socialism or barbarism?

[A.R.Amistad]

I hate to sound like a pessimist (I am not) but I have always been curious about this. If socialism were to fail, what would the other "barbaric" outcomes of capitalist degeneration be? Also, how has capitalism lasted this long and how does historical materialism fit into this? I know I should know the answers to these questions but I've hit an intellectual speed bump lately.

[black magick hustla]

i think we already see "islands" of barbarism. gaza, haiti, etcetera, when capitalism self destructs without a socialist alternative we will live in a giant fuckin ghetto, and when barbarism is generalized, and men are subjected to a generalized notion of survival, the communist perspective will probably dissappear forever

[A.R.Amistad]

i think we already see "islands" of barbarism. gaza, haiti, etcetera, when capitalism self destructs without a socialist alternative we will live in a giant fuckin ghetto, and when barbarism is generalized, and men are subjected to a generalized notion of survival, the communist perspective will probably dissappear forever

Interesting. I always thought that corporatism was another great threat of barbarism. Although, I don't think the idea of communism would dissapear any more than the idea of the republic dissapeared after the destruction of Rome and the collapse into Feudal barbarism.

[black magick hustla]

Interesting. I always thought that corporatism was another great threat of barbarism. Although, I don't think the idea of communism would dissapear any more than the idea of the republic dissapeared after the destruction of Rome and the collapse into Feudal barbarism.

idk if it would dissappear foreverr but it will certainly suffer a setback that will put it behind atleast a few centuries. the most miserable sectors of the world are also the weakest, therefore the communist perspective, which arises from self organization and political consciousness, will dwindle

[A.R.Amistad]

I just found this article from "Youth for International Socialism" which says basically the same thing you did about how barbarism is being witnessed in the poorest of the third world countries. But, now that I think of it, can we not categorize Haiti and nations like it as capitalist?

http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/117/60/#bother

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The alternative to capitalism is not necessarily socialism but rather a more barbaric form of capitalism. The system has increasingly been cannibalizing itself over the past 3o years, imperiling its own ability to reproduce itself. As Maldoror said this is how we get situations like Haiti.I would include "failed states" like Somalia, Congo, and now Pakistan, Mexico and elsewhere. This also increasingly includes the US-Katrina, the BP oil spill. There's regression planned for Western Europe.

Under capitalism the productive forces of humanity are subjected to the needs of, really ultimately a handful of families to make a profit off our labor. When the productive forces become advanced enough to diminish accumulation, the ruling class has to destroy the productive forces. This dynamic is well on its way.

If its not stopped by the self liberation of the productive forces, the end result may be a cyberpunk or Mad Max scenario. We're seeing a definite foretaste of this now.

[chegitz guevara]

Don't forget that capitalism could burn itself out and collapse, having destroyed the basis for civilization (by massive war , climate change, etc.). We might still be able to achieve socialism, but it would be a socialism of poverty, not wealth.

[A.R.Amistad]

Don't forget that capitalism could burn itself out and collapse, having destroyed the basis for civilization (by massive war , climate change, etc.). We might still be able to achieve socialism, but it would be a socialism of poverty, not wealth.

we'd have to start at square one with hunter-gatherer communism probably

[Thirsty Crow]

Under capitalism the productive forces of humanity are subjected to the needs of, really ultimately a handful of families to make a profit off our labor. When the productive forces become advanced enough to diminish accumulation, the ruling class has to destroy the productive forces. This dynamic is well on its way.

Can you provide a concrete example? Thanks.

Don't forget that capitalism could burn itself out and collapse, having destroyed the basis for civilization (by massive war , climate change, etc.). We might still be able to achieve socialism, but it would be a socialism of poverty, not wealth.
Humanity has already witnessed massive wars (during the era of the capitalist mode of production of course).
Climate change may very well be different. It's all speculation, in fact, when it comes to possible consequences of global warming and other changes that have been occurring. But the point is that the notion that capitalism necessarily subverts itself is harmful, in my opinion. I believe that we cannot adhere to the old mechanicstic theory of the inevitability of the final crisis of capitalism. And this brings us to OP's second question, which is of immense importance, at least in my opinion:

Also, how has capitalism lasted this long and how does historical materialism fit into this?
One could respond with another question: How has feudalism lasted that long?
Obviously, we cannot seek the answer within the confines of the material basis alone. I wouldn't go far an try to provide a comprehensive answer, but I do think generally that the ideological legitimation which has been hammered into people's heads for the last decade is the first phenomenon to be analyzed if we wish to get to the bottom of the problem.

[Blake's Baby]

'Capitalism' is not opposed to 'barbarism', capitalism is barbarism. What Engels was talking about was surely the generalisation and increase of barbarismuntil it was the normal state of humanity; as the majority of hunmanity lives now on pittance wages one step from starvation, vast swathes of the world are subject to wars and terrorist attacks, drug-use in the metropoles is rife, criminal gangs control whole regions and even countries, millions are unemployed while millions more are worked to death, the 'barbarism' Engels talked about is with us. Sure, it could be even more barbaric for even more people even more of the time, but that's a question of scale, not type.

When Rosa Luxemburg re-used the term, I think it was in the particular context of the First World War and what she was discussing was the necessity for revolution to overthrow the brutal system that lead to wholesale imperialist slaughter, an example of capitalist barbarism without equal up to that point. Of course since then we've had World War Two and all the other massacres of the 20th century. We have seen the generalisation of military barbarism on a huge scale, the real industrialisation of death.

Historical materialism in no way is contradicted by the development of capitalism over the last 150 years. My belief (held by the Communist International at the Second Congress, and in different forms by many organisations that claim to be Marxist) is that WWI showed that capitalism had fulfilled it social usefulness, by uniting the world in the world market; and that the period from the beginning of the 20th century was the period of 'wars and revolutions' - the time when the 'objective conditions' were ripe for revolution.

But Marx talks about what can happen if an old system is in decline, but the new revolutionary class is not capable of overthrowing it, and I think this is what has happened; capitalism is rotting on its feet but the working class has not managed to overthrow it, giving the potential of the 'ruination of the contending classes' - this is a situation that we must increasingly face up to, as capitalism has been plunged into a(nother) massive economic crisis.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Can you provide a concrete example? Thanks.




In the early 20th century the British Empire was top dog of global capitalism. They provided a "retarding lead", the British owned title to a lot of capital but because of a combination of reasons largely connected to the decline rate of profitability, their hegemony was putting a break on global capital accumulation. As is happening today finance capital began to play a more dominant role. The period between 1914 and 1945 could be seen as a gigantic blow out-two world wars, a depression, revolutions and counter revolutions. One way of looking at this was that both wars were a contest between the US and Germany to see who would inherit the British Empire. Their also had to be a massive devaluation of assets, including the destruction of large numbers of people, to provide a new basis for capital accumulation.

This worked-from 1945-1973 or so was a "golden age". This began to unravel in the mid 60s. The Shock Doctrine-the imposition of neo-liberalism on the world from the mid 70s to today, is an attempt to provide a new basis for capital accumulation without going though the earlier crisis of the first half of the 2oth century.

I'm not explaining this well. David Harvey talks about some of this in Limits To Capital

[Norseman]

If it doesn't end in socialism, it ends in either genocide, eugenics, or a highly regulated welfare state.

Wealth will continue to concentrate into fewer and fewer hands. Some of those in the middle class may get richer if their income is sufficient, their job is stable enough, their expenses are low enough, and their luck, in terms of health, disasters, and other misfortunes, is sufficient to avoid losing net wealth adjusted for inflation. Some will get poorer, if they're not so lucky, or can't sustain themselves.

The rich will, for the most part, get richer, and, due to their tax advantages, capital, and capacity for political manipulation, they will get richer at a pace far exceeding the rest of society. As they buy more houses, for example, the price of houses will rise. Those without houses will end up paying higher rents, and those with houses will be lucky. All the kinds of capital will become more expensive, and, as they do, it will make it harder for poor and middle class people to own capital of their own. This will put them in a position of needing to rent, or work as wage-slaves, or borrow.

The poor will, for the most part, stay poor. Present laws prevent debt from being passed on to children, so the poor will remain roughly as poor as they are today, though the proportion of poor people will increase as middle class families fall and get stuck.

Poor people, naturally, will have little ability to purchase the products and services that they produce. This will turn our service industry back into a production industry so that products can be sold to countries where there is a large enough class of consumers that can purchase the products.

The production industry will be increasingly automated, which will raise unemployment rates. This will put a huge of number of people on welfare, and even present levels of welfare probably won't be sufficient to keep them content. It can be solved, at least temporarily, by raising taxes, and then raising welfare, so that both a higher degree of poverty and unemployment can be sustained.

Automation will increase to its limit, eventually, and this will occur worldwide. Former sources of international consumers will dry up, and domestic companies will have to lower prices more and more to continue selling. It will be possible for them to lower prices because they won't need to hire workers. Still, no matter how low the price gets, it will never be sufficiently low enough for the permanently unemployed masses. There will eventually be no profit in producing goods, because the only money the workers could offer would be money taken in the form of taxes. The taxes would necessarily be greater than or equal to any possible profit margins.

On the small scale, we could think of it as follows. I own a factory which grows trees, cuts them down, and produces chairs, then transports them automatically to customers. It runs on solar power and has robots to clean, maintain and repair it. I hire no workers. Then, there's all of you. If each of you gives me $1 for my chairs, then the government must take $1 from me, since I am the only one making money. Any money you give to me must be money that the government took from me. For every dollar I gain, I also lose a dollar.

At this point, the rich may decide that they would prefer to have the world to themselves, and, since they don't need everyone else, they might proceed to kill them. Alternatively, they might impose mandatory eugenics on the population, or sterilization. Perhaps a one-child policy, or even a one-child lottery might be enforced. On the other hand, it's possible that they may ignore it, and much like the queen of England, may maintain a line of hereditary royalty without any real power, and continue with the heavily regulated welfare state.

Of course, I find it much more likely that the masses, being unemployed and having nothing better to do, will probably just take the capital for themselves.

[A.R.Amistad]

Are there any works by Marx or Engels where they elaborate that socialism is not inevitable? Is this idea attributable to Marx and Engels at all? I don't believe at all that Historical Materialism holds the fatalist idea that socialism is "inevitable," but are there any good works by Historical Materialists on this issue and could someone elaborate? I know the fatalist interpretation was Kautsky's thing really.

[Thirsty Crow]

Are there any works by Marx or Engels where they elaborate that socialism is not inevitable? Is this idea attributable to Marx and Engels at all? I don't believe at all that Historical Materialism holds the fatalist idea that socialism is "inevitable," but are there any good works by Historical Materialists on this issue and could someone elaborate? I know the fatalist interpretation was Kautsky's thing really.
Yes, I wasn't alluding to Marx but rather certain Marxist circles and theorists.
But historical materialism is an analytical method, and not something that, as a firm doctrine, is immune from the influence of such mechanicistic reduction of real class struggle (which is being waged, after all, in two opposite directions!).

[Bubbles]

A capitalist society is doomed to inevitable effects of class struggle.

I agree with some people here that historic materialism should not be viewed as a doctrine, but rather seeing the essence of historic development being economic factors, changes in mode of production, distribution of the necessities of life and the class division and their struggles against each other.
It's a method of social and historic analysis with it's foundation in the philosophical doctrine called materialism which basically says that the world only exists of matter and independent of our consciousness or not.

[black magick hustla]

The icc take on decomposition http://en.internationalism.org/ir/107_decomposition

capital is rotting and will either have to breath by the lungful the stench of its rotting carcass forever or destroy capitalist civilization and end with the master-slave dialectic once and for all

[BAM]

end with the master-slave dialectic once and for all

what, abolish capitalism in order to end the moment of Hegel's spiritual odyssey where consciousness turns into self-consciousness? ;)

[ZeroNowhere]

From what I recall, it was a reference to the 'mutual ruin of the contending classes' mentioned in the Manifesto, probably in reference to the fall of Rome.

[BAM]

From what I recall, it was a reference to the 'mutual ruin of the contending classes' mentioned in the Manifesto, probably in reference to the fall of Rome.

is that what "common/mutual ruin" refers to, Rome? I just mentioned that again today in another thread here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-refutation-fatalistic-t138529/index.html?p=1802860#post1802860).

[Blake's Baby]

It may be specifically a reference to Rome but I think it refers in general to the development of all class societies. I'm doing some work at the moment on the decline of Rome and the (very messy) transition from antique slavery to feudalism, precisely to see if there's lessons for the situation we have now. Is the 'decadence' of modes of production a real thing? Is this the same in the present epoch as the era of 'wars and revolutions', of imperialism, of the potential for a society of abundance? Does capitalism have a 'mission' and if so, has it fulfilled it? Some organisations see capitalism as 'decadent', others as 'obsolete' - what are the differences? Is the idea that at a certain point, the 'relations of production become a fetter on the means of production' the same as decadence or obsolescence?

[BAM]

It may be specifically a reference to Rome but I think it refers in general to the development of all class societies.

that's what I'd always taken it to mean.


I'm doing some work at the moment on the decline of Rome and the (very messy) transition from antique slavery to feudalism, precisely to see if there's lessons for the situation we have now. Is the 'decadence' of modes of production a real thing? Is this the same in the present epoch as the era of 'wars and revolutions', of imperialism, of the potential for a society of abundance? Does capitalism have a 'mission' and if so, has it fulfilled it? Some organisations see capitalism as 'decadent', others as 'obsolete' - what are the differences? Is the idea that at a certain point, the 'relations of production become a fetter on the means of production' the same as decadence or obsolescence?

I'm not sure. I don't think the issue of "decadence" says much, I'm afraid. "Decadent" capitalism just seems like, well, regular capitalism to me ...

[Blake's Baby]

OK then, leaving aside the term 'decadence', does a mode of production have a dynamic of 'progressive' (eg, when capitalism is overthrowing feudalism) and 'regressive' phases, or is it a straight-line continuum, or is it something else (perhaps, a dynamic particular to each mode of production)?

Was capitalism ever progressive? Is it still? Do the 'relations of production become fetters on the means of production', and what does this mean anyway?

[BAM]

OK then, leaving aside the term 'decadence', does a mode of production have a dynamic of 'progressive' (eg, when capitalism is overthrowing feudalism) and 'regressive' phases, or is it a straight-line continuum, or is it something else (perhaps, a dynamic particular to each mode of production)?

Was capitalism ever progressive? Is it still? Do the 'relations of production become fetters on the means of production', and what does this mean anyway?

I guess it's both. Capital doesn't stop being progressive in the sense of continually raising the level of civilisation, but at the same time, we get the accumulation of misery at the other end of the pole.

As for relations of production being a fetter on the means of prodcution, the growth of the means of production is dependent, under capitalism, on the production of surplus value. When there is an economic crisis, the relations become in a sense a fetter on the means of production: factories cease output because profits cannot be made. There is nothing wrong with the machinery in the factory. The workers are still capable of work. But capital's barrier is also its means of overcoming crisis. Through the destruction of capital, capital becomes profitable again and the cycle continues anew and there's a huge boom, expansion of production, etc., etc.

But relations of production also includes class struggle. So I guess when we get to a point when there's a growing class conscious movement to overthrow capital, resulting from the continual economic crisies, can we say that the relations of production are a fetter. There are "subjective" and "objective" factors that interplay. Otherwise, if there is no conscious movement to overthrow it, capitalist production will probably carry on, lurching from boom to bust, until, I don't know, it pollutes the environment so much or there's a nuclear war or something.

[ZeroNowhere]

It may be specifically a reference to Rome but I think it refers in general to the development of all class societies.Well, it does refer to a possible outcome of class societies in general, I was speaking of reference more in the sense of an allusion than it being the meaning of the statement in question.


Do the 'relations of production become fetters on the means of production', and what does this mean anyway?The original statement was that they became fetters on the productive forces. The productive forces, recall, include, "division of labour, machinery, [and] the application of the powers of nature and science to private production." "The production of life, both of one’s own in labour and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a double relationship: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship. By social we understand the co-operation of several individuals, no matter under what conditions, in what manner and to what end. It follows from this that a certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain mode of co-operation, or social stage, and this mode of co-operation is itself a “productive force.”" This comes back to Marx's basic theme that production in on the one hand interaction with nature, and on the other hand production of social relations, hence interaction with man. The productive forces are those of man himself. According to Marx, "He cannot therefore admit that the bourgeois mode of production contains within itself a barrier to the free development of the productive forces, a barrier which comes to the surface in crises and, in particular, in over-production—the basic phenomenon in crises." More clearly, from the Manifesto, "It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented."

This can also be seen quite clearly with the falling rate of profit; capitalists are forced by competition to develop the productivity of workers, and thus are able to displace them in favour of machinery, hence cutting cost-price, yet this is precisely what leads to the falling rate of profit and crises, the main solution and counter-tendency being, in fact, the destruction of capital values (including the destruction and disuse of factories, etc).

If you're interested in this, Lucio Colletti's essay 'Marxism and Sociology' is brilliant on the subject, and Sayer's 'The Violence of Abstractions', a refutation of G.A. Cohen and such, is also helpful. The second also focuses on the idea that the productive forces are those of man, and if I recall correctly had had a rather nice passage from, I think, 'The German Ideology' (I'm not entirely sure), which went over the productive forces being alienated from man under capitalism.

As for being the same as decadence, 'decadence theory' is a fairly vague term, but if we're referring to the theories held by the ICC and such, it's not the same. Certainly, the ICC's at least is based on Luxemburg's economic views, which confessedly differ from Marx's. There was some debate on this here (http://libcom.org/forums/thought/fictitious-capital-beginners-imperialism-anti-imperialism-continuing-relevance-rosa-luxemburg-27082007?page=1).

[ed miliband]

Look at what's happening across the world as a result of the financial crisis: massive cuts in public expenditure and increasing action against organised labour, lest strikes be used to disrupt austerity measures. Essentially the 'social democratic' model of capitalism is coming to the end of it's lifespan. It arguably died theoretically in the early 90s, but perhaps the next few years will see it complete vanish... But the point is, capitalism is regressing. Supporters of capitalism like to claim it ensures the progression of society, etc. but surely this is evidence that capitalism is now not only holding society back, but taking people 'back in time'. Barbarism is backwardness essentially, no?

[el_chavista]

The alternative to capitalism is not necessarily socialism but rather a more barbaric form of capitalism.
Is it not called fascism?

[Blake's Baby]

Fascism is not an alternative to capitalism. It is capitalism.

[Trotskist]

There is an article from The Nation Magazine about a Mad Max Road Warrior Scenario, i will get it later for you

thanx

,



I hate to sound like a pessimist (I am not) but I have always been curious about this. If socialism were to fail, what would the other "barbaric" outcomes of capitalist degeneration be? Also, how has capitalism lasted this long and how does historical materialism fit into this? I know I should know the answers to these questions but I've hit an intellectual speed bump lately.

[JacobVardy]

I hate to sound like a pessimist (I am not) but I have always been curious about this. If socialism were to fail, what would the other "barbaric" outcomes of capitalist degeneration be? Also, how has capitalism lasted this long and how does historical materialism fit into this? I know I should know the answers to these questions but I've hit an intellectual speed bump lately.

Even if every communist was killed and every book burned, it would be reborn because it is a close approximation of how the world works. Towards the end of WW2, Hitler Youth brigades started going AWOL, turning into anarchist-like groups such as the Edelweiss Pirates. These were children who had no exposure to any doctrine but Nazism, yet they developed a rough-and-ready form of anarchism. Another interesting example are Left Libertarians, who start with Ayn Rand and end damn close to class struggle anarchism. There might be a thousand revolutions, or there might be just one more but communism is a spectre that will keep on returning until it takes possession.