Is industry a product of capitalism?

[ComradeMan]

Is industry as we understand it, i.e. post-industrial revolution mass production etc not in itself a product of colonialism and capitalism and in order to achieve a non-capitalistic society we need to do away with it?


Somethings I don't get about Marx' theories, certainly from a cynical look on what actually happens in the world

1. Capitalism is the natural precursor to socialism and the communism. But is capitalism ever going to go quietly and retire? No, of course not, you need some kind of revolution. But the revolution will take over the infrastructures of capitalism, i.e. the factories will remain factories etc etc and are we not doomed then to just go round and round in a circle?

2. labour-value- I can't get this one to work. Capitalism is a product of the market it does not produce the market itself, the market has always existed and the market is blind and indiscriminate. Something could be worth a lot today and little tomorrow. How do we decide what something is really worth? Surely the attack should be on the market itself? But that would mean a massive change in world-outlook.

I believe with technology and also taking in environmental concerns too, create smaller localised industries with more horizontal power. We don't need mass consumption and consumerism and we don't need a lot of heavy industry at all.

These are not easy questions and I don't have the answers, I would appreciate any thoughts people have.

[ZeroNowhere]

No, that does not follow. Industry is not equivalent to the social relations of capitalism, and neither are they an inherent part of it. If we're to oppose all changes made by capitalism, are we to become monarchists too? Do we have to oppose modern medicine too?

And the law of value describes a system of generalized commodity production, hence capitalism, it's not normative, at least in Marx.

[ComradeMan]

But isn't industry as we know it today that which sprang out of the colonial riches and capitalistic tendencies of 18th century England?

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, they did spring out of capitalist society, as did the aforementioned medicine, and a large amount of scientific discoveries which happened due to technological advances.

[Iskra1916]

I think industry per se will always be needed post-revolution even though in my part of the world, the majority of the proletariat are employed in non-"industrial" work.

My understanding is that socialism would inevitably use the relative advances of capitalist industry in a way that would remove the negative aspect of industry & industrial conditions - eg, essential workers involved in heavy industry would have massively reduced hours of work, more holidays etc

Lenin saw the Fordist production method as progressive (for its day, though it wouldnt be now obviously) compared to the hellish conditions of eg, 'satanic mills' etc.

It would be a shitty kind of socialism that kept workers in industrial drudgery or even worse, moved workers from eg, light service industries back into heavy industry

[Iskra1916]

I forgot to add that technological determinism plays a part in defining roles & conditions

[black_tambourine]

Why do you keep posting threads like this? Nearly every "OMG DIFFICULT" question you ask either can be answered by a cursory glance at the relevant theory (the fact that the forces of production are not the same thing as the relations of production is Marxism 101, for god's sake), or is based on completely arbitrary normative assumptions that you make. (We "don't need" mass consumerism and heavy industry? O rly?)

[ComradeMan]

Why do you keep posting threads like this? Nearly every "OMG DIFFICULT" question you ask either can be answered by a cursory glance at the relevant theory (the fact that the forces of production are not the same thing as the relations of production is Marxism 101, for god's sake), or is based on completely arbitrary normative assumptions that you make. (We "don't need" mass consumerism and heavy industry? O rly?)

Why don't you answer it then? Because I do not have an infinite library for my own personal disposal and because these are subjects upon which there is a lot of disagreement I am interested to hear what others take on things are.

[Psy]

I believe with technology and also taking in environmental concerns too, create smaller localised industries with more horizontal power. We don't need mass consumption and consumerism and we don't need a lot of heavy industry at all.

These are not easy questions and I don't have the answers, I would appreciate any thoughts people have.

How are you going to extract massive minerals out of the Earth locally? Do you think every local community going to have a iron ore mine, smelter and steal mill? Even if it was possible do you think every community would want small scale heavy industry in their community? The amount of different heavy industries every communities needs makes its impracticable to decentralize heavy industry, since we'd have large centralized heavy industry it would make centralizing most industries more logically, for example there would be little point to spreading around industries that consume the bulk commodities from heavily industries as it is more efficient to use unit freight trains to deliver bulk commodities like capitalists do now.

[black_tambourine]

Why don't you answer it then? Because I do not have an infinite library for my own personal disposal and because these are subjects upon which there is a lot of disagreement I am interested to hear what others take on things are.

Most of this stuff is dealt with in material that is available for free on the internet and would take an afternoon's worth of reading at most. For that matter, it's really stuff that you should be familiar with before you even start calling yourself a radical. Google "wage labor and capital", "preface to a critique of political economy", and "the communist manifesto".

There are many valid critiques of the LTV, but "lulz, prices go up and down all da time cuz of teh markit so UR RONG, BUDDY" is not one of them. "The market" does not even determine prices all that much in late capitalism; prices are largely arrived at by the calculations of monopolistic and semi-monopolistic firms with a view to a total that would square costs of production with a healthy profit margin; problems of overproduction can in most cases be ignored, since most firms are either big and powerful enough to resist any inordinate downward pressure on prices that this causes, or are well-coordinated with governments and other firms to keep surplus product from going to the market.

And there is not "a lot of disagreement" on the subject of industrialization. 99% of capitalists, socialists, social-democrats, communists, fascists, centrists, and Scientologists agree that industrialization is at least neutral, with the potential to be beneficial. The only people who think otherwise are the Unibomber and chuckleheads who envision the perfect society as a bunch of hempen-clad folk cavorting about the enchanted faerie woods of Albion.

[Pogue]

Industry was a result of humanities drive for progression, i.e. the relentless drive in society to find new modes of production to make it easier to survive, and obviously due to a profit driven society, what worked spread, and thus industrial society. Any deindustrialisation happens due to out-sourcing to cheaper countries. The only time I could see it working in a circle is if there was some sort of rapid developement of the third world (like China did?) or a third world revolution in which the current 'post-industrial' countries suddenly needed a new base for secure industry and so re-industrialised (some say Germany may be doing this, even though germany still has a fair bit of industry hence why it didn't do so badly in the recession comparatively). I don't think thats too likely though, but you never know!

[Vanguard1917]

We don't need mass consumption and consumerism and we don't need a lot of heavy industry at all.

Well, if we don't need mass consumption, what do we need? Mass poverty? Is not the problem with capitalism that it is unable to meet the material requirements of all? If it is, then surely the aim of a socialist system will not be to reduce mass consumption, but find ways to create enough wealth so that the material needs and desires of humanity as a whole are met to as high a degree as possible. That will necessitate industrial growth on a global scale, not cuts, economic localism or pre-capitalist means of production.

[ckaihatsu]

2. labour-value- I can't get this one to work. Capitalism is a product of the market it does not produce the market itself, the market has always existed and the market is blind and indiscriminate. Something could be worth a lot today and little tomorrow. How do we decide what something is really worth? Surely the attack should be on the market itself? But that would mean a massive change in world-outlook.




These are not easy questions and I don't have the answers, I would appreciate any thoughts people have.


---





In my attached document, 'communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors', at post #101, you'll see that I advocate a system of rolling valuations of recently active workers, through a system of labor credits that apply to *work hours* only, and not to tangible material properties of any sort. This acknowledges that a fully collectivized, or gift, economy, would have *no need or function fulfilled* by assigning quantitative valuations to material products, since everything *could be* coordinated through a *political* economy of collective intention by the society and workers themselves.

The labor credits would serve to take the place of private collections of capital, which today function as the means of coordinating workers in a workforce, through the labor markets. The replacement for today's professionalized managerial staff would be the locality's daily prioritized political demands, aggregated and sorted for the consideration of all liberated workers who would seek to gain labor credits (and to be close to the point of production).

[danny bohy]

Most industry as we know it is based on exploitation. If larger industries were owned by a real marxist goverment they would only produce neccesities and not exploit workers or the environment. i would support nationalised industry like this if it did not exploit workers and goverments. i think more localised industries is also a good idea however.

[ComradeMan]

Danny Boy- that's exactly what I think. A hell of a lot of industry is unnecessary and the result of capitalist greed or just lack of thinking.

E.g.
We don't need big power plants and the coal/oil/uranium if we use solar/wind/tidal energy, are more responsible with our use of electricity and have more local organisation.

We don't need cars really, I would invest more in public transport and have a communal taxi service with electric cars. Bicycles are good for you!

Do we need to produce at least half the crap we produce? Only to throw it away.

Of course some industries would remain, but a hell of a lot we produce we produce for the sake of it. That goes for food too and the wastage,

ckaihatsu

Would that be similar to the idea of work notes/credits that is found in some anarchist thinking?

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu

Would that be similar to the idea of work notes/credits that is found in some anarchist thinking?


Well, without meaning to be sectarian I have to posit that mine is a unique conception -- I'm surprised no one bothered to come up with it before I did.... It simply follows the *implications* of all productive property being collectivized (*no one's* private property) -- that's how I arrived at a system of labor hour-credits that can *only* be applicable to labor itself, and not to material assets or resources (productive property), or goods or services (the result of pre-planned political demands). I threw in a prioritized political demands list, and that wrapped it all up...!

[ComradeMan]

Well, without meaning to be sectarian I have to posit that mine is a unique conception -- I'm surprised no one bothered to come up with it before I did.... It simply follows the *implications* of all productive property being collectivized (*no one's* private property) -- that's how I arrived at a system of labor hour-credits that can *only* be applicable to labor itself, and not to material assets or resources (productive property), or goods or services (the result of pre-planned political demands). I threw in a prioritized political demands list, and that wrapped it all up...!

Well it is something I have come across in anarchist circles but it does sound like a workable idea. My problem with some anarchist ideas about bartering and gift-economies etc is that it might be all well and good to pay for a box of tomatoes with two dozen eggs etc but what about services that are not so material- such as a doctor. What about the problem that unless a small area (taking the localised) idea were fortunate enough to have all resources you would end up with problems, everyone would be paying with olives so to speak--- at least where I live!!!:)

I like your idea.

[black_tambourine]

Danny Boy- that's exactly what I think. A hell of a lot of industry is unnecessary and the result of capitalist greed or just lack of thinking.

E.g.
We don't need big power plants and the coal/oil/uranium if we use solar/wind/tidal energy, are more responsible with our use of electricity and have more local organisation.

We don't need cars really, I would invest more in public transport and have a communal taxi service with electric cars. Bicycles are good for you!

Do we need to produce at least half the crap we produce? Only to throw it away.

Of course some industries would remain, but a hell of a lot we produce we produce for the sake of it. That goes for food too and the wastage,



Yes, I'm sure the working class would be overjoyed at having their electricity rationed and their ability to buy cars taken away.

And capitalist industry doesn't produce more than people need, it produces more than it can sell at a profit. There is still plenty of latent demand toward which this surplus product could be distributed. But you seem to be against "consumption" full stop and would rather subject everyone in the world to your own personal brand of monasticism, so that society can be more aesthetically pleasing to you.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, I'm sure the working class would be overjoyed at having their electricity rationed and their ability to buy cars taken away.

And capitalist industry doesn't produce more than people need, it produces more than it can sell at a profit. There is still plenty of latent demand toward which this surplus product could be distributed. But you seem to be against "consumption" full stop and would rather subject everyone in the world to your own personal brand of monasticism, so that society can be more aesthetically pleasing to you.

Well put. We should leave advocacy of austerity policies to the IMF and the Tories. There is absolutely nothing progressive about wanting to reduce working class people's consumption. Socialists want mass material prosperity.

After all, it is underconsumption (i.e. material poverty) which brings misery to the lives of the world's masses, not the supposed 'overconsumption' that Western eco-reactionaries -- the overwhelming majority of whom come from privileged middle and upper class backgrounds -- like to go on about.

[ComradeMan]

Yes, I'm sure the working class would be overjoyed at having their electricity rationed and their ability to buy cars taken away.

So the only victory for the class struggle is that "working class people" can buy things- a bit materialistic no?

Why would electricity be rationed? There are plenty of sources and research that suggest if all the world's renewable sources of energy were used efficiently we could supply up to four times current demand on a global level- virtually for free. That's what the capitalists, the big oil companies, the coal mines etc DON'T want.

After all, it is underconsumption (i.e. material poverty) which brings misery to the lives of the world's masses, not the supposed 'overconsumption' that Western eco-reactionaries -- the overwhelming majority of whom come from privileged middle and upper class backgrounds -- like to go on about.

Blah blah blah, despite the fact that one of the most materially poor countries was not so long ago classed as one of the happiest- you are falling into the capitalist-consumer trap of believing that material wealth automatically brings happiness- a bit like the Nazis with their jobs for everyone and volkswagens. To say that ecological thinking is reactionary is complete and utter nonsense. At the end of the day it goes beyond the idea of class struggle to a certain extent in that floords, rising seas and climate change are all class-blind. Nevertheless the disastrous ecological impact of climate change will effect the world's poorest people first. Try telling the people of Bangladesh that they are being reactionary.

As for the priviliged middle- and upper-class background comment- where's your proof of that in the first place? All you reveal here is that you have some issues based perhaps on your own class-conscious inverted snobbery.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, I'm sure the working class would be overjoyed at having their electricity rationed and their ability to buy cars taken away.

So the only victory for the class struggle is that "working class people" can buy things- a bit materialistic no?


Material prosperity is a goal for socialists because, yes, we are materialists and believe that under conditions of material poverty and want genuine human freedom simply cannot exist. For socialists material abundance is the pre-condition for a classless, stateless modern society.



Blah blah blah, despite the fact that one of the most materially poor countries was not so long ago classed as one of the happiest


Yes, i've heard about such absurd 'findings'. But they were espoused by idiot bourgeois philistine academics from whom i would expect nothing more than stupidity. What's disappointing is when self-described socialists start celebrating poverty as well. An extremely bizarre state of affairs.


At the end of the day it goes beyond the idea of class struggle to a certain extent in that floords, rising seas and climate change are all class-blind. Nevertheless the disastrous ecological impact of climate change will effect the world's poorest people first. Try telling the people of Bangladesh that they are being reactionary.


Try telling the people of Bangladesh that they should be happy about living in poverty. After all, the poorest countries can also be the happiest, right?

In reality, that countries like Bangladesh are so vulnerable to the destructive aspects of nature has a lot to do with the fact that they are poor and underdeveloped. In order to make themselves less susceptible to natural disasters, they need development -- something which many eco-reactionaries wish to halt.

[ckaihatsu]

So the only victory for the class struggle is that "working class people" can buy things- a bit materialistic no?


Victory for the working class would be where *anyone* could have walk-up *access* to *any* machinery that humanity has developed, to produce the things that are most needed or desired.





you are falling into the capitalist-consumer trap of believing that material wealth automatically brings happiness- a bit like the Nazis with their jobs for everyone and volkswagens.


*No one* here said *anything* like that, that "Material wealth automatically brings happiness."

What *is* being said is that the *lack* of needed and desired material things *will* bring about a lingering feeling of continuous wanting and deprivation. The way to avoid feeling deprived is to supply oneself with those things and experiences that one feels are important in one's life.

It's also *very* bad politics to be comparing revolutionary leftists here -- purportedly your comrades, if you're really an anarchist -- to Nazis.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well put. We should leave advocacy of austerity policies to the IMF and the Tories. There is absolutely nothing progressive about wanting to reduce working class people's consumption. Socialists want mass material prosperity.

After all, it is underconsumption (i.e. material poverty) which brings misery to the lives of the world's masses, not the supposed 'overconsumption' that Western eco-reactionaries -- the overwhelming majority of whom come from privileged middle and upper class backgrounds -- like to go on about.

It depends on what is consumed. Advertising, productive or otherwise, is something "consumed" (businesses "consume" the services of ad companies).

Don't get me wrong; I also oppose the austerity policies of the IMF (probably more than you do ;) ). The way they go about it is obviously and inherently anti-worker, but is also too superficial; budget cuts, prohibitions, and sales taxes - low or high - are not the answer. However, the answer may be in planning (lower production) and related pricing (price ceilings).

There are certain consumer goods and services we can do without, like tobacco. This stems from the division between productive and non-productive work, from lack of much-needed standardization, and from other things.

[革命者]

Industry has led to capitalism, and after that capitalism sustains fertile ground for more industry. But it started with the technology to have industry.

As for having better industry, I think we should learn from the writings of J. Edwards Deming and Ishikawa, et al. This had been popularised as 'lean' production, but implemented wrongly in the western world (due to bad education; Harvard etc.)

I think the teachings of Deming will help us not just improve industry, but also the public sector. It's inherently non-bureaucratic and democratic.


Scotty

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The fundamental tenets of both Capitalism and Socialism are not their physical features or indeed their outputs. Indeed, as mentioned in another thread somewhere in a post exposing the fallacy of RAF-style tactics, it was mentioned that Capitalism is not a physical entity. That, factories and industry as a whole are synonymous with Capitalism is a falsehood. Sure, Capitalism became hegemonical as an economic system at the same time of many industrial revolutions, but this does not mean to say that only Capitalism could spurn industry. Rather, what separates Capitalism and Socialism, or any other economic mode, is not industry itself or any other physical output or landmark, but the relations of different classes to industry, or in Marxian terms, the means of production. Put very simply,in Capitalism, one class owns the means of production and employs another group, at a rate of labour below what the labour is in fact producing. In Socialism, the entire populace would own the means of production (obviously, there would be no place for those who were anti-Socialist and tried to instigate a counter-revolutionary uprising) and rather than employing the classical economic theory of Maginal Utility, as is done under Capitalism, a Socialist economic system would be characterised by the Labour Theory of Value, in terms of wage-labour relations.

That is pretty much economics 101 for any Socialist, but it is really quite important to recognise that industry = industrialisation and thus a rise in living standards, the production and consumption of both ample basic goods and the potential to produce what we should, for the moment, term 'x' amount of luxury goods.