Why did capitalism mean progress?

[blackwave]

So, even Marx apparently agrees that capitalism was a progressive step. Why is capitalism more productive and progressive than feudalism was (seeing as how both ultimately involve the accumulation of the majority of wealth in a society by a minority)? Is it, in fact, not really down to capitalism, but the industrial and scientific revolutions of the 19th century. Or is it the fact that wage labourers are forced to work more than they would for their wage than they would to produce directly for their own needs, and thus the capitalist society has lots of extra labour, and hence lots of extra production. Or is it, perhaps, both, or neither of these?

[Adil3tr]

Because it develops the means of production to such a degree that socialism is then possible. The industrial revolution was fueled by greed and competition.

[Queercommie Girl]

Capitalism also objectively gave its citizens more democratic rights than serfs and peasants had under feudal absolutism. So generally speaking not only was capitalism a step forward in terms of productivity, but also it was a relative step forward in terms of productive relation.

The slogans of the French Revolution were "liberty, equality, fraternity", something people under feudalism did not really know. Socialist political and ethical values further build upon these democratic ideals but provide them to all people regardless of wealth.

[blackwave]

In what way does it 'develop the means of production'?

[Adil3tr]

By forcing capitalists to constantly compete to produce more and more. feudal lords simply took what they needed or wanted from the peasants, but capitalists have to fuck their workers over to survive. Reinvestment is the driving force of capitalism, besides war, sweat shops, imperialism, and tax shelters.

[Queercommie Girl]

In what way does it 'develop the means of production'?

In terms of productivity, capitalism has superior technology, technical skills, industrial output. Humanity under capitalism has more understanding and control over nature than under feudalism or slavery.

[blackwave]

In terms of productivity, capitalism has superior technology, technical skills, industrial output. Humanity under capitalism has more understanding and control over nature than under feudalism or slavery.

None of which is any more inherent to capitalism than any other system. All of these things are the result of human labour, capitalism just harnessed and organised labour in a way that brought about these developments.

But I think I figured it out anyway. For one thing, whilst capitalism didn't create the industrial revolution, the capitalist invested in the new means of production becoming available in a way that ordinary workers wouldn't and / or couldn't have done. This, I think, is what Adil3tr means.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Capitalism in its initial stages was progressive because it marked a reaction against the feudal system which had been the dominant mode of production in Eurasia. Capitalism threw out the feudal order and created a global economy with a global market, and by extension an industrial working class to work for them. Also, the productive forces of capitalism were expanded to such an extent within a few centuries of its inception that they would have been unimaginable to their feudal predecessors. Without these basic factors that capitalism laid down, the transition to socialism with an industrial capacity would be impossible.

[Aurora]

In what way does it 'develop the means of production'?
Its quite common for us to refer to 'the capitalists' almost as a unified body, but the opposite is true, individual capitalists are stuck in a battle with each other everyday, in order to survive and remain a capitalist you have to constantly out do your competitors, this is the reason capitalists develop the means of production (by reinvesting capital) they have to sell more commodities and at a cheaper price than their competitors, if they fail to do this they can get pushed down into the petty-bourgeoisie or even lower.

[S.Artesian]

The "progressive" facet of capitalism exists, and exists solely, that in its need for accumulation, for the expanded reproduction of value, capitalism must amplify the productive power of labor, and employ all of science in that amplification.

[Ocean Seal]

So, even Marx apparently agrees that capitalism was a progressive step. Why is capitalism more productive and progressive than feudalism was (seeing as how both ultimately involve the accumulation of the majority of wealth in a society by a minority)? Is it, in fact, not really down to capitalism, but the industrial and scientific revolutions of the 19th century. Or is it the fact that wage labourers are forced to work more than they would for their wage than they would to produce directly for their own needs, and thus the capitalist society has lots of extra labour, and hence lots of extra production. Or is it, perhaps, both, or neither of these?
In feudalism you stay in business by title, not buy how good your product is or how much you produce. The feudal lord is a parasite that is replaced by the creative bourgeoisie, and when they become parasitic and unable to create wealth (now) they are replaced by the proletariat.

[blackwave]

Thankyou all. :thumbup1:

[Obzervi]

So, even Marx apparently agrees that capitalism was a progressive step. Why is capitalism more productive and progressive than feudalism was (seeing as how both ultimately involve the accumulation of the majority of wealth in a society by a minority)? Is it, in fact, not really down to capitalism, but the industrial and scientific revolutions of the 19th century. Or is it the fact that wage labourers are forced to work more than they would for their wage than they would to produce directly for their own needs, and thus the capitalist society has lots of extra labour, and hence lots of extra production. Or is it, perhaps, both, or neither of these?

2 reasons: oil and oppression of third world labor sources.

Let me clarify the former. One barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 23,000 hours of human labor. Read this again. One barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 23,000 hours of human labor. This vast increase in wealth within the industrialized world is not due to capitalism, but the harnessing of vast quantities of energy unlike ever before in history, when the main sources of energy consisted of human labor and livestock such as oxes. Oil extraction will peak within the coming decade, and we will have to find alternative or face collapse.

All of this "progression" you see is not a result of capitalism, but due to vast inputs of oil energy (and its destroying the planet).

[Amphictyonis]

So, even Marx apparently agrees that capitalism was a progressive step. Why is capitalism more productive and progressive than feudalism was (seeing as how both ultimately involve the accumulation of the majority of wealth in a society by a minority)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

[mikelepore]

In what way does it 'develop the means of production'?

I think a necessary part of the answer is: The claims that conservatives make for capitalism --that profit and competition make people efficient, people achieve more because they try harder to get ahead, etc. -- those claims are false today, but they had some truth in them at one time. These saying were largely true around the years 1700 to 1850. These claims were true when the early steam powered and electrical machinery were invented. The more that the apprenticeship and self-employment system was lost, and large capitalization the the modern labor market took over, capitalism then ceased to have inspirational characteristics and became an impedance to progress.

[bailey_187]

2 reasons: oil and oppression of third world labor sources.

Let me clarify the former. One barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 23,000 hours of human labor. Read this again. One barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 23,000 hours of human labor. This vast increase in wealth within the industrialized world is not due to capitalism, but the harnessing of vast quantities of energy unlike ever before in history, when the main sources of energy consisted of human labor and livestock such as oxes. Oil extraction will peak within the coming decade, and we will have to find alternative or face collapse.

All of this "progression" you see is not a result of capitalism, but due to vast inputs of oil energy (and its destroying the planet).

By this logic, had the Romans or Feudal lords utilised oil, they can have developed the same level of wealth as we have now?

The increased productivity and levels of production seen since the 1700s have nothing to then with the division of labour and other capitalist relations of production?

This makes no sense.

And your prediction of oil running out this decade is among a long line of such predictions, starting in the 1930s atleast.

[Obzervi]

By this logic, had the Romans or Feudal lords utilised oil, they can have developed the same level of wealth as we have now?

The increased productivity and levels of production seen since the 1700s have nothing to then with the division of labour and other capitalist relations of production?

This makes no sense.

And your prediction of oil running out this decade is among a long line of such predictions, starting in the 1930s atleast.
You obviously have a very limited understanding of peak oil if you think it refers to oil running out. Peak oil is not about when the last barrel of oil is extracted, its when maximum production (extraction) capacity has been reached which occurs at about in an oil field at about 50% depletion because the oil becomes harder and harder to pull out. No one thought the US would run out of oil, everyone thought it would last hundreds of years. Yet production peaked in 1970 and since then the US is completely dependent of foreign imports. Many governments have detailed forecasts that global peak oil is set to arrive within the next decade. To put this into context, every year the world consumes 30 billion barrels of oil yet for the past few years we've only been discovering 10 billion per year at most (and not all of that is extractable).

Think before you speak.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.counterpunch.org/zadeh10012008.html


October 1 , 2008

A Powerful Trap

The Recurring Myth of Peak Oil

By ISMAEL HOSSEIN-ZADEH

The Peak Oil theory maintains that world production of conventional oil will soon reach a maximum, or peak, and decline thereafter, with grave socio-economic consequences. Some proponents of the theory argue that world oil production has already peaked, and is now in a terminal decline [1].

Although, on the face of it, this sounds like a fairly reasonable proposition, it has been challenged on both theoretical and empirical grounds. While some critics have called it a myth, others have branded it as a money-making scam promoted by the business interests that are vested in the fossil fuel industry, in the business of war and militarism, and in the Wall Street financial giants that are engaged in manipulative oil speculation.

[...]

Peak Oil Thesis Is Not New: Geology vs. Geopolitics

Peak Oil theory is not altogether new. M. King Hubbert, a well-known geologist, provided a dramatic discussion of the theory in 1956. A year later, Admiral Rickover discussed the end of the fossil fuel era even more emphatically—at the time, he gave oil about fifty more years to run out. Thirty years ago, the Club of Rome predicted an end of oil long before the present day.

Indeed, there is evidence that projections of oil peaking, then declining and running out, have been floated around ever since oil was discovered in the second half of 19th century. For example, the chief geologist of Pennsylvania predicted in 1874 that we would run out of oil in four years—just using it for kerosene [5].

[...]

It turns out, however, that oil price shocks of all the previous periods of energy crisis were precipitated not by oil shortages, or any real prospects of oil “peaking and running out,” but by international political convulsions, revolutions and wars: the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, the 1979 Revolution in Iran, and the 1990-91 invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein’s armed forces. Each time, as the turbulent period of war or revolutionary atmosphere ended, higher oil prices of the respective crisis situation subsided accordingly [6].

The current oil price hike too is precipitated not by an oil shortage, as popularly perceived, but by manipulative speculation in energy futures markets—which are, in turn, prompted largely by the unstable atmosphere of war and geopolitical turbulence in the Middle East.

Evidence is therefore unambiguous that, so far, almost all oil price shocks can be explained not by geology, or the so-called Peak Oil, but by geopolitics.

[...]

[S.Artesian]

You obviously have a very limited understanding of peak oil if you think it refers to oil running out. Peak oil is not about when the last barrel of oil is extracted, its when maximum production (extraction) capacity has been reached which occurs at about in an oil field at about 50% depletion because the oil becomes harder and harder to pull out. No one thought the US would run out of oil, everyone thought it would last hundreds of years. Yet production peaked in 1970 and since then the US is completely dependent of foreign imports. Many governments have detailed forecasts that global peak oil is set to arrive within the next decade. To put this into context, every year the world consumes 30 billion barrels of oil yet for the past few years we've only been discovering 10 billion per year at most (and not all of that is extractable).

Think before you speak.

Good advice. You should try it.

First, are you kidding? Ever since Spindletop, a section of the US oil bourgeoisie have been moaning about running out of oil.

Secondly, no, the US is not completely dependent on oil imports. The US imports about 55% of its oil needs.

Peak oil argues that reserves cannot keep up with production; that the size of successive discoveries shrinks; and that production becomes more difficult, more expensive, and incapable of further expansion.

But reserves are economic, not geological categories. Reserves are defined as an expected amount of oil that can be produced a certain price, with current technology, yielding a certain degree of profitability.

Since the 1970s, and the "modern" version of peak oil, the peak oil advocates themselves have progressively raised their estimates of oil reserves.

The fact of the matter is that what peaked in 1970 was the rate of profit, the rate of return on investment in the oil industry. There was no shortage of oil in the world. There was a decline in profit.

The other country which in 1970 experienced a "peak" in production was Venezuela. Now in the intervening 40 years known, proven reserves of oil from conventional sources [NOT the Orinoco super-heavy, not bitumen etc] has doubled. But the profitability of production in Venezuela could not match the profitability of production from the gulf countries of the Mideast. Did reserves decline? No. Did supplies decline? No.

Ever since 1999, and OPEC's 3rd bailout of the oil majors, we've been hearing about "peak oil." But what was behind the 1999 OPEC intervention? Was it declining production? Nope. Declining reserves? No, replacements rates throughout the period of the 1990s exceeded a 1:1 rate. Was it increasing costs of production? No. Direct production costs in the US, including offshore, were at historical lows-- at $3.42/barrel not adjusted for inflation, so well below the 1948 low of $2.50/barrel. Throughout the 90s, production and exploration costs had been declining per barrel of oil as advanced technology, computer imaging, seismic 3D analysis, horizontal drilling brought new production at cheaper cost into the markets.

What had declined, again, was the rate of return on investment in the industry, the profitability of the oil majors. Overproduction had driven the market price of oil below $10/barrel in 1998, thus compressing the gap between the cost of production and the price of production. Enter OPEC, for the 3rd time-- to announce production cuts and whip the markets into raising the price of oil, in effect, transferring profits from other industries into the oil industry.

That's what's going on here, overproduction, and the bourgeoisie's attempt to offset the impact of overproduction.

"Peak oil" is nothing but Malthusian over-population theory dressed up as geology.

[Obzervi]

Even if you don't believe in peak oil, how can you support using oil when its destroying the planet? You know, we share this planet with millions of other species other than ourselves.

[graymouser]

None of which is any more inherent to capitalism than any other system. All of these things are the result of human labour, capitalism just harnessed and organised labour in a way that brought about these developments.

But I think I figured it out anyway. For one thing, whilst capitalism didn't create the industrial revolution, the capitalist invested in the new means of production becoming available in a way that ordinary workers wouldn't and / or couldn't have done. This, I think, is what Adil3tr means.
If you really want to understand this, you should really read volume 1 of Capital, it contains an in depth summation of precisely this question.

The means of production are invested in via a dynamic where competing capitalists are always looking to squeeze a bit more relative surplus value (basically when work is done faster than the socially average time required) out of workers; this is partly through speed-up but also through constant revolutionizing of the means of production. What happens is that, in a field - Marx mostly covered the textile industry - a new machine initially gives the innovator a competitive edge. But this goes away with time, because everyone else also incorporates the same technology. Since capital has to constantly re-invest profits in order to survive, this creates a dynamic where the level of technology constantly increases.

Anyway, just more food for thought. But you're really asking one of the questions at the heart of Capital and would do well to read that book.

[La Comédie Noire]

The more sophisticated the means of production get, the more sophisticated the working class has to be in order to run it. Being a feudal lord was cake compared to being a capitalist, all they had to deal with were illiterate and superstitious peasants isolated locally from one another.

That's progress.

[#FF0000]

Even if you don't believe in peak oil, how can you support using oil when its destroying the planet? You know, we share this planet with millions of other species other than ourselves.

If there's another way then we can use that and avoid unnecessary environmental destruction but otherwise, honestly, I don't give a shit about anything but humanity.

[S.Artesian]

Even if you don't believe in peak oil, how can you support using oil when its destroying the planet? You know, we share this planet with millions of other species other than ourselves.

I didn't say anything about "supporting using oil." But now that you bring it up, what exactly is different about oil from anything else the bourgeoisie do? Coal, uranium, shale gas, pig farms [with the run off], chicken farms... etc.

Do I support capitalist production of food? No. I support eating. I support everyone eating which is why I oppose capitalism. Does that mean food CANNOT be produced in a way that doesn't pollute the groundwater, build up toxic substances in tissues, pillage entire species etc. etc? Of course not.

Do I support "oil"? Not capitalist production of oil. But I sure do support utilizing energy resources to improve human life, and developing society so that medicine, food, information can be made available easily and effectively for everyone. Oil is one of those resources.

I am not a "developmentalist." Marxism is not about developmentalism. But neither is Marxism pastoralism, or Malthiusian population theory, nor does it have anything in common with "peak oil," an ideology that says the production of oil as a commodity, as value, has nothing to do with what happens to oil stocks, supplies, reserves, accessibility, etc. Oil is a commodity, profit is where the problem resides. The abolition of the profit is the solution.

[Obzervi]

If there's another way then we can use that and avoid unnecessary environmental destruction but otherwise, honestly, I don't give a shit about anything but humanity.

WTF. The death of nature = the death of man as well. If we don't live in harmony with nature we will outstrip its resources.

[bailey_187]

WTF. The death of nature = the death of man as well. If we don't live in harmony with nature we will outstrip its resources.

what does living in harmony with nature mean?

[S.Artesian]

Exactly what resources are we "outstripping," "we" as a species, as opposed "them" the capitalists for whom plunder and accumulation are the beginning and the end?

[Obzervi]

Some of you are forgetting that we share this planet with millions of species. To disregard them and their right to life is like ethnocentrism on a species level, just as bad as racism. If nature falls, so do we.

[ckaihatsu]

what does living in harmony with nature mean?


It's a musicology thing -- something to do with birds' songs, I think....


x D

[graymouser]

Some of you are forgetting that we share this planet with millions of species. To disregard them and their right to life is like ethnocentrism on a species level, just as bad as racism. If nature falls, so do we.
I think there is a strong degree of respect we should have for ecologies and the environment, but this kind of statement is just petty-bourgeois moralism. Capitalism is shit for the environment precisely because of its tendency to accumulate, Marx recognized that over a hundred and fifty years ago. Our attitude toward the environment should be as protectors for the next generation, not some bizarre moralists talking about "ethnocentrism on a species level."

[Revolution starts with U]

They call that anthropocentrism, Obzervi