How long until capitalism collapses?

[ZvP]

I think everyone here agrees that the revolution won't happen until countries like the USA no longer enjoy high standards of living under capitalism. So that begs the question: when will this happen? We are already seeing the first stages of it: China, India and developing nations demanding more resources, thus driving up prices in the 1st world, environmental destruction, Massive wealth disparities, Occupy Wall Street, outsourcing to sweatshops, etc.

[Book O'Dead]

There's no telling when capitalism collapses.

One recent example of the unpredictability of such things is the Russian revolution.
Lenin was in Switzerland when the shit hit the fan in his country. It caught him and many other Bolsheviks by surprise.

The proposition then is not "when" it will happen but how prepared will the working class be to assume power when capitalism begins to fall down.

[helot]

How long's a piece of string?



Personally i don't agree that reduced standard of living in developed countries is a prerequisite for a revolution instead i think that what has come with the high standard of living is a hindrence. For example, before the welfare state incl. state education it was pretty much upto the working class to try to sort out their own problems without recourse to the state. These independent working class organisations, whether they be for sport, education etc acted as breeding grounds for solidarity and political self-activity. This is what i think is a prerequisite, not reduced standards of living but increased working class self-reliance.


Interestingly, there's a thread on here to do with Worker Sport. I can't remember who started it but it's a huge eye-opener to the organisational capacity of the working class. Sadly at present in developed countries it's easy for people to assume that the working class is incapable of running society alone because of a lack of similar organisations.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think OWS, climate change or the rise of China/India have anything to do with the longevity of Capitalism.

You're right that Capitalism is probably saturating in many places right now, with industrial capitalism shifting to countries like China and India - we can see the path from industrial capitalism to the post-industrial, financial capitalism of the developed western economies -, with the inherent contradictions of the existence of money being stunningly exposed right now in the Eurozone and with Capitalism unable to sustain itself domestically and with peaceful trade, so we have the rise of forcible trade via imperial invasion, occupation and so on.

[Le Socialiste]

There's no way of telling, really.

[ZvP]

I don't think OWS, climate change or the rise of China/India have anything to do with the longevity of Capitalism.

OWS does because it shows people are sick of the current capitalist model, thus making a revolution more feasible.

Capitalism destroys the environment and wastes vast amounts of finite resources. This will eventually bring the end of capitalism (or modern society, whatever comes first)

In capitalism, someone has to win and someone has to lose. Developed countries are the winners because they exploit developing countries to get cheap goods for their consumers. Once these developing countries demand the same lifestyle as the first world receives, everyone loses. Just like how the rise of unions and higher wages helped lead to more outsourcing to countries without minimum wages and workers protections.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There's no way of telling, really.

Unless you're of the New Left, in which case: 4 years, 32 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours and counting until Chairman Avakian leads us to-.

No sorry, can't do it. :o

[passenger57]

The CIA came out with an article predicting the fall of the economy of USA for 2025, and Immanuel Wallerstein a leftist sociologist claims that the capitalist system will collapse around 2020 to 2030 in an article he wrote in The Nation Magazine http://www.thenation.com however he said in that article that he cannot predict if socialism will be the system that will replace capitalism. There might be also a worst case Mad Max fascist feudalist dystopian scenario as well like the apocalyptical movie "Reign of Fire" with Christian Bale.


mOGT9odzmmk
Reign of Fire: A doomsday, dystopian, apocalyptical movie about the destruction of the world by fire breathing dragons

Remember that after the fall of the Roman Empire, there came a weird crazy period of The Dark Ages. So if leftists in this whole sectarian, group-narcissism planet continue to be so egocentrical, so sectarian and do not put away their petty ideological differences, and if all leftists of all countries do not join into single leftist revolutionary poles in each nation of this world, socialism will not replace capitalism. And we might see periods of ultra-right wing populist military dictators like the 1940s to 1980s were there were lots of ultra-right wing military dictators in many countries of the world


.



I think everyone here agrees that the revolution won't happen until countries like the USA no longer enjoy high standards of living under capitalism. So that begs the question: when will this happen? We are already seeing the first stages of it: China, India and developing nations demanding more resources, thus driving up prices in the 1st world, environmental destruction, Massive wealth disparities, Occupy Wall Street, outsourcing to sweatshops, etc.

[Book O'Dead]

The CIA came out with an article predicting the fall of the economy of USA for 2025, and Immanuel Wallerstein a leftist sociologist claims that the capitalist system will collapse around 2020 to 2030 in an article he wrote in The Nation Magazine http://www.thenation.com however he said in that article that he cannot predict if socialism will be the system that will replace capitalism. There might be also a worst case Mad Max fascist feudalist dystopian scenario as well. Remember that after the fall of the Roman Empire, there came a weird crazy period of The Dark Ages. So if leftists in this whole sectarian, group-narcissism planet continue to be so egocentrical, so sectarian and do not put away their petty ideological differences, and if all leftists of all countries do not join into single leftist revolutionary poles in each nation of this world, socialism will not replace capitalism. And we might see periods of ultra-right wing populist military dictators like the 1940s to 1980s were there were lots of ultra-right wing military dictators in many countries of the world.

There is a bit of a separatist mood among some ruling class Americans. It appears that in anticipation for the breakdown of capitalist order they would like to create regional sectors of corporate power.

Perhaps the first person in America to warn about such things was Daniel De Leon:

http://slp.org/pdf/others/reactionary_right.pdf

[ckaihatsu]

Remember that after the fall of the Roman Empire, there came a weird crazy period of The Dark Ages.


In many ways capitalism has *already* collapsed, since it's not functioning anymore strictly within the boundaries of the private sector. The phenomenal, historic bailouts of the last decade have shown that public money is being used to *subsidize* the institution of private property.

Historic comparisons to either the Dark Ages or even the Great Depression are far from sound, since the sheer material productivity of today's age is incomparable. Additionally we now have a global commons of information and communications, so that there's far less viability for divide-and-conquer-type operations to succeed, as has just been attempted against Syria.

I don't think the revolutionary left suffers from sectarianism regarding *anti-capitalism*, though it may seem like it's riven with divisiveness on more *internal* matters. What may be more to-the-point in the next few weeks and months as capital weakens and bends its knee to the ground is what kind(s) of productivity the world *does* want to see.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Remember that after the fall of the Roman Empire, there came a weird crazy period of The Dark Ages. So if leftists in this whole sectarian, group-narcissism planet continue to be so egocentrical, so sectarian and do not put away their petty ideological differences, and if all leftists of all countries do not join into single leftist revolutionary poles in each nation of this world, socialism will not replace capitalism. And we might see periods of ultra-right wing populist military dictators like the 1940s to 1980s were there were lots of ultra-right wing military dictators in many countries of the world


.

Historical events can only be a rough guide, but I think it is true that there could be a social and economic (and environmental) breakdown that engulfs humanity.

But I'm not sure 'left unity' is the answer. The notion that the Roman Empire fell because all the 'talented men' had gone and locked themselves in monasteries (which is the ancient corollary of the 'sectarian leftists' approach you're outlining here) is all very well but 'man makes history, but not in circumstances of his chosing'. The Roman Empire, especially in the West, was in decline long before the Church began to find willing recruits, and its decline was related to structural economic and social reasons.

Likewise capitalism's decline is related to structural social and economic reasons. Will, in terms of a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to do something about it, will only go so far. Revolutions are made by classes, not little groups of lefties. We can't substitiute ourselves for the whole of the working class.

[ckaihatsu]

Historical events can only be a rough guide, but I think it is true that there could be a social and economic (and environmental) breakdown that engulfs humanity.


This is decidedly on the apocalyptic side of things, and runs the risk -- as with any other similar prognostications -- of being either stand-offish or partisan in the wrong direction.





But I'm not sure 'left unity' is the answer. The notion that the Roman Empire fell because all the 'talented men' had gone and locked themselves in monasteries (which is the ancient corollary of the 'sectarian leftists' approach you're outlining here) is all very well but 'man makes history, but not in circumstances of his chosing'. The Roman Empire, especially in the West, was in decline long before the Church began to find willing recruits, and its decline was related to structural economic and social reasons.


Agreed, and we should add that we would *welcome* a breakdown in the prevailing empire. I am more optimistic that the (revolutionary) left would be able to fill in the vacuum before more separatist-minded forms of political organization became the norm.





Likewise capitalism's decline is related to structural social and economic reasons. Will, in terms of a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to do something about it, will only go so far. Revolutions are made by classes, not little groups of lefties. We can't substitiute ourselves for the whole of the working class.


Yes and no. Revolutionaries are the only ones who *can* provide a transition out of a collapsed capitalism -- this is "substitutionist" to the extent that the rest of the working class *isn't* revolutionary as well.

[x-punk]

We are certainly entering a period of transition. The current system of debt based fiat currency has proven itself to be totally unsustainable. The debt is spiraling out of control and save for some event like a debt jubilee it will never be reigned in. Quantitative easing is keeping the life support system running but it cant last forever, although i do believe they could keep it going for a long time.

What makes the current situation even more bizarre are the austerity measures being implemented. The impact of these cuts will have a minimal effect on the debt (in the UK overall debt is set to rise considerably over the next few years). But what they do is stifle economic activity which will only worsen the problems. As most of the most money spent on things like welfare or public sector jobs is recycled back into the economy it keeps the money moving around instead of being hoarded by the wealthy. Keeping the velocity of the money up helps create jobs and stimulate wealth creation in the economy which would certainly be beneficial just now.

I really dont know what TPTB are playing at. Perhaps they are just having wild knee jerk reactions to the financial problems or perhaps this is just one last desperate looting attempt by the wealthy to get as much out before the system collapses. Perhaps even a more carefully constructed long term plan. I dont know.

How long before the system collapses, who knows? Could be 5 days or 50 years. But certainly it cant continue like this. We are probably now in one of the most uncertain periods that we have been in for many decades.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Next Thursday, keep your diary free.

[ckaihatsu]

What makes the current situation even more bizarre are the austerity measures being implemented. The impact of these cuts will have a minimal effect on the debt (in the UK overall debt is set to rise considerably over the next few years). But what they do is stifle economic activity which will only worsen the problems. As most of the most money spent on things like welfare or public sector jobs is recycled back into the economy it keeps the money moving around instead of being hoarded by the wealthy. Keeping the velocity of the money up helps create jobs and stimulate wealth creation in the economy which would certainly be beneficial just now.


Yup.





I really dont know what TPTB are playing at. Perhaps they are just having wild knee jerk reactions to the financial problems or perhaps this is just one last desperate looting attempt by the wealthy to get as much out before the system collapses. Perhaps even a more carefully constructed long term plan. I dont know.


According to this, you're under the assumption that some sort of 'intention' or 'plan' on the part of the wealthy would make a difference on the system's trajectory.

We're seeing uncontrolled deflation, since the ever-looming threat of multi-sovereign insolvency triggers repeated attempts to "re-liquidify" the sagging debt, thereby adding real but pointless value to existing assets, since merely doing so doesn't generate any resulting cascading economic activity.





We are certainly entering a period of transition. The current system of debt based fiat currency has proven itself to be totally unsustainable. The debt is spiraling out of control and save for some event like a debt jubilee it will never be reigned in.


According to the logic of their system they *can't* just arbitrarily issue a 'debt jubilee' since that would be an unacceptable imposition on the holders of private assets, including sovereign debt. Actually, though, there *was* recently a 'forced haircut' which did just this, but it was pretty much a one-off.





Quantitative easing is keeping the life support system running but it cant last forever, although i do believe they could keep it going for a long time.


No, quantitative easing only adds to the outstanding debt burden, and *worsens* what the holders of sovereign debt are either already holding or are buying into.

So there's the intractable contradiction between a deflation-type liquidity value *needed* in order to forestall insolvency, but the *fulfillment* of this need for liquidity only *weakens* overall sovereign-debt value, discouraging participation, since the liquidity is being provided by increasing the total sovereign debt void.

It's akin to trying to stay alive by cannibalizing *yourself* -- intractable, obviously.





How long before the system collapses, who knows? Could be 5 days or 50 years. But certainly it cant continue like this. We are probably now in one of the most uncertain periods that we have been in for many decades.


Again, it's unsustainable definitely in the long-term, and now increasingly in the short-term. That's not 'uncertainty' -- it's 'certainty'.

[RedHammer]

I don't think capitalism as we know it will exist by 2100.

The real question is what are we going to replace it with? We need class consciousness and an active effort at major revolutionary change, led by the working class. If we don't do something, then the collapse of capitalism-as-we-know-it may only see the rise of fascism, or more welfare state "mixed economies"

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

A Couple of months (http://www.revleft.com/vb/failure-capitalist-production-t172018/index.html?t=172018).
Within the next ten years western capitalism is toast.

[Raúl Duke]

How long until capitalism collapses?

There's no certain answer...

I guess one can say "soon" if certain conditions arise, say attacks on prior reforms/etc, the end of any significant feasibility to protect or enact any new reforms (a tricky hypothesis in it of itself), increasing income inequality. You also have situations based on certain groups of the populace that should be factored in separately and weighed against one another separate (like the issue of raising education costs and student debts). Of course, I'm basing this on things I'm seeing around me now, and while we may all wish that this may be nearing the end of the era of capitalism and to see its end in our lifetime, even if things go bad we cannot be certain. Some quite cynical left theorists even thought up ideas and theories where it's possible that capitalism could go "indefinitely" (or at least 'till total destruction of the planet, etc).

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

In my opinion, Capitalism as the basic system collapsed in 2000 when the Rate of Profit fell to 2%, below the financial interest rate. We don't live in Capitalism anymore, we live in a - and only this is keeping capital alive - Socialism for the Rich. Within the next five years (if not within the next couple months) this neo-liberal system is going to start tumbling down and the whole west look like Greece.

[passenger57]

Raul: Indeed, your comment is pessimist but very realist. Based on a Schopenhauerian pessimist-realist observation of the behavior patterns of people around you, of the society. Of the voting behaviours of nations like Mexico, where they sold their votes for food-cars.

And I hate to offend people so much, because i am a humanist, a human lover and I realize that the majority of people in USA are too tired, because the majority of americans have 2 jobs (regular jobs and their domestic jobs of cooking, cleaning and laundry) along with other stresses that americans have are all an impediment for most americans to learn about capitalism vs. socialism, and to have the necessary required knowledge and strong conscience and convictions in order for most americans to hate the capitalist parties and to vote for socialist parties as a solution for their economic problems.

So like you said I feel just like you. By observing the voting tastes of Americans, and how most americans even with internet, with access to information, to access to alternative news sites. With access to knowledge thru Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and many other sources that are helping in the expansion of knowledge in the internet. Even with all that, it seems to me that the marketing tactics of capitalist parties (Democrats, and Republicans), and The PRI of Mexico, The PP of Spain, and the capitalist parties of other countries still have a mind manipulative effect on the exhausted tired working classes of this world.

So like you just said, I doubt that people in this world will vote for marxist parties in the near future, not even in 2100. The majority of people, specially the young have become too hedonists, too much into partying, too crazy, too suicidal too confusing. Many people choose to comit crimes, like in Central America and in Mexico and in many other countries as a solution for poverty.

Others like in many nation of East Europe, like many females are getting into internet sex and prostitution as a solution for poverty. And many others rely instead on religion, on side businesses etc. Let's be clear the majority of this world are not leftists, are not marxists, and are not supporting marxist political parties.

The most people can do, is the support of populist social-democrats like Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales, Cristina Kirshner, Dilma Rousseuf, Putin, Mario Funes, Daniel Ortega, Raul Castro, Pepe Mujica. But for some reason, maybe for the low levels of marketing and propaganda of the marxist parties, humans are not getting to know marxism and marxist parties and so that's why most adult voters are not voting for marxist parties. Because the lack of funds of most marxist parties of this world, and the marxist think tanks of this world is a big big cause of why the majority of humans support right-wing parties or social-democrat centrist parties, but not marxist parties.

We have to be realists, this world is about money and power. Like Tony Montana said in Scarface: "First you gotta get the money, after the money comes the power."

What I am trying to say is that the right-wing oligarchic corporate forces along with their right-wing and social-democrat parties of this world are just too rich and too powerful. And I really don't know how will the authentic marxist political parties will the money that they need to buy TV stations, newspapers, book editor companies, even hire celebrities like Sean Penn, Tom Morello and other leftist celebrities in order for the marxist parties to rise like a Fenix bird and thru a massive well organized propaganda campaing and an ideological war inside USA destroy the hegemony that exists right now of right-wing philosophy, right-wing mental-virus and right-wing ideas in the brains of most american voters









There's no certain answer...

I guess one can say "soon" if certain conditions arise, say attacks on prior reforms/etc, the end of any significant feasibility to protect or enact any new reforms (a tricky hypothesis in it of itself), increasing income inequality. You also have situations based on certain groups of the populace that should be factored in separately and weighed against one another separate (like the issue of raising education costs and student debts). Of course, I'm basing this on things I'm seeing around me now, and while we may all wish that this may be nearing the end of the era of capitalism and to see its end in our lifetime, even if things go bad we cannot be certain. Some quite cynical left theorists even thought up ideas and theories where it's possible that capitalism could go "indefinitely" (or at least 'till total destruction of the planet, etc).

[ckaihatsu]

In my opinion, Capitalism as the basic system collapsed in 2000 when the Rate of Profit fell to 2%, below the financial interest rate. We don't live in Capitalism anymore, we live in a - and only this is keeping capital alive - Socialism for the Rich. Within the next five years (if not within the next couple months) this neo-liberal system is going to start tumbling down and the whole west look like Greece.




Socialism for the Rich


In the interests of precision, it might be called 'The Global Aristocracy', for the reasons you've given.

[passenger57]

I wanna add something about another reason of why many people still today still vote either for right-wing parties or social-democrat centrist parties. As a solution for the economic crisis and problems that they face in their personal lives in most elections in most countries. And that reason is fearmongering by their governments against marxism, anarchism and leftist ideology. Take a look at this news of the FBI raiding the house of a leftist activist, of FBI officers looking for leftist and anarchist books in their house. It seems to me that marxism, anarchism and leftist ideology is still banned in the USA today like in the cold war. And news like these one here will feed the already anti-marxism hate ingrained in the minds of most americans

FBI AGENTS RAID HOMES IN SEARCH OF ANARCHIST BOOKS AND EVEN FOR BLACK CLOTHES. SO NOW DRESSING LIKE A PUNK ROCKER, METALER WITH BLACK T-SHIRTS IS A CRIME IN AMERICA. NO WONDER MOST AMERICAN YOUNG PEOPLE TODAY DRESS LIKE CONSERVATIVE GEEKS

Source of this news: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-raid-anarchist-literature-portland-seattle/6267/

by WILL POTTER on JULY 30, 2012
in TERRORISM COURT CASES

When FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force agents raided multiple activist homes in the Northwest last week, they were in search of “anti-government or anarchist literature.” The raids were part of a multi-state operation that targeted activists in Portland, Olympia, and Seattle. At least three people were served subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury on August 2nd in Seattle. In addition to anarchist literature, the warrants also authorize agents to seize flags, flag-making material, cell phones, hard drives, address books, and black clothing.

The listing of black clothing and flags, along with comments made by police, indicates that the FBI may ostensibly be investigating “black bloc” tactics used during May Day protests in Seattle, which destroyed corporate property.
If that is true, how are books and literature evidence of criminal activity? To answer that, we need to look at the increasing harassment, surveillance, and prosecution of anarchists and political activists associated with the Occupy Movement.

In some cases, such as the May Day arrests in Cleveland, the FBI has been so desperate to arrests “anarchist terrorists” that it supplied them with bomb-making materials and used an informant to entrap them. The same thing happened in Chicago. The motivation for these operations, and the instruction that “anarchist” means “terrorist,” is coming straight from the top levels of the federal government. As I recently wrote, new documents show that the FBI is conducting “domestic terrorism” training presentations about anarchists. The FBI presentation described anarchists as “criminals seeking an ideology to justify their activities.”

This is the guilt-by-association mentality that is guiding FBI and JTTF assaults on political activists; if agents find “anarchist literature” in a raid, it is evidence of criminal activity because anarchism, in and of itself, is criminal activity. The Seattle grand jury may or may not be investigating May Day protests. What’s clear, though, is that the grand jury is being used as a tool in this criminalization of those suspected as “anarchists.” Grand juries are secretive processes that are frequently used against political activists in order to acquire information. They are fishing expeditions. If activists refuse to testify about their personal beliefs and political associations, they can be imprisoned.

Jordan Halliday, for example, was recently released after serving more than six months in prison (and being imprisoned once already for four months) for asserting his First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights and refusing to provide information about the animal rights movement. As one organizer with Occupy Seattle said after the raid: “…we are not being raided for connection to any crime, but to some political ideology that the police think we have. “I was just doing research on the old Pinkerton strikebreaking paramilitaries, so it’s kind of funny, you know, to have that old Red Scare history burst through my front door at six AM.”




There's no certain answer...

I guess one can say "soon" if certain conditions arise, say attacks on prior reforms/etc, the end of any significant feasibility to protect or enact any new reforms (a tricky hypothesis in it of itself), increasing income inequality. You also have situations based on certain groups of the populace that should be factored in separately and weighed against one another separate (like the issue of raising education costs and student debts). Of course, I'm basing this on things I'm seeing around me now, and while we may all wish that this may be nearing the end of the era of capitalism and to see its end in our lifetime, even if things go bad we cannot be certain. Some quite cynical left theorists even thought up ideas and theories where it's possible that capitalism could go "indefinitely" (or at least 'till total destruction of the planet, etc).

[Agent]

It will last until workers wisen up about the circumstances of their lives. And then decide that they want a change.

The capitalist system can always be tweaked if it is not going as expected as they have done since early last century.

[Colfax]

The question of when capitalism collapses is entirely contingent on what you mean by capitalism. If you equate it with our present globalized, postfordist multinational neo-feudalism, clearly it can only sustain its component distribution chains for as long as petroleum remains widely available at price not much above the present one. That state of affairs will not long endure. No plausible alternative to oil presents itself, so we can safely expect production to be reorganized on a more regional basis in the not too distant future. This will naturally be accompanied by considerable economic shocks, as vast amounts of our fixed investments in infrastructure over the past 30 years are rendered close to useless. Clearly, we can find political opportunity here.

If capitalism is understood as a system of social relations which promote an ethic of constant accumulation to moral preeminence, then I don't think we can pin point its demise with anything like precision. After an economic cataclysm like an ultimate oil shock, nothing but the organized demand for a socialist alternative prevents the market economy from reconstituting itself at a less attenuated, more regional level. Indeed, we can already detect a shift in this direction with the current trend towards local and 'green' consumption.

[ckaihatsu]

Jesus, do your Internet Service Providers restrict you from accessing any kind of *news* whatsoever -- ?

I can't figure out why otherwise solid comrades would suddenly, consistently get so mealy-mouthed and mumbling about the prospects and timetable for capitalism's demise.

Does everyone realize that all of Europe is seizing up over the question of whether to eject Greece from the EU or not -- ? It's a true dilemma for them because the markets can't be pleased either way. There are speculative financial attacks on the sovereign debt of *several* European countries now, yet this is *allowed* and *not* considered chaotic according to bourgeois law.

Cutting off an appendage of the EU entity wouldn't exactly be progressive, either, either economically or otherwise.

[x-punk]

According to this, you're under the assumption that some sort of 'intention' or 'plan' on the part of the wealthy would make a difference on the system's trajectory.
We're seeing uncontrolled deflation, since the ever-looming threat of multi-sovereign insolvency triggers repeated attempts to "re-liquidify" the sagging debt, thereby adding real but pointless value to existing assets, since merely doing so doesn't generate any resulting cascading economic activity.

I was just speculating that the wealthy must have been aware that this situation could / would arise and must have made some sort of plan on how to navigate through this. For the reasons you stated i dont believe they have much influence over the current trajectory of the economic system but i do think there is a chance that they will have some sort of plan in place to try to ensure they can retain their positions of power as it unfolds. Maybe not. Its just me speculating.



According to the logic of their system they *can't* just arbitrarily issue a 'debt jubilee' since that would be an unacceptable imposition on the holders of private assets, including sovereign debt. Actually, though, there *was* recently a 'forced haircut' which did just this, but it was pretty much a one-off.

The term debt jubilee seems to have become popular lately with many sources mentioning it as some sort of magic wand to the problems. I couldnt see any sort of jubilee working without also a cancellation of savings to counter balance. I really dont see this happening because even if it did the problem will just resurface again. Its a structural problem in the economy and such a measure wouldnt solve that.




No, quantitative easing only adds to the outstanding debt burden, and *worsens* what the holders of sovereign debt are either already holding or are buying into.

So there's the intractable contradiction between a deflation-type liquidity value *needed* in order to forestall insolvency, but the *fulfillment* of this need for liquidity only *weakens* overall sovereign-debt value, discouraging participation, since the liquidity is being provided by increasing the total sovereign debt void.

It's akin to trying to stay alive by cannibalizing *yourself* -- intractable, obviously.

But surely it is temporarily stopping a collapse and the subsequent chaos which would ensue. I agree this can only be a temporary measure as its actually worsening the overall situation. Its just how long can it continue before it reaches a breaking point. I dont have a clue tbh. Do you have any ideas?

Then what happens next?

[ckaihatsu]

I was just speculating that the wealthy must have been aware that this situation could / would arise and must have made some sort of plan on how to navigate through this. For the reasons you stated i dont believe they have much influence over the current trajectory of the economic system but i do think there is a chance that they will have some sort of plan in place to try to ensure they can retain their positions of power as it unfolds. Maybe not. Its just me speculating.


No prob. The thing is, everything's been so fully financialized now, on a world scale, that the wealthy *do* constitute a feudal-like global aristocracy -- especially since so many workers now do service-type jobs instead of the labor-empowering blue-collar hands-on point-of-production manufacturing of the last period. So, now, with the Internet being ubiquitous, everyone has a guaranteed low-pay on-ramp to peonage to financial capital.

But since everything's so concentrated on the financial system and financial valuations, that's also the wealthy's point of dependence. Note how over the past decade-plus there's been every effort made to uphold the financial system through practically *knee-jerk* bailouts on the part of governments. The reason is that there's really *no other yardstick* by which to see who's who and what's what -- allowing those "too big to fail" to fail would leave everyone standing around looking at each other, unsure where and how to begin anew.

Interestingly, even catastrophic warfare can't be relied on anymore (to destroy value) because of globalized communications and the rapid congealing of mass opinion against war wherever it may happen to pop up. I think things are different today than even the same point ten years ago because the net is now fully socialized and socially acceptable.





The term debt jubilee seems to have become popular lately with many sources mentioning it as some sort of magic wand to the problems. I couldnt see any sort of jubilee working without also a cancellation of savings to counter balance. I really dont see this happening because even if it did the problem will just resurface again. Its a structural problem in the economy and such a measure wouldnt solve that.


Yes, agreed. (Though your contention about the "cancellation of savings to counter balance [the cancellation of debt]" is not clear since much debt does *not*, as intuition might suggest, have a corresponding 'positive-side' bank entry.)





But surely it is temporarily stopping a collapse and the subsequent chaos which would ensue. I agree this can only be a temporary measure as its actually worsening the overall situation. Its just how long can it continue before it reaches a breaking point. I dont have a clue tbh. Do you have any ideas?

Then what happens next?


Well, everything depends on how people view society's organization, and what they / we consider to be 'order' and 'chaos' -- if you, or anyone, considers the indefinite creation of sovereign debt to be "stopping a collapse and the subsequent chaos which would ensue", then you'll probably think and act that way in terms of politics and society.

For those who despise the capitalist order the prospect of a collapse could be seen as a *positive* thing since it would immediately create opportunities for a different, socialist-type politics to take hold on a mass scale.

[Socialism in One Planet]

life in the U.S. seems very dehumanizing and i feel like i will never see major change here in my lifetime, while other places like Venezuela or Argentina look more promising. i don't just mean the governments there but the people's consciousness seems more advanced and politically progressive if not radical. anyone besides me have a strong urge to get up and leave the U.S. and live it up somewhere else? :D

[x-punk]

No prob. The thing is, everything's been so fully financialized now, on a world scale, that the wealthy *do* constitute a feudal-like global aristocracy -- especially since so many workers now do service-type jobs instead of the labor-empowering blue-collar hands-on point-of-production manufacturing of the last period. So, now, with the Internet being ubiquitous, everyone has a guaranteed low-pay on-ramp to peonage to financial capital.

But since everything's so concentrated on the financial system and financial valuations, that's also the wealthy's point of dependence. Note how over the past decade-plus there's been every effort made to uphold the financial system through practically *knee-jerk* bailouts on the part of governments. The reason is that there's really *no other yardstick* by which to see who's who and what's what -- allowing those "too big to fail" to fail would leave everyone standing around looking at each other, unsure where and how to begin anew.

Interestingly, even catastrophic warfare can't be relied on anymore (to destroy value) because of globalized communications and the rapid congealing of mass opinion against war wherever it may happen to pop up. I think things are different today than even the same point ten years ago because the net is now fully socialized and socially acceptable.

Yup. The world and how in interacts come down to finances in this capitalist system and the bourgeoisie will do anything to keep this system going and keep power.

From cradle to grave people are indoctrinated into capitalism to the stage where they cant really see or understand any other system. However, i do think that the current financial turmoil including many mainstream news stories about 'greedy' bankers is at least raising awareness slightly amongst the populace.



Yes, agreed. (Though your contention about the "cancellation of savings to counter balance [the cancellation of debt]" is not clear since much debt does *not*, as intuition might suggest, have a corresponding 'positive-side' bank entry.)Ok, thanks for that.


Well, everything depends on how people view society's organization, and what they / we consider to be 'order' and 'chaos' -- if you, or anyone, considers the indefinite creation of sovereign debt to be "stopping a collapse and the subsequent chaos which would ensue", then you'll probably think and act that way in terms of politics and society.

For those who despise the capitalist order the prospect of a collapse could be seen as a *positive* thing since it would immediately create opportunities for a different, socialist-type politics to take hold on a mass scale.Dont misunderstand my position. I certainly do not support QE or any other govt intervention which 'props up' bourgeois institutes. And i agree that such a collapse would present an opportunity to bring in a socialist system.

[ckaihatsu]

Yup. The world and how in interacts come down to finances in this capitalist system and the bourgeoisie will do anything to keep this system going and keep power.

From cradle to grave people are indoctrinated into capitalism to the stage where they cant really see or understand any other system. However, i do think that the current financial turmoil including many mainstream news stories about 'greedy' bankers is at least raising awareness slightly amongst the populace.


Yeah, it's always a sliding scale for these things, because, of course, I'd rather see such exposés than not, but at the same time they're taking up the time and attention that would be better filled with a full-blast *anti-capitalist* treatment.





Ok, thanks for that.

Dont misunderstand my position. I certainly do not support QE or any other govt intervention which 'props up' bourgeois institutes. And i agree that such a collapse would present an opportunity to bring in a socialist system.


Okay.

[aty]

Capitalism have already crashed because it is today restraining the new dominating immaterial productive forces, now we just need to replace it with communism.

[human strike]

Capitalism collapses whenever capitalist social relations are broken. This happens at thousands of moments every day to varying degrees and for varying lengths of time; everything from lending somebody a pen to opening a new squatted social centre, from bunking off work to rioting in the streets. The key is to build on these moments/situations/communes/cracks and to expand them.