Qualitative changes in capitalism

[Blanquist]

Hello, when I read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, everything they say seems to have relevance to today's world but surly there must have been some serious changes in capitalism over the last 90 years?

What has changed? What makes capitalism today different from the 30's, 50's, or 70's?

Thank you.

[Rafiq]

Well, today's capitalism has a heavy emphasis on financial capital, and that's the age we're in. Financial capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

Which Bukharin was writing about in 1915. And Marx was writing about in the 'lost' chapter of Capital, I believe (on the 'Formal and Real Domination of Capital' or something, got to admit I never understood that bit).

Things have undoubtedly changed a lot. What you need to work out is if you think they have changed in essence, or whether those changes have been more on the surface. If they're essential changes, that means some major re-thinking of theory, because the situations others theorised about no longer exist. If they're more superficial changes, then most of what earlier writers have written is still relevant (though things 'of the moment' like Trotsky's prediction of a war in the 1930s between Britain and the USA, probably not so relevant).

What do you think are the most important changes over the last 100 years or so, Blanquist, and do you think they're essential changes or superficial ones?

[Zulu]

There are no essential changes to capitalism. It developed mainly along the lines Lenin envisaged in "The Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism". Although nowadays the capital is much more concentrated, and even the so called "great powers" (aka the G8/G20) are not simply serving the needs of the capitalists, but are completely in the pocket of the transnational financial oligarchy, with the exception of the PRC, which however fully abides by the rules of the global market at this time. Concentration of capital continues as transnational corporations and financial institutions merge and mutually acquire each others' stock.

http://karendecoster.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/banks.jpg (http://karendecoster.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/banks.jpg)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html



Another development has been the adoption of welfare state and consumer credit policies, which were initially a response to the successes on the socialist construction in the USSR, but have now became the only way of expanding the capitalist economy, by stimulating demand, which creates all these bubbles and stock speculation, but most importantly, the consumer debt of unprecedented proportions. So the capitalist system as a whole these days is sort of borrowing labor from the future to produce (and consume) goods now. This "borrowing of labor" is physically impossible, of course, but that only means that somebody will have to work for extremely low real wage in the near future, as it is unlikely that the banks will simply let people of the hook. The good days for the petty bourgeoisie (aka the middle class) are over.

[Soseloshvili]

Surface changes, yes. There have been quite a few. Capitalism isn't just some guy with a top hat and a monacle stealing factory workers' wages anymore.

The models by which Capitalism operates (incorporation, public trading) didn't exist in Marx's time, it's true. But the underlying model has never truly changed.

[svenne]

Zulu: Isn't this: "and even the so called "great powers" (aka the G8/G20) are not simply serving the needs of the capitalists, but are completely in the pocket of the transnational financial oligarchy" a pretty big difference? You can see it as the death of reformism (or rather: the death of the possibility of somewhat progressive economic reforms). That said, i feel like i should reread that (Imperialism) book. I really can't remember too much from it.

Of course the system is the same, deep down. But a lot of things have changed, and i'm pretty sure that if you try to translate organizing models from Lenins time (whatever it's Lenins, Luxemburgs or the anarchists), you're going to have a hard time trying. One of the bigger differences is the change from agricultural, to industrial, to nowadays service production. Just that propably motivates a, well, self-criticism...

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hello, when I read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, everything they say seems to have relevance to today's world but surly there must have been some serious changes in capitalism over the last 90 years?

What has changed? What makes capitalism today different from the 30's, 50's, or 70's?

Thank you.

Capitalism constantly changes, constantly upends things (it's a very fluid system and has adapted more than I think Marx would have thought it could, though he recognized the ever-changing character of capitalism) but in that way it's the same as it ever was :D

So yeah, fundamentally the same, but many surface changes.

Capitalist relations are the norm now. Capitalism has gone from being really only in Western Europe, Japan and the North-eastern part of North America to a worldwide system. The Proletariat is more of the world-wide majority rather than just the urban majority. There aren't feudalistic relations still clinging on in vast swaths of the world.

[Zulu]

Zulu: Isn't this: "and even the so called "great powers" (aka the G8/G20) are not simply serving the needs of the capitalists, but are completely in the pocket of the transnational financial oligarchy" a pretty big difference? You can see it as the death of reformism (or rather: the death of the possibility of somewhat progressive economic reforms). That said, i feel like i should reread that (Imperialism) book. I really can't remember too much from it.

Reformism is one of the big issues, which Lenin deals with in that work, mainly by criticizing Kautsky's views. One interesting place there is Lenin's seemingly denying the possibility of the "cartels" to form a single global conglomerate transcending the borders of the great powers' empires, or at least blocs of such empires. Although in short historical term he was right, later on Stalin repeated this even more explicitly in "The Economic Problems of the USSR", which in retrospect was a clear mistake. Today, not only all the contradictions between the capitalist "great powers" are worked out (arguably, they were initially suppressed through the dominance of the American Empire, but since 1970s there is definitely no going back), but the "cartels", or the transnational corporations as we know them now are so intermingled, that the prospect of a single "world corporation" does not seem so far-fetched.

But that place can also be interpreted as that Lenin only states that such a thing would not solve any problems of imperialism (as Kautsky apparently hoped), because the class antagonisms will remain, which by now has been obviously demonstrated as true. Even the possibility of open warfare cannot be ruled out regardless of all the nation-states getting appropriated by the "world corporation", as war may be not only "continuation of politics by different means" (Klausevitz), but the "means to keep the structure of society intact" (Orwell).

[blake 3:17]

I think where we sometimes make mistakes on this question is that Marx, Lenin, and Braverman were more correct AFTER they'd written than when they were writing.

Marx and Lenin certainly didn't have the opportunity to observe the development of modern bourgeois liberal democracy or the development of the welfare state.

The world is more capitalist than ever, and more people are tied into capital than ever before -- through pensions, investments, home ownership, etc.

[blake 3:17]

@JH
There aren't feudalistic relations still clinging on in vast swaths of the world.

A good chunk of the world is in dispute over pre-capitalist relations to land and natural resources. The legal basis for most aboriginal land claims in Canada isn't against capitalists, it's against the Crown. The capitalists want their way in.

The smashing of the Commons has really only been completed in certain parts of the world -- it's not a done deal.

One comrade who joined the Trotskyist movement in the 50s told a few of us recently that he thought the Native question was over. Nearly 60 years later, nope.

The Zapatistas weren't just being rebellious for its own sake -- it was in defense of collective property against the individual property rights imposed by NAFTA.

I agree that capitalism and capitalist social relations are the hegemonic social relations in the world today. We need to be conscious that they aren't all encompassing and they haven't won every where.

[Zulu]

@JH

A good chunk of the world is in dispute over pre-capitalist relations to land and natural resources.

It's also notable that some thinking goes the way of the possibility of some kind of "neo-feudalism" on the basis of neo-liberal economics, minimal state and corporate power. Of course, most of this thinking is criticism, but some people actually support it, even when calling it exactly "neo-feudalism". Guess, that dialectics at work. Negation of negation and all that.

[Soseloshvili]

A good chunk of the world is in dispute over pre-capitalist relations to land and natural resources. The legal basis for most aboriginal land claims in Canada isn't against capitalists, it's against the Crown.

No, not necessarily. Yes, the reserve system that Canadian First Nations peoples have lived under for centuries predates the Industrial Revolution (which, in Eastern Ontario and Québec, commenced somewhere around the 1820s with the advent of mining and textile factories).

However, the Capitalist system in Canada is only able to succeed based on the use of that stolen land. The modern reserve system is not "feudal". On the contrary it's so stereotypically Capitalist. Upholding archaic laws from 3 centuries ago, we've managed to keep most traditional First Nations land out of the hands of First Nations people. Also, we've managed to drive First Nations people into poverty, creating just one more method to divide us workers (the Racism against First Nations people that permeates Canada and Québec). The bourgeoisie have found a way to manipulate the system left behind for them to benefit themselves.

[CommunityBeliever]

The biggest difference of modern capitalism from the past is globalisation. Capitalists have conquered the entire world, and since capitalism depends upon constant growth and conquering new markets, capitalism is as more prone to financial crises then ever before. Furthermore, we now have a global communications network, the Internet, so people like my can communicate with other people on the other side of the world. The Internet has caused ever more problems for capitalism, so the capitalists are actively fighting against it with such repressive measures as SOPA.