What will Capitalism ultimately lead to?

[Hexen]

What is the final result of what Capitalism will lead to eventually? For those who played Bioshock, will that be the final result of Capitalism or is it just what Ayn Randite Objectivism will lead to?

[Queercommie Girl]

How could a computer game like Bioshock genuinely express what capitalism may ultimately lead to in reality?

[Old Mole]

I'll say communism.

[bricolage]

socialism or barbarism bro

[Cork Socialist]

It will eventually allow for the building of a Socialist movement, which will move towards communism eventually.

[the Left™]

In my opinion it will turn more and more authoritarian as popular challenge to vested interest grows, and as the state role increases to protect the inevitable crises of capital that arise.

As far as the BioShock comment, this i think embodies the logical extreme of Randian style capitalism-- a sort of hyper-individualized failed state. Not sure if BioShock is social commentary on anarcho-capitalism so much as a statement about a power-hungry idealist entrepeneur who remarks himself as some sort of capitalist god.

[Leftsolidarity]

No doubt socialism but it depends on if the extreme reactionaries hold power before the working class. If they do then you might see a period of fascism or something similar.

[bcbm]

capitalism until the end of time

[hatzel]

No doubt socialism

Then why the hell do we even bother doing anything? Everybody, take a break! :)

[Hebrew Hammer]

How could a computer game like Bioshock genuinely express what capitalism may ultimately lead to in reality?

I think it's an interesting 'what if' but ultimately it wouldn't, it's fiction. I would also say Socialism.

[Leftsolidarity]

Then why the hell do we even bother doing anything? Everybody, take a break! :)

I didn't say it would fall into our laps. I just think Marx is correct about the order of capitalism to socialism to communism because of the conditions of each. I think capitalism leads into a socialist society. None of that means it comes without effort and struggle though.

[bezdomni]

A bad hangover.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Capitalism leads to socialism. Socialism leads to communism.

[SacRedMan]

Uh.... Didn't Marx already wrote an awnser on that question?

[bricolage]

Capitalism leads to socialism. Socialism leads to communism.
communism leads to the dark side

[SacRedMan]

communism leads to the dark side

Don't underestimate the power of the dark side!!

[Blake's Baby]

...I just think Marx is correct about the order of capitalism to socialism to communism...

Marx didn't say that.


... because of the conditions of each. I think capitalism leads into a socialist society...

Nor did he say that.

Communism can follow capitalism (let's leave aside the spurious notion, that Marx never expressed, that there is something different to communism called 'socialism' in there somewhere). That doesn't mean one leads to another. It means that one can create the conditions necessary for the establishment of the other. In the same way, my breakfast doesn't create my lunch, but it does give me enough energy to go to the shops and buy some bread.

On the other hand, capitalism may destroy enough of the productive capacity of the planet that we end up with, not a radical conscious working class and the industrial capacity to fulfill human needs, but a feral and brutalised population living in a poisonous and degraded shithole, more like a slave-state with added ecological catastrophe. Barbarism may just get worse and worse.



.. None of that means it comes without effort and struggle though.

Marx did say that though, and that is the only thing that can stop capitalism's slide into the abyss. The action of the working class to end class rule.



I've never played Bioshock so can offer no sensible commentary on that.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

The dark ages

[Red Future]

The dark ages

After a critical crisis and exhaustion of resources this could indeed stimulate a new "dark ages" era.

[Leftsolidarity]

Marx didn't say that.

You're right. Marx never just came out and said that but his writings strongly suggest it.


Nor did he say that.

Communism can follow capitalism (let's leave aside the spurious notion, that Marx never expressed, that there is something different to communism called 'socialism' in there somewhere). That doesn't mean one leads to another. It means that one can create the conditions necessary for the establishment of the other. In the same way, my breakfast doesn't create my lunch, but it does give me enough energy to go to the shops and buy some bread.

On the other hand, capitalism may destroy enough of the productive capacity of the planet that we end up with, not a radical conscious working class and the industrial capacity to fulfill human needs, but a feral and brutalised population living in a poisonous and degraded shithole, more like a slave-state with added ecological catastrophe. Barbarism may just get worse and worse.


You misunderstood me.
... because of the conditions of each. I think capitalism leads into a socialist society... I was meaning that was my reasoning, not Marx's.

This is taken from The Communist Manifesto:
"
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."

In this (and other works) Marx discusses different stages. The first stage of communism, where the proletariat is the ruling class, is commonly referred to as socialism and the second just communism.

I disagree with you though, I feel one does in a way lead into another.

[Blake's Baby]

The lower phase of communism is only 'commonly' referred to as 'socialism' by Leninists. I'm not a Leninist, nor are a good many other people on this board. Marx didn't refer to the lower phase of communism as 'socialism'.

And, you seem to believe that socialism is inevitable, which it isn't, nor did Marx imply that it is. The Manifesto is a polemical document, not a revealed prophecy of the future. You have abandoned a major plank of Marxism there, I think you should maybe go back and read some Marx and think about how revolutions happen, how societies change, what the processes are. Because if it's inevitable (as Bernstein and the Revisionists believed) then Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, the whole of the left of the IInd International was wrong, and we may as well all become social-democrats. Incidently,m you may as well get the hell off a 'revolutionary leftist' discussion board because you're not a revolutionary.

Of course I think this all tosh. The revolutionary action of the world working class will overthrow capitalism or nothing will. There is nothing 'inevitable' about it. History doesn't do it itself, it requires conscious action by the working class. In other words, if that conscious action doesn't happen, there will be no communism.

[Leftsolidarity]

I never said it was inevitable. I said that it "in a way" leads to it. While I admit that is sort of vague I think it is true. I feel that capitalism makes the conditions ripe for socialism (or communism if you prefer) and that it is the most likely thing to come. I do not feel the it is some ultimate truth or anything and fully acknowledge that there are other possibilities but I feel that capitalism sets the stage for socialism/communism so well the it is the best bet.

[Blake's Baby]

In which case I agree with you. Without capitalist development there can be no communism (primarily because capitalism creates the working class). But that doesn't mean that 'communism follows capitalism' - it means communism might follow capitalism, or it might not - it depends on whether we overthrow capitalism or let it take us to oblivion.

Hence my remarks about breakfast. Breakfast, vaguely and 'in a way', leads to lunch. But not without conscious effort.

[28350]

this isn't my opinion, but it's interesting
that post-apocalypse-of-capitalism, the world is left in ruin, etc. and the movement to salvage what's left will be communist (http://socialismandorbarbarism.blogspot.com/)
Or something along those lines, it's written in long situationist blog posts, kinda hard to read.

[Blake's Baby]

I fear that what will emerge won't be communist. It'll be a crazed theocratic-aristocratic slave society that makes the dystopian fantasmagorias of Mad Max and Planet of the Apes look like Snoopy cartoons.

I think it was Einstein who said 'I don't know what weapons the 3rd World War will be fought with, but the 4th World War will be fought with bows and arrows'. Even if we don't have the 3rd World War, the degredation of the environment we see daily, and the multitude of regional wars could still engulf humanity and then the prospect isvery bleak indeed.

[PhoenixAsh]

Capitalism will develop into authoritarianism bonapartism which will either be fascism or merged with fascism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Capitalism will develop into authoritarianism bonapartism which will either be fascism or merged with fascism.

Both being capitalism, capitalism will just begin it's decay.