Capitalism: when will it collapse?

[SacRedMan]

Our enemy, capitalism, that we all have in common, is still spitting out their propaganda, hate and mass-production over the planet. Marx wrote that we have to make a revolution when capitalism is at the edge of society. And many people like to blame the causes of the crissises we had against capitalism and its nasty dog, liberalism.
Now my question and the reason why I made this poll:

When shall capitalism collapse? What do you think?

[Agent Ducky]

It will collapse, but we can't really know for sure when... O_o

[The Man]

The collapse is in inevitable because of the internal weaknesses in the system. But were not going to Communism until we stop the Sectarian BS.

[Dimentio]

2050-2100.

Because of environmental meltdown. If it collapses in the latter phase of this period, it would be replaced by something reminiscent of Bosnia or Somalia.

[Stand Your Ground]

As much as I would love to have it collapse NOW, it will be a few years, at least. We need full working class consciousness first. But there's always hope, I saw a good instance of class consciousness just last week.

[Sadena Meti]

I think it will always exist in parts, just as different systems of government exist around the world. Even after the revolution, even if a "one world" is created, there will be pockets were they do things differently. They will have to be actively stamped out, but it is a phenomenon that will continue to pop up. Just like now and then NEW monarchies are created. It's rare, but it happens. Remember, George Washington was offered the post of King!

[robbo203]

The collapse is in inevitable because of the internal weaknesses in the system. But were not going to Communism until we stop the Sectarian BS.

People have been predicting the collapse of capitalism at least since the earll 19th century when the first great commercial crisis broke upon the scene. It hasnt happened and for one very good reason - it can't happen. There is no internal mechanism that anyone can reliably demonstrate will bring about capitalism's collapse. Some people cite the falling rate of profit as the fatal mechanism that bring about colllapse but this notion has been comprehensively debunked time and time again; im any case it takes no account of Marx's famous "counteracting tendencies" to any tendency for the rate of profit to fall. A classic pamphlet on this subject written in 1932 "Why Capitalism will not Collapse" still remains perhaps the most decisive refutation of all collapsist notions http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/wcwnc.pdf


There are only two ways in which we might see the end of capitalism - one is the intervention of some external factor such as an environmental catastophe. The other is when the great majority of the working class consciously and politically organise to overthrow capitalism. This perhaps explains why collapsist notions are so popular among the vanguardist left. It appears to dispense with the need for a majoritarian communist revolution to get rid of capitalism. After all, if capitalism is going to get rid of itself why bother to convince a majority that it needs to be got rid of?

[Nehru]

People have been predicting the collapse of capitalism at least since the earll 19th century when the first great commercial crisis broke upon the scene. It hasnt happened and for one very good reason - it can't happen. There is no internal mechanism that anyone can reliably demonstrate will bring about capitalism's collapse. Some people cite the falling rate of profit as the fatal mechanism that bring about colllapse but this notion has been comprehensively debunked time and time again; im any case it takes no account of Marx's famous "counteracting tendencies" to any tendency for the rate of profit to fall. A classic pamphlet on this subject written in 1932 "Why Capitalism will not Collapse" still remains perhaps the most decisive refutation of all collapsist notions http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/wcwnc.pdf


There are only two ways in which we might see the end of capitalism - one is the intervention of some external factor such as an environmental catastophe. The other is when the great majority of the working class consciously and politically organise to overthrow capitalism. This perhaps explains why collapsist notions are so popular among the vanguardist left. It appears to dispense with the need for a majoritarian communist revolution to get rid of capitalism. After all, if capitalism is going to get rid of itself why bother to convince a majority that it needs to be got rid of?

This is a naive, idealistic view. Lenin once remarked that if we wait for all workers to become class-conscious, then we'll have to wait forever. At a given point in time, only a few workers are going to be class-conscious, so they have to be the vanguard and lead from the front. This idea of 'convincing the majority' is ludicrous because, if wars and poverty and depression don't convince them, do you think anything else will?

[☭The Revolution☭]

It ends when we stop talking, unite, organize, throw revolution, and bring it down. Simple as that. If we wait, it will be too late. We have to ACT, not just wait for it to collapse some day.

[Sadena Meti]

It ends when we stop talking, unite, organize, throw revolution, and bring it down. Simple as that. If we wait, it will be too late. We have to ACT, not just wait for it to collapse some day.

I think it will take some outside acts to bring about enough instability for real change. Environmental disasters, wars, etc.

[Kronsteen]

Lenin once remarked that if we wait for all workers to become class-conscious, then we'll have to wait forever.

In itself, that's an interesting attitude for him to have - one which he voiced on many occasions. Lenin believed that the workers were simply not capable of coming to class consiousness - at least not in large numbers - on their own.

He thought they needed consciousness formulated for them, by intellectuals and dedicated revolutionaries - like Lenin himself. It's an interestingly...top-down model of bottom-up revolution.


At a given point in time, only a few workers are going to be class-conscious,

True, but there are levels and types of class consciousness. It only takes a few thousand of high consciousness to bring down a government, but it also needs millions who are conscious enough - especially bureaucrats, police and even military - to go along with it.

[Kronsteen]

I think it will take some outside acts to bring about enough instability for real change. Environmental disasters, wars, etc.

Perhaps, but what happens if you take that thinking one stage further? What about creating such a disaster, so as to destabilse capitalism? Others have gone down that path before.

[Comrade J]

It will likely collapse gradually through the world correlating with the decline of the nation-state, and probably after various bankrupting resource wars as we run out of oil.

Either that, or this Tuesday.

[robbo203]

This is a naive, idealistic view. Lenin once remarked that if we wait for all workers to become class-conscious, then we'll have to wait forever. At a given point in time, only a few workers are going to be class-conscious, so they have to be the vanguard and lead from the front. This idea of 'convincing the majority' is ludicrous because, if wars and poverty and depression don't convince them, do you think anything else will?


What ffs is "naive" and "idealistic"? Do you even know what you are supposed to be criticising? I simply said that a communist revolution has to be a majoritarian one - otherwise you wont get communism. You will be stuck with capitalism. QED.

I couldnt care a toss what Lenin said (actually it wasnt "forever" that he expected to wait for workers to become class conscious but "500 hundred years"). You cannot have a communist society unless until a majority want and understand it. In point of fact, this is the Marxian position on the matter though it may well not be Lenin's:

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848)

or better still, Engels:

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul].
(1895Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850_ my emphasis)


But you dont need to quote Marx or Engels to make the point. Its simple commonsense. How can you possibly operate a communist society without people being aware of what it entails? If anything is "idealistic" or "naive" it is the belief that you can somehow dispense with that!

I do wish some on this forum would stop for one moment and think critically about the terms that they are using rarther than casually and sloppily fling them around as a some form of verbal insult. Its as irritating as it is inane.

[Sadena Meti]

Perhaps, but what happens if you take that thinking one stage further? What about creating such a disaster, so as to destabilize capitalism? Others have gone down that path before.
Propaganda of the Deed or are we talking something more, like a few well placed nukes?

[Kronsteen]

Propaganda of the Deed or are we talking something more, like a few well placed nukes?

I don't know of any groups who've literally tried to create international disasters - I'm thinking more of the Pasadasists were (in)famous for reasoning that if Marx was right that the economic system to succeed capitalist must be communism, then a nuclear war ought to create a worker's world.

This is speculation, but I'd be surprised if there hadn't always been tiny sects who followed the narodniks, in a comically incompetent Four Lions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Lions) kind of way.

[Nehru]

What ffs is "naive" and "idealistic"? Do you even know what you are supposed to be criticising? I simply said that a communist revolution has to be a majoritarian one - otherwise you wont get communism. You will be stuck with capitalism. QED.


First of all, calm down. You speak about common sense, yet you imagine that a majority of the 6 billion people are going to become class-conscious and then start a revolution. This isn't naive, isn't it?

Second, ruling class ideas are the ruling ideas. Even if a small minority were to grab power, they can influence the majority with communist ideas. In fact, that's the only way to do it, unless you have a magic wand with which you can convince the majority all at once.

[robbo203]

First of all, calm down. You speak about common sense, yet you imagine that a majority of the 6 billion people are going to become class-conscious and then start a revolution. This isn't naive, isn't it?.

It isnt naive. It is in fact the ONLY way you can ensure that a revolution will end up with a society that will operate in the interests of the majority - if the majority consciously and democratically bring it about. I remind you again of the words of the Communist Manifesto


All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848)




Second, ruling class ideas are the ruling ideas. Even if a small minority were to grab power, they can influence the majority with communist ideas. In fact, that's the only way to do it, unless you have a magic wand with which you can convince the majority all at once.

You talk of naiviety but what could possibly be more naive than this - that a minority captures political power in advance of mass communist consciousness and proceeds to influence the majority with communist ideas.

This is an absolutely dumb idea. What will happen in the meantime and one can see this with absolute certainty is that this minority will have to administer a capitalist society by default and in the very process of doing so, will be obliged to promote in the interests of capital and against those of wage labour. There is simply no other way in which you can run a capitalist society. The minority will thus emerge as a new capitalist ruling class and you will be even further from communism than where you were at the start.

There is simply NO alternative to building up mass communist understanding and support for communism. Of course it cannot come about with a wave of a magic wand but once a critical level of conscious support has been reached the impetus towards communism can become very rapid and resolute. After all, ideas do tend to take off in an exponential fashion rather than arithmetically

[Dumb]

Capitalism will collapse once globalisation has reached a point that enterprises can no longer find labour that's cheaper than what the enterprise's customers are getting paid.

[robbo203]

Capitalism will collapse once globalisation has reached a point that enterprises can no longer find labour that's cheaper than what the enterprise's customers are getting paid.


Capitalism is not going to "collapse" - get rid of this silly idea once and for all! - and certainly not for the reason you cite which is clearly self contradictory. The employees of capitalist enterrprises are, after all, also the customers

What you are possibly alluding to is the "profit squeeze" theory which became briefly fashionable some years ago but has since been discredited as capitalism moved on with a programme of retrenchment and cutbacks. What happened was the workers then began to feel the pinch big time as capital manouvred to restore profit levels. Capitalism will always have sufficient wriggle room to survive and come through even the most devastating of economic crises. Read the pamphlet I recommended (post no.7)

The only way capitalism can be got rid of , barring some ecological catasptrophe or a meteor impacting on earth, is for the workers en masse to consciously and democratically organise to get rid of it

[human strike]

Capitalism isn't a state of affairs to abolish, it is a form of social relations, a process of fetishisation that constantly reasserts itself. Capitalism collapses when we interrupt that process and when we negate it. In this sense capitalism is stronger than ever and already collapsed simultaneously. Capitalism will collapse when somebody shoplifts from Tesco later today.

[Dumb]

Capitalism is not going to "collapse" - get rid of this silly idea once and for all! - and certainly not for the reason you cite which is clearly self contradictory. The employees of capitalist enterrprises are, after all, also the customers

What you are possibly alluding to is the "profit squeeze" theory which became briefly fashionable some years ago but has since been discredited as capitalism moved on with a programme of retrenchment and cutbacks. What happened was the workers then began to feel the pinch big time as capital manouvred to restore profit levels. Capitalism will always have sufficient wriggle room to survive and come through even the most devastating of economic crises. Read the pamphlet I recommended (post no.7)

The only way capitalism can be got rid of , barring some ecological catasptrophe or a meteor impacting on earth, is for the workers en masse to consciously and democratically organise to get rid of it

What I'm actually referring to is outsourcing - shipping jobs from Industry A to cheap labour abroad so that "middle class" domestic consumers working in Industry B can continue consuming. In that respect, the reason I give isn't contradictory at all; you simply failed to take into account all reasonable possibilities.

Your response applies to both a closed economy of the past and a fully globalised economy that, in my opinion, will be coming over the following decades. However, your point cannot address a situation like the present, where enterprises are still able to exploit the wage gap between developed and developing nations. That is how, for now at least, capitalism has managed to separate producer from consumer. Once that gap between developed and developing nations disappears, however, this separation will no longer be possible.

I agree with you that the only way to remove the economic hierarchy is through collective working-class action. However, the hierarchy we remove might not be capitalism, but a new system that develops out of the rubble of capitalism. Capitalism will fall - I take that as inevitable; the question is whether socialism will come after, hence the work we do.

[Jose Gracchus]

People have been predicting the collapse of capitalism at least since the earll 19th century when the first great commercial crisis broke upon the scene. It hasnt happened and for one very good reason - it can't happen. There is no internal mechanism that anyone can reliably demonstrate will bring about capitalism's collapse. Some people cite the falling rate of profit as the fatal mechanism that bring about colllapse but this notion has been comprehensively debunked time and time again; im any case it takes no account of Marx's famous "counteracting tendencies" to any tendency for the rate of profit to fall. A classic pamphlet on this subject written in 1932 "Why Capitalism will not Collapse" still remains perhaps the most decisive refutation of all collapsist notions http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/wcwnc.pdf


There are only two ways in which we might see the end of capitalism - one is the intervention of some external factor such as an environmental catastophe. The other is when the great majority of the working class consciously and politically organise to overthrow capitalism. This perhaps explains why collapsist notions are so popular among the vanguardist left. It appears to dispense with the need for a majoritarian communist revolution to get rid of capitalism. After all, if capitalism is going to get rid of itself why bother to convince a majority that it needs to be got rid of?

Ah yes, the Latter-Day Saints model of socialism. Some day something will change, and we'll manage to evangelize the passive class into majority agreement, and then enact socialism.

This is idealism, it is not a real world historical model of class consciousness. Class consciousness develops in the manner of a stochastic process, brought upon through both objective and subjective factors in the working class in the process of a historical epoch that is riper for revolution than others. It is not imposed from without, by either the Kautskyite-Leninist or WSM evangelist models.

[robbo203]

What I'm actually referring to is outsourcing - shipping jobs from Industry A to cheap labour abroad so that "middle class" domestic consumers working in Industry B can continue consuming. In that respect, the reason I give isn't contradictory at all; you simply failed to take into account all reasonable possibilities.

Your response applies to both a closed economy of the past and a fully globalised economy that, in my opinion, will be coming over the following decades. However, your point cannot address a situation like the present, where enterprises are still able to exploit the wage gap between developed and developing nations. That is how, for now at least, capitalism has managed to separate producer from consumer. Once that gap between developed and developing nations disappears, however, this separation will no longer be possible.

I agree with you that the only way to remove the economic hierarchy is through collective working-class action. However, the hierarchy we remove might not be capitalism, but a new system that develops out of the rubble of capitalism. Capitalism will fall - I take that as inevitable; the question is whether socialism will come after, hence the work we do.

Sorry but in no way does this demonstrate the possibility that capitalism will collapse. Outsourcing simply alters the global division of labour , the pattern of capital flows. It does not threaten global capitalism one jot.

Capitalism is a highly adaptable system of exploitation. You talk about " shipping jobs from Industry A to cheap labour abroad so that "middle class" domestic consumers working in Industry B can continue consuming" But capitalism has long been doing this! The implication of what you saying is that there will be progressively less jobs on the domestic front because they are being exported to low wage regions abroad.

Even if what you say was true it does not follow at all that capitalism cannot survive with high levels of unemployment. It can and it has. In fact levels of unemployment were much higher in the 1930s than they are today. Capitalism pulled through that sticky patch with consumate ease. It was never seriously theatened.

But, in any case, what you say is manifestly not true. Employment levels in counties like the US or the UK have steadily grown overall (with small fluctuations) throughout the last century despite the the growth in international trade and investment. Every single US president since the war has left office with employment levels higher than when he entered office. What has changed is the overall pattern of employment with some jobs being shipped out but new ones being created instead. This has always been the way with capitalism

If you scenario was remotely true all that would happen is that wage levels on the domestic front would adjust downwards to the point at which, once again, it might become economically realistic to invest in the kinds of industries that had previously exported jobs abroad. Perhaps it might take parts of the US to come to resemble places like Mexico or the Phillipines (and with wages to match) for this to happen but that emphatically does not signifiy the collapse of capitalism - though it might well signifiy the collapse of that absurd idelogical construction, the "american dream"!

[Tablo]

I have no clue when capitalism will collapse. Not even sure if collapse is the best way to describe since I feel it will more likely be overthrown. I would like to say it will be soon, but I honestly don't know.

[robbo203]

Ah yes, the Latter-Day Saints model of socialism. Some day something will change, and we'll manage to evangelize the passive class into majority agreement, and then enact socialism.

This is idealism, it is not a real world historical model of class consciousness. Class consciousness develops in the manner of a stochastic process, brought upon through both objective and subjective factors in the working class in the process of a historical epoch that is riper for revolution than others. It is not imposed from without, by either the Kautskyite-Leninist or WSM evangelist models.

This is completely misinformed (if you might excuse the pun). No one has ever suggested that socialist propaganda on its own can achieve communism. It is as you rightly say the result of an interaction of objective and subjective factors. The point is what are those subjective factors that are supposed to interact with those objective factors to generate the necessary growth of a political movement that will establish communism?


The plain fact of the matter is that you can never hope to establish communism unless and until a majority want it and understand it and no amount of wriggling will ever get round this fact. Do you deny this? If so show me how you can introduce and operate a communist society without the mass of the population being consciously aware of what all this entails

This is not "idealism" BTW. Many who use this term so loosely and liberally as a form of insult on this site seem not to really understand what is meant by it at all. They do not grasp the significance of class consciousness which necessarily and by definition entails a subjective dimension. We are not robotic mechanisms preprogrammed to realise communism in some teleogical fashion. We are thinking animals and influenced by all sorts of factors including the thoughts and feelings of others.

Objective factors do not exist separately from our interpretation of them. They dont have some kind of implicit meaning which imposes itself upon us. To suggest that they do is actually to resort - ironically - to a kind of mystical view of the world which makes it vastly more mysterious than it actually is.


We always to bring to the world our own consciousness of it which mediates the information we receive. Material conditions of class consciousness give rise to class consciousness but equally class consciousness impacts upon these material conditions and invest this class struggle a sense of direction and purpose. We cannot avoid "evangelising" or propagandising our ideas in that sense and anyone who denies this hasnt understood the first thing about class struggle

[Nehru]

I
There is simply NO alternative to building up mass communist understanding and support for communism. Of course it cannot come about with a wave of a magic wand but once a critical level of conscious support has been reached the impetus towards communism can become very rapid and resolute. After all, ideas do tend to take off in an exponential fashion rather than arithmetically

How do you propose to convince the majority - wars cannot convince them, neither can the depression? So what's your secret plan?

[stella2010]

Always carry with you a spanner. A really large one. For throwing and spiking.

I have one in my bag always. I have never had to use it besides a towball and hope that I never will use it. But if it is worth I would cut a hole into anything with it.

This sort of thinking by strongarm men is what can help collapse these fuckwits above us. :thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:

[robbo203]

How do you propose to convince the majority - wars cannot convince them, neither can the depression? So what's your secret plan?

There is no secret plan. In fact secrecy is what we least want. We need transperancy, openness and honesty about the communist goal we aspire to realise. I come back to this point again and again and again - unless a majority want and understand communism you will not get communism. You will never get communism. By default you will be saddled with capitalism. For a communist society to work people have to want it and know what it entails. There is absolutely no getting round this point.

It is not a question of wars or economic depressions convincing people to becoime communists. This is precisely the point that I made to Inform candidate. Objective conditions do not carry intrinsic meanings in and of themselves. They are always mediated by our consciuousness of the world around us, how we interpret it.

If you are a nationalist in outlook a war may very well not prompt you to become a communist. It might instead to prompt you to to chose sides in a war to support "our" country against another country.

So our consciousness of the world around us, our intepretative schema is an absolutely critical factor in what we do about the world. People who talk about this emphasis on consciousness as somehow being "idealism" really have not begun to grasp what the issue is about at all. Its got sod all to do with idealism


We simply cannot avoid propagating the "idea" of a communist society if we want to work towards achieving it. That is simply a nonsensical argument as is the claim that the idea in and of itself can deliver a communist society. It is the conjunction of or interaction between subjective and objective considerations - which can never be separated in practive anyway - that is critical.

Biut let us be clear what this means . It means that if you dont explicitly propagate the idea of communism but think its all down to material conditions working themselves out, you will never realise communism. The two things must go together. We need to reject the mechanistic and indeed utterly mystical idea that material conditions will somehow deliver communism without the crucial intervention of the idea of a future communist taking root in the minds of workers.

Like I said, material conditions carry no implicit message in themselves and can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways

[Dimentio]

The only way capitalism can be got rid of , barring some ecological catasptrophe or a meteor impacting on earth, is for the workers en masse to consciously and democratically organise to get rid of it

That is more complicated today than ever, especially since the working class is stratified. In some aspects, I believe that those who suffer the most from Capitalism are those who cannot enter the productive process, such as third world farmers, of which a majority are females, slum dwellers, outcasts and workers who don't manage any means of production.

At least in my country, the workers in the manufacturing industry are generally speaking quite well-off in comparison with service sector workers and public sector workers. The largest party amongst them is the conservative party, whereas the service sector workers are largely a-political and the public sector workers are voting on the left side of the spectrum. Recently, Fascism has also started to grow in segments of the working class (though the CWI is also gaining strength, albeit slowly).

[Dumb]

Sorry but in no way does this demonstrate the possibility that capitalism will collapse. Outsourcing simply alters the global division of labour , the pattern of capital flows. It does not threaten global capitalism one jot.

Capitalism is a highly adaptable system of exploitation. You talk about " shipping jobs from Industry A to cheap labour abroad so that "middle class" domestic consumers working in Industry B can continue consuming" But capitalism has long been doing this! The implication of what you saying is that there will be progressively less jobs on the domestic front because they are being exported to low wage regions abroad.

Even if what you say was true it does not follow at all that capitalism cannot survive with high levels of unemployment. It can and it has. In fact levels of unemployment were much higher in the 1930s than they are today. Capitalism pulled through that sticky patch with consumate ease. It was never seriously theatened.

But, in any case, what you say is manifestly not true. Employment levels in counties like the US or the UK have steadily grown overall (with small fluctuations) throughout the last century despite the the growth in international trade and investment. Every single US president since the war has left office with employment levels higher than when he entered office. What has changed is the overall pattern of employment with some jobs being shipped out but new ones being created instead. This has always been the way with capitalism

If you scenario was remotely true all that would happen is that wage levels on the domestic front would adjust downwards to the point at which, once again, it might become economically realistic to invest in the kinds of industries that had previously exported jobs abroad. Perhaps it might take parts of the US to come to resemble places like Mexico or the Phillipines (and with wages to match) for this to happen but that emphatically does not signifiy the collapse of capitalism - though it might well signifiy the collapse of that absurd idelogical construction, the "american dream"!

You've missed my point altogether. If you take another look, I think you'll see that your response is a bit of a non sequitur in light of what I had written previously. However, in your defense, I could have done a better job of spelling my point out. I will attempt to do so now.

Capitalism depends upon access to new markets. As noted before, that's how enterprises manage to find cheap labour at point A while somewhat maintaining a less cheap customer base at point B. Off the top of my head, I can think of two ways for a system to find a new market: either open up trade with a new market, or create a new market (i.e. develop/industrialise a region) to trade with.

We are not quite out of markets left to develop, and the international capitalist system is not quite out of room to integrate global markets. However, we are on a path towards world-wide industrialisation - we're already nearly there, in fact - and world-wide globalisation (that part's been a little harder so far). Once these two processes are complete, capitalism runs out of new room to grow, and it will no longer be able to exploit wage differences between point A and point B. At such a point, the entire world will operate more or less as one giant closed economy - an economy open only to itself, in which there will no longer be any room to separate producer from consumer.

You say that capitalism is adaptable; however, it has never survived such a situation. Historically, no closed, industrialised economy has ever lasted without either collapse (e.g. the USSR) or reforms to open itself to new markets (e.g. China).

Long story short: a capitalist system depends on growth. If it cannot grow, it can only die.

[Dimmu]

The plain fact of the matter is that you can never hope to establish communism unless and until a majority want it and understand it and no amount of wriggling will ever get round this fact. Do you deny this? If so show me how you can introduce and operate a communist society without the mass of the population being consciously aware of what all this entails

Do not agree.. We will never achieve that situation. Most people will not accept communist ideas while they live in the capitalistic world, thats why a revolution needs to happen for the people to see what communism can bring.

[dernier combat]

2050-2100.

Because of environmental meltdown. If it collapses in the latter phase of this period, it would be replaced by something reminiscent of Bosnia or Somalia.
Bosnia and Somalia aren't capitalist? Just what the hell are you on about? I'm certain that capitalist enterprises were still being run during Bosnia and Somalia's respective wars and continue to do so to this day.

[EvilRedGuy]

Do not agree.. We will never achieve that situation. Most people will not accept communist ideas while they live in the capitalistic world, thats why a revolution needs to happen for the people to see what communism can bring.

This.

If people can't see what Communism is then they wouldn't want it.

[IndependentCitizen]

It'll collapse in 2 weeks from now.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The alternative to capitalism isn't necessarily socialism but a more barbaric form of capitalism. Dimentio is right, if capitalism is not eliminated in the period between 2050-2100 the "carrying capacity" of the planet will be severely diminished.(although I don't want to put words in his mouth)

Our current industrial technical capitalism is in seemingly unsolvable crisis and may very well "collapse" but it could also very well lead to a global Mad Max situation.

Capitalism has certainly faced such crisis before.The last time was in the late 19th/early 20th century. The system required vast destructuion of people and material though two world wars and defeated or warped revolutions before a new basis of capital accumulation can be found. We cannot afford to go though this again, the constraints are that much narrower

[JustMovement]

I have it on good word that it is collapsing the day after tommorow.

Who here has read "Waiting for Godot"?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What ffs is "naive" and "idealistic"? Do you even know what you are supposed to be criticising? I simply said that a communist revolution has to be a majoritarian one - otherwise you wont get communism. You will be stuck with capitalism. QED.

I couldnt care a toss what Lenin said (actually it wasnt "forever" that he expected to wait for workers to become class conscious but "500 hundred years"). You cannot have a communist society unless until a majority want and understand it. In point of fact, this is the Marxian position on the matter though it may well not be Lenin's:

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848)

or better still, Engels:

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul].
(1895Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850_ my emphasis)


But you dont need to quote Marx or Engels to make the point. Its simple commonsense. How can you possibly operate a communist society without people being aware of what it entails? If anything is "idealistic" or "naive" it is the belief that you can somehow dispense with that!

I do wish some on this forum would stop for one moment and think critically about the terms that they are using rarther than casually and sloppily fling them around as a some form of verbal insult. Its as irritating as it is inane.


Okay, but revolutionaries have to think politically. The new society-socialism, does already exist in the shell of the old in terms of the "socialization" of the means of production although under private ownership. With the high tech revolution, capitalist enterprises are increasingly operating "horizontaly", on a non-hierarchal basis (yes, I recognise a lot of the phoniness in contemporary bourgeois management philosophy). This can be seen as the "beach beneath the asphalt", a situ slogan used by the current Egyptian revolutionaries.

The new is straining to break out of the old. However the "ideas of the ruling class are the ideas of society". the job of a revolutionary is not to tell worker's what to think but to act as a custodian of ideas. People are constantly being bombarded by capitalist and libertarian propaganda. Its important to teach people, though dialogue and "patiently explaining" what is going on, where we are headed, and what can be done.

[robbo203]

Do not agree.. We will never achieve that situation. Most people will not accept communist ideas while they live in the capitalistic world, thats why a revolution needs to happen for the people to see what communism can bring.

If what you say was true then the "revolution" that you speak of would by defintion not then be a communist revolution and what it would deliver would not be communism. It would not signify any kind of fundamental break with capitalism at all. The bottom line is that you can't have communism without the mass of workers wanting it and understanding it. Your non-communist "revolution" may or may not make it easier for workers to come to a communist outlook but, one way or another, they must come to such an outlook in order for a communist revolution to take effect. There is no getting around this point.

As an aside , it constantly astonishes me how conservative and pessimistic many revelefters are about the prospects of a communist society. Repeat the mantra often enough that "Most people will not accept communist ideas while they live in the capitalistic world" and you will come to beleive it. This is one of the most powerful ways by which capitalism comes to entrench itself - through a self fulfiulling prpophecy. We think communist ideas are not going to be accepted by others and therefore we make it so...

[robbo203]

You've missed my point altogether. If you take another look, I think you'll see that your response is a bit of a non sequitur in light of what I had written previously. However, in your defense, I could have done a better job of spelling my point out. I will attempt to do so now.
Capitalism depends upon access to new markets. As noted before, that's how enterprises manage to find cheap labour at point A while somewhat maintaining a less cheap customer base at point B. Off the top of my head, I can think of two ways for a system to find a new market: either open up trade with a new market, or create a new market (i.e. develop/industrialise a region) to trade with.
We are not quite out of markets left to develop, and the international capitalist system is not quite out of room to integrate global markets. However, we are on a path towards world-wide industrialisation - we're already nearly there, in fact - and world-wide globalisation (that part's been a little harder so far). Once these two processes are complete, capitalism runs out of new room to grow, and it will no longer be able to exploit wage differences between point A and point B. At such a point, the entire world will operate more or less as one giant closed economy - an economy open only to itself, in which there will no longer be any room to separate producer from consumer.
You say that capitalism is adaptable; however, it has never survived such a situation. Historically, no closed, industrialised economy has ever lasted without either collapse (e.g. the USSR) or reforms to open itself to new markets (e.g. China).
Long story short: a capitalist system depends on growth. If it cannot grow, it can only die.

This sounds suspiciously like a variant of Rosa Luxemburg's underconsumptionist theory of capitalist crises as elaborated in her 1913 work The Accumulation of Capital. According to Luxemburg, capitalism requires new markets in order to survive and to provide fresh outlets for investment. Without that, the system will seize up and the point at which this would happen would would be when there were no more non capitalist parts of the world to develop and turn into new markers. At this point capitalism would collapse. Luxemburg's argument turned out to be quite mistaken as is yours (and for much the same reason). I wont go into too much detail about this but there is an interesting link here which you might want to follow up
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/Education%20Series%20Crises.html

Turning to your specific arguments I think that while it is true to say that capitalism needs growth in the sense that its basic dynamic is inherently expansionist it does not follow that the absence of growth means that the system "can only die". Economic recessions, for instance, usually mean a cessation of economic growth but you can hardly assert that the system is dying or dead when this happens . It simply plods on until - inevitably - growth picks up again. That has always been the case and there is no reason to think otherwise. Back in 19th century people like Engels were seduced into thinking that capitalism had entered a period of chronic stgnation. They were proved wrong. Capitalism always works to restore the conditions that make growth possible only once again to fall into a periodic crisis. The trade cycle is inherent in the very nature of the system itself.

You make a number of highly questionable claims such as that capitalism has never been in a situation in which it exists as a closed system. You cite the case of the Soviet Union which, as we know, was a system of state run capitalism (though it was far from closed as you seem to imagine and had in fact become increasingly amenable to entering into partnership deals with major western corporations, dubbed as "vodka cola" deals ). The point is that the collapse of soviet state capitalism did not signifiy the collapse of capitalism as such. Only a specific variant of capitalism - which was replaced by another variant usually identified as corporate capitalism.. You are confusing "capitalism" with a particular form of capitalism

Another point - you seem to be prone to making a lot of sweeping statements about capitalism in general and in the process committing a fallacy of composition. Even if it were true that capitalism in general had run out of new markets it doesnt follow that this applies at the enterrpise level individual enterprises competing against each to increase their market share at the expense of others

The gist of your argument would seem to be that with globalisation and industrialisation , "capitalism runs out of new room to grow, and it will no longer be able to exploit wage differences between point A and point B." Well, for a start, we are very far removed fromn a situation in which wage differentials across the world are negligible but even if this situation were to arise how would this affect the argument? I am not too clear what you are trying to say here but it seems to me that it looks like you are saying capitalism will not be able to reduce its labour costs by undercutting and relocating capital elsewhere - to cheap labour zones . But, as you know, there is more than one way to skin a cat and in the most unlikely event of your scenario ever happening, there are other variables to take into account which could help to push up the rate of exploitation including, of course, technological development. High wages do not at all signifiy the prospect of impending capitalist collapse - the profit sqeeze theory - and, if anything, if wage differntials are going to narrow according to your scenario they are likely to narrow downwards rather than upwards due to the sheer weight of increasing numbers of proletarians in the Third world currently paid a pitiful wage. How is this going to signify the collapse of capitalism?

[Thirsty Crow]

Capitalism will collapse when the organized global proletariat takes action.

No, really, drop the hope for a final, epic collapse. It's embarrasing.

[robbo203]

One further point to consider . People talk about the prospect of capitalist collapse today. In the 2008/09 recession, output fell by 3 per cent in the US and 5 per cent in Germany. However, in the Great Depression of the 1930s, the fall was nearly 30 (thirty!) per cent in both countries. International trade in general fell by round 50%. Yet capitalism pulled through then; why should it be assumed it will collapse now?

[Rakhmetov]

I have a very strong feeling that capitalism is going to collapse in a much bigger and spectacular way than Stalinism did in 1991 due to the far-reaching imperialist system of the U.S. :thumbup:

[robbo203]

I have a very strong feeling that capitalism is going to collapse in a much bigger and spectacular way than Stalinism did in 1991 due to the far-reaching imperialist system of the U.S. :thumbup:


Apart from having a "very strong feeling" what factual evidence do you actually have that supports your claim that capitalism is going to collapse? How does the "far reaching imperialism" of the US make this likely and why would you not simply get a more isolationist form of capitalism instead?

See, I am strongly opposed to this whole collapsist scenario of capitalism. Very often what people have in mind by this is not capitalism but only some variant of capitalism. The collapse of the Soviet Union, for instance, was not a collapse of capitalism but only a collapse of the state capitalist version of capitalism. If you dont understand what capitalism is how can you possibly strive to replace it with an alternative?

Not only that, "collapsism" fosters the illusory hope that the system will vanish and, then, when the system refuses to oblige and instead comes back strongly on the form of yet another boom - as it always does given the cyclical nature of capitalism - the inevitable result is that disenchantment sets in. Iroincally that actually leads to the equally implausible and conservative belief that since capitalism has not collapsed it must therefore be inevitable and we can never get rid of it. We can but the only way to get rid of capitalism is for the mass of workers to consciously and politically get rid of it. Pinning one hopes on capitalism collapsing actually detracts from this task

So please, people, lets stop talking about capitalism collapsing. Weve heard this being said repeatedly since at least the early 19th century when capitalism's first great commercial crisis broke out. It didnt happen then and it hasnt happened since. It is never going to happen for the very simple reason that capitalism always recreates the conditions for the restoration of economic growth until once again it succumbs to a crisis

Once you understand this there can be no excuse for clinging on to the lazy apocalyptic idea of capitalist collapse which, quite frankly, does no one any favours .....

[ckaihatsu]

I'm going to suggest that there are *four* socio-political dynamics / directions for the system to go in -- [1] objective & market-strengthening, [2] objective & market-weakening, [3] subjective & market-strengthening, and [4] subjective & market-weakening.

Obviously the capitalist system runs into crisis situations, as it did in 2008, etc. -- the U.S. dollar is now currently hitting a downslope so we may be seeing the onset of *yet another* market plunge. (Also note how these public-bailout-funded bubbles of the past decade are far less robust than *real*, manufacturing-growth-oriented upswings.) The fact of recurring systemic market failures is empirical evidence for [2] -- objective & market-weakening.

The pressing question, though, is whether these objective economic dynamics are enough, in and of themselves, for a resulting crisis to become the "be-all-and-end-all" decisive collapse from which no one escapes. The biggest example *for* this argument is the collapse of the USSR's state capitalism, while the biggest example *against* is the world's system re-dividing and re-configuring after World War II.

There's a good argument to be made here that imperialism has risen to previously unknown heights, with the U.S. empire as the most dominant economic and military force the world has ever seen, with China as the largest *colony* the world has ever seen. Much of the turmoil in the Middle East is now "small potatoes" by comparison, a re-colonizing of the major imperialists' past holdings. *These* factors would be on the [1] -- objective & market-strengthening side of things.

And, any false class consciousness and/or corporatist or counter-revolutionary attitudes within the working class would be [3] subjective & market-strengthening, of course.

But it's the *fourth* category -- [4] subjective & market-weakening -- which is the "wild card":








Our view of the crisis [1932]

FOREWORD

We are in the midst of a crisis that is world-wide. Every country feels its ravages. Millions and millions of workers are unemployed and in acute poverty. Everywhere there is discontent and a feeling of insecurity, and the prestige of even the strongest of governments has been shaken. All sorts of emergency measures have been hastily adopted, but the depression still continues. Working men and women who normally ignore such questions, are now asking why the crisis has occurred, what will be its outcome, and whether it could have been avoided. In some minds there is a fear, and in others a hope, that the industrial crisis may bring the present system of society down in ruins, and make way for another.

[...]

The worker [sees] the inability of the experts to agree among themselves [...]

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/wcwnc.pdf


In the *midst* of things we need to realize the "chicken" factor -- (recall the "tough-guy" "game" of 'chicken' in which two people drive cars headlong at each other, looking to see who swerves out of the way first, the "loser") -- because in an unfamiliar situation, as the world is at any given point anyway, some will feel an overwhelming unease, causing them to "blink", thus forfeiting to their adversary.

The major powers *were* able to reconfigure the postwar capitalist world at the Potsdam Conference, but such a common ruling class basis was only won out of violent imperialist conquest in the form of a second world war. There's no objective *guarantee* that such a [1] objective, large-scale, market-asserting *political commonality* can be found by those at the top. Instead, #4 *may* prevail, wherein the workers of the world reduce their (our) individual and collective cognitive dissonance by consenting to a global system of social relations that *break* with the practice of private property, so as to restore a newfound kind of rationality to society.

[robbo203]

I'm going to suggest that there are *four* socio-political dynamics / directions for the system to go in -- [1] objective & market-strengthening, [2] objective & market-weakening, [3] subjective & market-strengthening, and [4] subjective & market-weakening.

Obviously the capitalist system runs into crisis situations, as it did in 2008, etc. -- the U.S. dollar is now currently hitting a downslope so we may be seeing the onset of *yet another* market plunge. (Also note how these public-bailout-funded bubbles of the past decade are far less robust than *real*, manufacturing-growth-oriented upswings.) The fact of recurring systemic market failures is empirical evidence for [2] -- objective & market-weakening..

But a market plunge will be followed by a market surge as capitalism works to restore the conditions of economic growth. This has always been the way it has happened



The pressing question, though, is whether these objective economic dynamics are enough, in and of themselves, for a resulting crisis to become the "be-all-and-end-all" decisive collapse from which no one escapes. The biggest example *for* this argument is the collapse of the USSR's state capitalism, while the biggest example *against* is the world's system re-dividing and re-configuring after World War II. ..

But the collapse of soviet state capitalism did not at all signify the collapse of capitalism. It merely signified the reconfiguration of capitalism in a more corporate form.



There's a good argument to be made here that imperialism has risen to previously unknown heights, with the U.S. empire as the most dominant economic and military force the world has ever seen, with China as the largest *colony* the world has ever seen. Much of the turmoil in the Middle East is now "small potatoes" by comparison, a re-colonizing of the major imperialists' past holdings. *These* factors would be on the [1] -- objective & market-strengthening side of things...

What evdience doi you have for this claim? It strike me in any case that the US' economic dominance is on the wane though militarily speaking it is still the "world's policeman"

[ckaihatsu]

What evdience doi you have for this claim? It strike me in any case that the US' economic dominance is on the wane though militarily speaking it is still the "world's policeman"


Yes, I'll be the first to agree that the U.S. has lost hegemonic, diplomatic, and cultural ground in the postwar and post-Vietnam-War eras, as well as manufacturing might and nationalist economic sovereignty, but it's (arguably) *consolidated* and possibly *increased* its economic and military hegemony in the post-Vietnam-War period, as with the favored role that the U.S. dollar continues to enjoy as the world's main (sole?) reserve currency, and with its network of hundreds of military bases all over the world.

These economic and militarist factors indicate a "hyper-imperialism" that persists yet is also more precarious from being so overly reliant on those sole strengths -- note that the U.S. annihilated Iraq upon its plans to abandon trading oil using the U.S. dollar currency. The increasingly multipolar geopolitical "ecosystem" is more capable than ever at bypassing the U.S. dollar for major, direct trading.





But the collapse of soviet state capitalism did not at all signify the collapse of capitalism. It merely signified the reconfiguration of capitalism in a more corporate form.


Agreed, but what if the crisis of (the USSR's) state capitalism plays out at the *largest* scale, this time affecting the U.S. in the same way, with over-reliance on non-growth instruments -- trade currency hegemony, finance, militarism, cultural imperialism, and its own domestic service sector -- ?





But a market plunge will be followed by a market surge as capitalism works to restore the conditions of economic growth. This has always been the way it has happened


Well, it's the *typical*, *conventional* rhythm of finance-based ebbs and flows -- but Wall Street's recent "sovereignty crisis" has shown that the *fundamentals* just aren't there anymore. This *economic* crisis -- as in 2000 -- threatens a *political* and *constitutional* crisis -- as in 2000 -- that, as is currently playing out in Wisconsin, threatens to erode the U.S.'s core legitimacy in the eyes of the public, exactly in the same way as happened to the USSR.