rich trying to save it by posing Fascists laws and taking rights away. then small rebellions for both communist and capitalist right's people.(we have to make sure communist win so we don't end up like we are now) then we win and start on the path to a communist world.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That is not what this discussion is about. The discussion is about whether or not it will fail by itself without the help of revolutionaries, which I think is very possible. Why I think revolutionaries are necessary is that if it collapses too late, we will not be able to build some sort of sustainable and equal society after it.

Most social systems which has been tried out includes some form of class system.


It is not in principle impossible for capitalist as a system to self-destruct, though I think it a strange question from a revolutionary perspective, as just allowing capitalist to self-destruct (or waiting for it to) in no way prepares us for a socialist/communist society; there is a difference, at least in principle, between a post-revolutionary society and a post-capitalist one, the latter could, possibly, depending on the severity of the collapse of capitalism, simply lead us back to barbarism of some sort.

I would posit a nightmare solution scenario if barbarism comes to pass: substitutionist socialist primitive accumulation (taken from Preobrazhensky). Communist-thinking philosopher-kings and "guardians" would be the only ones capable of carrying out this policy, while the masses would, in Bakuninist style, be "moved into action" (Mike Macnair) through "state monopoly campaignism" (Lars Lih).

[Kassad]

Well, this question is very simplistic. I would hope that no movement would pray for the individual collapse of capitalism, as without proper preparation for a socialist alternative, the rise of theocracy, oligarchy or bourgeoisie democracy would likely take hold.

First of all, you must define 'collapse.' Though it is obvious that 'collapse' means the destruction of the current capitalist system, perhaps through the liquidization of the stock market or a complete breakdown of social order. Regardless, if you ask me, the system has already 'collapsed,' in a sense. If a system does not properly house those who need shelter, feed those who need food and provide proper education to the masses, is it really an honorable system? If anything, the moral and honorable motive or ideology behind a system has totally eroded if we fail to care for our own. In a sense, capitalism cannot 'collapse,' as it has never really existed in a moral or honor-based sense. It is a destructive system of exploitation, thus the only thing left to collapse is the farce of money; the illusion of wealth and status.

Capitalism fluctuates based on currency, broadly speaking. The inflation, rapid deflation or stagflation of a currency can be incredibly harmful to the way the market operates, as commodities and services must rapidly attempt to keep up with the false notion of material wealth, in the form of currency. As we know, the current state of the American currency is atrocious, as the dollar consistently loses its worth, due to the fact that the Federal Reserve promotes Keynesian economics; turning money into a total illusion. The Federal Reserve does not increase the money supply based on the current demand for goods and services as it should. The only time the money supply should be increased is to keep up with the rate of goods and services. Instead, to attempt to veil the web of debt in the United States, and the world as a whole, they increase the money supply artificially. People with a basic notion of economics would assume that if debt is not paid off, a nation cannot continue to spend at the same rate, especially increase spending. Of course, the current state of affairs and commodities does not currently make room for the military-industrial complex and the colonial machine, as the militaristic machine is unnecessary and the market consistently attempts to filter out things that should not exist, such as massive military spending and overproduction. That's where recessions come from.

The ruling class and bourgeoisie elite realize that their system does not properly sustain the national economy. Consistent recessions and depressions anihilate overproduction and scale back the overspending in a nation, but minor reforms manage to bandage the system properly. Of course, as we always notice, it's always some form of 'liberal' reforms that are required, as the market is sending us a message that conservative, laissez-faire and capitalist economics do not properly sustain the market. They promote overspending, overproduction and a lack of regard for the current state of basic services.

Eventually, this economic scheme will fail. The market is currently attacking the areas of the economy that overproduce. The automobile manufacturing industry overproduced vehicles for profit and thus, their surplus must be scaled back to the level of required need. The housing market does not properly distribute shelter to those who need it; creating luxury homes and apartments that sit empty while people sit on the streets outside. The insurance industry is a totally unnecessary institution that attempts to place a dollar sign on human needs and dignity, thus why it is being attacked. The market speaks very clearly about what is needed.

The current state of the economy shows us very simple facts. Commodites must be produced to meet human need. They cannot be overproduced for profit and gain, as this leads to a surplus of goods that cannot be distributed properly and this causes massive inflation and recession. The militaristic hegemony that is consistently constructed by imperialist states is obsolete, destructive and completely impossible to maintain. It must end. But here's the problem: if we just let capitalism collapse, we will fail to seize power for the proletarian class. Again, it is shown that a party of the working class must properly organize to be ready to use their experience as revolutionaries to educate and organize when that time comes. The only way we can seize power is through people losing faith in the system, but we must put their faith elsewhere. We must promote revolutionary socialism as the only alternative to the capitalistic exploitation.

[Comradeship]

Capitalism falls... Rich capitalists and the church implement fascist laws (as commyrebel said). Soon people realize their rights are slowly being taken away and start rebellions, strikes and revolts... Army, police and secret police try to take control. Soon they realize that they are human beings and like in the Russia-USSR revolution, most join the revolutionaries. Soon the fascist state collapses and new leaders for all government types start competing for power... Mud-slinging begins! Fascism and capitalism slowly fade away! This leaves monarchy, anarchy, communism and other systems formed by combinations of these three! Then it is up to the people to choose the one they want!

I am just hoping that no blood will be shed; because once people start killing for communism or anarchy then the values of these systems are destroyed. Why? Because the more one kills, the easier it becomes to kill and lose one's ethics.
And both communism and anarchy promote peace and happiness and the communist leaders must not be murderers like Stalin...

[chegitz guevara]

It seems a lit of comrades have some serious troubles reading. I see no where in the OP that the author is saying, 'well fuck, if capitalism's just gonna fall, why do we need to do anything?' Rather, he is saying that if capitalism brings about an environmental collapse, or runs out of certain finite resources, will it collapse. His assumption is not, then socialism. Rather, his premise is, can capitalism fuck things up so badly, that socialism would no longer be on the agenda (assuming that by socialism he means an advanced industrial democratic socialist society, and not primitive communism).

Since the time of Marx, we have understood that the choice before humanity is not socialism or capitalism, but socialism or barbarism. Yes, capitalism can destroy the world. And if we don't stop it, it will.

To the poster that foolishly expects fascism to result, not only does history show that the capitalists resort to fascism only as a last resort, but his foolish optimism that we would then conquer power after fascism. The KPD said, "After Hitler, us." The communists who didn't escape the country were all killed. In Western Germany, communism still hasn't recovered.

[Revy]

I have my own theory concerning this, and it has to do with robotics, a field in which strident advances are being made. By at least the 2020's, there will be robots so developed in AI that they would be able to take over jobs like customer service, or sales. But long before that, robots will have been capable of doing all blue collar jobs.

Already, robots are a growing workforce in Japan.

The question is whether the capitalist class will choose to replace human workers with robots. In many ways, robots are vastly preferable to humans, no need to pay them or give them benefits and they can work all the time (except for when they need to be recharged). But the working class is going to be out of work and have no way to support themselves. Will they do it gradually? I imagine it is a dilemma for them, because of the inevitable revolution it would cause.

Now some people don't understand this, and think that I'm against robots. In fact, I'm enthusiastic about robots. But robots are only suited to socialism, because that is the only society in which robots can perform all labor, and yet humans could still live comfortable lives. So robots would be VERY beneficial for socialism.

[Psy]

Yes capitalism can decay to the point M-C-M1 doesn't work (it simply be impossible to generate profits) at that point the owning class would abandon capitalism for another class system (we see this in Afghanistan where warlords become more are more like feudal lords).

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have my own theory concerning this, and it has to do with robotics, a field in which strident advances are being made. By at least the 2020's, there will be robots so developed in AI that they would be able to take over jobs like customer service, or sales. But long before that, robots will have been capable of doing all blue collar jobs.

Already, robots are a growing workforce in Japan.

The question is whether the capitalist class will choose to replace human workers with robots. In many ways, robots are vastly preferable to humans, no need to pay them or give them benefits and they can work all the time (except for when they need to be recharged). But the working class is going to be out of work and have no way to support themselves. Will they do it gradually? I imagine it is a dilemma for them, because of the inevitable revolution it would cause.

Now some people don't understand this, and think that I'm against robots. In fact, I'm enthusiastic about robots. But robots are only suited to socialism, because that is the only society in which robots can perform all labor, and yet humans could still live comfortable lives. So robots would be VERY beneficial for socialism.

Under capitalism, robots would be the perfect "scabs." If their AI is advanced enough, they can be both "class conscious" and "race conscious" (man vs. machine stuff of sci-fi). ;)

[Psy]

Under capitalism, robots would be the perfect "scabs." If their AI is advanced enough, they can be both "class conscious" and "race conscious" (man vs. machine stuff of sci-fi). ;)

Robots like all machinery have a non-negotiable cost for operation, every time capitalists scale back in maintenance costs their machines simply breakdown more frequently and usually more costly to repair then the money they saved in cutting back maintenance. Machines are the worst worker to capitalist as no matter how much they threaten to fire machines the machines don't care and simply refuse to work till repaired.