Marx was right; capitalism can destroy itself: Roubini

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Financial Post, Aug 12, 2011
by Pam Heaven

Nouriel Roubini cited an even more controversial economist than himself this week when explaining the state of the world’s turbulent economy.

“Karl Marx got it right, at some point capitalism can destroy itself,” said Mr. Roubini, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. “We thought markets worked. They’re not working.”

Mr. Roubini also said there is more than a 50% chance the world will plunge into another global recession and the next two to three months will reveal the economy’s direction.

“We are at stall speed right now, and we do not know if we are going to go up, or down,” he said.

Known as Dr. Doom for his prediction of the 2008 financial crisis among other dire forecasts, the economist said more monetary policy is needed from central banks to avoid another meltdown.

“There could be QE3, QE4, QE5 in the long-haul,” in the United States, he said.

But monetary policy alone will not be enough, and business and governments are not helping.

Developed economies such as the United States and countries in the eurozone are implementing austerity programs to try to fix their debt-ridden economies, when they should be introducing more monetary stimulus, he said.

And by slashing labour costs and sitting on capital, U.S. businesses have created a “catch-22.”

“Because you cannot keep shifting income from labour to capital without not having excess capacity and lack of aggregate demand. And that’s what’s happening,” the economist said.

In the wide-ranging interview, Mr. Roubini said it is possible that Italy or Spain could choose to leave the eurozone within five years. He also didn’t disagree with the premise of Standard & Poor’s controversial downgrade that the United States was on a unsustainable fiscal path, made worse by Washington’s gridlock.

Roubini says he’s putting his money in cash, with U.S. Treasurys a smart bet. “Now is not the time for risky assets,” he said.

[RadioRaheem84]

Karl Marx got it right, at some point capitalism can destroy itself,” said Mr. Roubini, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. “We thought markets worked. They’re not working.”



Well, as we can all see, it was never a matter of reason with economists like Roubini but one of the willingness to see that Marx was always right. Markets, like, government are not these abstract entities that self correct themselves, but are made up of people and are a social institution.

When economists like Roubini admit to Marx being right, it's usually because they've been exposed for frauds. Roubini's not a right wing economist and actually predicted some of the mess we're in now, but he was surely a proponent of self correcting markets as the best tool for progress.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd258/TheOrangePress/TheRedMuseum/KMSaid.jpg

This message brought to you by The Orange Press (http://theorangepress.com).

[Fulanito de Tal]

“Because you cannot keep shifting income from labour to capital without not having excess capacity and lack of aggregate demand. And that’s what’s happening,” the economist said.


This is great. Sometimes I think that Obama acts like a democrat, but it really working from the inside to help this system collapse.

[Kiev Communard]

I do not think that this is as simple as someone may want to imagine. Of course, capitalism is prone to destabilising itself, but to destroy it, a conscious action of the millions of people (proletarians) is necessary.

[Tabarnack]

Capitalism will never destroy itself nor can it be destroyed, but socialism can make it obsolete...

[Revolutionair]

Capitalism will never destroy itself nor can it be destroyed, but socialism can make it obsolete...

That doesn't make much sense to me. :confused:

[gendoikari]

Capitalism as a system won't destroy itself, but it will crash and burn with us along with it. How quickly we wise up and correct the floundering ship will mean the difference between a bright future and a dark one.

[Tabarnack]

That doesn't make much sense to me. :confused:

We need a better alternative to replace capitalism, until then people will defend it because that is all they know and their livelihood depends on it.

[gendoikari]

we need a better alternative to replace capitalism, until then people will defend it because that is all they know and their livelihood depends on it.

we have one!!! It"s been sitting on the shelf for 163 years!!!!

[Psy]

Capitalism as a system won't destroy itself, but it will crash and burn with us along with it. How quickly we wise up and correct the floundering ship will mean the difference between a bright future and a dark one.

What about the possibility for the capitalist class to reverting back to feudalism in order to protect their privileged position in face of a totally collapsed capitalist market? This could theoretically be done by a fascist military basically forcing the proletariat to accept being traditional slaves that receives no wages in exchange to the military not killing them. I mean if the rate of profit falls below zero why would the capitalist class defend capitalism rather then fight for a earlier class order?

[Revolutionair]

We need a better alternative to replace capitalism, until then people will defend it because that is all they know and their livelihood depends on it.

I meant the "nor can it be destroyed" part. Surely it is possible to root out the capitalist mode of production, just like other modes of production have been drastically reduced or eliminated in the course of time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What about the possibility for the capitalist class to reverting back to feudalism in order to protect their privileged position in face of a totally collapsed capitalist market? This could theoretically be done by a fascist military basically forcing the proletariat to accept being traditional slaves that receives no wages in exchange to the military not killing them. I mean if the rate of profit falls below zero why would the capitalist class defend capitalism rather then fight for a earlier class order?

That's not feudalism. Feudalism had no "traditional slavery."


I do not think that this is as simple as someone may want to imagine. Of course, capitalism is prone to destabilising itself, but to destroy it, a conscious action of the millions of people (proletarians) is necessary.

I sniff the umpteenth abuse of Marx's crisis theory. I'd correct the last half of your statement by shifting the economic action ("to destroy it") to a more political one (i.e., "but the actual, genuine class struggles of the proletariat are necessarily political actions").

[aty]

Haha, if you had asked me 4 years ago that we would have a serious discussion about what will replace capitalism in 4 years I would have laughed at you, but now everything seems possible...

[Psy]

That's not feudalism. Feudalism had no "traditional slavery."

What do you call peasants working for their masters for nothing?

[gendoikari]

What about the possibility for the capitalist class to reverting back to feudalism in order to protect their privileged position in face of a totally collapsed capitalist market? This could theoretically be done by a fascist military basically forcing the proletariat to accept being traditional slaves that receives no wages in exchange to the military not killing them. I mean if the rate of profit falls below zero why would the capitalist class defend capitalism rather then fight for a earlier class order?

Touche' My friend, touche' Of course this is the course I've been saying we're on for the past several years. a return to the aristocracy. An oligarchy presided over by the aristocracy.

[Impulse97]

This is great. Sometimes I think that Obama acts like a democrat, but it really working from the inside to help this system collapse.

A very small and irrational part of me hopes this is true and that the knuckle draggers are right and he is trying to bring it down. Like a reverse Gorbachev.

Then, right as that one neuron begins to think how awesome it would be to live in the time of something akin to the fSU's collapse, the other 32.999Bil. kick in and I remember that he's just another cap trying in vain to perpetuate the system.


I do not think that this is as simple as someone may want to imagine. Of course, capitalism is prone to destabilizing itself, but to destroy it, a conscious action of the millions of people (proletarians) is necessary.

I think this is very, very accurate. I don't really think Capitalism will destroy itself. It would seem to morph as it needs to to survive. In fact it already has. Just, look at how it differs from itself in 1911.

With the idea that it will just keep chugging on and on, you have to wonder about all of its crisis/disaster periods. Each time it seems that the system has done itself in for good and each time the left shouts for joy at the 'fact' that socialism is at hand. Except that it isn't and it hasn't been each and every time. This isn't to say that it can't be, just that it hasn't and that it's not capitalism's fault. It's the left's fault. We haven't done enough, for long enough and we haven't done the right things. We need to take advantage of these opportunities and the amazing reality that socialism, could be close at hand if we make it so. As Che said, the revolution is not something that just happens, you have to make it happen.

You can't just leaflet and blog your way to socialism, you gotta make it happen. We as leftists, regardless of stripe or creed, united internationally as workers must make this happen. How? I can't say. All I know is that what we're doing and what we've been doing isn't enough and it'll fail just like it has every other time. If it was going to work, it would have by now. This particular opportunity (Massive economic disaster, possible Great Depression round two, Arab Spring, Europe unrest) is bigger and different from those before it in recent memory. It may very well be our best chance in the next century. We can't be like the Cubs and let a bases loaded, no outs at bat go to waste. We gotta knock it outta the park.

[DaringMehring]

You cannot reverse history, it is impossible to "go back to feudalism." Feudalism was based on small-scale agricultural production on estates, backed by religious ideology that sanctified the social order. What are you going to do, chain people up, send them to newly carved estates, and brainwash them into thinking that it is the Biblical way? Impossible.

Capitalism will either be replaced by fascism, or socialism. The negative outcome you are thinking of, as pointed by history, will be something like fascism.

[DaringMehring]

I sniff the umpteenth abuse of Marx's crisis theory. I'd correct the last half of your statement by shifting the economic action ("to destroy it") to a more political one (i.e., "but the actual, genuine class struggles of the proletariat are necessarily political actions").

Who are you to "correct" people's "abuses" of theory? Every post of yours has the petty bourgeois academic ring to it. Like NGNM85, the university liberal, you put words in italics while talking to other people as if you were the font of all wisdom. What class struggle experience do you have to back up your wanna-be-professor ramblings? Why should anyone pay attention to your jargon drenched "corrections" of Lenin et al?

[Psy]

You cannot reverse history, it is impossible to "go back to feudalism." Feudalism was based on small-scale agricultural production on estates, backed by religious ideology that sanctified the social order. What are you going to do, chain people up, send them to newly carved estates, and brainwash them into thinking that it is the Biblical way? Impossible.


Capitalism will either be replaced by fascism, or socialism. The negative outcome you are thinking of, as pointed by history, will be something like fascism.

There are a number of possibility

A) Global nuclear war reduces the means of production back so only small scale agricultural production is possible.

B) The law of value makes profit in capitalism impossible where the rate of profit has been in negative territory for years so capitalists can't extract surplus value as M>C>C+>M+ has transformed into M>C>C->M- thus capitalists have no incentives to partake in the capitalist mode of production as there is no profit to be had.

In the latter the ruling class might turn to the military to scare the proletariat into accepting working for a wage of zero and keeping them working by having troops whip them throughout the work day and beat the workers that refuse to work at the pace the ruling class wants.

[DaringMehring]

There are a number of possibility

A) Global nuclear war reduces the means of production back so only small scale agricultural production is possible.

B) The law of value makes profit in capitalism impossible where the rate of profit has been in negative territory for years so capitalists can't extract surplus value as M>C>C+>M+ has transformed into M>C>C->M- thus capitalists have no incentives to partake in the capitalist mode of production as there is no profit to be had.

In the latter the ruling class might turn to the military to scare the proletariat into accepting working for a wage of zero and keeping them working by having troops whip them throughout the work day and beat the workers that refuse to work at the pace the ruling class wants.

I and I don't think anybody can say what would happen in the case of A. Certainly it would be the end of civilization as we know it --- though that doesn't seem likely to lead back to the 15th century.

As for B), the outcome you propose sounds like it would be more like fascism than feudalism to me. Work would not be organized on estates, it would remain in factories and office buildings and commercial farms. The worker would not be peasants tied to the land. Compliance would come through force, racism, nationalism, and fundamentalism, not obedience to a supposedly eternal and unchanging by-birth social order.

Yeah fascism and feudalism have in common that they fuck over the working person worse even than capitalism, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

[ckaihatsu]

This is great. Sometimes I think that Obama acts like a democrat, but it really working from the inside to help this system collapse.


This is profoundly amusing and is even tempting to subscribe to -- it recalls the inherent trade-off between a coarse comfort for today at the price of forfeiting a gritty revolt for true dignity for tomorrow.





[The] ruling class might turn to the military to scare the proletariat into accepting working for a wage of zero and keeping them working by having troops whip them throughout the work day and beat the workers that refuse to work at the pace the ruling class wants.


As valuable as this scenario is for its shock value to encourage a sense of class resistance, I have to haughtily note that the world's working class is more *objectively* empowered than it's ever been before in history, as with ready access to knowledge about class struggle and the means of sophisticated mass communications.

The ownership / merchant class may arguably not even *be able* to initiate a militaristic offensive on the world's workers, even if it had to, or wanted to, for reasons of politics on its own turf. I just don't see a mass working class acquiescence being available to them....

[Klaatu]

One of the main reasons capitalism is failing is that the system is overrun with criminals. These are not entirely the kinds of crimes that one would be sent to prison for, but malicious ones none the less. For example, it is malicious to close factories and send the jobs to ultra-low wage countries. (If the capitalist must open a factory there, at least pay fair wages - which does not ever happen)

Also, many U.S. corporations pay little or no tax, yet enjoy the benefits of living in a properous country. And they get rich solely on the backs of other honest taxpayers. Or they try to crush unions, or dump toxic waste at midnight. Or they get into the Stock Market and suck millions of dollars of wealth from honest investers. Or they buy and own politicians, who pass laws which favor their interests. This list is endless.

The only way to clean this mess up is for the system to completly fail, and a new, stronger, more honest Socialist system rise from the ashes.

[Psy]

As valuable as this scenario is for its shock value to encourage a sense of class resistance, I have to haughtily note that the world's working class is more *objectively* empowered than it's ever been before in history, as with ready access to knowledge about class struggle and the means of sophisticated mass communications.

The ownership / merchant class may arguably not even *be able* to initiate a militaristic offensive on the world's workers, even if it had to, or wanted to, for reasons of politics on its own turf. I just don't see a mass working class acquiescence being available to them....

Of course the working class won't acquiescence it would force the class issue to be solved through civil-war yet that could just accelerate a fascist state deterioration into feudalism. If they have to have a whole tank company guarding every factory just to keep the militant workers from seizing the means of production then they might get the idea that they could use the same tanks to get the docile workers (those that didn't walk off the job and join the struggle against the state) to work for nothing.

[Tim Finnegan]

What about the possibility for the capitalist class to reverting back to feudalism in order to protect their privileged position in face of a totally collapsed capitalist market? This could theoretically be done by a fascist military basically forcing the proletariat to accept being traditional slaves that receives no wages in exchange to the military not killing them. I mean if the rate of profit falls below zero why would the capitalist class defend capitalism rather then fight for a earlier class order?
Because that isn't how historical progress works. Social formations are born out of the resolution of the contradictions of the previous social formation, not constructed as is convenient. The contradiction of capitalism is the antagonistic relationship between labour and capital, so only the resolution of that relationship, i.e. communist revolution can lead to the emergence of a new social formation. Anything else, no matter how grand a revolution it would appear to be, would simply be the reconstitution of capitalism.


What do you call peasants working for their masters for nothing?
Peasants. A slave is somebody who is owned outright, while the relationship between the peasant and the aristocratic was one of social obligations, obligations which in the majority of cases had formally defined limits.

[ckaihatsu]

Of course the working class won't acquiescence it would force the class issue to be solved through civil-war yet that could just accelerate a fascist state deterioration into feudalism. If they have to have a whole tank company guarding every factory just to keep the militant workers from seizing the means of production then they might get the idea that they could use the same tanks to get the docile workers (those that didn't walk off the job and join the struggle against the state) to work for nothing.


Well, yeah, nice, but this imagined scenario is taking place in a vacuum -- if it started in some Central America location, for example, it wouldn't remain a static situation. Ferment would erupt either from within, or from without, or both.

And with the U.S. ruling class resorting to a "super" committee in an attempt to retain cohesion over internal factionalism, it's more than apparent that they wouldn't have it together enough to "have a whole tank company guarding every factory", everywhere in the world. Their side reeks of corruption and opportunism -- not exactly conducive to solidarity as they haggle over the exact amount to take from public funds, all while coming under increased objective economic pressures to keep the Ponzi scheme momentum going somehow while keeping a poker face turned towards the public.

[Psy]

Because that isn't how historical progress works. Social formations are born out of the resolution of the contradictions of the previous social formation, not constructed as is convenient. The contradiction of capitalism is the antagonistic relationship between labour and capital, so only the resolution of that relationship, i.e. communist revolution can lead to the emergence of a new social formation. Anything else, no matter how grand a revolution it would appear to be, would simply be the reconstitution of capitalism.

Even if the ruling class totally abandons the capitalists mode of production? So if for example a fascist state openly seizes control of all production and uses its production not for surplus value but to fuel the privileged needs of the ruling class through production for the use that would still be capitalism even though it throws Mark's Capital out the window as by that point fascists would no longer interested in profits and just want to maintains their rule despite capitalists markets contracting.



Peasants. A slave is somebody who is owned outright, while the relationship between the peasant and the aristocratic was one of social obligations, obligations which in the majority of cases had formally defined limits.
Limits I doubt a fascist regime would care about it wanted to get rid of wage slavery for a more oppressive form of labor relations.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Capitalism abandoning itself for a more warlord-y mode of production seems pretty speculative.

I mean, there are a few problems with that formulation. One is that it assumes that the military is unaffected by whatever social forces prompt such drastic manuevering. That seems highly unlikely. Another is that "slave societies" are pretty unstable, and most weren't entirely based on slavery; one of the earliest recorded strikes in history happened in ancient Egypt, when workers building the pyramids went on strike. Another is differences in region. Presumably the entire earth wouldn't be run in such a fashion, with one giant military junta controlling the globe? If not then there'd still be wars and conflicts, right? And that would certainly disrupt a system of production that's based on soldiers whipping factory workers like they're plantation slaves. :lol:

[Psy]

Well, yeah, nice, but this imagined scenario is taking place in a vacuum -- if it started in some Central America location, for example, it wouldn't remain a static situation. Ferment would erupt either from within, or from without, or both.

And with the U.S. ruling class resorting to a "super" committee in an attempt to retain cohesion over internal factionalism, it's more than apparent that they wouldn't have it together enough to "have a whole tank company guarding every factory", everywhere in the world. Their side reeks of corruption and opportunism -- not exactly conducive to solidarity as they haggle over the exact amount to take from public funds, all while coming under increased objective economic pressures to keep the Ponzi scheme momentum going somehow while keeping a poker face turned towards the public.

True but we are talking about a ridge fascist regime that is deteriorating into feudal tenancies as the real source of power becomes regional military commanders and regional military commanders start to create fiefdoms as they turn to the docile proletariat as means to provide free labor for them that transforms into a system where the docile proletariat works for free for the fascists and in return the fascists "protects" them from the militant workers trying to liberate them.

[Tim Finnegan]

Even if the ruling class totally abandons the capitalists mode of production? So if for example a fascist state openly seizes control of all production and uses its production not for surplus value but to fuel the privileged needs of the ruling class through production for the use that would still be capitalism even though it throws Mark's Capital out the window as by that point fascists would no longer interested in profits and just want to maintains their rule despite capitalists markets contracting. The bourgeoisie are not capable of abandoning capitalism, because they are no longer a revolutionary class. All the will in the world can't move them away from that cash nexus, for the simple reason that history is not moved by ideas, but by material realities, and by above all class struggle. Only the revolutionary class, the proletariat, can move beyond capitalism, and only to communism.


Limits I doubt a fascist regime would care about it wanted to get rid of wage slavery for a more oppressive form of labor relations.I was pointing out that the difference between slave-master and a peasant-slave relationship. I really don't see what this has to do with anything.

[Psy]

Capitalism abandoning itself for a more warlord-y mode of production seems pretty speculative.

I mean, there are a few problems with that formulation. One is that it assumes that the military is unaffected by whatever social forces prompt such drastic manuevering. That seems highly unlikely.

A fascist could deal with that by stirring up up reactionary nationalist feeling among the armed forces.



Another is that "slave societies" are pretty unstable, and most weren't entirely based on slavery; one of the earliest recorded strikes in history happened in ancient Egypt, when workers building the pyramids went on strike. Another is differences in region. Presumably the entire earth wouldn't be run in such a fashion, with one giant military junta controlling the globe? If not then there'd still be wars and conflicts, right? And that would certainly disrupt a system of production that's based on soldiers whipping factory workers like they're plantation slaves. :lol:
True but this would be the ruling class not wanting to go down with capitalism if profits became impossible yet the ruling class unwilling to surrender their privileged position, in other words a move of complete desperation on the part of the ruling class.

[Psy]

The bourgeoisie are not capable of abandoning capitalism, because they are no longer a revolutionary class. All the will in the world can't move them away from that cash nexus, for the simple reason that history is not moved by ideas, but by material realities, and by above all class struggle. Only the revolutionary class, the proletariat, can move beyond capitalism, and only to communism.

Again if profits are impossible for the foreseeable future, as it would take decades for flooded markets to return to sufficient scarcity I doubt the bourgeoisie will want to partake in production for profit, it would mean they will just get less back then they invest. I also doubt a fascist state would let the bourgeoisie not abandon capitalism if the writing is on the wall and they need to gear up production for practical military applications and they can't afford the profit motive as they are in a losing war against revolutionary armies unless they can quickly whip up their industrial might.

[ckaihatsu]

Capitalism abandoning itself for a more warlord-y mode of production seems pretty speculative.

I mean, there are a few problems with that formulation. One is that it assumes that the military is unaffected by whatever social forces prompt such drastic manuevering. That seems highly unlikely.





A fascist could deal with that by stirring up up reactionary nationalist feeling among the armed forces.


Look, the oversight involved in maintaining a direct-slavery form of control over a populace is way too much of a pain in the ass to be considered attractive or feasible in *this* day and age. The material base is far too generally developed -- it enables more and sophisticated forms of resistance from the underclass. That's why the labor-market system of production won out in the first place, through the U.S.'s Civil War -- it allowed a solidarity among the Northern ownership class to take advantage of increased mechanical / industrial productivity, while also disavowing all slave-custodial responsibilities for the labor force.

Yes, these days the economic momentum is waning, but the developed base remains *far* too complex for any ownership-political basis of economic agreement to take hold that could specify an even-*more*-rigid social arrangement between ownership and labor, as that of master and slave, on a worldwide basis, much less to then *enforce* it.





True but this would be the ruling class not wanting to go down with capitalism if profits became impossible yet the ruling class unwilling to surrender their privileged position, in other words a move of complete desperation on the part of the ruling class.


This verges on being a revolutionary-apocalyptic line here, Psy. The world's ruling class is getting more *fractious* these days, in case you haven't noticed.... (Unavoidable unending bailouts for EU-squeezed EU states, U.S. partisan politics over feeding the beast, etc.)





True but we are talking about a ridge fascist regime that is deteriorating into feudal tenancies as the real source of power becomes regional military commanders and regional military commanders start to create fiefdoms as they turn to the docile proletariat as means to provide free labor for them that transforms into a system where the docile proletariat works for free for the fascists and in return the fascists "protects" them from the militant workers trying to liberate them.


Fiefdoms implies *deep* divisions within the ownership / warlord class -- such a social arrangement *preceded* a more-nationalist generalization of power. A slipping-back to localist feudalistic estates of control would instantly succumb to the more-generalized global working class -- it'd be a "gimmie" for us.

[Tim Finnegan]

Again if profits are impossible for the foreseeable future, as it would take decades for flooded markets to return to sufficient scarcity I doubt the bourgeoisie will want to partake in production for profit, it would mean they will just get less back then they invest. I also doubt a fascist state would let the bourgeoisie not abandon capitalism if the writing is on the wall and they need to gear up production for practical military applications and they can't afford the profit motive as they are in a losing war against revolutionary armies unless they can quickly whip up their industrial might.
You're missing the point: neither the bourgeoisie nor the state actually have a choice in the matter. Social formations are not made and remade at will, but emerge, as I said, as the resolution of the internal contradictions of previous social formations; social revolutions are not imposed programs, but epochs of social reconstitution in reaction to the compulsions of material reality, which is to say by the historical process of class struggle. Capitalism emerged because the generalisation of commodity production brought the antagonisms between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie to a head, forcing the former to either reform itself (as in Britain) or be destroyed (as in France). Communism will emerge because the antagonistic relationship between labour and capital will one day reach the point the workers can only further advance themselves as a class by the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, which will in turn lead to the dissolution of capitalist property forms (which exist only to extract surplus value from the working class) and the emergence of communism. Nowhere in that schema, laid out very clearly by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto, is there room for some fascist state to remake all of society from above, to embark on some concious program of control, counter-historical revolution. All it could do is restructure capitalism to suit circumstances, which is something that the bourgeoisie have been doing from the start.

[Psy]

Look, the oversight involved in maintaining a direct-slavery form of control over a populace is way too much of a pain in the ass to be considered attractive or feasible in *this* day and age. The material base is far too generally developed -- it enables more and sophisticated forms of resistance from the underclass. That's why the labor-market system of production won out in the first place, through the U.S.'s Civil War -- it allowed a solidarity among the Northern ownership class to take advantage of increased mechanical / industrial productivity, while also disavowing all slave-custodial responsibilities for the labor force.

Yes, these days the economic momentum is waning, but the developed base remains *far* too complex for any ownership-political basis of economic agreement to take hold that could specify an even-*more*-rigid social arrangement between ownership and labor, as that of master and slave, on a worldwide basis, much less to then *enforce* it.

Nazi Germany built rockets through slave labor, so it possible for fascism to implement slavery into the industrial means of production as a cost saving measure.





This verges on being a revolutionary-apocalyptic line here, Psy. The world's ruling class is getting more *fractious* these days, in case you haven't noticed.... (Unavoidable unending bailouts for EU-squeezed EU states, U.S. partisan politics over feeding the beast, etc.)

Yes and fascism is a reactionary force that transforms society into whatever the fascists see as necessary to maintain class hierarchy.




Fiefdoms implies *deep* divisions within the ownership / warlord class -- such a social arrangement *preceded* a more-nationalist generalization of power. A slipping-back to localist feudalistic estates of control would instantly succumb to the more-generalized global working class -- it'd be a "gimmie" for us.
And, we are talking about act of desperation to keep the war machine fueled.

[Psy]

You're missing the point: neither the bourgeoisie nor the state actually have a choice in the matter. Social formations are not made and remade at will, but emerge, as I said, as the resolution of the internal contradictions of previous social formations; social revolutions are not imposed programs, but epochs of social reconstitution in reaction to the compulsions of material reality, which is to say by the historical process of class struggle. Capitalism emerged because the generalisation of commodity production brought the antagonisms between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie to a head, forcing the former to either reform itself (as in Britain) or be destroyed (as in France). Communism will emerge because the antagonistic relationship between labour and capital will one day reach the point the workers can only further advance themselves as a class by the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, which will in turn lead to the dissolution of capitalist property forms (which exist only to extract surplus value from the working class) and the emergence of communism. Nowhere in that schema, laid out very clearly by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto, is there room for some fascist state to remake all of society from above, to embark on some concious program of control, counter-historical revolution. All it could do is restructure capitalism to suit circumstances, which is something that the bourgeoisie have been doing from the start.
Yet the fascists did just that in Germany, yes at first they had to look to the bourgeoisie class for support by later the fascists dominated over the German bourgeoisie and dictated to the bourgeoisie their will.

It is true that fascism is a reaction against the proletarian threats yet as we see in Nazi Germany from there itself becomes a threat to capitalism in the long run as fascism pushes towards a what fascists sees as a utopian goal yet one where capitalism can't survive.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What do you call peasants working for their masters for nothing?

Peasants didn't work for their masters for nothing, if you look at feudal relations more closely.

[ckaihatsu]

Yet the fascists did just that in Germany, yes at first they had to look to the bourgeoisie class for support by later the fascists dominated over the German bourgeoisie and dictated to the bourgeoisie their will.

It is true that fascism is a reaction against the proletarian threats yet as we see in Nazi Germany from there itself becomes a threat to capitalism in the long run as fascism pushes towards a what fascists sees as a utopian goal yet one where capitalism can't survive.




Nazi Germany built rockets through slave labor, so it possible for fascism to implement slavery into the industrial means of production as a cost saving measure.




Yes and fascism is a reactionary force that transforms society into whatever the fascists see as necessary to maintain class hierarchy.




And, we are talking about act of desperation to keep the war machine fueled.


Psy, your entire line is derived from a period of history in which the executive desk of global empire was not yet quite certain. Competition flourished especially as industrialization kicked in some stakes to play for, and regional power blocs were downright neighborly. Then came the superpower showdown of the Cold War, or "WWIII", about which I'd have nothing to add to your knowledge of.

So now the U.S. is truly the "supercop to the world", but economic conditions are crumbling. This does *not* confer any kind of global ruling class solidarity, as you're inferring with your neo-Bonapartism line here. An overreliance on military force *is* a position of desperation, and in the context of WWI-WWII, belied a laxity and sloppiness on the part of the Allies for not pro-actively dealing with the up-and-comers of Germany and Japan.

But, again, today is *different* and *everything* is fully financialized and is going into a state of suspended animation. Would international warfare on a steep slope be at all an option for *any* nation at this point? I really doubt it.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yet the fascists did just that in Germany, yes at first they had to look to the bourgeoisie class for support by later the fascists dominated over the German bourgeoisie and dictated to the bourgeoisie their will.

It is true that fascism is a reaction against the proletarian threats yet as we see in Nazi Germany from there itself becomes a threat to capitalism in the long run as fascism pushes towards a what fascists sees as a utopian goal yet one where capitalism can't survive.
I honestly don't see how Nazi Germany constitutes an example of what you're talking about. There's no discernible trend towards some neo-feudal formation that I can see in that or any other fascist regimes.

[Psy]

I honestly don't see how Nazi Germany constitutes an example of what you're talking about. There's no discernible trend towards some neo-feudal formation that I can see in that or any other fascist regimes.
Look at how Nazi Germany handled Eastern Europe, it handed power over to regional commanders these regional commanders created fiefdoms as Hitler was only concerned with the advance of the main forces push farther east not with the details of the occupations. Yet Hitler did decree the establishment of slave labor as a cost cutting measure, meaning the industrial workers of eastern of Europe was bound to their workplace and those that didn't were bound to other property or sent to concentration camps to be done away with.


Psy, your entire line is derived from a period of history in which the executive desk of global empire was not yet quite certain. Competition flourished especially as industrialization kicked in some stakes to play for, and regional power blocs were downright neighborly. Then came the superpower showdown of the Cold War, or "WWIII", about which I'd have nothing to add to your knowledge of.

So now the U.S. is truly the "supercop to the world", but economic conditions are crumbling. This does *not* confer any kind of global ruling class solidarity, as you're inferring with your neo-Bonapartism line here. An overreliance on military force *is* a position of desperation, and in the context of WWI-WWII, belied a laxity and sloppiness on the part of the Allies for not pro-actively dealing with the up-and-comers of Germany and Japan.

Yes the US is losing its position of supercop of the world and we are seeing a return to multi imperialist world this is highly competitive with each other.



But, again, today is *different* and *everything* is fully financialized and is going into a state of suspended animation. Would international warfare on a steep slope be at all an option for *any* nation at this point? I really doubt it.
Look at Russia vs NATO with its intervention in the S.Ossetia Georgian war in which NATO instantly folded and China is sticking its path of building up its military with the goal of eventually have a larger military then the USA.

So we seeing warfare becoming more and more the solution to imperialists powers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This was the most interesting and entertaining digression I have read all night. Thanks Psy, it's an interesting question... way speculative and abstract but interesting.

I guess just to add some speculation of my own - I think really this case would only be possible if there was a full breakdown of society and people were forced to begin subsistence farming. Of course millions would end up dieing just from the abrupt end of industrial methods and production capabilities. Then after people have been farming and that became more stable, and communities set up and non-farming armed people to protect the surplus from bandits or whatnot came into being, then there could be a sort of new feudal system that eventually emerges.

Like I said, way speculative... but probably a realistic portrayal of what Primitivism would end up producing :lol:

[ckaihatsu]

Yes the US is losing its position of supercop of the world and we are seeing a return to multi imperialist world this is highly competitive with each other.


Well, no, actually -- this current period hardly features the same kind of competitive military buildups that we saw during the Cold War. Yes, the 'BRICS' countries are now the up-and-comers, economically, but they're *also* getting caught in the deep freeze that's enveloping the world. ('Multipolar' would be a better term here, instead of 'multi-imperialist', arguably.)





Look at Russia vs NATO with its intervention in the S.Ossetia Georgian war in which NATO instantly folded


Yes, I considered this, but I think that altercation in 2008 was an entirely *defensive* measure on the part of Russia. It served to show the *limits* of the U.S. empire in our present period.





and China is sticking its path of building up its military with the goal of eventually have a larger military then the USA.

So we seeing warfare becoming more and more the solution to imperialists powers.


Don't you mean "Chinamerica" here -- ?

China and the U.S. are practically conjoined twins at this point -- the superpower has a supercolony, one that's grown to the point of practically being a silent partner.

[Psy]

Well, no, actually -- this current period hardly features the same kind of competitive military buildups that we saw during the Cold War. Yes, the 'BRICS' countries are now the up-and-comers, economically, but they're *also* getting caught in the deep freeze that's enveloping the world. ('Multipolar' would be a better term here, instead of 'multi-imperialist', arguably.)

They are also flirting more with the idea of turning to fascism to solve their crisis of capital. We see this even in the USA where the town of Quartzite has had the police coup the local bourgeoisie authority and established a fascist city state to deal with its own crisis of capital. Yet the US bourgeois state has yet to send in any armed forces to restore bourgeoisie democracy in the town.



Yes, I considered this, but I think that altercation in 2008 was an entirely *defensive* measure on the part of Russia. It served to show the *limits* of the U.S. empire in our present period.

It showed the growth of the imperial power of Russia.



Don't you mean "Chinamerica" here -- ?

China and the U.S. are practically conjoined twins at this point -- the superpower has a supercolony, one that's grown to the point of practically being a silent partner.

A partner that has imperialist rivalry with each other which is why China has been rapidly modernizing its forces and building up its navy, as the China ruling class has the same ambitions as Imperialist Japan had in the early 20th century.

[piet11111]

I would not be surprised if in the future personal bankruptcy would be severely restricted so that working class people with debts they can not possibly pay back might be forced to work for nothing but food and shelter.

Or where they could be made to sell themselves into "slavery" for X years so that hopefully they make enough money to pay of their debts so that once their X years are up they are debt free.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Who are you to "correct" people's "abuses" of theory? Every post of yours has the petty bourgeois academic ring to it. Like NGNM85, the university liberal, you put words in italics while talking to other people as if you were the font of all wisdom.

I wasn't lecturing a comrade, just refining a point he was trying to make, particularly after he agreed with my outlook on depression crises.


Or where they could be made to sell themselves into "slavery" for X years so that hopefully they make enough money to pay of their debts so that once their X years are up they are debt free.

Isn't that partially realized already by means of garnishments?

[gendoikari]

I would not be surprised if in the future personal bankruptcy would be severely restricted so that working class people with debts they can not possibly pay back might be forced to work for nothing but food and shelter.

Uh, try NOW, with the way the banks work it's hard to get ahead, one overdraft fee for me is like $80, and I Rejected that overdraft thing making it legal for them to do so. Every time they do it I threaten lawsuit/change of bank and they drop it. Asswipes have learned not to mess with me.

[RadioRaheem84]

I really fail to see the significance of WWII in terms of it's politically historical exception.

The more I study it the more I see it as the biggest case of 'blowback' in the history of the world.

There was a real fear of revolution in Europe, so the industrialists backed fascists and nazis to save them from 'bolshevik' hordes.

They didn't create a whole new society or changed social relations, so there was nothing revolutionary of different in what was present before, except that the bourgoise had to take a backseat to the ruling military party. Something that happens in most third world proxy states. Sure fascism and nazism employed some more military keynesianism that third world nations today, but social relations remained not only unchanged but strictly enforced.

The history of fascism and nazism was similar to the history of dealing with the despots in the midde east today.

Sorry to completely stray off topic, but I just had to chime in because the whole history of WWII and Nazism seems to confuse people into thinking that there was something exceptional about that time and that it broke with the normal fluctuation of history. It's treated some anomaly in history. It wasn't. It was nothing more than a break from the war that was going on all along; the class war, the Cold War.

[Psy]

I really fail to see the significance of WWII in terms of it's politically historical exception.

The more I study it the more I see it as the biggest case of 'blowback' in the history of the world.

There was a real fear of revolution in Europe, so the industrialists backed fascists and nazis to save them from 'bolshevik' hordes.

And there is no fear of revolution now?



They didn't create a whole new society or changed social relations, so there was nothing revolutionary of different in what was present before, except that the bourgoise had to take a backseat to the ruling military party. Something that happens in most third world proxy states. Sure fascism and nazism employed some more military keynesianism that third world nations today, but social relations remained not only unchanged but strictly enforced.

So creating fiefdoms in Eastern Europe and integrating slavery into the production process did not change social relations? Having workers working for zero wages as the Nazis held them at gun point didn't change the mode of production?



The history of fascism and nazism was similar to the history of dealing with the despots in the midde east today.

Sorry to completely stray off topic, but I just had to chime in because the whole history of WWII and Nazism seems to confuse people into thinking that there was something exceptional about that time and that it broke with the normal fluctuation of history. It's treated some anomaly in history. It wasn't. It was nothing more than a break from the war that was going on all along; the class war, the Cold War.
I see it more as the ruling class trying to transform class society into something far more ridged to deal with the escalating class war. You also have to separate what the bourgeoisie and fascists wanted out of fascism as the fascists had their own agenda and were not mere agents of the bourgeoisie like the despot puppets of Latin America and Middle East. I highly doubt the German bourgeoisie wanted the fascists to blow up the means of production in Germany to prevent the Americans from capturing them, as I doubt the German bourgeoisie by the end of war objected to the idea of playing a subservient role to the American ruling class, while Hitler thought if Nazi Germany went down then all of Germany should do down with it.

[piet11111]

Isn't that partially realized already by means of garnishments?


I am thinking more about the reemergence of poor houses with forced work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am thinking more about the reemergence of poor houses with forced work.

Where? Links?

[piet11111]

Where? Links?

Hasn't happened yet but i would not be surprised if that would happen in the future.

[Klaatu]

I am thinking more about the reemergence of poor houses with forced work.

One gop senator is already trying to repeal child-labor laws:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/14/139049/lee-child-labor/

"gop" (think of "sweat-shop")

[ckaihatsu]

They are also flirting more with the idea of turning to fascism to solve their crisis of capital. We see this even in the USA where the town of Quartzite has had the police coup the local bourgeoisie authority and established a fascist city state to deal with its own crisis of capital. Yet the US bourgeois state has yet to send in any armed forces to restore bourgeoisie democracy in the town.


Links, please.





It showed the growth of the imperial power of Russia.




A partner that has imperialist rivalry with each other which is why China has been rapidly modernizing its forces and building up its navy, as the China ruling class has the same ambitions as Imperialist Japan had in the early 20th century.





There is a profound connection between both agendas. Confronted with the most serious economic crisis since the 1930's, the major imperialist powers are wiping out all the gains achieved by workers in the post-war period. They are well aware that such a program will provoke the types of mass opposition already seen in Egypt, Tunisia, Greece, Portugal, and most recently Spain. The working class in the US is also once again on the move.

In response, governments across the globe are beefing up their own military apparatus to deal with the increasing domestic opposition to their policies, while also conducting a growing number of open-ended colonial wars aimed at re-dividing the world and its resources.

[...]

The international fissures which led to two world wars in the past century are re-emerging against the background of an intensification of the international economic crisis. The only progressive alternative is the unification of the European, US and world working class on the basis of an international socialist perspective.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/pers-m28.shtml

[Jose Gracchus]

How did Hitler create "fiefdoms" in Eastern Europe? Have you read Wages of Destruction? This sounds like a clueless wiki-version of German war policy to me. You're drawing colloquial comparisons with military governors and pretending this resembles feudal tenures and that tendency was likely to be retrenched. I've never seen any convincing scholarship to suggest that.

[Thirsty Crow]

What do you call peasants working for their masters for nothing?
They didn't "work for nothing".
Serfs owned their own land which they worked on (and appropriated the produce) after their obligation to the lord has been fulfilled. Slaves were even denied the status of human beings and in stead functioned as mere tools, and we all know that tools cannot own their land and work on it while directly appropriating the means of production and its produce.
There is a definite difference between slavery as a mode of production and feudalism.

[Tim Finnegan]

Look at how Nazi Germany handled Eastern Europe, it handed power over to regional commanders these regional commanders created fiefdoms as Hitler was only concerned with the advance of the main forces push farther east not with the details of the occupations. Yet Hitler did decree the establishment of slave labor as a cost cutting measure, meaning the industrial workers of eastern of Europe was bound to their workplace and those that didn't were bound to other property or sent to concentration camps to be done away with.
None of those constitute a new social formation, or even the seeds of one. Military governors with dictatorial powers are not feudal overlords, legally restricted labourers are not feudal serfs, and slavery is not a formation contrary to capitalism, merely an inefficient deployment of labour. The units producing with restricted or slave labour were still producing commodities, it's just that the sale of those commodities took place within a state, and so had the superficial appearance of a transfer of use values.

[Psy]

Links, please.
6O0xKFN10a8

So lets put this into context, the town elected a Libertarian Mayor (Ed Foster) to which the police and sections of the town bureaucracy used its powers to crush the Libertarian movement in the town. We are talking a town where the proletariat are a tiny minority so you have a bourgeoisie (via fascists) squeezing the petite-bourgeoisie to extract more surplus value that has resulted in a bourgeoisie/petite-bourgeoisie class war in the town (this is what I gather from looking up Libertarian reporting of the events so at least that is how the Libertarians view it, we also have the old guard not wanting its past deeds brought into public.

The reaction from the Arizona was not to send in the National Guard like they would if it was a labor uprising by state they respect the sovereignty of the town so it is not their problem. More accurately “As you may know, the Governor does not have the authority to intervene in local law enforcement matters. Nor does this office have the authority to investigate misconduct by the police, county jails, federal prisons, and/or judges.” which is BS the state of Arizona has every legal authority to intervene as towns are not legally sovereign from the rule of the state.

[Psy]

None of those constitute a new social formation, or even the seeds of one. Military governors with dictatorial powers are not feudal overlords,

It does when the Nazi party overruled even the German bourgeoisie which the Nazi Party did late in the war, limiting the the bourgeoisie to a mere subservient class to the Nazi ruling class.



legally restricted labourers are not feudal serfs,

Yet it is heading towards that direction. Think what would have happened if Nazi Germany won the war all those restricted laborers would have been bound to the lands and part of the estates carved up among the Nazi ruling class.



and slavery is not a formation contrary to capitalism, merely an inefficient deployment of labour. The units producing with restricted or slave labour were still producing commodities, it's just that the sale of those commodities took place within a state, and so had the superficial appearance of a transfer of use values.
That is true but Nazi Germany was relying more and more on slavery and pushing more of the proletariat into slavery.



How did Hitler create "fiefdoms" in Eastern Europe? Have you read Wages of Destruction? This sounds like a clueless wiki-version of German war policy to me. You're drawing colloquial comparisons with military governors and pretending this resembles feudal tenures and that tendency was likely to be retrenched. I've never seen any convincing scholarship to suggest that.
The Nazi Party was not a monolithic organization, sure what Hitler said goes but other then that bureaucrats and generals were not only free to peruse their own agendas but encouraged to do so by Hitler. So if you wanted to use slave labor to farm your estate in Poland then Hitler would have been cool with that as long as that didn't get in the way of the grand plans of the Nazi Party. That was how the Nazi Party worked was you brown nosed Hitler and you could become a member of the new ruling class.

[Tim Finnegan]

It does when the Nazi party overruled even the German bourgeoisie which the Nazi Party did late in the war, limiting the the bourgeoisie to a mere subservient class to the Nazi ruling class.
You've never heard of "Bonapartism"?


Yet it is heading towards that direction. Think what would have happened if Nazi Germany won the war all those restricted laborers would have been bound to the lands and part of the estates carved up among the Nazi ruling class.No it wouldn't. You're confusing legal restrictions on labour, hardly a novelty under capitalism, with the particular property forms of feudalism, which were about a mutual claim to land constructed in the form of uneven social obligations. Labour is already restricted within national borders, after all- are we serfs because of that?


That is true but Nazi Germany was relying more and more on slavery and pushing more of the proletariat into slavery.What are you basing this on? As far as I know, the use of outright slave labour was restricted to prisoners in concentration camps and to prisoners of war, which were a particular, very finite and presumably temporary section of the population.

[Psy]

You've never heard of "Bonapartism"?

Right yet Bonapartism was so the bourgeoisie could gain power, by late in WWII the bourgeoisie of Germany no longer had any interest in Hitler ambitions and were just along for the ride.



No it wouldn't. You're confusing legal restrictions on labour, hardly a novelty under capitalism, with the particular property forms of feudalism, which were about a mutual claim to land constructed in the form of uneven social obligations. Labour is already restricted within national borders, after all- are we serfs because of that?

I meant labor being bound to estates, so a Nazi General would retire with a Polish farm with so many Polish serfs working on it since Nazi's only say Eastern Europe as a bread basket for the German empire yet didn't have any plans to industrialize agriculture in Eastern Europe.




What are you basing this on? As far as I know, the use of outright slave labour was restricted to prisoners in concentration camps and to prisoners of war, which were a particular, very finite and presumably temporary section of the population.
I'm basing this on the fact Nazi Germany was pushing East into Russia with the goal of enslaving the entire Russian population. So if Nazi Germany had the entire Russian population as serfs how would this have not been a feudal leaning on the Nazi's part?

[Tim Finnegan]

Right yet Bonapartism was so the bourgeoisie could gain power, by late in WWII the bourgeoisie of Germany no longer had any interest in Hitler ambitions and were just along for the ride.
Actually, Bonapartism is recognised as symptomatic of bourgeois weakness; that Napoleon used his power to suppress the aristocracy was a product of the political necessities of his time, not an essential characteristic of the phenomenon of Bonapartism, as his equally Bonapartist nephew proved. It was only after Boney was pitched out, and the abortive revival of absolutism under the restored Bourbons done away with, that the bourgeoisie regained political power.


I meant labor being bound to estates, so a Nazi General would retire with a Polish farm with so many Polish serfs working on it since Nazi's only say Eastern Europe as a bread basket for the German empire yet didn't have any plans to industrialize agriculture in Eastern Europe.As opposed to a British general retiring to a British farm, with so many British wage-slaves working on it? All that you're really suggesting there is extra legal restrictions on the workers, not a fundamentally new system. I highly doubt that the Nazis envisioned a return to the manorial system.


I'm basing this on the fact Nazi Germany was pushing East into Russia with the goal of enslaving the entire Russian population. So if Nazi Germany had the entire Russian population as serfs how would this have not been a feudal leaning on the Nazi's part?Because there's no reason to believe that the Nazis planned to revive feudal social relations, which are a distinct set of social relations and not merely a set of legal restrictions on agricultural workers. After all, we can see the reverse in feudal Europe, freemen working on feudal estates, engaging with the lord in essentially the same manner as the serfs but with the distinction of being mutually voluntary- this was in fact the norm in some regions, with a few even lacking the legal institution of serfdom altogether- so it clearly does not hold that there is any firm relationship between feudalism and legal restrictions on the rights of the exploited classes.

[Psy]

Actually, Bonapartism is recognised as symptomatic of bourgeois weakness; that Napoleon used his power to suppress the aristocracy was a product of the political necessities of his time, not an essential characteristic of the phenomenon of Bonapartism, as his equally Bonapartist nephew proved. It was only after Boney was pitched out, and the abortive revival of absolutism under the restored Bourbons done away with, that the bourgeoisie regained political power.

Yet the German bourgeoisie backed fascism when they were strong and became weak through fascism as every attempt the Germany bourgeoisie made to overthrow Hitler failed and only resulted in Hitler shorting the leash on the German bourgeoisie.



As opposed to a British general retiring to a British farm, with so many British wage-slaves working on it? All that you're really suggesting there is extra legal restrictions on the workers, not a fundamentally new system. I highly doubt that the Nazis envisioned a return to the manorial system.

Nazis envisioned limitless German imperialism. They wanted colonies where they could exploit the resources without friction from wage labor.



Because there's no reason to believe that the Nazis planned to revive feudal social relations, which are a distinct set of social relations and not merely a set of legal restrictions on agricultural workers. After all, we can see the reverse in feudal Europe, freemen working on feudal estates, engaging with the lord in essentially the same manner as the serfs but with the distinction of being mutually voluntary- this was in fact the norm in some regions, with a few even lacking the legal institution of serfdom altogether- so it clearly does not hold that there is any firm relationship between feudalism and legal restrictions on the rights of the exploited classes.
The Nazis didn't think about profits when they debated slave labor, all the Nazi ruling class cared about was fueling the war machine, slaves could produce rockets with less resources then wage labor then that is all the justification the Nazi's planners needed as the expansion of the German Empire was the point of Nazi production, rather then empire just being a means to profit under capitalist imperialist logic.

[ckaihatsu]

[YOUTUBE]

So lets put this into context, the town elected a Libertarian Mayor (Ed Foster) to which the police and sections of the town bureaucracy used its powers to crush the Libertarian movement in the town. We are talking a town where the proletariat are a tiny minority so you have a bourgeoisie (via fascists) squeezing the petite-bourgeoisie to extract more surplus value that has resulted in a bourgeoisie/petite-bourgeoisie class war in the town (this is what I gather from looking up Libertarian reporting of the events so at least that is how the Libertarians view it, we also have the old guard not wanting its past deeds brought into public.

The reaction from the Arizona was not to send in the National Guard like they would if it was a labor uprising by state they respect the sovereignty of the town so it is not their problem. More accurately “As you may know, the Governor does not have the authority to intervene in local law enforcement matters. Nor does this office have the authority to investigate misconduct by the police, county jails, federal prisons, and/or judges.” which is BS the state of Arizona has every legal authority to intervene as towns are not legally sovereign from the rule of the state.


Uh, no. You're decidedly over-analyzing here. It looks quite run-of-the-mill....





Freedom of speech and corruption controversy

In July 2011 a video was posted on YouTube showing Quartzsite resident Jennifer Jones being arrested, manhandled, and removed from a city council meeting after accusing the city council of violating open-meeting laws. After the video received widespread public comment and media attention, the city council, in an emergency, closed-door session, removed the mayor and declared a state of emergency. The mayor, Ed Foster, who was elected on an anti-corruption platform, has accused the city council members of embezzling $250,000 every year since 1991 from the town's public coffers. He has also accused the town's police chief Jeff Gilbert of repeatedly investigating and arresting him for "bogus" reasons, most recently on charges of disorderly conduct and interference after trying to stop Gilbert from arresting Jones for the third time in the wake of $2 million lawsuit against the town on allegations of police harassment. The city council has denied Foster's allegations.[6][7]

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


I really don't think that anyone can generalize from this to describe the macrocosm of current politics, tempting though it may be to do so.

If this *does* turn out to be some leading indicator of sorts then anarchy would necessarily prevail within a matter of weeks -- and I mean that in the constructive sense of the political term.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yet the German bourgeoisie backed fascism when they were strong and became weak through fascism as every attempt the Germany bourgeoisie made to overthrow Hitler failed and only resulted in Hitler shorting the leash on the German bourgeoisie.
Not at all- bourgeois backing for the Nazi Party came precisely because the German bourgeoisie was weak, as it had been ever since the 1919 Revolution. The same is true of Italy, which spent the 1919-21 period on the verge of revolution. A relatively strong bourgeoisie, as in Britain, France or the United States, is able to hold its own without recourse to fascism.


Nazis envisioned limitless German imperialism. They wanted colonies where they could exploit the resources without friction from wage labor.Firstly, you still haven't actually proven that the Nazis wanted to return to a manorial system. You just keep insisting it.
Secondly, what they wanted is neither here nor there. As I've said, new social formations emerge from objective historical processes, not because some clique of party zealots screws up its collective eyes and wishes really hard. It's simply not possible to move from capitalism backwards into feudalism, and to suggest as much is to break with Marxism at a fundamental level.


The Nazis didn't think about profits when they debated slave labor, all the Nazi ruling class cared about was fueling the war machine, slaves could produce rockets with less resources then wage labor then that is all the justification the Nazi's planners needed as the expansion of the German Empire was the point of Nazi production, rather then empire just being a means to profit under capitalist imperialist logic.Firstly, a ruling political clique does not constitute a ruling class. The Nazi party apparatus exhibited no unique property forms or relationships to production, and so can not be considered anything more than an extension of the existing bourgeoisie.
Secondly, slave labour, as I've said, does not constitute a unique social formation, especially when the slave labour in question is dependent upon a consciously disposable workforce, and not intended as the long-term basis of the economy. (Again, noting that indentured labour and slavery are not the same thing.)
Thirdly, that production was invested in imperial expansion is in no way unique, as the fact that the Third Reich arose after a solid two centuries or so of Western imperialism demonstrates. That they were more zealous about it doesn't make it a fundamentally different process.

[Psy]

Uh, no. You're decidedly over-analyzing here. It looks quite run-of-the-mill....

I really don't think that anyone can generalize from this to describe the macrocosm of current politics, tempting though it may be to do so.

If this *does* turn out to be some leading indicator of sorts then anarchy would necessarily prevail within a matter of weeks -- and I mean that in the constructive sense of the political term.
I doubt that since the town is primarily populated by petit-bourgeoisie, you can't have a labor response when labor is a minority in the town. Also how is the bulk of the police force saying the police chief is just unlawful run-of-the-mill? Think about it, you have the bulk of police of the town standing up and calling for the restoration of bourgeoisie democracy as they call their police chiefs actions unconstitutional by disrupting small businesses right to conduct business without police harassment, you have libertarians (known for their disdain for big government) has state police on speed dial to call state troopers to police the local police as libertarians trust big government far more then their local government just because state troopers don't beat up business owners just for not singing his praises .

[Psy]

Not at all- bourgeois backing for the Nazi Party came precisely because the German bourgeoisie was weak, as it had been ever since the 1919 Revolution. The same is true of Italy, which spent the 1919-21 period on the verge of revolution. A relatively strong bourgeoisie, as in Britain, France or the United States, is able to hold its own without recourse to fascism.

They was much stronger then after the fascists "fixed" the crisis.



Firstly, you still haven't actually proven that the Nazis wanted to return to a manorial system. You just keep insisting it.
Secondly, what they wanted is neither here nor there. As I've said, new social formations emerge from objective historical processes, not because some clique of party zealots screws up its collective eyes and wishes really hard. It's simply not possible to move from capitalism backwards into feudalism, and to suggest as much is to break with Marxism at a fundamental level.

It doesn't break with Marxism as Marx simply assumed we wouldn't go back as doing so would just reintroduce old contraindications yet this assumes a rational ruling class. There is nothing stopping a large military state from reestablishing feudalism, it is just other powers will just crush that state thus why I said if the Nazis dominated the entire world so their state was the only state on Earth.



Firstly, a ruling political clique does not constitute a ruling class. The Nazi party apparatus exhibited no unique property forms or relationships to production, and so can not be considered anything more than an extension of the existing bourgeoisie.

Even when the polices of the Nazi no longer represented the interests bourgeoisie? Where they bourgeoisie when they smashed the property of the bourgeoisie because Hitler was having a hissy fit over losing the war?



Secondly, slave labour, as I've said, does not constitute a unique social formation, especially when the slave labour in question is dependent upon a consciously disposable workforce, and not intended as the long-term basis of the economy. (Again, noting that indentured labour and slavery are not the same thing.)
Thirdly, that production was invested in imperial expansion is in no way unique, as the fact that the Third Reich arose after a solid two centuries or so of Western imperialism demonstrates. That they were more zealous about it doesn't make it a fundamentally different process.
There were Nazis that objected to killing the Jews as slave labor would give the German economy a cheap source of labor and were concerned where they would get slave labor after all the Jews were dead.

Imperial expansion is not unique but it is usually tied to exploitation of foreign markets in capitalism not a end in itself.

[ckaihatsu]

They are also flirting more with the idea of turning to fascism to solve their crisis of capital. We see this even in the USA where the town of Quartzite has had the police coup the local bourgeoisie authority and established a fascist city state to deal with its own crisis of capital. Yet the US bourgeois state has yet to send in any armed forces to restore bourgeoisie democracy in the town.




I doubt that since the town is primarily populated by petit-bourgeoisie, you can't have a labor response when labor is a minority in the town. Also how is the bulk of the police force saying the police chief is just unlawful run-of-the-mill? Think about it, you have the bulk of police of the town standing up and calling for the restoration of bourgeoisie democracy as they call their police chiefs actions unconstitutional by disrupting small businesses right to conduct business without police harassment, you have libertarians (known for their disdain for big government) has state police on speed dial to call state troopers to police the local police as libertarians trust big government far more then their local government just because state troopers don't beat up business owners just for not singing his praises .


Psy, in both this Quartzsite case, *and* in the far-larger-scale Nazi Germany history, you're overstating the independence of fascism from foundational bourgeois rule. Really you're hyper-dramatizing the underlying politics, as incredible as that may sound in light of the latter's effect on humanity and human lives.

[Psy]

Psy, in both this Quartzsite case, *and* in the far-larger-scale Nazi Germany history, you're overstating the independence of fascism from foundational bourgeois rule. Really you're hyper-dramatizing the underlying politics, as incredible as that may sound in light of the latter's effect on humanity and human lives.
Well in the Nazi cause they were only bound by larger bourgeois rule basically global capitalism as they had the military capabilities of oppressing the local bourgeoisie with their military and did so towards those of the German bourgeoisie that dissented.

In Quartzsite yeah there is a bourgeois rule, yet one that seem somewhat indifferent as only petite-bourgeoisie (and what few proletariat exist in Quartsite) are being oppressed.

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Book review

Why Marx was right

Niall Mullholland

"Marxism may be all right in theory ...but in practice the result is terror" ... "determinism" ... "a Utopia" ... "a theory obsessed with class ... advocates violent political action ... and believes in an all powerful state..."

Terry Eagleton rebuts these arguments and other prejudices and myths against Marxism in his new book, Why Marx was right.

Starting with today's global economic crisis, Eagleton comments: "You can tell the capitalist system is in trouble when people start taking about capitalism. It indicates that the system has ceased to be as natural as the air we breathe, and can be seen instead as the historically rather recent phenomenon that it is."

Socialists everywhere will be familiar with the accusations that Marxism is a crude form of "historical determinism", reducing everything to the economic, that it goes against human nature etc.

Eagleton, a professor of English literature and cultural theory, answers these arguments with vigour and wit, often alluding to philosophy and literature. His book is sure to reach a readership well beyond academia.

While condemning Stalinism and its legacy, Eagleton also indicts the record of capitalist rule: "Modern capitalist nations are the fruit of a history of slavery, genocide, violence and exploitation every bit as abhorrent as Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union..."

Under today's rule of "free market dogma", during the last two decades of the 20th century, the number living on less than two dollars a day increased by one hundred million.

For seasoned Marxist readers, Eagleton's book can act as a 'refresher course' and for those new to the subject it is a useful introduction. It is not without its faults and limits, however. For example, his analysis of the state - under capitalism and the different phenomena of a 'workers' state' - is somewhat unclear.

In his discussions on a future socialist society and its possibilities, Eagleton correctly rejects Stalinist-style 'blueprints' but is also at pains to avoid appearing utopian himself. He misleadingly asserts that Trotsky, among other Marxists, advocated a "utopian extreme, foreseeing ... a future stocked by heroes and geniuses".

While Eagleton says that "over long periods of time, changes of institution do indeed have profound effects on human attitudes," he weakens and confuses his argument by using the Northern Ireland 'peace process' as a positive example.

He asserts that "changes in sectarian consciousness are likely to be geologically slow..." but "in one sense this is not all that important. What was important was securing a political agreement which could be carefully policed and skilfully evolved, in the context of a general public weariness with thirty years of violence."

The Northern Ireland Assembly does not represent a genuine "political agreement" between working people, let alone a solution. It is a top-down arrangement that institutionalises sectarianism, yet which can agree £40 billion worth of social cuts, exacerbating poverty and sectarian divisions.

A real peace process would see the working class, Catholic and Protestant, coming together in a mass struggle against cuts, sectarianism and the capitalist system, and in the process of overthrowing capitalism, democratically deciding their future in a socialist society.

Eagleton's scope is largely limited to Marx's basic ideas, vitally important as that is. He does not give enough space to discussing Marx's analysis of capitalism and the reasons for capitalist booms and slumps, which is especially apt today.

He describes the objective conditions for socialism - including how the global working class is far larger than it was in Marx's day - but does not set out ideas about how to get there.

The role of Karl Marx, the tireless revolutionary, who along with Frederick Engels laboured to build a mighty workers' International, is not given thorough treatment.

While sympathetic to the historical record of the Bolsheviks and Lenin and Trotsky, Eagleton does not comment on the validity or otherwise of a revolutionary socialist party today and how to go about changing society.

For a discussion on what policies and programme of action are needed to bring about the overthrow of capitalism and for socialist change - on the basis of the international workers' movement's experiences of over the last 150 years - readers need to look elsewhere.

Not least, in the pages of the Socialist (eg. 'What Alternative?' Peter Taaffe, The Socialist 26 June 2011) and to Socialist Party publications (eg 'Socialism in the 21st Century' by Hannah Sell).

Why Marx was right by Terry Eagleton, Yale University Press, £16.99

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/683/12689/31-08-2011/why-marx-was-right

[tobbinator]

I came across this article while looking through the news. Do you think it is accurate? Or is it just complete lie? From BBC



Karl Marx may have been wrong about communism but he was right about much of capitalism, John Gray writes.

As a side-effect of the financial crisis, more and more people are starting to think Karl Marx was right. The great 19th Century German philosopher, economist and revolutionary believed that capitalism was radically unstable.

It had a built-in tendency to produce ever larger booms and busts, and over the longer term it was bound to destroy itself.

Marx welcomed capitalism's self-destruction. He was confident that a popular revolution would occur and bring a communist system into being that would be more productive and far more humane.

Marx was wrong about communism. Where he was prophetically right was in his grasp of the revolution of capitalism. It's not just capitalism's endemic instability that he understood, though in this regard he was far more perceptive than most economists in his day and ours.

More profoundly, Marx understood how capitalism destroys its own social base - the middle-class way of life. The Marxist terminology of bourgeois and proletarian has an archaic ring.

But when he argued that capitalism would plunge the middle classes into something like the precarious existence of the hard-pressed workers of his time, Marx anticipated a change in the way we live that we're only now struggling to cope with.

He viewed capitalism as the most revolutionary economic system in history, and there can be no doubt that it differs radically from those of previous times.

Hunter-gatherers persisted in their way of life for thousands of years, slave cultures for almost as long and feudal societies for many centuries. In contrast, capitalism transforms everything it touches.

It's not just brands that are constantly changing. Companies and industries are created and destroyed in an incessant stream of innovation, while human relationships are dissolved and reinvented in novel forms.
Capitalism has been described as a process of creative destruction, and no-one can deny that it has been prodigiously productive. Practically anyone who is alive in Britain today has a higher real income than they would have had if capitalism had never existed.

The trouble is that among the things that have been destroyed in the process is the way of life on which capitalism in the past depended.

Defenders of capitalism argue that it offers to everyone the benefits that in Marx's time were enjoyed only by the bourgeoisie, the settled middle class that owned capital and had a reasonable level of security and freedom in their lives.

In 19th Century capitalism most people had nothing. They lived by selling their labour and when markets turned down they faced hard times. But as capitalism evolves, its defenders say, an increasing number of people will be able to benefit from it.

Fulfilling careers will no longer be the prerogative of a few. No more will people struggle from month to month to live on an insecure wage. Protected by savings, a house they own and a decent pension, they will be able to plan their lives without fear. With the growth of democracy and the spread of wealth, no-one need be shut out from the bourgeois life. Everybody can be middle class.

In fact, in Britain, the US and many other developed countries over the past 20 or 30 years, the opposite has been happening. Job security doesn't exist, the trades and professions of the past have largely gone and life-long careers are barely memories.

If people have any wealth it's in their houses, but house prices don't always increase. When credit is tight as it is now, they can be stagnant for years. A dwindling minority can count on a pension on which they could comfortably live, and not many have significant savings.

More and more people live from day to day, with little idea of what the future may bring. Middle-class people used to think their lives unfolded in an orderly progression. But it's no longer possible to look at life as a succession of stages in which each is a step up from the last.
In the process of creative destruction the ladder has been kicked away and for increasing numbers of people a middle-class existence is no longer even an aspiration.

As capitalism has advanced it has returned most people to a new version of the precarious existence of Marx's proles. Our incomes are far higher and in some degree we're cushioned against shocks by what remains of the post-war welfare state.

But we have very little effective control over the course of our lives, and the uncertainty in which we must live is being worsened by policies devised to deal with the financial crisis. Zero interest rates alongside rising prices means you're getting a negative return on your money and over time your capital is being eroded.

The situation of many younger people is even worse. In order to acquire the skills you need, you'll have to go into debt. Since at some point you'll have to retrain you should try to save, but if you're indebted from the start that's the last thing you'll be able to do. Whatever their age, the prospect facing most people today is a lifetime of insecurity.

At the same time as it has stripped people of the security of bourgeois life, capitalism has made the type of person that lived the bourgeois life obsolete. In the 1980s there was much talk of Victorian values, and promoters of the free market used to argue that it would bring us back to the wholesome virtues of the past.

For many, women and the poor for example, these Victorian values could be pretty stultifying in their effects. But the larger fact is that the free market works to undermine the virtues that maintain the bourgeois life.

When savings are melting away being thrifty can be the road to ruin. It's the person who borrows heavily and isn't afraid to declare bankruptcy that survives and goes on to prosper.

When the labour market is highly mobile it's not those who stick dutifully to their task that succeed, it's people who are always ready to try something new that looks more promising.

In a society that is being continuously transformed by market forces, traditional values are dysfunctional and anyone who tries to live by them risks ending up on the scrapheap.

Looking to a future in which the market permeates every corner of life, Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto: "Everything that is solid melts into air". For someone living in early Victorian England - the Manifesto was published in 1848 - it was an astonishingly far-seeing observation.

At the time nothing seemed more solid than the society on the margins of which Marx lived. A century and a half later we find ourselves in the world he anticipated, where everyone's life is experimental and provisional, and sudden ruin can happen at any time.

A tiny few have accumulated vast wealth but even that has an evanescent, almost ghostly quality. In Victorian times the seriously rich could afford to relax provided they were conservative in how they invested their money. When the heroes of Dickens' novels finally come into their inheritance, they do nothing forever after.

Today there is no haven of security. The gyrations of the market are such that no-one can know what will have value even a few years ahead.

This state of perpetual unrest is the permanent revolution of capitalism and I think it's going to be with us in any future that's realistically imaginable. We're only part of the way through a financial crisis that will turn many more things upside down.

Currencies and governments are likely to go under, along with parts of the financial system we believed had been made safe. The risks that threatened to freeze the world economy only three years ago haven't been dealt with. They've simply been shifted to states.

Whatever politicians may tell us about the need to curb the deficit, debts on the scale that have been run up can't be repaid. Almost certainly they will be inflated away - a process that is bound to painful and impoverishing for many.

The result can only be further upheaval, on an even bigger scale. But it won't be the end of the world, or even of capitalism. Whatever happens, we're still going to have to learn to live with the mercurial energy that the market has released.

Capitalism has led to a revolution but not the one that Marx expected. The fiery German thinker hated the bourgeois life and looked to communism to destroy it. And just as he predicted, the bourgeois world has been destroyed.

But it wasn't communism that did the deed. It's capitalism that has killed off the bourgeoisie.

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Book review

Why Marx was right

Niall Mullholland

"Marxism may be all right in theory ...but in practice the result is terror" ... "determinism" ... "a Utopia" ... "a theory obsessed with class ... advocates violent political action ... and believes in an all powerful state..."

Terry Eagleton rebuts these arguments and other prejudices and myths against Marxism in his new book, Why Marx was right.

Starting with today's global economic crisis, Eagleton comments: "You can tell the capitalist system is in trouble when people start taking about capitalism. It indicates that the system has ceased to be as natural as the air we breathe, and can be seen instead as the historically rather recent phenomenon that it is."

Socialists everywhere will be familiar with the accusations that Marxism is a crude form of "historical determinism", reducing everything to the economic, that it goes against human nature etc.

Eagleton, a professor of English literature and cultural theory, answers these arguments with vigour and wit, often alluding to philosophy and literature. His book is sure to reach a readership well beyond academia.

While condemning Stalinism and its legacy, Eagleton also indicts the record of capitalist rule: "Modern capitalist nations are the fruit of a history of slavery, genocide, violence and exploitation every bit as abhorrent as Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union..."

Under today's rule of "free market dogma", during the last two decades of the 20th century, the number living on less than two dollars a day increased by one hundred million.

For seasoned Marxist readers, Eagleton's book can act as a 'refresher course' and for those new to the subject it is a useful introduction. It is not without its faults and limits, however. For example, his analysis of the state - under capitalism and the different phenomena of a 'workers' state' - is somewhat unclear.

In his discussions on a future socialist society and its possibilities, Eagleton correctly rejects Stalinist-style 'blueprints' but is also at pains to avoid appearing utopian himself. He misleadingly asserts that Trotsky, among other Marxists, advocated a "utopian extreme, foreseeing ... a future stocked by heroes and geniuses".

While Eagleton says that "over long periods of time, changes of institution do indeed have profound effects on human attitudes," he weakens and confuses his argument by using the Northern Ireland 'peace process' as a positive example.

He asserts that "changes in sectarian consciousness are likely to be geologically slow..." but "in one sense this is not all that important. What was important was securing a political agreement which could be carefully policed and skilfully evolved, in the context of a general public weariness with thirty years of violence."

The Northern Ireland Assembly does not represent a genuine "political agreement" between working people, let alone a solution. It is a top-down arrangement that institutionalises sectarianism, yet which can agree £40 billion worth of social cuts, exacerbating poverty and sectarian divisions.

A real peace process would see the working class, Catholic and Protestant, coming together in a mass struggle against cuts, sectarianism and the capitalist system, and in the process of overthrowing capitalism, democratically deciding their future in a socialist society.

Eagleton's scope is largely limited to Marx's basic ideas, vitally important as that is. He does not give enough space to discussing Marx's analysis of capitalism and the reasons for capitalist booms and slumps, which is especially apt today.

He describes the objective conditions for socialism - including how the global working class is far larger than it was in Marx's day - but does not set out ideas about how to get there.

The role of Karl Marx, the tireless revolutionary, who along with Frederick Engels laboured to build a mighty workers' International, is not given thorough treatment.

While sympathetic to the historical record of the Bolsheviks and Lenin and Trotsky, Eagleton does not comment on the validity or otherwise of a revolutionary socialist party today and how to go about changing society.

For a discussion on what policies and programme of action are needed to bring about the overthrow of capitalism and for socialist change - on the basis of the international workers' movement's experiences of over the last 150 years - readers need to look elsewhere.

Not least, in the pages of the Socialist (eg. 'What Alternative?' Peter Taaffe, The Socialist 26 June 2011) and to Socialist Party publications (eg 'Socialism in the 21st Century' by Hannah Sell).

Why Marx was right by Terry Eagleton, Yale University Press, £16.99

from the Socialist, newspaper of the Socialist Party/CWI, 31 August 2011

[Strannik]

Basically, this is what neoliberals/neoconservatives in Eastern Europe believe. They are ususally former "young cadre" members of communist parties who switched the sides during the dissolution of USSR. They still have an utopian vision of a better future society (which has several characteristics of 60-s technological communism - internationalist, high standards of living for everyone... etc), but believe that it is reached through unlimited capitalism ("revolutionary capitalism") instead of socialist revolution.

They are mostly involved with financial sector and believe the drivel that "money == social value". Since the financial markets, when they are disconnected from actual economy become extremely volatile, they begin to believe that the same is true for all value. But people do need food, heating and housing and the few who control basic resources can be pretty damn sure that they will not lose their fortunes overnight.

Already there's a movement building up where both working class and national bourgeoises are reacting against this fictional capitalism of neoliberals. Both are saying that we need to get back to actually producing social value. We need more stability! Economy cannot work, when most people do not produce anything and everyone just looks for means to get more cash.

This causes a lot of confusion, for many workers believe that since they have a common enemy, they have the same interests as national bourgeoise. But of course the national bourgeoise wishes that the production of social value would serve their own individual interests, not those of the masses.

I believe that there is a positive way forward from current volatile capitalism also.

Capitalism defeated feudal tyranny, because it unleashed humankind's creative potential. It allowed people to rise above their station in society. Unfortunately, this right becomes for most people more and more theoretical as the economic inequality grows - until there's some kind of social catastrophe, war, etc. And the cycle begins anew.

Communism can defeat capitalism when it offers stability without limiting the creative potential of humankind - it has to offer *each individual* the equal opportunity to use the collective tools and resources of mankind to shape the world according to their individual preferences. "A voluntary association of independent producers".

This is why I think that communist revolution is not the similar to a bourgeois revolution. Bourgeois revolution defeats the rigidity of feudal society, makes it evolve. Communist revolution eliminates the volatility of capitalist society (boom-bust cycle), enabling stable progress of society and its each individual member.

[ckaihatsu]

Keynes didn't resolve anything. The war did. And war is still an option for the bourgeoisie. The war reconstituted capitalism in the image of its maker then, and war will reconstitute capitalism in the future.

Right, communism has never existed. Another example of "close not counting."








The capitalist system *should* be called 'dead' at some point because the societal knock-on effect of its existential crisis is a diminishing possible individualism that results as a consequence of the "forced" politicization of economic activity itself, since the capitalist economy is no longer self-sustaining in any sense of the term, *and* is in a slumping atmosphere.

This "forced" politicization of economic activity is *not* the kind we *want*, because it's not a societal-*progressive* kind of collectivization, as through a liberated labor's control of the means of mass industrial production.





Capitalism defeated feudal tyranny, because it unleashed humankind's creative potential. It allowed people to rise above their station in society. Unfortunately, this right becomes for most people more and more theoretical as the economic inequality grows - until there's some kind of social catastrophe, war, etc. And the cycle begins anew.

Communism can defeat capitalism when it offers stability without limiting the creative potential of humankind - it has to offer *each individual* the equal opportunity to use the collective tools and resources of mankind to shape the world according to their individual preferences. "A voluntary association of independent producers".

This is why I think that communist revolution is not the similar to a bourgeois revolution. Bourgeois revolution defeats the rigidity of feudal society, makes it evolve. Communist revolution eliminates the volatility of capitalist society (boom-bust cycle), enabling stable progress of society and its each individual member.


We can see a system's stagnation reflected in the cultural realm -- if there's too much of a facile reaching down into the overused, tired themes of historical nostalgia, yesteryear small-town quaintness, nature romanticism, and humanity's salvation through fresh-faced youth, then you *know* that present-day society is *fucked*.

Objectively speaking, humanity can certainly *survive* with little progress, but that's not saying much for humanity as a *society*, independent from and more interesting than animal populations.

Without a socially objective, broad-based empowerment and impetus for a renewed individualism, our human society and civilization will just revert to non-progressive and even regressive "bad habits", for the sake of some modicum of societal cohesion.

[Luís Henrique]

What about the possibility for the capitalist class to reverting back to feudalism in order to protect their privileged position in face of a totally collapsed capitalist market? This could theoretically be done by a fascist military basically forcing the proletariat to accept being traditional slaves that receives no wages in exchange to the military not killing them.

Really? They would reverse industrialisation? Eliminate the job market? Take responsibility for feeding the slaves in low conjunctures? Have a mass of working people that does not consume their shit?



I mean if the rate of profit falls below zero why would the capitalist class defend capitalism rather then fight for a earlier class order?They will, as they always do, strive to raise the rate of profit. "Earlier class orders" are not interesting for capital, and those people are servants of capital, not its masters.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Capitalism will either be replaced by fascism, or socialism.

Capitalism cannot be replaced by fascism. Capitalism is a mode of production; fascism is a political system. And one that only can thrive in high capitalist societies. Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy were every bit as capitalist as New Deal America or Churchill's Britain.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

B) The law of value makes profit in capitalism impossible where the rate of profit has been in negative territory for years so capitalists can't extract surplus value as M>C>C+>M+ has transformed into M>C>C->M- thus capitalists have no incentives to partake in the capitalist mode of production as there is no profit to be had.

In which case the system comes to a halt, and the capitalists abandon their companies. In the limited case of a national crisis of capital, they go abroad or send their capital there. In the case of a global, planetary crisis, production stops, and can only be renewed if workers take the companies in their hands. Which is called a revolution. The alternative is simple, too: after a limited time of no production at all, wages fall, and workers return to work in worse conditions than before, raising the profit rates and reenabling the system.


In the latter the ruling class might turn to the military to scare the proletariat into accepting working for a wage of zero and keeping them working by having troops whip them throughout the work day and beat the workers that refuse to work at the pace the ruling class wants.

How would workers live with a wage of zero in the conditions of an industrial economy? It is one thing to be a slave in a plantation, where food can be generated from the slaves own work, but how would workers in a hydro plant or automobile factory be fed if they had no wages?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Yes and fascism is a reactionary force that transforms society into whatever the fascists see as necessary to maintain class hierarchy.

... no. Fascism is a reactionary force that empowers the capitalist class over the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie in times of crises (besides rearranging internal forces within the bourgeoisie itself, sometimes quite dramatically), and particularly crises related to the establishment of the hegemony of monopolisitc capital at the expense of concorrential capital. It by no means can transform society into whatever they desire. It is a reactionary force within history, by no means an a-historical deus ex machina.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Concurrential capital?

[Psy]

In which case the system comes to a halt, and the capitalists abandon their companies. In the limited case of a national crisis of capital, they go abroad or send their capital there. In the case of a global, planetary crisis, production stops, and can only be renewed if workers take the companies in their hands. Which is called a revolution. The alternative is simple, too: after a limited time of no production at all, wages fall, and workers return to work in worse conditions than before, raising the profit rates and reenabling the system.

I doubt production would stop as the state apprentice that prevents the ruling class from being overthrown requires a constant flow of value as a ruling class having its hired guns living in poverty is never a stable situation.



How would workers live with a wage of zero in the conditions of an industrial economy? It is one thing to be a slave in a plantation, where food can be generated from the slaves own work, but how would workers in a hydro plant or automobile factory be fed if they had no wages?

Luís Henrique
Nazi Germany did that with Jews, they just threw them in consideration camps then used the army to force them to work even in rocket factories.

Was it stable, no but we are talking about the ruling class prolonging their rule by any means necessary.

[Psy]

... no. Fascism is a reactionary force that empowers the capitalist class over the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie in times of crises (besides rearranging internal forces within the bourgeoisie itself, sometimes quite dramatically), and particularly crises related to the establishment of the hegemony of monopolisitc capital at the expense of concorrential capital. It by no means can transform society into whatever they desire. It is a reactionary force within history, by no means an a-historical deus ex machina.

Luís Henrique

Then why did Nazi Germany execute the German capitalist class they plotted against the state? The German capitalist class plotted against the Nazi state as they eventually understood if they played their cards right they could do a peace deal with the west and focus on stopping the USSR but Hitler did not give a shit about the interests of the capitalist class all that mattered was his ego.

[Tim Finnegan]

Then why did Nazi Germany execute the German capitalist class they plotted against the state? The German capitalist class plotted against the Nazi state as they eventually understood if they played their cards right they could do a peace deal with the west and focus on stopping the USSR but Hitler did not give a shit about the interests of the capitalist class all that mattered was his ego.
When was this? :confused:

(I mean, aside from the fact that it's completely irrelevant to any halfway mature understanding of how the bourgeois state works. I'm just wondering what is actually being referred to.)

[Psy]

When was this? :confused:

(I mean, aside from the fact that it's completely irrelevant to any halfway mature understanding of how the bourgeois state works. I'm just wondering what is actually being referred to.)
When the German capitalists ruling started backing military officers that plotted military to coups against Hitler and after Hitler purged the military officers and later assassination attempts on Hitler. The German capitalist class never wanted a war with the USSR and Britain at the same time and they surely didn't want the Germany army to destroy the property to prevent as the German army retreated as the German capitalist class was fully willing to work with the west even before WWII.

[Tommy4ever]

When was this? :confused:

(I mean, aside from the fact that it's completely irrelevant to any halfway mature understanding of how the bourgeois state works. I'm just wondering what is actually being referred to.)

He's probably thinking of various officer plots by 'softer' nationalist types.

Largely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Psy]

He's probably thinking of various officer plots by 'softer' nationalist types.

Largely irrelevant to the discussion.

It is not just softer nationalist types, it was a plot by the bulk of the German capitalist class as they saw Hitler had out lives his usefulness for the capitalist class way back when Hitler started planning the invasion of Poland thus why the German capitalist class ran to Britain spilling Hitler's plan and lobbied Britain to overthrow Hitler.

[Tim Finnegan]

When the German capitalists ruling started backing military officers that plotted military to coups against Hitler and after Hitler purged the military officers and later assassination attempts on Hitler. The German capitalist class never wanted a war with the USSR and Britain at the same time and they surely didn't want the Germany army to destroy the property to prevent as the German army retreated as the German capitalist class was fully willing to work with the west even before WWII.
I'm not sure that disparate schemes by disconnected individuals against members of their own class really constitutes as class action in any meaningful sense. You seem to be mistaking bourgeois realpolitik for class conflict.


It is not just softer nationalist types, it was a plot by the bulk of the German capitalist class as they saw Hitler had out lives his usefulness for the capitalist class way back when Hitler started planning the invasion of Poland thus why the German capitalist class ran to Britain spilling Hitler's plan and lobbied Britain to overthrow Hitler.
What, all of them?

[Psy]

I'm not sure that disparate schemes by disconnected individuals against members of their own class really constitutes as class action in any meaningful sense. You seem to be mistaking bourgeois realpolitik for class conflict.

You think the German capitalist class wanted the Germany Army to burn down their factories at the closing of WWII? What would occupation have done for the German capitalist class, they didn't give a shit about Stalin they just wanted German workers to be more docile as Germany this is why Japan eventually left the USSR alone as the Japan capitalist class eventually came to the conclusion that it was not profitable to invade the USSR (thus not in the interest of the Japanese capitalist class) and instead focused on acquiring colonies to produce resources to fuel their industries in Japan to increase the rate of profit of Japan industries.



What, all of them?
Pretty much the major German capitalist supported the overthrow of Hitler as they only supported Hitler to get German workers in line. They didn't want a war with Britain as that hurt their bottom line and the German capitalist only cared about the rate of profit and eventually saw Hitler as a threat to their profits.

[Luís Henrique]

I doubt production would stop as the state apprentice that prevents the ruling class from being overthrown requires a constant flow of value as a ruling class having its hired guns living in poverty is never a stable situation.

Well, yes, production stops, or falls steeply to very low levels. The crises in Albania at the end of the last millenium, or Argentina at the beggining of the new, for instance. Of course, it isn't a stable situation, it is a crisis; it cannot last more than a few weeks.


Nazi Germany did that with Jews, they just threw them in consideration camps then used the army to force them to work even in rocket factories.

No, you are wrong. They used war prisoners for that work, not Jews in concentration camps (indeed Speer strived a lot against other Nazi government agencies to put the Jews into some productive work, but never had more than partial and meager success: the official policy was extermination, not exploitation). And their Army had more important things to do than enforcing labour at rocket plants; that was a job for the police - and peculiar Nazi organisations, such as the SS and the Todt Organisation. But the rocket plants were not feudal manors, but still capitalist companies, privately owned, producing commodities for sale, and essentially manned by wage labourers; the "slave" workers were just surplus work force. And they were "slaves" with quotes around the word, because as much as their life and work conditions were abissally awful, they were still not really slaves; they could not be sold around by their "owners". They were also the product of a transient situation, the war: if Nazi Germany was to win the war, then the flow of war prisoners, and the reproduction of the "slave" work force would necessary cease. And they were fed by the State, as prisoners of war, which required the State levying taxes, which in turn was only possible because the rest of the economy continued to produce commodities for sale and money continued to circulate.

Capitalism is a product of a certain degree of advance in the division of labour; feudalism requires a much lower degree of the same, and is incompatible with the division of labour we have nowadays (or had at the time of WWII). A regression to feudalism is only possible if the advances in labour division since the 18th century are reversed, and such reversion is not in the interests of capital; it could perhaps happen as the result of unintended catastrophes, but it cannot be the conscious program of the bourgeoisie.


Was it stable, no but we are talking about the ruling class prolonging their rule by any means necessary.

If it wasn't stable, then it was not feudalism; feudalism was stable.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Then why did Nazi Germany execute the German capitalist class they plotted against the state?

Again you are wrong. They did not execute the German capitalist class; they executed individuals who opposed the regime. Any "dictatorship" (in the modern sence of the word) does things like that; by no means does this mean that they are no longer representative of the bourgeoisie.


The German capitalist class plotted against the Nazi state as they eventually understood if they played their cards right they could do a peace deal with the west and focus on stopping the USSR

Yes, a few bourgeois walked this path, but by no means the majority of the German bourgeoisie. If the German bourgeois would oppose the Nazi regime as a class, it would have fallen very quickly (for instance, when the Italian bourgeoisie actually parted ways with Mussolini, the regime fell in weeks, and with no resistance).


but Hitler did not give a shit about the interests of the capitalist class all that mattered was his ego.

That maybe, but the bourgeoisie was still the rulling class, and if Hitler's policies went against the interests of the bourgeoisie, he would be toppled quite easily. It was because his policies were in the direct interests of the German bourgeoisie that he was able to continue as a dictator for so long. What interests? The suppression of the working class movement and revolutionary instability; war procurements and other expanded government expenses; the expansion of German's power abroad, implying new and expanded markets, increased competition among workers and consequently lower wages.

Nazism is only a "third position" in dreams and discourse; in practice, there are only two classes that can effectively run the society, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and so only two "positions".

Luís Henrique

[Psy]

Again you are wrong. They did not execute the German capitalist class; they executed individuals who opposed the regime. Any "dictatorship" (in the modern sence of the word) does things like that; by no means does this mean that they are no longer representative of the bourgeoisie.

Yet being a major owner of property did not protect a individual like it did in bourgeois democracies or even in imperial Japan.



Yes, a few bourgeois walked this path, but by no means the majority of the German bourgeoisie. If the German bourgeois would oppose the Nazi regime as a class, it would have fallen very quickly (for instance, when the Italian bourgeoisie actually parted ways with Mussolini, the regime fell in weeks, and with no resistance).

Yhea the majority, the problem is Hitler was in the interest of the major imperial powers outside of Germany even late in the war, the west did not want the German bourgeoisie to overthrow Hitler especially late in the war due to how weak they had gotten. If you look at Italy the bourgeoisie didn't have enough power to fill the vacuum left by Mussolini thus the proletariat were filling it thus the west rushed to military prop up the Italian bourgeoisie, this is why they didn't want the German capitalist class to overthrow Hitler as their fear was they would overthrow Hitler then the proletariat would overthrow the German capitalist class.



That maybe, but the bourgeoisie was still the rulling class, and if Hitler's policies went against the interests of the bourgeoisie, he would be toppled quite easily. It was because his policies were in the direct interests of the German bourgeoisie that he was able to continue as a dictator for so long. What interests? The suppression of the working class movement and revolutionary instability; war procurements and other expanded government expenses; the expansion of German's power abroad, implying new and expanded markets, increased competition among workers and consequently lower wages.

Then why did the capitalists in Japan see such actions as not in the interest of capital? Japan made peace with Stalin and pretty much honored it while they focused on acquiring colonies to fuel Japanese industry. The Japanese state preemptively attacked the USA only out of the defense of the Japanese capitalist class when the USA stopped supplying oil to Japanese industry, thus in the eyes of Japan is was not preemptive as the USA already attacked Japan economically. Meanwhile Hitler marched in the USSR when Stalin was still perfectly willing to hold up Molotov–Ribbentrop pact for the time being and Nazi Germany still hadn't dealt with Britain and still had far more rational options in expanding the war while keeping the USSR neutral (and keeping the USSR neutral was in Germany imperial and capitalist interest.

Let's not forget Japan was trying to surrender prior Hiroshima and Nagasaki while Hitler wanted Nazi Germany to fight to the very end. We can see the Japanese state actually caring about the interests of its capitalists while Hitler not caring and Hitler willing to stab all the German capitalist in the back if it meant glory for Hitler.



Nazism is only a "third position" in dreams and discourse; in practice, there are only two classes that can effectively run the society, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and so only two "positions".
Luís Henrique

What about the military? How is a war emperor like Hitler or Napoleon (that latter far better at being a war emperor) a capitalist?



Well, yes, production stops, or falls steeply to very low levels. The crises in Albania at the end of the last millenium, or Argentina at the beggining of the new, for instance. Of course, it isn't a stable situation, it is a crisis; it cannot last more than a few weeks.

Then why can warlords have war economies for decades? If the military fills the vacuum and retools production simply to feed the military and only the military is that still capitalism?

[Luís Henrique]

Yet being a major owner of property did not protect a individual like it did in bourgeois democracies or even in imperial Japan.

And? In no bourgeois State the individual bourgeois is above the law. If they commit crimes, they can be punished. In Nazi Germany, opposing the government was a political crime (because it was a dictatorship), so individual bourgeois who took action against the regime were accordingly punished. It by no means says anything about the class nature of the Nazi regime.


If you look at Italy the bourgeoisie didn't have enough power to fill the vacuum left by Mussolini thus the proletariat were filling it thus the west rushed to military prop up the Italian bourgeoisie,

Err... the Italian bourgeoisie ousted Mussolini. To the extent that someone filled any vacuum, it was the Wehrmacht that did so.


this is why they didn't want the German capitalist class to overthrow Hitler as their fear was they would overthrow Hitler then the proletariat would overthrow the German capitalist class.

Strange analysis. The German proletariat was politically destroyed at that time. They may have feared a faster takeover by the Red Army, but a proletarian revolution?


Then why did the capitalists in Japan see such actions as not in the interest of capital?

Perhaps Japanese capital had different interests from German capital?


What about the military? How is a war emperor like Hitler or Napoleon (that latter far better at being a war emperor) a capitalist?

Eh?

Being the head of a bourgeois State by no means implies being an individual bourgeois! Plenty of proletarians, landed oligarchs, and petty bourgeois have been heads of capitalist States, without personally becoming capitalists.


Then why can warlords have war economies for decades? If the military fills the vacuum and retools production simply to feed the military and only the military is that still capitalism?

No, it is just something that does not happen. The military are consumers of commodities, not producers. A war economy simply means that weapons and other military items become the main commodities to be produced. But they are produced by civilian workers, under the command of civilian capitalists, to be sold in the market, for a profit, profit that enables the expanded reproduction of capital. So a war economy is still a capitalist economy, and its production remains completely oriented by the search of profits and of expanded acumulation of capital, not "simply to feed the military". If the military were to tell the bourgeoisie that it should produce for the military for the sake of it, without any profits, the military regime would not endure a full month after it.

Luís Henrique

[Misanthrope]

The only thing that will end capitalism is a revolution. The capitalists are doing fine in recessions and depressions, the workers are the ones that will feel the effects.

[Psy]

And? In no bourgeois State the individual bourgeois is above the law. If they commit crimes, they can be punished. In Nazi Germany, opposing the government was a political crime (because it was a dictatorship), so individual bourgeois who took action against the regime were accordingly punished. It by no means says anything about the class nature of the Nazi regime.

Yet these individuals were acting in the collective interest of the German bourgeoisie. How can Nazi Germany be a bourgeois state if it was struggling against the bourgeois and acting against its long term interests?



Strange analysis. The German proletariat was politically destroyed at that time. They may have feared a faster takeover by the Red Army, but a proletarian revolution?

The German proletariat was not politically destroyed which is why you had the East Germany uprising of 1953, the German proletariat was no more crushed then the Italian proletariat it was just the Nazi had a more powerful state to keep the its workers in line. And the allies did fear this which is why they did carpet bomb German cities which had no military targets as they wanted to keep German workers in fear so they wouldn't revolt against the Nazis.



Perhaps Japanese capital had different interests from German capital?

Not really, the Japanese capitalist had similar interests of being petite-capitalists in terms of global capital which limited the growth potential of national capital and the solution of the capitalist class being imperialist expansion yet only to rectify limits of national production.



No, it is just something that does not happen. The military are consumers of commodities, not producers. A war economy simply means that weapons and other military items become the main commodities to be produced. But they are produced by civilian workers, under the command of civilian capitalists, to be sold in the market, for a profit, profit that enables the expanded reproduction of capital. So a war economy is still a capitalist economy, and its production remains completely oriented by the search of profits and of expanded acumulation of capital, not "simply to feed the military". If the military were to tell the bourgeoisie that it should produce for the military for the sake of it, without any profits, the military regime would not endure a full month after it.

Luís Henrique
Why would a military that takes production for itself without leaving capitalist profit make the military weak? The military is the muscle of the bourgeoisie thus if the military turns against the bourgeoisie the bourgeoisie has no means to challenge the military except through foreign bourgeoisie states.

[NeoSigurd]

Talk about overstating the obvious, capitalism's overall design flaw is that it concentrates power and wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Just look at Africa. Free markets have failed there, the people are poor, and in the last half century the concentration has begun in the wealthy nations in the top half, and in the next few decades those will sub divide even further.

To say Marx was right, is an understatement in the least. It has been all but proven at this point by history itself.

[Ivan White]

"You can't just leaflet and blog your way to socialism, you gotta make it happen. We as leftists, regardless of stripe or creed, united internationally as workers must make this happen."

Sadly, our greatest weakness is that we've never been united. From Trotsky and Stalin in the USSR to the "democratic" left in the UK today (where there's a natural left majority but it's fragmented between Labour, Greens, Plaid Cymru, those tricked into voting Lib Dem and the many on the left who don't vote at all), we are hopelessly divided.

The big question is how can we persuade all those on the left to compromise and accept that even small steps towards socialism must be preferable to allowing right-wing ideologues to gain power, destroy public services and impoverish public sector workers?