Capitalism Devouring Itself

[Mr. Cervantes]

Is the recent 2008 global economical crisis unto the present a illustration of what Marx described as capitalism devouring itself?

It seems like capitalism across the globe is self imploding on itself by it's own weight.

[Dogs On Acid]

It's a crisis. The phenomena is recurring and will always be a fault of the Capitalist system. They will possibly be worse in the future.

[Spartacus.]

Is the recent 2008 global economical crisis unto the present a illustration of what Marx described as capitalism devouring itself?

It seems like capitalism across the globe is self imploding on itself by it's own weight.


Don't deceive yourself. Capitalism won't implode by itself. History has shown that it will be the workers led by their vanguard that will need to push it over the cliff. Otherwise, it would certainly survive.

Russia in 1917 was probably not the only country in which Revolution could happen, but what was essential was the disciplined and organized party which was able to give direction to worker's discontent. Something that was sorely lacking in post-1929 US or today in Western Europe and US.

Btw;



Having lived through many forms of unpleasant sufferings, hardships, and miseries since the 2008 financial crisis of the United States where there appears to be very little means to improve my individual situation I have decided that I am going to move to Bogota Colombia sometime in the early portions of next year.

I've heard rumors that the United State is getting ready to implode economically in somthing that will be much more worse than the great depression of the 1930's.

That is somthing I have no intentions of sticking around for.


So lately when I am not working my fifty five hour factory job I've been teaching myself alot of Spanish in the preparation of moving over there.

It is my hope I can move over there and make a new life for myself where possibly I will have the chance after acquiring citizenship of attending a university there to pursue my dreams of becoming a philosophy professor. Of course before pursuing a philosophy degree I will first pursue teaching history at a highschool level.

At the moment I'm learning Spanish, studying, and saving alot of money for my migration.

With any luck perhaps I can find a decent woman there that I can't seem to find anywhere at all in the United States by comparison.

I'd like to think that I would be able to make a clean new slate for myself in another country.

Being of German and Austrian descent I will probally stick out in Colombia quite a bit but I figure if I can atleast master Spanish that I should fine.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1667

Why do you want to move to Colombia? Are you so desperate that you think life there would become better for you?

Or perhaps you are planning to join the FARC? :D

[Mr. Cervantes]

Don't deceive yourself. Capitalism won't implode by itself. History has shown that it will be the workers led by their vanguard that will need to push it over the cliff. Otherwise, it would certainly survive.

Russia in 1917 was probably not the only country in which Revolution could happen, but what was essential was the disciplined and organized party which was able to give direction to worker's discontent. Something that was sorely lacking in post-1929 US or today in Western Europe and US.

Btw;


http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1667

Why do you want to move to Colombia? Are you so desperate that you think life there would become better for you?

Or perhaps you are planning to join the FARC? :D

Well in the making of this post I was going by the notions of Marx on his articulation of how a system can become so pervasive that it collapses under it's own weight through stagnation.

A system can only become so self destructive before it ends up destroying itself.

I understand what your saying and I don't necessarily disagree with it.

It makes sense.



Why do you want to move to Colombia? Are you so desperate that you think life there would become better for you?

Or perhaps you are planning to join the FARC? :D



That is somthing we can talk about in a private message or in another thread.:)

[thesadmafioso]

Capitalism as it exists in the developed world is certainly on what can only be described as an unsustainable course, but it would be erroneous to draw from this condition the conclusion that immediate implosion of the system is upon us. This thought can actually be quite dangerous, as it underwrites the significance of a party organization of the workers in regards to its role in revolution.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Capitalism as it exists in the developed world is certainly on what can only be described as an unsustainable course, but it would be erroneous to draw from this condition the conclusion that immediate implosion of the system is upon us. This thought can actually be quite dangerous, as it underwrites the significance of a party organization of the workers in regards to its role in revolution.

Of course. Even if it is imploding on itself the need for a workers revolution is still needed.

Infact a workers revolution worldwide would only destroy it more quicker while it is self imploding.

[RichardAWilson]

Capitalism will one day collapse like Marx predicted. (Our banks truly have become too big too fail and Uncle Sam has become too indebted to continue writing blank checks to save them when they face another crisis).

Hell: Capitalism imploded during the Great-Depression and led to Nazism and Keynesian Military Economies. The future is looking more and more like yesterday's trash.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Capitalism will one day collapse like Marx predicted. (Our banks truly have become too big too fail and Uncle Sam has become too indebted to continue writing blank checks to save them when they face another crisis).

Hell: Capitalism imploded during the Great-Depression and led to Nazism and Keynesian Military Economies. The future is looking more and more like yesterday's trash.

There is definately somthing self destructive about capitalism.

It seems that as consumption rises within capitalist nations the more such nations begin to consume themselves into collapse. Debt accumulation is one way in terms of material economics but another aspect I think that is very overlooked is the social bankruptcy of capitalist societies where self indulgent individualism disrupts harmonized collectivist forces of social interaction which creates a culture of alienation, isolation, and abandonment especially for those lower in terms of social influence.

I created this thread to see whether there was some sort of Marxist academic that could explain such in a bit more philosophical depth in that I only have vague perceptions and ideas on this issue being that I'm more of a beginning Marxist despite my intense philosophical knowledge of things. I consider myself quite the student of philosophy. I'm kinda new to Marxist and communist approach to things however.

[Dogs On Acid]

Well Capitalism certainly can't self-sustain itself for more than a few centuries longer, if that...

It consumes natural resources too quickly, and once-cheap resources like Lithium for batteries or Petroleum for making fuels start to get extremely scarce the economy will have to resort to more expensive alternatives. This in turn will make the prices of basic commodities sky-rocket and become unaffordable by the common man (read worker).

What really frightens me is, will capitalism decay into Socialism or Extreme Authoritarianism?

[thefinalmarch]

Well Capitalism certainly can't self-sustain itself for more than a few centuries longer, if that...
Capitalism is simply a mode of production, that is, a manner in which things are produced, the specifics of which are dictated by the social relations between individuals in all parts of the production process. Technology and modern industry may disappear, but the social relations between the individuals we know at this moment as the capitalist, the manager and the worker will not necessarily change.


What really frightens me is, will capitalism decay into Socialism or Extreme Authoritarianism?
Capitalism is a mode of production. "Extreme authoritarianism" is not a mode of production (it sounds more like some ill-defined political concept which belies the fact that all class societies are inherently authoritarian). You're comparing two fundamentally different concepts here.

[Dogs On Acid]

Capitalism is simply a mode of production, that is, a manner in which things are produced, the specifics of which are dictated by the social relations between individuals in all parts of the production process. Technology and modern industry may disappear, but the social relations between the individuals we know at this moment as the capitalist, the manager and the worker will not necessarily change.

They have to change. Because the profit-driven methods of Capitalism won't last forever. One system eventually replaces another, it's been that way since Primitive Communism.



Capitalism is a mode of production. "Extreme authoritarianism" is not a mode of production (it sounds more like some ill-defined political concept which belies the fact that all class societies are inherently authoritarian). You're comparing two fundamentally different concepts here.

Many modes of production can fit into extreme authoritarianism.

[Fopeos]

Capitalism won't collapse on itself. Capitalists will be able to turn any crisis into an opportunity. Some capitalists will fail but others will pick through the remains. Bourgeois democracy will fail. In serious crises, like the great depression, the capitalists promote and hide behind fascism. The capitalist state won't die a natural death, we'll have to kill it.

[Rafiq]

Capitalism doesn't need the workers to implode.

It will self destruct eventually, and if the workers don't overthrow it by then, we are talking total hell.

[Coach Trotsky]

Exploitative society will not be done away with without the proletarian socialist revolution.
Particular forms of capitalism can collapse, or be superceded, in favor of some other form of exploitative society. Either way, we still end up with exploitative society.
If the proletariat doesn't seizes power, you can be damn sure that some exploitative ruling class or another will reign over us.

[28350]

A helpful quote, I think

The core class struggle is not so much the 'internal' antagonism of each mode of production either, although a mode of production is about exploitation (of nature and of people). What 'class struggle' as a historical principle refers to, is this exploitation in combination with
• raising the level of development of the productive forces to the point where they turn into an obstacle to their further development;
• the emergence of new social forces associated with a possible new mode of production.
Once social development enters into this conjuncture, the entire political-ideological constellation becomes unstable, because in addition to the 'internal' class struggles (lord/peasant, capital/labour...), a historic conflict between the forces associated with the existing order and forces responding to the need to move beyond the existing political-juridical order, erupts. This is the Marxian concept of revolution.
-
http://libcom.org/library/survey-global-political-economy

[thefinalmarch]

Many modes of production can fit into extreme authoritarianism.
...including capitalism.

You were raising the possibility that capitalism itself could "decay" in to "extreme authoritarianism", when in fact this implies that "extreme authoritarianism" is a mode of production in itself. Yet, as you have said, "many modes of production can fit into extreme authoritarianism", therefore "extreme authoritarianism" is just a half-assed grouping together of many fundamentally different modes of production, rendering the term useless.

[Mr. Cervantes]

I guess what I was trying to postulate here is that there comes a certain point where capitalism becomes unsustainable where it stagnates and within that stagnation there is a implosion on itself.

This I believe is where capitalism devours itself in entropy. Perhaps we can describe it as a sort of over expansion on the part of capitalism.

[Dogs On Acid]

...including capitalism.

You were raising the possibility that capitalism itself could "decay" in to "extreme authoritarianism", when in fact this implies that "extreme authoritarianism" is a mode of production in itself. Yet, as you have said, "many modes of production can fit into extreme authoritarianism", therefore "extreme authoritarianism" is just a half-assed grouping together of many fundamentally different modes of production, rendering the term useless.

Whatever man worry about more important things.

[thefinalmarch]

Whatever man worry about more important things.
You should consider it important. It is, after all, an example of your flawed analysis.

[KC]

"Capitalism itself" is a meaningless phrase. Capitalism is a system and an abstraction that includes the real actions of real people. There's no way to talk about "capitalism itself" without talking about the real actions of real people and the course of history.

[Dumb]

I think all FightTogether is trying to get at is that while capitalism's collapse is inevitable, socialism's rise is not. A couple centuries down the road, we could quite easily end up with a non-capitalist system that's even worse.

[RHIZOMES]

Don't deceive yourself. Capitalism won't implode by itself. History has shown that it will be the workers led by their vanguard that will need to push it over the cliff. Otherwise, it would certainly survive.

Those sorts of movements only happen when capitalism has significantly screwed itself over to an extent that anti-capitalist movements garner support from a large amount of the population. This is why far left groups operating in territories with a tranquil political-economic environment often turn into sectarian cults, because the lack of a tangible social base means they become more inwardly focused.

Revolutionary movements, in my view, are part of the self-implosive nature of capitalism, not outside of it or extrinsic to it. So capitalism does fuck itself over, and revolutions happen when it has fucked itself over significantly enough that it doesn't have as much of an ideological grasp over the masses.

A good contemporary example would be the various grassroots movements that have occurred in response to the current financial malaise.

Capital has been trying to account for the overaccumulation problem ever since it became an influential economic system. My opinion is that since the 1970's onwards part of the way capitalism has accounted for this problem has been by an over-reliance on fictitious capital, where money is being generated and has value purely by the fact that it is money, and no longer actually represents tangible social labour. Financial institutions would give out loans despite not having tangible physical production backing up the value of the loans they were giving out - 2008 was merely when the illusion met reality.

This affects the material conditions of the masses far more negatively than the capitalists who sustained this fantasy, and thus anti-capitalist sentiments become more popular. This is a great time to be alive if you're a left-revolutionary.

My point is I really dislike this all-too-common left-hyperactivist logic that you can create anti-capitalist movements out of thin air. The material conditions and contradictions of capital have to be just right - and part of what it is to be a left-revolutionary in my view is that you've gotta find a balance between your own revolutionary drive and the material conditions you find yourself in.