How do Marxists explain the continued existence of capitalism? [Archive]

CatsAttack

14th July 2013, 16:25

reading Lenin it looks like capitalism cannot expand and is due to be overthrown at any moment.

Trotsky did not entertain the idea of a post-war capitalism.

The stalinists in power claimed to be building socialism, and after decades, their nations are back to square one.

The current parties also scream about the coming implosion of global capitalism.

But when does capitalism truly stop being able to revolutionize itself, stop expanding and growing?

when will we truly see the 'mother of all crisis'?

What about the tendency of profit to drop? doesnt that have anything to do with it?

What would you say was the mistake in marxist theory that explains todays existence of capitalism, with, unfortunately, no end in sight, not in the near term at least. the forces of socialism are weaker today than perhaps at anytime in the modern era.

I know this is really 2 issues, but i hope they can both be answered.

some part of marxist theory needs to be looked into, something needs to be revised as it were. but what exactly?

sorry for the broken up nature of this post, ill rephrase some questions a little later in this thread.

connoros

14th July 2013, 16:54

reading Lenin it looks like capitalism cannot expand and is due to be overthrown at any moment.

What Lenin are you reading?

Trotsky did not entertain the idea of a post-war capitalism.

I wouldn't be so absolutely shocked that Trotsky was dead wrong about something like that, but I'd still like to know what you're citing so we have something to work on.

The stalinists in power claimed to be building socialism, and after decades, their nations are back to square one.

There really isn't any such thing as "Stalinism," and, no, Russia, although it has degenerated into a gangster-run kleptocracy, isn't at "square one." Winston Churchill said: "Stalin came to Russia with a wooden plough and left it in possession of atomic weapons."

What would you say was the mistake in marxist theory that explains todays existence of capitalism, with, unfortunately, no end in sight, not in the near term at least. the forces of socialism are weaker today than perhaps at anytime in the modern era.

...

some part of marxist theory needs to be looked into, something needs to be revised as it were. but what exactly?

Feudalism as a mode of production is typically agreed by historians to have dominated Europe from the 9th century to the 15th. This is to say nothing of analogous modes of production that dominated the other continents. At the very least, we can say the feudal mode of production lasted for six hundred years. The earliest scientific socialists, including Engels and Marx, were geniuses in that they articulated a revolutionary idea that seems obvious to us now: that the lower classes tend to rise up, and that class antagonisms tend to simplify over time. That they should have discovered these laws of societal development indicated that they were advancing rapidly, relatively speaking, toward the end of capitalism. That socialist states have existed and that other countries, while not truly socialist in terms of production, at least demonstrate progressive attitudes, shows us that capitalism is not the final stage of human history.

CatsAttack

14th July 2013, 17:06

There really isn't any such thing as "Stalinism," and, no, Russia, although it has degenerated into a gangster-run kleptocracy, isn't at "square one." Winston Churchill said: "Stalin came to Russia with a wooden plough and left it in possession of atomic weapons."

pakistan also has nukes. has nothing to do with socialism.

Feudalism as a mode of production is typically agreed by historians to have dominated Europe from the 9th century to the 15th. This is to say nothing of analogous modes of production that dominated the other continents. At the very least, we can say the feudal mode of production lasted for six hundred years. The earliest scientific socialists, including Engels and Marx, were geniuses in that they articulated a revolutionary idea that seems obvious to us now: that the lower classes tend to rise up, and that class antagonisms tend to simplify over time. That they should have discovered these laws of societal development indicated that they were advancing rapidly, relatively speaking, toward the end of capitalism. That socialist states have existed and that other countries, while not truly socialist in terms of production, at least demonstrate progressive attitudes, shows us that capitalism is not the final stage of human history.

nobody here will argue that capitalism isnt the final stage of human history.

dont understand what the point of writing this was as it has nothing to do with my question. are you saying capitalism will exist for atleast 6 centuries cause thats how long you think feudalism lasted for?

connoros

14th July 2013, 17:13

pakistan also has nukes. has nothing to do with socialism.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear: the efforts of "Stalinists," as you call them, have not been undone by the restoration of capitalism.

dont understand what the point of writing this was as it has nothing to do with my question. are you saying capitalism will exist for atleast 6 centuries cause thats how long you think feudalism lasted for?

Your question was loaded in that it assumed there was a "mistake" in Marxist theory that failed to explain the persistence of capitalism to today. You failed to explain from where you've got this idea that Engels, Lenin, and Marx predicted the fall of capitalism along a definite timeline. In fact, you've failed to explain the same of Trotsky, although I'm more likely to accept that he was pulling predictions out of thin air.

CatsAttack

14th July 2013, 17:25

Maybe I didn't make myself clear: the efforts of "Stalinists," as you call them, have not been undone by the restoration of capitalism.

The efforts of Stalinists have not been outdone by the restoration of capitalism and the only example you care to point out is the fact that the stalinists left some nukes for the current kremlin goons?

connoros

14th July 2013, 17:32

The efforts of Stalinists have not been outdone by the restoration of capitalism and the only example you care to point out is the fact that the stalinists left some nukes for the current kremlin goons?

I think maybe you're taking the Churchill quote a little too literally. What the quote means is that the region that would become the Soviet Union was backward in almost every sense from productive capacity to literacy. "The Stalinists," beginning with Lenin, made the Soviet Union into a superpower comparable in living standards and productive capacity to the United States. To be back at square one would mean nuking Russia back to medieval times.

CatsAttack

14th July 2013, 17:42

I think maybe you're taking the Churchill quote a little too literally. What the quote means is that the region that would become the Soviet Union was backward in almost every sense from productive capacity to literacy. "The Stalinists," beginning with Lenin, made the Soviet Union into a superpower comparable in living standards and productive capacity to the United States. To be back at square one would mean nuking Russia back to medieval times.

Living standards in the SU were in no way comparable with the US and much less so their productive capacity, but this is beside the point. We're talking about the what's left over. What does Russia have to show today? Fall of the SU was a complete and total year-zero event as far as the socialism is concerned and the workers movement in Russia is weaker today than it was on the eve of the first world war!

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

14th July 2013, 17:45

Perhaps a better point would be, that considering that Russia was a semi-feudal country that was rapidly transforming into a colony of western financial imperialism at the end of world war 1, that despite the restoration of capitalism, we can still call this a net positive when all aspects are considered.

connoros

14th July 2013, 17:55

Living standards in the SU were in no way comparable with the US and much less so their productive capacity, but this is beside the point. We're talking about the what's left over. What does Russia have to show today? Fall of the SU was a complete and total year-zero event as far as the socialism is concerned and the workers movement in Russia is weaker today than it was on the eve of the first world war!

You do a lot of contradicting without a lot of arguing. We've got way off topic because, to begin with, you decided to seize the literal meaning of a few words rather than their intended meaning, and now you're giving me the equivalent of "nuh uh" in a situation in which your "nuh uh" is painfully false. I know you say you lived in a shitty apartment in Moscow during the Eighties, but that doesn't really give you the credentials to make sweeping statements about Soviet economy.

CatsAttack

14th July 2013, 18:11

You do a lot of contradicting without a lot of arguing. We've got way off topic because, to begin with, you decided to seize the literal meaning of a few words rather than their intended meaning, and now you're giving me the equivalent of "nuh uh" in a situation in which your "nuh uh" is painfully false. I know you say you lived in a shitty apartment in Moscow during the Eighties, but that doesn't really give you the credentials to make sweeping statements about Soviet economy.

So, personal insults now? How rich. I should have noticed you only have 17 posts on this forum. Enjoy my ignore list, troll.

RedMaterialist

15th July 2013, 16:43

Capitalism is being kept alive by massive transfers of cash, via the bagmen Bernanke and Keynes, to Wall Street; and by the profits being extracted from $2.00 a day Chinese labor.

connoros

15th July 2013, 16:55

So, personal insults now? How rich. I should have noticed you only have 17 posts on this forum. Enjoy my ignore list, troll.

At no point did I insult you, personally, but I'm happy to say I've lost nothing of value being ignored by a black kettle.

Flying Purple People Eater

15th July 2013, 17:01

Rural Comrade

15th July 2013, 17:38

connoros

15th July 2013, 18:28

The Soviet Union (the most powerful socialist state) turned it's back on Marxist-Leninism as did most of it's satellite states. The Soviet Union began peaceful coexistence which lead to it's fall and the "socialist states" that remain are extremely reformed. Additionally capitalism was never overthrown on a world scale and now is on a world scale allowing for Marx's next stage socialism to come back in full force.

I would take a step back and re-evaluate what you're saying about peaceful coexistence. The idea isn't alien to Marxism-Leninism, and it considers the adage of "non-revolutionary politics for non-revolutionary times." Capitalism and imperialism need to be virulently struggled against, but there isn't any sense in engaging an empire when the odds of unmitigated destruction of what's being fought for are pretty good.

cyu

15th July 2013, 18:42

I'm not a Marxist but how do abolishionists explain the continued existence of slavery? How do anti-murderers explain the continued existence of murder?

RadioRaheem84

15th July 2013, 20:21

Living standards in the SU were in no way comparable with the US and much less so their productive capacity

Living standards in the USSR were better than third world and just a notch below the West. A notch. There wasn't this complete abject poverty one sees in the third world and in Russia today.

Th quote meant to say that the USSR was once a backward feudal country. The equivalent would be if today Nigeria went from a country of extreme haves and have nots to a powerhouse economy and military might where living standards were close to Western standards.

And they did all this without resorting to imperialism to vast grabs of natural resources from far across the globe.

So stop your idiotic posts with loaded questions. When people answer you it's ok to debate back but you just insult and claim others aren't answering your questions right. Just because you cannot understand the answer doesn't mean they aren't answering. Perhaps you don't even understand your own questions?

jpointon

16th July 2013, 01:03

This post has been derailed. If I recall, the question was about the continued existence of capitalism and not about the question of Stalinism and the condition of life in the USSR. Every thread always has to turn into a useless Stalin debate.

ANYWAYS. Marxists explain the continued existence of capitalism is many ways. Some focus on the existence of ideology, state violence, etc. One point Marx stressed in the 1857 Introduction was the fact that capitalism is an organic system. All functions, structures, and organs of capitalism ultimately reinforces one another is such a way that the system is cohesive and capable of continued social/economic reproduction.

In my opinion, ideology plays a massive role in the reproduction of contemporary capitalism. Louis Althusser defined ideology as, “the imaginary relation of [man] to the real relations in which they live," or in other words, the social glue which binds man to dominate social and economic practices. To further define and understand ideology, philosopher Louis Althusser introduced the concept of “ideological state apparatuses,” or “ISA’s” which function to maintain ideological hegemony. These apparatuses are seen as “a certain number of realities, which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions.” (Althusser) Such institutions can be separated into distinct apparatuses, with varying magnitudes of autonomy and influence: the religious ISA (church systems), the educational ISA (public and private school systems), the family ISA, the political ISA (political parties, political system), the legal ISA, etc. These institutions all function in a similar manner: by ideology. This means that what unites them, even in their diversity, is that they all function subordinated to what is fundamentally the same ideology.

In the United States, for example, legal, political, familial, and educational systems all function by their accordance with the dominate system of ideology, namely capitalist democratic-republicanism. That isn’t to say somewhere, in small amounts, some “members” of such institutions do not exist that challenge the dominate ideology, but that their existence is meaningless insofar as they exist in minuscule numbers. Ideology presents itself everywhere, from popular culture to politics. Michel Foucault went so far as to define ideology as a discourse: “Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true.” Thus ideology, or in this case, “discourse” functions to unconsciously “control” society to enable its functioning. Never has a society existed which did not establish ideological hegemony — especially in popular institutions — for “no class can hold power over a long period of time without at the same time exercising its hegemony over State Ideological Apparatuses.” (Althusser) Just as in economics, the ultimate condition of social existence is the reproduction of the conditions of production. Ideology functions as a means to ensure social cohesion: to bind the individual to day-to-day practices, and to establish an acceptable discourse which dominates our culture.

Jimmie Higgins

16th July 2013, 13:06

reading Lenin it looks like capitalism cannot expand and is due to be overthrown at any moment.

Trotsky did not entertain the idea of a post-war capitalism.What Lenin? Most of the Bolsheviks believed at the end of WWI that there was a revolutionary wave in Europe and they pinned their hopes for Socialism on the expansion of revolution to Germany and other countries.

Trotsky did think that the end of WWII would see capitalism resturn to it's pre-war state of declining profits and class struggle and he was wrong about that. As were the capitalist powers who also feared a return of pre-war labor "problems" and economic crisis at the end of WWII. In fact there was a strike wave in the US in 46, and unrest in the UK, and both of these countries saw the ruling class give concessions to the population in order to try and ensure domestic peace so they could focus on rebuilding Europe and expanding their Empires.

The stalinists in power claimed to be building socialism, and after decades, their nations are back to square one.I would define socialism as working class rule, these "socialists" defined socialism in terms of policies (at best). They aren't back at square one, because the, what I would call, state-capitalist regimes modernized their countries. They went from mixed, under-developed, or partially feudal countries to states with working classes and industrial facilities capable of being part of the world market.

The current parties also scream about the coming implosion of global capitalism.The left can over-emphasize capitalism's problems, or see a massive crisis in more or less regular downturns... but these predictions are just bad hyperbole or catastrophism - poor speculation based on real tendencies, like bad weather reporting. In comparison, Capitalism has been declaring imperial wars "solved", and economic busts and downturns "solved" for over 100 years: it would be like a weather forcaster claiming that there will never be a drought or hurricane ever again.

But when does capitalism truly stop being able to revolutionize itself, stop expanding and growing?

when will we truly see the 'mother of all crisis'?
Well in my view, capitalism can generally find a way to turn crisis into new accumulation. As the Communist Manifesto says, capitalism is always revolutionizing itself. So what could stop it? Worker's collective revolt and sizure of the means of production or capitalism undermining it's own reproduction so badly that society as we know it falls apart (i.e. massive nuclear war, pandemic, destabilization of the environment to the extent that regular crops can not longer feed people).

What would you say was the mistake in marxist theory that explains todays existence of capitalism, with, unfortunately, no end in sight, not in the near term at least. On the whole, I think Marxist theory has been more correct about capitalism than capitalist explainations. And even if it wasn't wrong theory (and there's been pleanty of bad theories by Marxists and others as well as mis-use of good and useful theory by Marxists) at most bad theory will just cause people to miss opportunities or become confused about things which then might have subjective effects on broader society. But capitalism still exists, not because of Marxist theory, but because workers, for various reasons, have been unable to create and effective counter to it.

the forces of socialism are weaker today than perhaps at anytime in the modern era.What are those forces?

Dave B

16th July 2013, 19:23

Socialism will happen when people recognise;

1) That capitalism is totally crap and all the previous ideas for fixing it like reformism and state capitalism don’t work and they give up on them as alternatives.

2) And when, as Kautsky said; “the productivity of labour being so high and the quantity and variety of products so immense that everyone may be trusted to take what he needs.”

ie from each according to his ability and from each according to their need.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1924/labour/ch03_j.htm

I think we have reached part one

As to part two.

We probably are now, with our present 21st century ‘productivity of labour being so high’, capable of satisfying those early 20th century ‘needs’.

But it seems as we are capable of producing more and different kinds of stuff eg 80 inch flat screen Tv’s, Humvee 4x4’s and swimming pools in the back garden etc we can never hope there will ever be enough bling to go around.

What is considered as ‘acceptable needs’ by ‘first world’ workers today would have been considered as decadent consumption of the capitalist class 100 years ago.

.

connoros

16th July 2013, 19:26

"State capitalism" isn't an attempt at reforming capitalism into something positive; it's simply what happens when the proletariat take control of the state before its abolition.

Ceallach_the_Witch

16th July 2013, 19:56

I'd have to respectfully disagree in regards to state capitalism, personally I don't think there's any utility in maintaining capitalist structures at all after the revolution. Firstly, capitalism is an inherently corrupt and corrupting system, and we'd be better off not dallying with it at all. Secondly, by the time we're capable of revolution (the proletariat as a politically aware class and all that) I think we'll have a much better idea of what to do after capitalism.

In that regard, it's like finding out you're strong enough to break your chains, only to decide they look rather fetching on you.

connoros

16th July 2013, 20:08

As long as capitalism persists in the world, there will be property to protect. In the case of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the property to protect will be the property now owned by the historically determined proletariat after the revolution. There won't be a clean break from capitalism immediately after state seizure in the sense that there won't be a stateless, classless society without a property claim to means of production. State seizure is the necessary first step to expropriating the historically exploitative classes, and this is typically what is meant by state capitalism in that capital is restricted in ownership, but it is owned by a broader class through the apparatus of the state, which becomes gradually obsolescent as political administration becomes unnecessary.

Addendum: Think of capitalism as a phase in which the chains exist and socialism as a phase in which the chains don't exist. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which precedes socialism, takes the chains off the proletariat and puts them on the bourgeoisie.

Brutus

16th July 2013, 23:19

Brutus

16th July 2013, 23:22

We don't take control of the bourgeois state:

“In an April 1871 letter to Kugelmann, Marx wrote: “If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire you will find that I say that the next attempt of the French revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to*smash*it, and this is essential for every real people’s revolution on the continent”.45”

Excerpt From: Macnair, Mike. “Revolutionary Strategy - Marxism and the challenge of left unity.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Sotionov

17th July 2013, 00:28

I think that the question in the title of the topic is a genuinely difficult question. How do marxists explain capitalism not collapsing? In many areas where marxist assumptions about progression of capitalism into a really aggravated exploitation does happen, and the proletariat is driven to revolt by material conditions, they don't abolish exploitation but just instute reforms or another type of class society.

IMO, the right answer is that people don't know what socialism really is and thus cannot want it, thus not being able to establish it. But this explanation of non-abolitin of capitalism by pointing out to lack of class-consciousness is, I suppose, problematic from a marxist- materialist- position. I am no marxist, and have no problem with accepting such an opinion, but I'd like to hear the opinions of marxists on this question.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

17th July 2013, 01:32

Socialism will happen when people recognise;

1) That capitalism is totally crap and all the previous ideas for fixing it like reformism and state capitalism don’t work and they give up on them as alternatives.

Have you not seen the tens of millions of Americans, Europeans, Chinese, Japanese and others that have been taking to the streets the past three years? Are you unaware of the fact that 72% of Americans polled in 2011 responded that they "Support" Occupy Wall Street's protest against social injustice and message, which couldn't be clearer, '99% versus 1%'?

Workers already know capitalism is "total crap"! It is up to us, the 'advanced' strata of the workers, Socialists and Communist, to lead the rest of oppressed members of our Class, as well as try to show as many fellow workers as possible, through debate and education, that only the Revolutionary road and implementation of Socialism will free humanity from the treachery and misery which is Class society.

Dave B.:
2) And when, as Kautsky said; “the productivity of labour being so high and the quantity and variety of products so immense that everyone may be trusted to take what he needs.”

ie from each according to his ability and from each according to their need.

Without bothering to mention Kautsky's actual position on the Class Struggle, you are disowning one of the greatest theoreticians we Marxists have had.

Whether the historically progressive Transition from Capitalism to Communism is achieved or not is not solely up to and must not be permitted to be left to objective developments of society. Those who intellectually understand that Capitalism is nothing more than Slavery and that Socialist Revolution is the solution to humanity's misery, are in a very small number.

It is up to us, who understand this, to make capable and respectable individuals out of ourselves, to constantly push ourselves in our every day lives to use up all capable mental and material means we as modern Proletarians have, to build class solidarity and Class organization to fight for better conditions of work and refute the treachery and lies of the enemies of the objective economic and social interests of the Proletariat.
Socialism will not come unless we give our all to educate, agitate, organize and generally embolden the members of our Class to go against the existing order of things.

Karl Kautsky, "Road to Power" (1909):

If today the elite of the workers are the strongest, most far-seeing, unselfish, keenest, best and freest organized section of the nations of European civilization, then it will draw to itself in the fight and through the fight the most unselfish and far-seeing elements of all classes, and will organize and educate the backward elements within its own bosom and inspire them with the joy and hope of freedom. It will raise its elite to the height of civilization and make them capable of directing that tremendous economic transformation that shall forever make an end of the whole world round of all misery arising from slavery, exploitation and ignorance.

Happy he who is called to share in this sublime battle and this glorious victory.

connoros

17th July 2013, 01:35

I find it's a lot more difficult to try to explain the persistence of capitalism when the explanation du jour attributes the failing of the various revolutions to finish off capitalism to the personal or theoretical failings of individual heads of state.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

17th July 2013, 01:50

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the last stage of capitalism, as the comrade above said. The bourgeoisie no longer have political power, but bourgeois law, property relations,etc. still exist. We abolish the the bourgeois state, and replace it with a proletarian state, but this is still capitalism, as it inherits things from capitalism: bourgeois morality, bourgeois law, the bureaucratic apparatus, and so on, and so on.

It is not "still capitalism", because a proletarian revolution will have occurred, meaning strategically important economic enterprises and land will necessarily be immediately expropriated by the new State in order for the bourgeoisie not to sabotage the security of the new Socialist Order.

That said, however, capitalist relations of production will inevitably still continue until: a transition period of growth of the productive forces has deemed workplace committee democracy materially possible in those sectors where it still is not, and social order has been securely won by the Proletariat.

Dave B

17th July 2013, 19:31

I said in post 20 that

I think we have reached part one, ie;

1) That capitalism is totally crap and all the previous ideas for fixing it like reformism and state capitalism don’t work and they give up on them as alternatives.

Hence Occupy Wall Street and the relative indifference to reformist labour parties etc etc

Although the ideas of making capitalism better or regulating it hasn’t disappeared entirely in OWS.

Kautsky advocated democratic state capitalism with “imaginary gold money” because the level of productivity of labour/technology hadn’t yet reached a level consistent with the possibility of early 20th century abundance etc

cyu

18th July 2013, 00:33

the level of productivity of labour/technology hadn’t yet reached a level consistent with the possibility of early 20th century abundance

It's not really a matter of productivity levels, but *what* you are producing.

If 90% of a town is producing helicopters, mansions, and private space vehicles for 2 people in the town, while everyone else only has enough to eat one meal a day, that may be massive productivity for the 2 rich dudes, but if 90% of the town resources were not producing for 2 rich dudes, but rather producing for everyone else, the levels of abundance would switch from abundant mansions for the rich, to abundant stuff poor people need.

The greater the gap between rich and poor, the more the economy fails to produce goods for the people in that economy.

Ceallach_the_Witch

18th July 2013, 19:28

in any case, capitalism won't just collapse on its own. It's a nasty system, but it's also very resilient and the people who most benefit from it are extremely powerful and wield a lot of influence. A lot of people think it's the only system we have that works and that there is no alternative - of course, that's because we're all told that more or less from birth. Thus, even otherwise progressive people campaign for reforms to capitalism and say that it can be made work for the workers - and i suspect that if you're drawn to this site you've already realised that that ain't the case.

So, the situation we have here is that there are a lot of people disenfranchised and unhappy with capitalism - but the problem is that they think they can fix it when really, it's already running perfectly according to it's own maxims. They SHOULD be on our side, but thanks to over a century of propaganda demonising communism then gloating over the death of the Soviet bloc, they don't believe that Socialism is a viable alternative. We all know the lines they'll trot out "it's human nature", "people won't be motivated", "it's not practical" - because they've been told that by our mighty enemies and they've come to believe it themselves.

Whatever they do, and even if they win reforms, the capitalists will eventually win, and we all know that because, well, look what happened through the late seventies to present. Ultimately, they have the final say on how far reforms go, and they have the power and will to erode them.

Therefore, the burden lies upon the various sorts of revolutionary to go out there and tell people that a lot of what they know is more or less lies. They need to know that if they're willing to protest and fight and struggle, they might as well aim for the big prize rather than beg for scraps. And at the moment, not enough people are doing that.

Dave B

19th July 2013, 19:58

If 90% of a town is producing helicopters, mansions, and private space vehicles for 2 people in the town, while everyone else only has enough to eat one meal a day, that may be massive productivity for the 2 rich dudes, but if 90% of the town resources were not producing for 2 rich dudes, but rather producing for everyone else, the levels of abundance would switch from abundant mansions for the rich, to abundant stuff poor people need.

The greater the gap between rich and poor, the more the economy fails to produce goods for the people in that economy.

I think that is a fair enough point but could be expanded upon somewhat.

There is I suppose real, capitalist class only, bling, like “private helicopters, mansions, and space vehicles” etc.

I actually don’t think that is much of a practical or theoretical problem; however much in your face it might be.

I don’t think much of the worlds labour force is wasted on that kind of thing and don’t know anybody who makes such things.

I know one person who works in a restaurant for the capitalist class.

The domestic service industry for the ruling class used to be much larger than it is now.

Anyway if the capitalist class lived like puritan misers, and many of the original ones did, it would still be capitalism.

The biggest capitalist waste goes on the consumption fund or wages of all those workers in finance, the military industrial complex and the advertising industry.

Which encourages better paid workers to want things that they don’t need and feel inadequate without.

We all know plenty of people who do that kind of thing I think

Some stuff has gone from decadent luxury to basic working class must haves eg television sets, mobile phones and personal computers. But now they are just about potentially abundant I think, if price is any indicator.

I work in an industry that produces a basic food commodity and it employs half as many people as it did 15 years ago and churns out twice as much.

I think there is perhaps too much emphasis on ‘economism’ and ‘trade union consciousness’ and struggling for a better deal under capitalism, as the only alternative, at the expense of advocating revolutionary ‘full’ communist consciousness.

I think the way that some workers want to live as regards the consumption of crap as necessities is obscene and decadent in absolute terms.

Apart from that perhaps just subjective opinion it reinforces the whole justification and apology for capitalism.

The central critique of free access communism is that there wouldn’t be enough for people to be trusted to take what the need.

Like water and Neelix's bath in Star Trek the Next Generation 'communism'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDPHW21R13E