What happens when capitalism gets to a stage where it can't adapt any further?

[und]

There seems to be a trend in the way capitalism is adapting one move at a time, moving left very slowly to keep the workers happy. So will a time come when capitalism can no longer be called that, and becomes more "socialist"?

[Post-Something]

I don't think it will. Mainly because China seems to be coping well with a new version of capitalism; capitalism with a very rigidly authoritarian state structure. It looks like this will be one of the more dominant forms of capitalism over the next couple of decades, to me at least.

[bezdomni]

Capitalism is a system with specific characteristics, these characteristics (i.e. extraction of surplus value from human labor-time, private ownership of capital) prevent it from ever being "socialist". There is a tendency for first-world capitalist countries to move towards being a welfare state, but that's a characteristic of liberalism, not socialism.

What you're really asking, I think, is "can capitalism evolve into socialism, once it has developed for a long enough period of time?". The answer is no, because the means of production are being continually revolutionized and developed under capitalism to extract more surplus value from less labor (i.e. technological development).

Capitalism (at least in the first world) also tends to make more concessions to the demands of the working class and the other oppressed strata at times of relative propserity, and then revoke them or change them drastically in times of crisis.

The transition from capitalism to socialism is necessarily a revolutionary transformation, lead by an organized and militant proletarian class.

In other words, there is no point where capitalism "can't adapt any further". The ability to adapt continuously is a fundamental characteristic of capitalism.

[und]

Capitalism is a system with specific characteristics, these characteristics (i.e. extraction of surplus value from human labor-time, private ownership of capital) prevent it from ever being "socialist". There is a tendency for first-world capitalist countries to move towards being a welfare state, but that's a characteristic of liberalism, not socialism.

What you're really asking, I think, is "can capitalism evolve into socialism, once it has developed for a long enough period of time?". The answer is no, because the means of production are being continually revolutionized and developed under capitalism to extract more surplus value from less labor (i.e. technological development).

Capitalism (at least in the first world) also tends to make more concessions to the demands of the working class and the other oppressed strata at times of relative propserity, and then revoke them or change them drastically in times of crisis.

The transition from capitalism to socialism is necessarily a revolutionary transformation, lead by an organized and militant proletarian class.

In other words, there is no point where capitalism "can't adapt any further". The ability to adapt continuously is a fundamental characteristic of capitalism.
Thanks for the quick and quite extensive answer.

[h0lmes]

In other words, there is no point where capitalism "can't adapt any further". The ability to adapt continuously is a fundamental characteristic of capitalism.

I disagree. The day that the capitalist establishment depletes this planet of all of it's natural resources is the day that it can't adapt further.

[Kibbutznik]

Personally, I believe the left is to stuck on old shibboleths to understand this problem anymore. Yes, when capitalism reaches a level that it can no longer continue adapting, it will undergo a fundamental transformation. But that fundamental transformation isn't necessarily going to be socialism.

In many ways, I think that fundamental transformation already occured. Bear with me on this one, it will all make sense in a minute. The "capitalism" of the post-war era is fundamentally different than the capitalism of the prewar era. The Great Depression made it irrevocably clear to everyone in the capitalist superstructure that fundamental changes were going to have to occur or else they would be swept away by revolution.

What we've seen since the Second World War is the rise of a fundamentally different mode of production from the pre-war capitalism. While the bourgeoisie retain ownership of the means of production in society, control over that has been handed over to a class of salaried managers, both state and private. The growth of state planning apparatuses all over the world, even in the so-called laissez-faire US is proof positive of this change. The old class regime can no longer survive without a new apparatus of management taking over all of the important decisionmaking powers.

There has been an inexorable trend since towards increased control of economic life by appointed salaried managers instead of owners of capital. The economy is simply too complex for owners to exercise any meaningful control anymore. Large internal bureacracies are necessary to maintain the system.

The rules of the game have changed, and we shouldn't be surprised that they have. This is not a repudiation of historical materialism, merely the recognition that no one, no matter how intelligent, has the ability to predict the course of the future with any certainty, even if the rules of history are known.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

There seems to be a trend in the way capitalism is adapting one move at a time, moving left very slowly to keep the workers happy. So will a time come when capitalism can no longer be called that, and becomes more "socialist"?


At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.

etc.

Forgive me for being stuck on old shibboleths, but the idea that what we have now is a fundamentally different mode of production from capitalism is nonsense.

[hero(W)IN]

the means of production are being continually revolutionized and developed under capitalism to extract more surplus value from less labor (i.e. technological development).

This was a phase of technological development but it is unclear to what extent it is still ongoing. Recent technologies do not seem to have extracted more value from less labour. Recent "innovation" is entirely aimed at increasing consumption, and increasing consumption faster than labour.



In other words, there is no point where capitalism "can't adapt any further". The ability to adapt continuously is a fundamental characteristic of capitalism.

You seem to have bought into one of the capitalist lines here. Societies in general have always adapted. Capitalism is actually the most fragile basis of society, with its cycle of recessions. Government intervention has been the source of its 'adaptation'. Maybe you see such governments as nothing more than a part of "capitalism", but that would be casting far too wide a net as for where to demarcate what is and is not actually "capitalism". Governments reining in capitalism are clearly an independence force, no matter their usual susceptability to puppeteering.

[bezdomni]

You seem to have bought into one of the capitalist lines here. Societies in general have always adapted. Capitalism is actually the most fragile basis of society, with its cycle of recessions. Government intervention has been the source of its 'adaptation'. Maybe you see such governments as nothing more than a part of "capitalism", but that would be casting far too wide a net as for where to demarcate what is and is not actually "capitalism". Governments reining in capitalism are clearly an independence force, no matter their usual susceptability to puppeteering.

I don't deny that capitalism falls into crises (or "cycles of recessions") but that has been the pattern for generations, and capitalism has always found a way to restructure itself - although often at considerable costs. The only way capitalism will end is by communist revolution or the complete collapse of human civilization - and the choice is ours. Capitalism will not inevitably give way to socialism, although that is obviously the desirable outcome.


This was a phase of technological development but it is unclear to what extent it is still ongoing. Recent technologies do not seem to have extracted more value from less labour. Recent "innovation" is entirely aimed at increasing consumption, and increasing consumption faster than labour.
Fair. The fundamental point of technological innovation is to accumulate more profit for capitalists, which is clearly a function of levels of consumption and production.

[MarxSchmarx]

Left to its own devices, I think capitalism will evolve towards some form of socialism. But it will never break the qualitative leap into socialism.

For example, as monopolization increases and production becomes more "social" in the sense that it requires ever larger congolomerations, arguably the basis for socialism would exist, and materially speaking this would be closer to socialism than, say, early capitalism.

However, the actual transfer of ownership from the monopolist to the "public at large" would be a qualitative demarcation between capitalism and socialism that can only be breached by a larger, political solution.

[PRC-UTE]

this should probably be moved to theory.

the Orthodox Marxist reply would be that capitalism gradually becomes more like socialism as MarxSchmarx has explained, until a revolution makes the final jump to socialism.

Or barbarism and 'the ruin of the contending classes'

[KC]

Left to its own devices, I think capitalism will evolve towards some form of socialism. But it will never break the qualitative leap into socialism.

But this is a meaningless statement. Capitalism can never be "left to its own devices" because the class struggle is inseparably bound up within capitalism by its very definition.

[Psy]

I don't deny that capitalism falls into crises (or "cycles of recessions") but that has been the pattern for generations, and capitalism has always found a way to restructure itself - although often at considerable costs. The only way capitalism will end is by communist revolution or the complete collapse of human civilization - and the choice is ours. Capitalism will not inevitably give way to socialism, although that is obviously the desirable outcome.

The problem is theses restructurings of capitalism has planted seeds for even larger crises as capitalism only solves current crises by creating long term instability.

[ZeroNowhere]

There seems to be a trend in the way capitalism is adapting one move at a time, moving left very slowly to keep the workers happy. So will a time come when capitalism can no longer be called that, and becomes more "socialist"?
I assume you don't recall the 1970s?
Heh, left-reformists tend to only remember, "That goddamn Reagan reversed our reforms!"


Left to its own devices, I think capitalism will evolve towards some form of socialism. But it will never break the qualitative leap into socialism.
What the fuck does that even mean?

Anyways, something that people seem to be missing here: You can either have socialism, or you can have capitalism. There is no line between the two or shades of grey.


Personally, I believe the left is to stuck on old shibboleths to understand this problem anymore.
That is true.


Forgive me for being stuck on old shibboleths, but the idea that what we have now is a fundamentally different mode of production from capitalism is nonsense.
To be fair, he said 'pre-war capitalism'. To be accurate, the two statements are the same, but I think they were just misusing the term 'mode of production'.

[und]

I assume you don't recall the 1970s?
Heh, left-reformists tend to only remember, "That goddamn Reagan reversed our reforms!"


What the fuck does that even mean?

Anyways, something that people seem to be missing here: You can either have socialism, or you can have capitalism. There is no line between the two or shades of grey.


That is true.


To be fair, he said 'pre-war capitalism'. To be accurate, the two statements are the same, but I think they were just misusing the term 'mode of production'.
I'm not able to remember the 70s because I'm only 14!

Anyway, the varied responses have been interesting to read, but varied means there isn't one definite answer... Is there anyone who can sum this up for sure?

[cyu]

Is there anyone who can sum this up for sure?

You mean like God, or his infallible stand-in, the Pope?

It's not like we're discussing math here. Everyone has their own opinions and analysis - that's the nature of politics, economics, and sociology.

[und]

You mean like God, or his infallible stand-in, the Pope?

It's not like we're discussing math here. Everyone has their own opinions and analysis - that's the nature of politics, economics, and sociology.

You're right, and that was in itself a sum-up of the thread which is exactly what I was looking for, so thanks.

That sentence may have come across as somewhat sarcastic, but I don't mean in in that way. It's just that there's obviously no way to express emotion on forums except with smilies, which I seem to neglect.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

What the fuck does that even mean?

Anyways, something that people seem to be missing here: You can either have socialism, or you can have capitalism. There is no line between the two or shades of grey.


To be fair, he said 'pre-war capitalism'. To be accurate, the two statements are the same, but I think they were just misusing the term 'mode of production'.This addresses both of these quotes. What he was saying was described by Engels 150 years ago. It's nothing that didn't exist or wasn't predicted.


If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies and state property shows how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist are now performed by salaried employees. The capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first the capitalist mode of production forces out the workers. Now it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.

But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, 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 of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.