Did capitalism go soft to preserve itself?

[punisa]

I was browsing Yahoo answers today and stumbled upon a weird question: "what makes democrats and Marxists different?"

But it was the answer that I found "interesting":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like the democrats, the old socialist hope was a mass prosperity that would free all people from the burden of laboring for others, and place them in a position to pursue higer ends, such as in the arts and philosophy, in a conflict-free society.

But there was a practical problem: The Marxist prediction of a revolution that would bring about this good society rested on the assumption that the working classes would grow ever worse under Capitalism.

By the early twentieth century it was clear that this assumption was wrong, completely wrong. As a matter of fact, the reverse was occuring: As wealth grew through capitalist means, the standard of living for all was improving.

The Liberals would have us turn back the clocks, but historians will tell you that even in the early years of the Industrial Revolution, workers were becoming better off.
Prices were falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improved. Even diets became more varied, and working conditions improved.

The new wealth created by capitalism dramatically lengthened lifespans, and decreased child mortality rates.

Regrettably the Democrats want us to regress into a socialism/Marxism where living standards are lower. They oppose capitalist excess, disparaging the mass availability of goods, and services. They seek to restrict freedom to produce and enjoy wealth. Consider for instance the wrath that socialists feel toward fast food, Wal-Mart, and specialty financial services for the poor.

They accuse the consumer market of institutionalizing false needs, glorifying the banal,--all at the expense of the environment and equality of condition. That is the highest socialist goal. Improving our standards of living is far down on the list of socialist priorities.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone wanna comment on this one?

Did/does capitalism mellow out when it feels to be shaky? If workers' quality of life was continuously declining as Marx predicted, it would collapse till now correct?

I guess it proves the theory I had for the longest time - until the huge proportion of population in well developed states (US, Western EUROPE) lives "good" under capitalism, we'll see no end of it.

Thus, my question - what are the chances of this "well off" part of the working class being degraded in the near future?
Cause, as you all know, it is not just capitalists who stop our struggle, but huge proportions of the working class who still live pretty decent.

But would that element *really* make them a progressive revolutionary class or just a bunch of angry people who want their comfty decadent lives back?
There's gotta be something more to that, or am I simply too much of an idealist?
I take myself as an example, don't give a rat's ass about money. Would gladly give it all up to live in a socialist community.

[ComradeOm]

Did/does capitalism mellow out when it feels to be shaky?Quite the opposite actually. Capitalism "mellows out" when the going is good. Its when capitalism is well established and operating off a firm economic base (facilitated by the exploitation of the vast majority of the world's population) that it can afford to make minor concessions. It would not be possible to grant the latter if things were "shaky". Contrary to what that poster suggests, living standards amongst the working class did not begin to rise until the early 20th C and did not 'take-off' until the post-war period with the creation of the welfare state and other forms of government intervention

What we currently see in the West is a scenario in which the ruling class governs not by coercion but by establishing a cultural hegemony that legitimises its rule in the eyes of the working class. It does so by "forming a certain balance of compromises", to quote Gramsci, that buttresses its established and unquestioned economic supremacy. If the latter ever breaks down, and the capitalist state is no longer able to accommodate further worker demands, then the entire edifice becomes "shaky". Historically this is when the bourgeois states are most likely to resort to mass violence


But would that element *really* make them a progressive revolutionary class or just a bunch of angry people who want their comfty decadent lives back?
There's gotta be something more to that, or am I simply too much of an idealist?Both you and that poster seem to share a certain misconception - communism, and particularly Marxism, is not some ascetic creed. We don't want to "turn back the clocks" to a time where "where living standards are lower". Quite the opposite in fact, the aim of socialism is to greatly multiply the productive forces of society thus creating a period of abundance in which the living standards of ordinary people are greatly increased. Don't confuse us for liberal anti-consumerists

[Janine Melnitz]

Yeah, and it's important to note that the post-WWII gains in material comfort for workers didn't fall out of the sky -- this was the direct result of an organized and militant working class fighting for those gains. The capitalists have never "mellowed out" in terms of exploiting us -- they've been forced into compromises to hedge against all-out revolution.

And of course the militancy responsible for these gains took place during a huge economic boom. I suspect that how "decently" workers live is not as crucial to their becoming revolutionary as their being conscious of exploitation and confident in their own strength to challenge such.

[rednordman]

Yeah, and it's important to note that the post-WWII gains in material comfort for workers didn't fall out of the sky -- this was the direct result of an organized and militant working class fighting for those gains. The capitalists have never "mellowed out" in terms of exploiting us -- they've been forced into compromises to hedge against all-out revolution.

And of course the militancy responsible for these gains took place during a huge economic boom. I suspect that how "decently" workers live is not as crucial to their becoming revolutionary as their being conscious of exploitation and confident in their own strength to challenge such.That artical is very biast and quite frankly, rubbish. Its very interesting that they miss out the huge role of workers actions and the roles of unions in all this.

Infact you only have to look at the western world today, to see that its isnt the case, that things have continiously gotten better.

Also why is it using fast-food chains as an acceptable mode of nutrition for the working class just because they are cheap? Just because they are capitalist monopolies does not mean they are an excellent source of nutrition. Its quite the opposite actually.

[punisa]

Both you and that poster seem to share a certain misconception - communism, and particularly Marxism, is not some ascetic creed. We don't want to "turn back the clocks" to a time where "where living standards are lower". Quite the opposite in fact, the aim of socialism is to greatly multiply the productive forces of society thus creating a period of abundance in which the living standards of ordinary people are greatly increased. Don't confuse us for liberal anti-consumerists

Umm.. me and that poster share something ideologically?
Either you did not understand what I wrote, or perhaps I did not make myself clear enough.
In either way, this calls for some clarification.

"turning back the clock" or "anti-consumerism" is the last on my mind, so please don't connect me with these - shall we call them "values"?

1. I stated that our struggle will never be victorious until majority of working people believe/perceive they live pretty good lives. And wanted to know if that statement is correct.

2. I stated my doubts about amount of (true) revolutionary vigor of the working class *if* their quality of lives suddenly start to rapidly deteriorate - that situation (eventually) being brought by the failing capitalist model.

These two short points re-summarize what I was saying before. Again, I can't see how this makes me a "counter-clocker"?
If you made a comment just to kill a few extra minutes of year day, I would comradely advise you to avoid shallow judgments on other members.

[punisa]

That artical is very biast and quite frankly, rubbish. Its very interesting that they miss out the huge role of workers actions and the roles of unions in all this.

Infact you only have to look at the western world today, to see that its isnt the case, that things have continiously gotten better.

Also why is it using fast-food chains as an acceptable mode of nutrition for the working class just because they are cheap? Just because they are capitalist monopolies does not mean they are an excellent source of nutrition. Its quite the opposite actually.

Agreed.
Btw, it is not an article. It is some woman that provided the answer.
On Yahoo Answers service, when you pose a question. The "best" answer gets voted by a majority and this is it.
Personally I was just shocked by the blatant ignorance.
And the fast food example really tops it all.

[rednordman]

Agreed.
Btw, it is not an article. It is some woman that provided the answer.
On Yahoo Answers service, when you pose a question. The "best" answer gets voted by a majority and this is it.
Personally I was just shocked by the blatant ignorance.
And the fast food example really tops it all.It really gets me down how nobody wants to believe in the left, and everyone wants to believe in capitalism. Because quite simply, this is all that site is. Just aload of people voting for what they want to believe. truth or not.

[cb9's_unity]

People's standards of living have increased, that is undeniable. Yet we must look at what is increasing this standard. Is it the structure of capitalism, or is it something else?

The first component of the increased standard in living is the increase in technology of the past 100 or so years. Neither Marx nor Adam Smith could have predicted this massive increase in technology in science. These discoveries would have happened at one point, they just happened to during the epoch of capitalism. The structure or principles have nothing to do with it.

The second component one has to look at is the standard of living for the international work force. Much of today's heavy labor is done in 3rd world countries far away from where there products will end up. This heavy labor is still has horrible as it was when Marx observed the working masses in the 18th century. However many of these people do not benefit from modern advancements in technology and medicine. One has to look at the difference between the lowest most laborers and the bourgeoisie to see that the polarization in living standards could almost be more extreme than in Marx's era.

Articles like the ones brought up here wish to hide the brutal side of capitalism. They ignore the international economy by praising the first world bourgeois nations and forgetting about the starving 3rd world countries that are exploited in order to keep Europe and the US happy.

[Muzk]

wrong, completely wrong. As a matter of fact, the reverse was occuring: As wealth grew through capitalist means, the standard of living for all was improving.
America != all. First, there are homeless and sick people in capitalist countries. And then, ALL does not mean EARTH. It rather means the middle class of a country in that guys text. Don't just look at the winners in the capitalist casino.

The new wealth created by capitalism dramatically lengthened lifespans, and decreased child mortality rates.The opposite in third world countries.
And no this was not created by capitalism, rather by science. Einstein was a socialist. Such a STUPID system thinking is dumb, like, because it's capitalism Obama is black! Generalization = Evil.
Anyways, it would even be better if it was under communism, because there is no competition between doctors etc.

where living standards are lower. They oppose capitalist excess, disparaging the mass availability of goods, and services.WRONG. And everyone here knows this.

They seek to restrict freedom to produce and enjoy wealth. Consider for instance the wrath that socialists feel toward fast food, Wal-Mart, Fast food= enjoying wealth? ... :closedeyes:

They accuse the consumer market of institutionalizing false needs, glorifying the banal,--all at the expense of the environment and equality of condition. He's right!

That is the highest socialist goal. Improving our standards of living is far down on the list of socialist priorities. Who is 'our' ? The middle class? Joe the plumber? To really write an anti-commie text like that guy did he'd need a whole book.

No, workers "wealth" as he calls it, didn't come through capitalism, but through protests and worker struggles

I hate those lie spreading biatches

[chimx]

Anyone wanna comment on this one?

Lenin covered this in a little book called Imperialism.


By the early twentieth century it was clear that this assumption was wrong, completely wrong. As a matter of fact, the reverse was occuring: As wealth grew through capitalist means, the standard of living for all was improving.

Is it a matter of living standards? A poor person in the 21st century may have a better standard of living than the same poor person in the 19th century, but the problem is economic stratification and the centralization of wealth. Class struggle is an inevitability due to the inherent contradictions in capitalist production. What the author doesn't recognize is that this has developed into an international problem.

The idea of a "have-not" is entirely relative to the economic conditions of the present. A feudal lord in the 15th century could tell his serfs that compared to primitive tribal times they had it good, but how is that even relevant?

[StalinFanboy]

Even if the material conditions of the working class in first world countries has improved a little, it doesn't take into account the working class of third world countries, nor does it take into account the ever increasing alienation, depression, and general emotional tolls capitalism takes on people.

[StalinFanboy]

Is it a matter of living standards? A poor person in the 21st century may have a better standard of living than the same poor person in the 19th century, but the problem is economic stratification and the centralization of wealth. Class struggle is an inevitability due to the inherent contradictions in capitalist production. What the author doesn't recognize is that this has developed into an international problem.

The idea of a "have-not" is entirely relative to the economic conditions of the present. A feudal lord in the 15th century could tell his serfs that compared to primitive tribal times they had it good, but how is that even relevant?
Actually I like this reply a little more.

[RadioRaheem84]

What a bunch of hooey that article! Capitalism didn't go soft, a massive state intervention put a boot on its rabid head. The US was a very developmental, protectionist nation after WWII. No one would even dare utter the words lassiez-faire after what had happened during the GD.

I hate it how conservatives always bring up the glory days of America (1950-1970) without letting people know that it was a very Keynesian economy. Most of the initial inovations that drove the US into the front lines of technology and well being were pubically funded.

Capitalism didn't go soft....it was contained.

[blake 3:17]

Capitalism "mellows out" when the going is good.

Explain the Vietnam War then.

[ComradeOm]

Explain the Vietnam War then.What about it? AFAIK this conflict did not lead to a sudden abolition of US democracy, a sharp drop in living standards, or anything else that would threaten the legitimacy of the US government in the eyes of its population

[JJM 777]

Capitalists are not morons, their leaders are careful strategists who think every move two or three steps ahead, like a chess player. They will not allow circumstances where majority of population is against their picked candidates = votes somebody else or starts rioting on the streets. They will always give just enough of a carrot to the working class to keep them believing that the current system is good enough and safe enough to live in.

I take it for granted that Capitalists act softly whenever it seems to be a necessary move for keeping the mainstream population happy with the society.