WHEN will capitalism fall?

[JPSartre12]

Comrades,

I have heard many differing views as to when we think capitalism will end and the next mode of production will begin. How much longer do you think we will have to wait until that happens?

I've heard some say that it will be around 2030 - 2050 because the global markets are so inter-connected that a soon-to-be financial collapse in one country would have an exponential domino effect around the world. I'm not sure of this; I think that capitalism is wily and adaptive enough to last another few decades.

Your thoughts?

[RedHammer]

That's the thing. We can't just "wait" for it to happen. It isn't "inevitable" that socialism will replace capitalism. It requires revolutionary effort.

Now, as to the collapse of capitalism as we know it (which can be replaced with something worse, to be sure), I think this will start to happen as the economies of the third world develop and the cost of living for the West increases substantially, making class divisions much starker.

The First World is supported by the Third World. That's what gives people an illusion of the "success" of capitalism.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I have written extensively about this subject in the Economics section. To be honest, i am counting not in years but in months until this system collapses.

[JPSartre12]

That's the thing. We can't just "wait" for it to happen. It isn't "inevitable" that socialism will replace capitalism. It requires revolutionary effort.

Now, as to the collapse of capitalism as we know it (which can be replaced with something worse, to be sure), I think this will start to happen as the economies of the third world develop and the cost of living for the West increases substantially, making class divisions much starker.

I agree with you, but do you think that there is a possibility of capitalism collapsing due to its internal contradictions, or will its fall be purely the result of revolutionary action? I like your second point, as well. I've heard others say (and I'm somewhat in support of the idea) that the world is destined for an epoch of "world fascism", for lack of a better term, because of the allied international powers.

I'm thinking that its contradictions won't bring it down, but rather weaken it, expose its exploitation, and provide the opportunity for an effective revolution to strike the death blow.

[Ostrinski]

At this rate, long before this question stops being asked.

[JPSartre12]

I have written extensively about this subject in the Economics section. To be honest, i am counting not in years but in months until this system collapses.

When you say months, do you actually mean that, or are you being exaggeratory? What makes you think that it will fall so soon?

[Comrade Samuel]

I have written extensively about this subject in the Economics section. To be honest, i am counting not in years but in months until this system collapses.

I have serious doubts about that, perhaps the situation in Europe will deteriorate further and maybe military involvement in Iran/ Syria could burn money like oil in the next few months but its going to take something very substantial, something we don't see coming yet if we actualy hope for capitalism to be finnished in such a short time.

Personally I predict sometime in the 21st century preferably in my lifetime (which according to a recent science/enviorments thread may last forever if I'm lucky :D) but for the foreseeable future it only looks to be a minor crisis that in all likelihood will end in WWIII or taking many years to cripple the system eventually giving the workers the upperhand but either way I predict, relatively speaking of corse, that capitalism doesn't have very long left.

[citizen of industry]

I'm waiting for some kind of double-dip recession, a crisis in/after a crisis that will radicalize a lot of people. Now we're in a recession, if there was another big crisis I think the system would be greatly shaken and we would enter a revolutionary period.

[RedHammer]

I agree with you, but do you think that there is a possibility of capitalism collapsing due to its internal contradictions, or will its fall be purely the result of revolutionary action? I think capitalism could collapse on its own without revolutionary effort, due to its internal contradictions, but the establishment of socialism will require active, conscious effort.


I like your second point, as well. I've heard others say (and I'm somewhat in support of the idea) that the world is destined for an epoch of "world fascism", for lack of a better term, because of the allied international powers. I can definitely imagine the right becoming more and more extreme in the wake up an increasingly radical left.


I'm thinking that its contradictions won't bring it down, but rather weaken it, expose its exploitation, and provide the opportunity for an effective revolution to strike the death blow.

I mostly agree. But we are in a tougher position than the Bolsheviks found themselves; they had no major previous historical examples for their enemies to use against them. You can be sure, even with collapsing capitalism, our enemies will write off socialism on the basis of 20th century history.

[JPSartre12]

What has me rather worried is the fact that - warranted or not - the West has spent decades in a propagandistic war against all non-capitalists: communism is oppressive and "anti-liberty", non-whites threaten national purity, socialism is inherently evil, selfishness and the profit motive are holy, deregulation solves everything, and so on.

I feel as if any attempt that we on the Left make to point out the flaws in the system, expose them, and work to construct a better system will only be met with violent, reactionary politics. Here is what I mean ... Look at the rise of the Tea Party in the United States after a "progressive" African-American was elected to the White House: the reactionary Right sprung up, entered mainstream politics, and its neoliberalism-nationalism is now part of normal political dialogue. Just think of the reaction that the Right would have if real progressives, socialists, and communists walk onto the political stage and propose and economic alternative to capitalism. I'm worried that a real socialist alternative might encourage real, reactionary fascism.

[RedHammer]

What has me rather worried is the fact that - warranted or not - the West has spent decades in a propagandistic war against all non-capitalists: communism is oppressive and "anti-liberty", non-whites threaten national purity, socialism is inherently evil, selfishness and the profit motive are holy, deregulation solves everything, and so on.

I feel as if any attempt that we on the Left make to point out the flaws in the system, expose them, and work to construct a better system will only be met with violent, reactionary politics. Here is what I mean ... Look at the rise of the Tea Party in the United States after a "progressive" African-American was elected to the White House: the reactionary Right sprung up, entered mainstream politics, and its neoliberalism-nationalism is now part of normal political dialogue. Just think of the reaction that the Right would have if real progressives, socialists, and communists walk onto the political stage and propose and economic alternative to capitalism. I'm worried that a real socialist alternative might encourage real, reactionary fascism.

I share your concern, comrade. The real fascists are eager to pounce on public discontent and muddle class consciousness.

Our enemies are in the media, in the government, and in the armed forces. I don't think the USA will lead the revolution. It's too reactionary. I just don't see class consciousness arising here first. I think other places (Europe, India, etc) will lead the revolution.

[JPSartre12]

Our enemies are in the media, in the government, and in the armed forces. I don't think the USA will lead the revolution. It's too reactionary. I just don't see class consciousness arising here first. I think other places (Europe, India, etc) will lead the revolution.

Agreed. Although, if class consciousness (or even vanguard-led trade union consciousness) is to arise in Europe, I would argue that they are more likely to come from areas that are ravaged with debt crises (Spain, Greece, and so on) rather than the Nordic regions.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

When you say months, do you actually mean that, or are you being exaggeratory? What makes you think that it will fall so soon?

Of course i mean that! Look what is happening, you have governments that are in debt into oblivion and banks are not being regulated. The Rate of Profit of the production process is at a historical low. For Capitalism to keep producing growing amounts of goods, it needs to find enough demand to sustain this growth. But since the rate of profit of the production process if so low, workers wages have been stagnating and the growing amounts of goods have been bought with debt - but the debt is piling up, and with increasingly serious crises (due to the liberal capitalism of the Eurozone; an economic disaster!) banks are not feeling comfortable to invest and lend... except to the debtor of last resort, its State. This debt scheme could easily go on IF the growth rates were high enough for debtors to feed the interest rates of their debt, but the growth rates of national economies are so low due to a mix of the low rate of profitability and failing demand. But we are in a global recession, banks are not lending to the economy (or each other), market demand is low and does not to look to be increasing unless the old debts are cancelled, i.e. Big Fucking Crisis!

But look here, when the old debts are renewed (necessary at this point) after the looming crisis, what kind of people are going to buy consumer goods, Robots?! Also, do Robots produce a surplus, i.e. is it profitable for capital to invest into an automated economy? No. I have written extensively with statistics about the advance of the productive forces and the Rate of Profit being near 0% now, Capitalism is Toast, only large redistribution from the poor to the rich and a Socialism for the Rich has been keeping Capital going.

"The revolutionary optimism stems from the objective laws of the development of society. Capitalism is an order condemned by history to liquidation. Nothing, neither the frenzied resistance of the Bourgeoisie nor the treachery of modern revisionists can save it from its inevitable doom. The future belongs to Socialism and Communism" - Enver Hoxha.

[RedHammer]

Agreed. Although, if class consciousness (or even vanguard-led trade union consciousness) is to arise in Europe, I would argue that they are more likely to come from areas that are ravaged with debt crises (Spain, Greece, and so on) rather than the Nordic regions.

Agreed. I can see it being led by France, Greece, and Spain.

@ Workers-Control-Over-Production, I'm not an economist, so alot of what you said went over my head, but boy, do I hope you are right!

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I've said dozens of times; next Thursday, keep your diaries free.

Nah, I don't know, there have been many economic and social crises, some on a global scale, and capitalism hasn't laid down and died yet. Although, as a previoous post mentioned, it will require more than waiting for the system to just eat itself / implode, revolutionary effort is needed too.

Still, I'd keep that day free next week, just in case.

[maskerade]

Capitalism is already failing. I'd suspect that the fall of capitalism wont be a specific day that people will look back upon and say "oh yes, that fateful tuesday, when capitalism fell" but rather a prolonged period marked by unchecked imperial aggression and general misery for pretty much everyone except those in control of states and capital.

i'm also certain that the left wont be prepared to face this failure, considering the Left doesn't really exist in the real world. I also think that the powers that be will set off some nukes and our future will be pretty much like the movie The Road, so if the thought of eating baby humans makes you uncomfortable maybe it's time to start building your bunker and stock it up with spam and corned beef. That's assuming you don't die from radiation related illnesses first, not to mention the actual blasts.

[JPSartre12]

I also think that the powers that be will set off some nukes and our future will be pretty much like the movie The Road, so if the thought of eating baby humans makes you uncomfortable maybe it's time to start building your bunker and stock it up with spam and corned beef. That's assuming you don't die from radiation related illnesses first, not to mention the actual blasts.

Ha, despite the graphic image that you've described here, I do agree that the end of capitalism is going to be dramatic and destructive. I think that we're going to have to pass through a WW3-like event :unsure:

[Tim Cornelis]

Of course i mean that! Look what is happening, you have governments that are in debt into oblivion and banks are not being regulated. The Rate of Profit of the production process is at a historical low. For Capitalism to keep producing growing amounts of goods, it needs to find enough demand to sustain this growth. But since the rate of profit of the production process if so low, workers wages have been stagnating and the growing amounts of goods have been bought with debt - but the debt is piling up, and with increasingly serious crises (due to the liberal capitalism of the Eurozone; an economic disaster!) banks are not feeling comfortable to invest and lend... except to the debtor of last resort, its State. This debt scheme could easily go on IF the growth rates were high enough for debtors to feed the interest rates of their debt, but the growth rates of national economies are so low due to a mix of the low rate of profitability and failing demand. But we are in a global recession, banks are not lending to the economy (or each other), market demand is low and does not to look to be increasing unless the old debts are cancelled, i.e. Big Fucking Crisis!

But look here, when the old debts are renewed (necessary at this point) after the looming crisis, what kind of people are going to buy consumer goods, Robots?! Also, do Robots produce a surplus, i.e. is it profitable for capital to invest into an automated economy? No. I have written extensively with statistics about the advance of the productive forces and the Rate of Profit being near 0% now, Capitalism is Toast, only large redistribution from the poor to the rich and a Socialism for the Rich has been keeping Capital going.

"The revolutionary optimism stems from the objective laws of the development of society. Capitalism is an order condemned by history to liquidation. Nothing, neither the frenzied resistance of the Bourgeoisie nor the treachery of modern revisionists can save it from its inevitable doom. The future belongs to Socialism and Communism" - Enver Hoxha.

You are being too optimistic. As we know, bankruptcies can drive down competition and consequently drive up profits of the remaining businesses. The problem is that we now have a unique situation where Greece should go bankrupt for the rates of profits to stabilise, but this is prevented by the fact that it is a member of a trasnational currency—with the risk of infection.

So three things may happen (I have no idea which one since I'm not an economist):

1. Greece defaults, and the system recovers.
2. Greece defaults and drags Europe with it (And ultimately recovering).
3. Greece does not default and the EU keeps pouring in money, prolonging the crisis perhaps until 2020.

[JPSartre12]

You are being too optimistic. As we know, bankruptcies can drive down competition and consequently drive up profits of the remaining businesses. The problem is that we now have a unique situation where Greece should go bankrupt for the rates of profits to stabilise, but this is prevented by the fact that it is a member of a trasnational currency—with the risk of infection.

So three things may happen (I have no idea which one since I'm not an economist):

1. Greece defaults, and the system recovers.
2. Greece defaults and drags Europe with it (And ultimately recovering).
3. Greece does not default and the EU keeps pouring in money, prolonging the crisis perhaps until 2020.

I agree. As much as I would like capitalism to collapse, I don't think that it's going to take months. I would say that the most likely of the three to occur would be the third - I'm assuming that the EU and the international banking powers-that-be would recognize now bad a Greek default would be and do everything that they could to prevent it from happening, and just keep throwing money at it, keep it barely afloat, and let the recession drag on.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

You are being too optimistic. As we know, bankruptcies can drive down competition and consequently drive up profits of the remaining businesses. The problem is that we now have a unique situation where Greece should go bankrupt for the rates of profits to stabilise, but this is prevented by the fact that it is a member of a trasnational currency—with the risk of infection.

So three things may happen (I have no idea which one since I'm not an economist):

1. Greece defaults, and the system recovers.
2. Greece defaults and drags Europe with it (And ultimately recovering).
3. Greece does not default and the EU keeps pouring in money, prolonging the crisis perhaps until 2020.

No, i am not. In fact, Mario Draghi, the EU instated dictator of Italy said yesterday that the EU is in danger of falling apart and german politician Soeder said that Greece should leave. Because the Currency union is liberal and does not have centralised policies to make sure the economies remain of similar competitiveness, the Euro is inevitably collapsing. If Greece leaves, then Spain, then Portugal, Italy etc. and we are at a point where Politicians are nationalistically calling for Greece to leave the Eurozone.

If Greece leaves the Eurozone to default on its debts and taxes the rich, it will recover slightly after a hard crash in a few years.

The western capitalist countries have huge debts which, once the governments' ability to lend gets more difficult like Spain, the bankers will force its neo-liberal governments from Germany to USA to Japan to go the route of privatisation, austerity; the route of Greece. In fact, CSU government politician Soeder has openly admitted that Greece "has to be made an example of", continuing "From my perspective Greece should leave before year's end". So the Western Politicians have put it in their heads that they are a bunch of right wing bastards willing to do whatever it takes to serve capital, and Greece should be made an example of. Once they implement their same extremist tactics of privatisation, health care cuts, social security cuts, mass unemployment, wage cuts and so on that they have used on the Greek workers, Spanish workers, Italian workers, Portugese workers etc. on northern Europeans and the US population, they will risk losing state control and revolution.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

You have to understand that there is too much debt in the system and that there is a necessity of a crisis to get rid of these debts. But when the debts are cancelled, the Rate of Profit of the Production process(!) is too low, and capitalism died in 2002 when the rate of profit of the p.p. was below the financial interest of 2%. Communism is the future.

[ckaihatsu]

1. Greece defaults, and the system recovers.


Why the *fuck*-- excuse me.... Why the *fuck* would the "system" just somehow "recover" if Greece were to "default" -- ???

You even said it yourself, here:





The problem is that we now have a unique situation where Greece should go bankrupt for the rates of profits to stabilise, but this is prevented by the fact that it is a member of a trasnational currency—with the risk of infection.


So since Greece is joined-at-the-hip to the other EU members its "bankruptcy" -- for the sake of argument -- would mean literally throwing out a piece of the whole pie, not to mention how *politically* disruptive it would be to the very definition of 'EU membership' for the rest.





2. Greece defaults and drags Europe with it (And ultimately recovering).


Just because something can be thought-of and put into a list, using a process of logic, doesn't make that item *valid* as a real-world possibility.

I'll maintain that even the *thought* of Greece "defaulting" is more of a *political* construction than an *economic* one.





3. Greece does not default and the EU keeps pouring in money, prolonging the crisis perhaps until 2020.


For the EU to "keep pouring in money" would require the redistribution of existing wealth on such a broad scale that it would practically be doing socialism *for* us. It would be political anathema to anyone who has the *slightest* respect for the institution of private property.

*And* -- even if such an imaginary act *could* occur, the mere provision of liquidity does *not* guarantee *solvency*. Recent multi-billion-euro bailouts of sovereign debt have only had adrenaline-like effects on the markets, at best, wearing out within *days*.

What's happening is a massive *souring* of financial opinion about Europe's prospects, and for good reason. Financial gymnastics make no difference in this kind of overall condition -- just look at it from the *investor's* point of view and ask yourself where the fuck the next "score" is supposed to come from, and then the one after that. There's no solid certainty, so how can the markets be optimistic -- ?

Instead, we're seeing loan-sharking prevail at the international level, and the nation-state system has no recourse according to its own rules for this kind of thing.

[JPSartre12]

For the EU to "keep pouring in money" would require the redistribution of existing wealth on such a broad scale that it would practically be doing socialism *for* us. It would be political anathema to anyone who has the *slightest* respect for the institution of private property.

Interesting take on the situation, comrade. I did not even think of that - I was thinking more along the lines of the idea that, with EU money "pouring in" to Greece, it would eventually save the country from utter economic ruin. Yes, there would be a fundamental shift in wealth-redistribution policies and the EU countries would become linked more closely, but private property would be retained, just taking on a new structure. When I think of socialism, I don't think of it defined as the redistribution of wealth (although that can be a precursor to it, or be part of it, surely), but rather the post-revolutionary absence of capitalism.


*And* -- even if such an imaginary act *could* occur, the mere provision of liquidity does *not* guarantee *solvency*. Recent multi-billion-euro bailouts of sovereign debt have only had adrenaline-like effects on the markets, at best, wearing out within *days*.

What's happening is a massive *souring* of financial opinion about Europe's prospects, and for good reason. Financial gymnastics make no difference in this kind of overall condition -- just look at it from the *investor's* point of view and ask yourself where the fuck the next "score" is supposed to come from, and then the one after that. There's no solid certainty, so how can the markets be optimistic -- ?

Exactly! I think that the volatility and instability of the world markets are going to be instrumental in capitalism's final collapse, and perhaps we're beginning to see the first symptoms of what could become a global phenomenon.

[ckaihatsu]

Interesting take on the situation, comrade.


Yup -- you're welcome.





I did not even think of that - I was thinking more along the lines of the idea that, with EU money "pouring in" to Greece, it would eventually save the country from utter economic ruin. Yes, there would be a fundamental shift in wealth-redistribution policies and the EU countries would become linked more closely, but private property would be retained, just taking on a new structure.


Well, we should consider that the only two modes of asset / resource allocation are public and private -- this corresponds to governmental administration and private ownership, respectively.

If the private domain -- banks -- is seen as gaping sinkholes, due to the current prevailing deflationary environment, and the European countries -- public -- are redistributing their tax receipts to fashion some sort of mats out of sticks to cover over these sinkholes, then a clear picture emerges here:

- There *is no* "saving" of Greece, or any other country -- the dynamic is not of superhero-vs.-villain, but rather that of cannibalism-within-a-small-group-while-everyone-has-to-continuously-donate-blood. Without actual economic growth the governments are merely playing 'musical chairs' at best, but with the twist that none of the chairs can actually leave the room.

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





When I think of socialism, I don't think of it defined as the redistribution of wealth (although that can be a precursor to it, or be part of it, surely), but rather the post-revolutionary absence of capitalism.


Yes, well that would certainly be the preferable way.





Exactly! I think that the volatility and instability of the world markets are going to be instrumental in capitalism's final collapse, and perhaps we're beginning to see the first symptoms of what could become a global phenomenon.


Yup.

[RedHammer]

Communism is the future.

Not necessarily. We may decay into fascism (see: Golden Dawn in Greece), neo-feudalism, or some other thing worse than the capitalism we have today.

My biggest worry isn't that capitalism as we know it will survive, but we will all fail in replacing it with socialism and, instead, be stuck with something worse.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

It is certainly a possibility that the right wing will make (bourgeois) state policies to help capital, but it can't save it. Capitalism is doomed, history is on our side. That is not to say though that agitation, education, and organization of the working class is the utmost priority for us of course.

[RedHammer]

It is certainly a possibility that the right wing will make (bourgeois) state policies to help capital, but it can't save it. Capitalism is doomed, history is on our side. That is not to say though that agitation, education, and organization of the working class is the utmost priority for us of course.

So you see a collapse of capitalism inevitably leading to socialism? Do you hold a determinist view regarding the collapse of capitalism?

[JPSartre12]

Not necessarily. We may decay into fascism (see: Golden Dawn in Greece), neo-feudalism, or some other thing worse than the capitalism we have today.

My biggest worry isn't that capitalism as we know it will survive, but we will all fail in replacing it with socialism and, instead, be stuck with something worse.

I think that's an excellent point. I think that we're trending towards a sort of "global fascism", for lack of a better phrase, at this point in time. That being said, I think that we should be doing everything that we can to make that trend arc towards socialism instead.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Not necessarily. We may decay into fascism (see: Golden Dawn in Greece), neo-feudalism, or some other thing worse than the capitalism we have today.

My biggest worry isn't that capitalism as we know it will survive, but we will all fail in replacing it with socialism and, instead, be stuck with something worse.

Fascism is Capitalism. The economic relationships under Fascism are a hallmark of Capitalism, merely with corporatist/collaborationist tendencies. Fascism is but an ideology -albeit a particularly horrific one - under Capitalism, it's not a distinct politico-economic system of organising society's social and economic resources itself.

[ckaihatsu]

---





The euro bailouts and the crisis of democracy in Europe

7 August 2012

Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti said Monday that Europe would fall apart “if governments are completely bound by the decisions of their parliaments.” Every government has “a duty to educate the parliament,” he added in an interview with the news magazine Der Spiegel.

Monti’s statement amounts to an admission that the numerous bank bailouts organized to rescue the euro in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash, and the austerity programs launched to make the working class pay for them, have strained European bourgeois democracy to the breaking point. The responsibility of the government to parliament, and parliament’s control over the government—which Monti is questioning—is a basic principle of parliamentary democracy.

Monti attacks parliament, but his real target is the working class. For the vast majority of the population, it has already become impossible to influence politics through the ballot box. Major political decisions are made ​​by the financial markets and their henchmen in Brussels, Berlin and the other European capitals.




Monti knows well that the social counterrevolution demanded by the international financial markets is incompatible with democratic methods. He leads a government of technocrats that has no democratic legitimacy. Monti—an economics professor, advisor to Goldman Sachs and member of several conservative think tanks (Bruegel, Bilderberg Conference, Trilateral Commission)—is a trusted representative of international finance capital. At its behest, he succeeded the Berlusconi government last November without the holding of an election because Berlusconi had failed to cut the budget quickly and deeply enough.




http://wsws.org/articles/2012/aug2012/pers-a07.shtml

[RedHammer]

Fascism is Capitalism. The economic relationships under Fascism are a hallmark of Capitalism, merely with corporatist/collaborationist tendencies. Fascism is but an ideology -albeit a particularly horrific one - under Capitalism, it's not a distinct politico-economic system of organising society's social and economic resources itself.

I know, I'm just saying that the collapse of capitalism as we know is not necessarily a good thing.

[Luís Henrique]

Not necessarily. We may decay into fascism (see: Golden Dawn in Greece),

Fascism cannot save capitalism; whatever the situation of the capitalist crisis is, a fascist regime cannot circumvent it. What a fascist regime can (and will) do is to export crisis by behaving aggressively against other States (which on the other hand points out why the notion of a "global fascism" is a fantasy: fascism relies upon boundaries and military competition among States).


neo-feudalism, or some other thing worse than the capitalism we have today.

The thing worse-than-the-capitalism-we-have-today that we need fear is capitalism-as-we-will-have-tomorrow: same mode of production, with less wealth, a worse distribution of that reduced wealth, and less political freedom for the oppositional movements.

Which points out to the actual capitalist remedy for crises: wholesale destruction of means of production and value, either physically, through war, or symbolically (but do not take 'symbolic' as meaning non-existant!) through devaluation. This eventually solves the problem of overaccumulation, reopening the possibilities of productive employment of capital. The human costs, of course, are staggering; but, hey, what are a few hundred million people if we can keep the profit rate afloat? (And that is the question we do have to answer if we want to abolish the cycle of expansion-crisis-depression-new expansion that characterises capitalism: to what extent can we bear such a Mayan-like human sacrifice system in industrial scale?)

Neo-feudalism doesn't seem an actual prospect because workable profit rates would obtain much before the destruction of productive forces reaches the point at which capitalism becomes a material impossibility.

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

---





Neo-feudalism doesn't seem an actual prospect because workable profit rates would obtain much before the destruction of productive forces reaches the point at which capitalism becomes a material impossibility.








What is being encouraged through these developments is a division of labour in which the state remains a key source of security through its access to violence, while non-state resources are mobilized to establish security networks that operate according to risk management principles. Among the clearest indicators of this is the difference between the security strategies employed within the new feudal domains that the emergence of ‘mass private property’ has established — for instance the security practices within places like Disney World — and the way in which poor neighbourhoods are policed through the use of target hardening strategies by police agencies and by private security agencies contracted to state agencies.[1]




Spitzer and Scull observed of the early re-emergence of private policing ‘what is perhaps most intriguing about this movement toward privatization is the way it parallels the rise of policing for profit in earlier historical periods’.[5]




[O]nly those who have the means to employ private security usually enjoy its services, and this can reinforce security deficits for poor and marginalised populations, further entrenching divisions within society and possibly undermining state legitimacy. Security in this scenario is no longer a public good, but a commodity available only to those who can afford it. This is arguably what has occurred in South Africa (and other states), where the proliferation of commercial security has resulted in a ‘new apartheid’ or neo-feudalism characterised by fortified islands of security from which undesirables are excluded.[8]

Neofeudalism is made possible by the commodification of policing, and signifies the end of shared citizenship, says Ian Loader:


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

[Luís Henrique]

That would be a misnomer at best; the social relations in such situations remains thoroughly capitalist.

Luís Henrique

ETA: the way you posted the matters above seems confusing; at a first look it appears that I have posted what in fact is Wickedpedia material. Could you improve that, please?

[robbo203]

I have written extensively about this subject in the Economics section. To be honest, i am counting not in years but in months until this system collapses.

It wont "collapse"

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/why-capitalism-will-not-collapse

[ckaihatsu]

That would be a misnomer at best; the social relations in such situations remains thoroughly capitalist.


Agreed, though I still think the prevailing configuration of how public and private space is handled is significant.





ETA: the way you posted the matters above seems confusing; at a first look it appears that I have posted what in fact is Wickedpedia material. Could you improve that, please?


Sure, no prob.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

In my country, it will not happen soon, because if fuckass Greeks won't stop relying on the bullshit of Goldwn dawn and voting it, capitalism in Greece will not collapse.

[Lowtech]

capitalism has already failed.

as an economic system, it has failed and fails most people in the world, in other words poverty. moreover, it can be mathematically demonstrated to be economically invalid.

when it's ironclad control of humanity will end is what you're really asking.

capitalism's real control is in it's ability to keep people dependent on a market economy, wherein that economy the rich "own" the means of production.

taking this all back by force is, although within our means, in actuality would be our attempt to play a game the rich are far better adept at playing. they have riot police, soldiers, thousands of "economists," cultural indoctrination etc that keep 99% of humans oblivious to our actual economic arrangement with the Rich.

i feel the better strategy is to create worker's cooperatives that are independent of the market system, that encompass all needed areas of production -- we need advanced permaculture and development of very low tech yet efficient means of harnessing resources

dependence on the market and lack of awareness of our economic arrangement with the rich are the only reasons capitalism still exists

[Luís Henrique]

Agreed, though I still think the prevailing configuration of how public and private space is handled is significant.

Yes, it is. But that is a capitalist problem, not a feudal one.


Sure, no prob.

Thank you!

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

In my country, it will not happen soon, because if fuckass Greeks won't stop relying on the bullshit of Goldwn dawn and voting it, capitalism in Greece will not collapse.

How will Golden Dawn stop the disintegration of capitalism in Greece?

How does 7% of the vote equates to "Greeks relying" on their bullshit and "voting it"?

Luís Henrique

[cyu]

When will the bowling ball knock over the bowling pins?

When you stop holding the bowling ball and start bowling.

[ckaihatsu]

[Neo-feudalism] would be a misnomer at best; the social relations in such situations remains thoroughly capitalist.





Agreed, though I still think the prevailing configuration of how public and private space is handled is significant.





Yes, it is. But that is a capitalist problem, not a feudal one.


Allow me to clarify -- what I intended to present with the excerpt from Wikipedia in post #33 is that the *present* layout of public vs. private space -- and their overlap -- describes a certain *empirical* condition of today. This condition can be termed 'neofeudalism' since the term succinctly implies that present-day control over great expanses of land and resources is in the hands of a concentrated few, as was the case under historical feudalism.

Certainly the overall economic *dynamic* remains that of capitalism, but that fact doesn't preclude more-detailed empirical studies of how this mode of production has turned decidedly dynastic, as evidenced from the allocation of land, for example, in major developed economies.





Thank you!


Yup.

[TaylorS]

My guess will be between 2040 and 2080.

----------------------

Many bourgeois economists are themselves already concerned about technological unemployment and it will only get worse with time. The thread of social unrest will increase as more and more people are made technologically "redundant" and thrown into the Reserve Army of Labor (that is, unemployment and underemployment).

Add to this the effects of climate change will keep on getting worse and more and more people will realize that the "Green" capitalism pushed by Left-Liberals like the Green Party is an oxymoron.

By the end of the century there will be no more "new markets" as China and India become developed economies and Africa finally starts down the same path as capitalists look to Africa as a final source of cheap labor. As a result the Declining Rate of Profit will hit like a mack truck as workers organize to resist wage cuts and there is no where else for capitalists to find super-cheap labor.

The increasing consolidation of the global economy into a few giant global corporations and well as the continuing advancement of artificial intelligence will make people more open to economic planning.

------------------------

I don't think it will happen sooner than 2040 because right now the dominant anti-establishment mentality is a one for greater economic decentralization via breaking up giant corporations and protectionism, looking backward to a mythologized early capitalism of small businesses (hence a rise in popularity I have noticed of Adam Smith among Left-Liberals wanting to "reclaim" him from the Right as a champion of the little guy against "corporatism"). Currently our society is still in the mindset established in the late 1960s against "inhuman big institutions" that takes precedence in people's minds ahead of class issues and I think that will last until the Baby Boomers start dying off.

[cyu]

Instead of my bowling analogy, let me try another one ;)

Q: When will John Kerry get a pie in the face?

A: After I take the pie out of the oven and after you stop trying to be his bodyguard :grin:

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It has been foretold in the prophecy as revealed to the prophet Marx (pbuh), that the REvolutioon that is called I, shall come like a thief in the night sky.

[ckaihatsu]

It has been foretold in the prophecy as revealed to the prophet Marx (pbuh), that the REvolutioon that is called I, shall come like a thief in the night sky.


Thank you, Bob Avakian.


= )

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Left to its own devices, capitalism will trundle on in fits and starts until it's exhausted the resources it draws upon (mineral, vegetable, animal, whatever) and it is impossible to sustain the system. Think of this as the "bad" ending - if this happens we have ecological collapse and most probably descent into barbarism waiting for us with little chance of recovery.

The alternative is to make it collapse via the medium of a working class revolution. Much harder work, but it beats hunting for two-headed radioactive cows in the future. I think we've seen the long-dormant seeds of working-class consciousness begin to germinate in the last six years or so (thanks to a particularly bad crisis combined with increasing awareness of just how shitty our capitalist rulers are) and I reckon the next fifteen years will see the protest movements we see now turn towards the radical left. I'm wary of even saying that though, because let's be honest, predicting the future is a mug's game.

[Prof. Oblivion]

October 25th, 2032 at 5:03:16AM CST

[Zulu]

Capitalism will fall when the planetary population stops growing.

[Lowtech]

Comrades,

I have heard many differing views as to when we think capitalism will end and the next mode of production will begin. How much longer do you think we will have to wait until that happens?

in actuality, capitalism isnt a mode of production, it is a mechanism for deriving value from those that produce it and has no economic purpose.


I've heard some say that it will be around 2030 - 2050 because the global markets are so inter-connected that a soon-to-be financial collapse in one country would have an exponential domino effect around the world.

capitalism is rife with crisis perpetually, although those who impose economic subjugation (the rich) are insulated from rhe failures of capitalism.


I'm not sure of this; I think that capitalism is wily and adaptive enough to last another few decades.

Your thoughts?

Capitalism isnt adaptive in the sense you refere to, it simply has enough working class at it's base to absorb catastrophies seen as "problems of the poor" or "working poor"

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

When will capitalism fall?

When the number of those who own the majority of the world's capital can all be counted on one hand.

[Creative Destruction]

I like what David Harvey says. Capitalism isn't going to fall by itself. It's going to take a revolutionary push over the edge to do it in. So, it'll either end by ultimately destroying the world by exhausting all of our resources, or it's going to end by a protracted fight with the masses.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the character of a mass revolution against capitalism would look like. If we do the work that needs to be done, maybe we could have it with a socialist character. Or it could fall into the hands of reactionaries, which would shove humanity into a darker age that no one could have ever imagined. Or it could be such a massive world war that no matter the outcome, anything would seem like a pyrrhic victory no matter who "wins."

Or capital would just willingly submit to the proletariat and classes would immediately dissolve. Who knows.

[cyu]

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-the-revolution-is-not-an-apple-that-falls-when-it-is-ripe-you-have-to-make-it-fall-che-guevara-76616.jpg

[Stalinist Speaker]

Octobre 2017

[ckaihatsu]

in actuality, capitalism isnt a mode of production, it is a mechanism for deriving value from those that produce it and has no economic purpose.


This is a matter of how one "slices it" -- yes, capitalism *is* a distinctly different mode of production, as compared to feudalism or slavery, but from the perspective of (working) class interests capitalism is merely another scheme for deriving value from those that produce it, the workers.





capitalism is rife with crisis perpetually, although those who impose economic subjugation (the rich) are insulated from rhe failures of capitalism.


Again, yes and no -- the rich may have more private stocks of resources to draw upon, plus the unconditional support of bourgeois governments, but they're still subject to the vagaries of the markets since they *don't* have monolithic control over capitalism itself.





Capitalism isnt adaptive in the sense you refere to, it simply has enough working class at it's base to absorb catastrophies seen as "problems of the poor" or "working poor"

[Thirsty Crow]

Comrades,
I have heard many differing views as to when we think capitalism will end and the next mode of production will begin. How much longer do you think we will have to wait until that happens?

Entirely depends on two sets of factors:

1) class struggle - when will the global proletariat engage in revolutionary struggle? I have no damn idea.

2) environmental destruction disabling mass production which could lead to a regression to kinds of earlier modes of exploitation and domination.

[Red_Banner]

Capitalism already collapsed in 2008, but they propped it back up.

[L.A.P.]

Capitalism already collapsed in 2008, but they propped it back up.






one could more accurately argue that capitalism has been in systemic decline since the 1970s profit-crisis or World War I, rather than 2008








Sent from my Windows Phone using Tapatalk

[Thirsty Crow]

Capitalism will fall when the planetary population stops growing.
Jesus fucking Christ. What utter bollocks. As if there's not already a surplus population for the need of capital, moreover which doesn't even begin to take up a significant amount of agricultural produce, and yeah maybe it will collapse when mankind embarks on the path of continued demographic loss.

Take your crap elsewhere, I suggest.

[Lowtech]

This is a matter of how one "slices it" -- yes, capitalism *is* a distinctly different mode of production, as compared to feudalism or slavery, but from the perspective of (working) class interests capitalism is merely another scheme for deriving value from those that produce it, the workers.

the problem you're refering to is one of terms, semantics. If you say "mode of production," that sounds as if you're refering to a physical mechanism. terms like "feudalism" or "slavery" are sociological terms, not descriptions of physical mechanisms for producing value and in all thier iterations, value is produced the same way. When debating sociology, people can argue for or against capitalism on many grounds, however when looking beyond semantics and sociology to the actual mathematical function of capitalism, we find it has absolutely zero legitimacy as an economic system.


Again, yes and no -- the rich may have more private stocks of resources to draw upon, plus the unconditional support of bourgeois governments, but they're still subject to the vagaries of the markets since they *don't* have monolithic control over capitalism itself. right, they aren't completely protected, however in general, they largely go uneffected due to the millions of us below them (workers) who over produce (as we are underpaid and buy everything we need priced at a profit)

[Thirsty Crow]

the problem you're refering to is one of terms, semantics. If you say "mode of production," that sounds as if you're refering to a physical mechanism. terms like "feudalism" or "slavery" are sociological terms, not descriptions of physical mechanisms for producing value and in all thier iterations, value is produced the same way.
There are two confusions here.
The first being that the Marxist term of the mode of production hardly refers to a physical mechanism. It is the general concept of the way social production is organized - with the crucial position occupied by the way surplus labor is appropriated and directed.

The second confusion is the fact that value, exchange value, has hardly been produced the same way historically as the position of the ancient manufacturers was quite different, due to their relationship to both the ancient state and other classes of society, in comparison to contemporary wage labor.

[Alonso Quijano]

No one here is a divine prophet. It will surely take time. When? Who knows.

I think the closest we ever got was when Ebert and his friends backstabbed and literally murdered the movement. Hitler made sure its dead after some minor revival, but even in the last dies of Weimar, we were shut down by force. And yet, it's the closest we ever came, perhaps. We should learn from that experience and build on that, in my opinion.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I agree with the sentiment of your post, Alonso, i.e. that we can and should learn from the German, Russian and the other European (attempted) revolutions at the time. But I don't think that's our most important task, and definitely not the only thing we should or can build on. Undeniably the world has changed a lot since then, and historical analyses of attempts at workers' power isn't going to help us cope with the situation of the working class today. Understanding how such things failed is important, but as we're nowhere near a similar situation today, I think our starting point should be more practical.

[Lowtech]

There are two confusions here.
The first being that the Marxist term of the mode of production hardly refers to a physical mechanism. It is the general concept of the way social production is organized - with the crucial position occupied by the way surplus labor is appropriated and directed.

The second confusion is the fact that value, exchange value, has hardly been produced the same way historically as the position of the ancient manufacturers was quite different, due to their relationship to both the ancient state and other classes of society, in comparison to contemporary wage labor.

I am not confused at all. I made a very clear distinction between refering to economics from either a sociological or systems standpoint. Aswell as pointing out that the real study of economics is the study of value. If one has no understanding of value, one has no understanding of economics.

Value can only exist in the various ways it can be physically consumable by a human. Therefore, value must then have a physical accountability. when seeing economics with this definition of value, we find that anything that consumes more than it provides creates artificial scarcity. When you buy something priced at a profit, you're left with less value than you started with.

Exchange/market value is a social construct; it doesnt exist.

And yes, no matter the "mode of production" value is still produced in the same fashion, via the converting of raw resources into usable materials and items.

The fundimental difference between the way we should function economically and how we do currently is the introduction of artificial scarcity by capitalists.

The rich use social constructs of markets, money and exhange value to obscure and legitimize artificial scarcity and economic subjugation.

So, are we done with arguing over marxist terminology? I'm ready for a serious discussion.

[Zulu]

Take your crap elsewhere
Wherever I take it, I find the same crap. Like there (http://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/historical-materialism-and-the-inevitable-end-of-capitalism/otto-bauers-answer-to-rosa-luxemburg/), for instance.

You here on Revleft seem to be the last uneducated ones.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

First, Capitalism has to decay into Fascism, when Fascism collapses, it will turn into Socialism:star2: , followed by Communism:hammersickle:.

[Thirsty Crow]

First, Capitalism has to decay into Fascism, when Fascism collapses, it will turn into Socialism:star2: , followed by Communism:hammersickle:.
No words to describe the level of dumb.

[Thirsty Crow]

Wherever I take it, I find the same crap. Like there (http://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/historical-materialism-and-the-inevitable-end-of-capitalism/otto-bauers-answer-to-rosa-luxemburg/), for instance.

You here on Revleft seem to be the last uneducated ones.
It gets only worse and worse.
Now an article presenting Bauer's views, those of the revisionist social democracy, becomes representative of...well, everything educated.

And this should tell you something about Bauer:


If Bauer is correct, cyclical crises don’t break out because the market is glutted—commodities are unable to find buyers—but rather because the capitalist system periodically demands more of the commodity labor power—the commodity that alone produces surplus value—than is available on the labor market.Jesus christ on a broomstick.

[Zulu]

Now an article presenting Bauer's views

Clearly you haven't read the whole article. Although it's obvious even from the very sentence you quoted that it sharply criticizes Bauer at least on some issues.

BTW, I brought it up because the author comes to the same conclusion as myself on the issue at hand (the ultimate cause of breakdown of the capitalist mode of production), despite being diametrically opposed to my views on some other (3rd-worldist kind of) things.

[Thirsty Crow]

Clearly you haven't read the whole article. Although it's obvious even from the very sentence you quoted that it sharply criticizes Bauer at least on some issues.

BTW, I brought it up because the author comes to the same conclusion as myself on the issue at hand (the ultimate cause of breakdown of the capitalist mode of production), despite being diametrically opposed to my views on some other (3rd-worldist kind of) things.
Clearly I don't give a flying fuck for an obnoxious asshole that's trying to pass horseshit for Marxism and all the while posting one liners with "evidence" in the form of a long article which is somehow representative of...well, as I said, educated folk generally.

[Radio Spartacus]

Middle class westerners, especially the intellectuals who love capitalism most, couldn't survive one month of the experience they support overseas. Their understanding of capitalism is the understanding of the conquistador, their life experience offers the greatest selection bias-the bias of the imperialist. Of course it seems like a great system when the bad parts are the direct reason for your privilege.

It will become increasingly difficult to exploit foreign nations, and the cost of living will go up in western countries. This presents an opportunity, question is: who will take advantage that opportunity?

[Zukunftsmusik]

First, Capitalism has to decay into Fascism, when Fascism collapses, it will turn into Socialism:star2: , followed by Communism:hammersickle:.

as we all can learn from history, this has been a successful strategy, yes?

[cobrawolf_meiji]

Capitalism may not fall, I think that there has to be a balance between Capitalism and Socialism, otherwise both may fall apart.

[Guerillero]

The problem is: if you think, capitalism will change by itself, it won't; if you think, you must change capitalism by yourself, you will fail and people won't follow, fate does the opposite of what you think, it is a compromise of both ways: patience and consequence.
But Bolshevik Sickle says something true: capitalist governments were historically only replaced by nationalistic governments in western world, people who like to follow as in modern job life are predestinated to follow orders as from leaders. And to abolish capitalism, the USA must be eliminated, that's for sure.

@ LinksRadikal: a German Neurosis fan, welcome to the club. :)

[ckaihatsu]

Capitalism may not fall, I think that there has to be a balance between Capitalism and Socialism, otherwise both may fall apart.


Capitalism is *private* ownership of the means of mass production, while socialism is *collective* ownership of the means of mass production.

There's no "balance" between the two to be had -- it's one or the other.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Exactly June 5th, 2023, 3:00 am, the witching hour, exactly 300 hundred years to the day of the birth of Adam Smith. The invisible hand has foretold this in the prophecy.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1130&pictureid=11346

So sayeth MArX.

[EverythingNothing]

Capitalism will fall,when the image of capitalism is destroyed.
Also,the ideology of capitalism is yet the strongest,we can see that in the current mainstream society's visions of the future are these:
1)The world will go on like this forever
2)The world will end.Literally

We don't see an alternate future (Communism,Anarcho-Syndicalism, et cetera)
As we can see,Capitalism will only fall when the people won't back it anymore.Destroy the image,and the enemy will die.

[Comrade Jacob]

Anywhere between now and never.

But if you want my opinion it's before 2070.

[Alonso Quijano]

Capitalism will fall because of its crises, once one crisis will give birth to a true Communist movement.

If Greece manages leaves its crisis with a capitalist regime and majority we should all kick ourselves.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Left Voice]

What makes people so sure that socialism will 'magically appear' after the fall of modern capitalism?

I honestly think such complacency is dangerous, and gives the far right too much opportunity to respond. However insightful and useful previous texts by socialist scholars and theorists have been (and continue to be), these should not be treated like biblical texts. We shouldn't jump to the conclusion that socialism will eventually appear because Marx or other leftists predicted so. Instead, it requires serious efforts and conviction from the left - the same efforts that resulted in the establishment of modern capitalism in the first place.

I look at the failing economies and Europe and, unfortunately, I see do not see a strengthening of the left and socialist ideas in the face of failing modern capitalism. Instead, I see the growth of the far right, the fascists, nation-states becoming increasingly insular, immigrants and minorities being used as scapegoats, and the left failing to effectively deal with these new challenges and convince people there is another way.

[IBleedRed]

Feudalism lasted for nearly a thousand years, and remnants of feudalism continue even to this day. Who knows when capitalism will fall? I'd rather it fall because of conscious action and agitation than because the Earth reaches a breaking point. Socialism will not be automatic. As capitalism develops, the means for creating socialism will improve, but that doesn't mean socialism is inevitable.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

So much optimism. You think Capitalism will fall before the century ends?

Seriously? Not even before the year 3000, as you can see on Futurama.