Has capitalism exhausted all its possibilities for further development?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Marx famously said "No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore, mankind only sets itself such tasks as it can solve" (Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, page 44.) Presumably that is Marx telling us that socialism will arrive only after capitalism has exhausted all possibility of further development of its productive abilities. Can anyone surveying the world around us argue that capitalism has indeed exhausted all possibility of further development of its productive abilities?

[RedBen]

i don't think capitalism will ever dry up, run out, ect... all it takes is someone asking "what's in it for me?" or putting a price on something. it should be an honor to look out for eachother, not because of reward or recognition, but just to do it.

[The real Fabians]

There are varying versions of capitalism i n which there are varying amounts of rights for the lower classes.

It has been proven time and time again that neo-liberal capitalism goes boom and bust because there is no sustainable growth that is gained for economic equality.

But apparent;y that is the future of capitalism and every new boom and bust weakens the economies even further creating worse deficits and debts and causing further misery. Maybe then when people only know of this sort of capitalism, then it will be abandoned as it simply isn't sustainable.

[drunken-radicalism]

Marx didnt think capitalism would shrivel up and die, then socialism would just sprout up in its place, he'd thought we's overthrow once it outlived its usefullness, which it did along time ago.
The way i see it there's only two ways the system will go, socialist revolution, or catastrophe. (Like nuclear war or an envionrmental crisis) its like rosa luxenburg said "socialism or barbarism."

[tuwix]

Can anyone surveying the world around us argue that capitalism has indeed exhausted all possibility of further development of its productive abilities?

I think there would many of them. GDP growth is virtually unlimited. But I don't think you mean it. And the nswer depends on what we mean as development.

Certailnly capitalism has great potential to adapt. It has shown after emergence of Soviet Union when left-wingers around the world thought that days of capitalism are counted. But laissez-faire capitalism has died very long time ago and only most hardly closed minds can be for it. However, I think the greater GDP is, the capitalism is closer to its ultimate fall.

[ckaihatsu]

Can anyone surveying the world around us argue that capitalism has indeed exhausted all possibility of further development of its productive abilities?


I'll refer to the ongoing Euro crisis, which is evidence for the fact that the capitalists are not in control of their own beast....





[T]he EU does not have enough economic commonality to move forward under a single currency (the Euro), or monetary standard.

This is a historic development -- that first-world governments are falling prey to predatory speculation, with not much else being investment-worthy. If bourgeois governments are capital's best friend, yet are being economically *undermined* by the same, what does that mean ultimately for the practice of capitalism -- ? It's quite Frankenstein-ian, and I wonder if the world's regime of capital could really continue to function in an environment of nations all savagely plundered like Argentina here:


Amoral capitalist pigs trying to extort Argentina.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/amoral-capitalist-pigs-t181612/index.html




[M]aybe we're heading for a neo-French-Revolution, on a thoroughly global scale....





However, I think the greater GDP is, the capitalism is closer to its ultimate fall.


I'd argue the opposite -- that GDP indicates real growth accomplished by capitalism, with falls in GDP equating to economic instability and worldwide crisis.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Historical_top_10_nominal_GDP_proportion.svg/512px-Historical_top_10_nominal_GDP_proportion.svg.png


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

[Popular Front of Judea]

Capitalist crisis is not the same as the exhaustion of capitalisms productive potential. Arguably crisis is intrinsic to capitalism.

[ckaihatsu]

Arguably crisis is intrinsic to capitalism.


It's *beyond* being 'arguable' -- it's a fact, given the regular boom-and-bust cycles of the 19th century, for starters.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1882%E2%80%9385





Capitalist crisis is not the same as the exhaustion of capitalisms productive potential.


Sure, we can always receive with well-regard the argument that capitalism only has to *destroy* capital assets -- as during both world wars -- in order to "rejuvenate" itself for new growth, but we can't ignore the *political* (class) struggle that overrules simple economics: World public opinion and grassroots anti-war organizing are both much more empowered than in past decades, arguably.

Would a more-educated and better-informed global population of the new century really stand for a *third* all-out, runaway inter-imperialist world war, with requisite racist dehumanization of a "foreign enemy" -- ?

Perhaps capitalism has exhausted itself by giving rise to a very globally integrated world population -- one that knows better than to look to capitalism anymore for productive potential.

[Djoko]

Capitalism is historicaly justified while it develops means of production. When capitalism in some country do not develop means of productions anymore, time for socialist revolution has come.

[Sea]

It's *beyond* being 'arguable' -- it's a fact, given the regular boom-and-bust cycles of the 19th century, for starters.It's still going on today.


World public opinion and grassroots anti-war organizing are both much more empowered than in past decades, arguably.Evidence?


Would a more-educated and better-informed global population of the new century really stand for a *third* all-out, runaway inter-imperialist world war, with requisite racist dehumanization of a "foreign enemy" -- ?Yes, yes they would. Even without massive wars against those people, discrimination is extremely high in even the most "progressive" bourgeois dictatorships. To suppose that all we need is more education and new ideas is idealist garbage. The political and philosophic blossoming of the masses can only come after and as a result of the establishment of proletarian dictatorship, in an emerging form, and the attainment of the upper stage of communist development, in its all-encompassing, complete and developed form.

[nizan]

The conditions for capitalism have long since surpassed the levels of development predicted as prerequisites for Marx, it would have been a pure impossibility of history for a citizen of the 19th century to predict the onset of a Starbucks on every street. The conditions for revolution are not only ripe, they are rotting.

Yes, it is true that the economy continues to stumble around in an era where all it may do is stumble, in an era where all realize themselves as beholden to the now occult machinations of the conglomerated movements of the commodity, it is true that the economy is dying, but it will not give us a pretty death. The accord of the commodity is expansion until expansion is no longer possible, then, it decides to dream of further expansion, making its dreams reality with all the economic might of fabrication. The process will run its course until it is destroyed, until its death is enforced. Revolution today will not be a reaction to the death of capital, but rather, the synthesis of a wholly new creation hitherto unknown to history.

[stefanbl]

I believe we are now slowly seeing the transition away from Capitalism, this can be seen in the post-scarcity gift economies that can be seen in torrent community.

[ckaihatsu]

Capitalism is historicaly justified while it develops means of production. When capitalism in some country do not develop means of productions anymore, time for socialist revolution has come.


This is woefully outdated, and smacks of stagism, since even a patchwork of underdeveloped and advanced economies could "even out" their productive capacities overall, under a global proletarian society -- post #11 is a good response, by nizan.





It's *beyond* being 'arguable' -- it's a fact, given the regular boom-and-bust cycles of the 19th century, for starters.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1882%E2%80%9385





It's still going on today.


Agreed.





Sure, we can always receive with well-regard the argument that capitalism only has to *destroy* capital assets -- as during both world wars -- in order to "rejuvenate" itself for new growth, but we can't ignore the *political* (class) struggle that overrules simple economics:




World public opinion and grassroots anti-war organizing are both much more empowered than in past decades, arguably.





Evidence?


Offhand I'd point to the historic levels of anti-war protest in '02-'03, when the U.S. attacked Iraq for the second time (in recent history). The hawkish agenda was pushed out of the mainstream, finally, when the Bush Administration / junta looked positively *negligent* domestically in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.





Would a more-educated and better-informed global population of the new century really stand for a *third* all-out, runaway inter-imperialist world war, with requisite racist dehumanization of a "foreign enemy" -- ?




Perhaps capitalism has exhausted itself by giving rise to a very globally integrated world population -- one that knows better than to look to capitalism anymore for productive potential.





Yes, yes they would. Even without massive wars against those people, discrimination is extremely high in even the most "progressive" bourgeois dictatorships. To suppose that all we need is more education and new ideas is idealist garbage. The political and philosophic blossoming of the masses can only come after and as a result of the establishment of proletarian dictatorship, in an emerging form, and the attainment of the upper stage of communist development, in its all-encompassing, complete and developed form.


I'll admit to being on the optimistic side of things -- but I don't uphold the 'education and new ideas' liberal line.

[ckaihatsu]

I believe we are now slowly seeing the transition away from Capitalism, this can be seen in the post-scarcity gift economies that can be seen in torrent community.


This is an interesting point, but it's limited to the domain of *digital*-based goods, at most -- I think we would have to see similar 'transitional' dynamics in *other* areas as well, to be able to generalize as you're doing.

[stefanbl]

This is an interesting point, but it's limited to the domain of *digital*-based goods, at most -- I think we would have to see similar 'transitional' dynamics in *other* areas as well, to be able to generalize as you're doing.

You are right, as this transition occurring in the physical market would necessitate a massive amount of background infrastructure building before it could work, but I believe we will see a stronger movement toward other industries becoming 'digital'.

While affordable 3D printing that can make even very basic goods if far off even for the average westerner, I see this and other technology being the death of Capitalism, unless we see a political sea-change.

[ckaihatsu]

You are right, as this transition occurring in the physical market would necessitate a massive amount of background infrastructure building before it could work, but I believe we will see a stronger movement toward other industries becoming 'digital'.

While affordable 3D printing that can make even very basic goods if far off even for the average westerner, I see this and other technology being the death of Capitalism, unless we see a political sea-change.


I hope you're right, of course -- it might be considered as a material analogue to the politics of the civil rights movement, where a groundswell of empowered participation leads to a sea change (paradigm shift) in how things are done.

In the back of my mind, though, I can't help but think that those who remain in control of conventional mass industrial production would continue to have an advantage over the rest of us, especially for large-scale efforts like warfare. Would personal object fabrication be so broad-based as to obviate industrial production altogether -- as you're saying -- or would things mirror the way that *agriculture* has gone in that the norm is continued *economic* participation, as for wages, instead of a full societal turn to self-sufficient farming -- ?

I'm *always* in favor of any 'magic bullet' that could usurp corporate hegemony, and I'll even put forth the example of 'Point Linux' as a full-bodied alternative desktop OS that readily displaces Microsoft Windows:

http://pointlinux.org/


computer technical support thread

http://www.revleft.com/vb/computer-technical-support-t160520/index.html


So, likewise, can 3-D printing be fully realized -- and *will* it be fully realized -- as a solid and permanent replacement for all mass production, or will the inertia of corporate 'mindshare' prevail, as for so many other things that already have d.i.y. alternatives available -- ?

[Pirx]

Without wartime booms and technological revolutions capitalism is not doing that well. Problem is that the current Third Industrial Revolution (the microelectronical) is a job killer through automatisation.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I want to start by saying that the kick-off point for this discussion is an instance of Marx's liberal-idealist baggage, and that it's utterly ahistorical. History isn't some Hegelian unfolding, and modes of production don't necessarily transcend themselves in progressive development: a study of colonialism should reveal that often times modes of production are replaced by armed force, and populations are wrenched from their particular modes of production to another (its "progressive" character being a subjective matter).
So, has "capitalism" exhausted its potential? It depends on how we see capitalism, I suppose. Certainly capitalism is changing (always, duh) - the question is at what point changing relationships are so changed that they cease to be properly capitalist. Like, there is clearly still plenty of "room" for capitalist development, but as that development increasingly takes the form of financialized prison-states, maybe "capitalism"'s coming up against its limits will mean a world where proletarians are replaced by de facto slaves. *Shrug* Probably depends on the dynamics of class struggle, etc.

[ckaihatsu]

I want to start by saying that the kick-off point for this discussion is an instance of Marx's liberal-idealist baggage, and that it's utterly ahistorical. History isn't some Hegelian unfolding, and modes of production don't necessarily transcend themselves in progressive development: a study of colonialism should reveal that often times modes of production are replaced by armed force, and populations are wrenched from their particular modes of production to another


Agreed.





(its "progressive" character being a subjective matter).


'Progressive' -- as for societal development -- *is* an objective quality, and can be seen in *economic* terms wherever public infrastructure and overall development is taking place, and 'progressive' is also on the *political* side of things whenever there's more egalitarianism and level-treatment of people of all demographics.





So, has "capitalism" exhausted its potential? It depends on how we see capitalism, I suppose. Certainly capitalism is changing (always, duh) - the question is at what point changing relationships are so changed that they cease to be properly capitalist.




Like, there is clearly still plenty of "room" for capitalist development,


Please do elaborate here, in present-day terms.





but as that development increasingly takes the form of financialized prison-states, maybe "capitalism"'s coming up against its limits will mean a world where proletarians are replaced by de facto slaves. *Shrug* Probably depends on the dynamics of class struggle, etc.


Doubtful -- I think that *material* advancements reinforce *political* developments, and vice-versa. People are more equipped and enabled with communications and information than ever before, and that is then a difficult plateau to collapse.

More likely, as with ever-increasing national debt levels and an ongoing parade of financial-bubble industries, is the artificial economic inflation of spurious industries, for lack of any real historical progress forthcoming -- stagnation by way of bullshit.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Without that "liberal-idealist" baggage their isn't much left to Marxism, in my opinion. It's the ultimate transcendence of our present day social arrangements that Marxism offers that makes it desirable over the alternative visions of classic liberalism and anarchism. If it wasn't for Marx's idealistic Manifesto few would wade through Capital.

[Art Vandelay]

I want to start by saying that the kick-off point for this discussion is an instance of Marx's liberal-idealist baggage, and that it's utterly ahistorical. History isn't some Hegelian unfolding, and modes of production don't necessarily transcend themselves in progressive development: a study of colonialism should reveal that often times modes of production are replaced by armed force, and populations are wrenched from their particular modes of production to another (its "progressive" character being a subjective matter).
So, has "capitalism" exhausted its potential? It depends on how we see capitalism, I suppose. Certainly capitalism is changing (always, duh) - the question is at what point changing relationships are so changed that they cease to be properly capitalist. Like, there is clearly still plenty of "room" for capitalist development, but as that development increasingly takes the form of financialized prison-states, maybe "capitalism"'s coming up against its limits will mean a world where proletarians are replaced by de facto slaves. *Shrug* Probably depends on the dynamics of class struggle, etc.

This. This deterministic reading of Marx generally tends to leave out the element of human agency, which is so fundamental to Marxism. I think a cursory glance at the 20th century, shows quite clearly that capitalism has reached a point, where it has developed the productive forces sufficiently for the surpassing of capital to become a possibility. The industrial proletariat, as well as its temporary allies, became developed enough to pose a threat to global capital, despite the movement's ultimate demise. We've seen the further erosion of the nation-state (a bourgeois construct which has completely served its usefulness) as globalization progressed. There are many examples of how the bourgeois social superstructure has begun to fetter the development of the productive forces. The idea that we need to wait until capitalism further develops the productive forces, seems to be nothing other then a justification for inactivity to me, let alone a simplistic understanding of Marx.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

'Progressive' -- as for societal development -- *is* an objective quality, and can be seen in *economic* terms wherever public infrastructure and overall development is taking place, and 'progressive' is also on the *political* side of things whenever there's more egalitarianism and level-treatment of people of all demographics.

For starters, those two things don't necessarily run parallel. The obvious examples include shifts from "primitive communism" to early slave-states, or the destruction of relatively egalitarian societies by colonialism (certainly not a universal feature: obvs. colonialism also displaced/destroyed/absorbed hierarchical "states"). Case in point, global capitalism represents simultaneously the greatest industrial output and greatest material disparity in human history ever.
Secondly, despite the superficial "objective" sound of "economic terms" how does one calculate "overall development"? Steel output? Average caloric intake? Surface area covered by concrete? Grain production? Your suggestion that there is a definite "progressive" character vis-a-vis one mode of production relative to another remains deeply subjective. To further complicate matters, in many cases, some of those indicators would mark less industrialized societies as more materially progressive.
So, like, it's a pretty useless framework, in general terms. One can make specific statements, concerning judicial/traditional frameworks and particular types of production (Liberal democratic capitalist Canada produces more aluminum than the Six Nations Confederacy did), but positing either as "progressive" is a leap into (liberal) idealism.

Hopefully this also addresses other points in your post.


Without that "liberal-idealist" baggage their isn't much left to Marxism, in my opinion. It's the ultimate transcendence of our present day social arrangements that Marxism offers that makes it desirable over the alternative visions of classic liberalism and anarchism. If it wasn't for Marx's idealistic Manifesto few would wade through Capital.

Sure, Marx has hella liberal idealist baggage - given, it's not surprising in context. I would suggest, however, that none the less there is a great deal of value once the idealist (not "idealistic" - they're different) aspects are confronted and expunged where possible. For starters, a great deal of Marx's analysis of capital serves at least as a solid foundation for understanding political economy, and, crucially, understanding political economy historically. That he saw the necessary possibility of transcending capital emerging from within its own contradictions, is, again, a crucial insight, and a necessary counter to voluntarist utopian formulations.

I'd go so far as to say that Marx provides us with some of the best tools for critiquing Marx. :p

Case in point, that Hegelian baggage is the fucking worst. Describing certain relationships as dialectical is apt, and useful, but it's not the secret scientific logic that underlies all social development. That's some crackpot shit.

[Art Vandelay]

Case in point, that Hegelian baggage is the fucking worst. Describing certain relationships as dialectical is apt, and useful, but it's not the secret scientific logic that underlies all social development. That's some crackpot shit.

Understanding dialectics is absolutely essential for Marxists. That being said I don't think anyone who has ever seriously studied it, thinks that its some 'secret scientific logic that underlies all social development.'


With all the misinformation conveyed about dialectics, it may be useful to start by saying what it is not. Dialectics is not a rock-ribbed triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis that serves as an all-purpose explanation; nor does it provide a formula that enables us to prove or predict anything; nor is it the motor force of history. The dialectic, as such, explains nothing, proves nothing, predicts nothing and causes nothing to happen. Rather, dialectics is a way of thinking that brings into focus the full range of changes and interactions that occur in the world. As part of this, it includes how to organize a reality viewed in this manner for purposes of study and how to present the results of what one finds to others, most of whom do not think dialectically. - Bertell Ollman, Dance of the Dialectic.

[L.A.P.]

A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy had some of Marx's worst historicism. Part of why Capital Vol. 1 was a perfection of the former was the omission of historicist lines like this:

In the social production of their existence, men invariably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production ... At a certain stage of development, the material forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or - this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms - with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution ... No social order is ever yadda yadda yadda

capitalism is a far more reflexive system than Marx initially thought, the stagnation of industrial capital never lead to proletarian revolution

[Popular Front of Judea]

So how many people you know became Marxists after reading Capital? Again once you remove the Hegelianism, the historicism all you have left is a 19th century German expat writing endless pages about the labor theory of value in the reading room of the London Library. Who goes to the barricades for that?


A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy had some of Marx's worst historicism. Part of why Capital Vol. 1 was a perfection of the former was the omission of historicist lines like this:

In the social production of their existence, men invariably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production ... At a certain stage of development, the material forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or - this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms - with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution ... No social order is ever yadda yadda yadda

capitalism is a far more reflexive system than Marx initially thought, the stagnation of industrial capital never lead to proletarian revolution

[L.A.P.]

I don't know many Marxists, and I really don't care how existing Marxists got into Marxism as it's pretty irrelevant to the topic of Marx's historicism. That quoted passage is an example of his crude historicism which is, despite what some seem to insist, quite anti-Hegelian. And I don't know where you're getting that historical determinism was such a huge part of his work but myabe you should read more Marx, and less Orthodox Marxists

[Popular Front of Judea]

Since you are intent on expunging the most attractive aspects of Marx why should I read more of him? I doubt it was the intricacies of his labor theory of value that won Lenin, Luxemburg etc. over to Marxism.


I don't know many Marxists, and I really don't care how existing Marxists got into Marxism as it's pretty irrelevant to the topic of Marx's historicism. That quoted passage is an example of his crude historicism which is, despite what some seem to insist, quite anti-Hegelian. And I don't know where you're getting that historical determinism was such a huge part of his work but myabe you should read more Marx, and less Orthodox Marxists

[Fakeblock]

Does it matter if Marxist theory is unattractive? Surely the importance should be in whether it's true

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I don't think capitalism will fall entirely of its own accord until, as they say, the last tree has been felled, the last oil well drained and the last fishes caught. Obviously I'm exaggerating for effect - society as we know it will collapse as over-consumption catches up with it - but that's really not what we want.

What I'm trying to say is that we don't need to wait until capitalist production plateaus, as it were. I'd argue that by then it would be far, far too late. Unless opposed, capitalism will stagger drunkenly on, consuming, exploiting and destroying until there's not enough left to sustain it. It is, after all, a system based on the idea of constant consumption and growth. Waiting until the exhaustion of the resources that produce growth really wouldn't be that advisable, and frankly I'd argue it was contrary to the revolutionary spirit of socialism. To steal a phrase from chemists, some activation energy is required for this particular reaction.

I think we've been "ready" so to speak, for revolution for quite a long time, and especially in the last 40 or so years with the increasing maturity of global communications, trade and production networks. What are we missing? A widely radical, socialist, revolutionary workforce, and for better or worse, despite differing tendencies that's what most of us are for, to spread the word and let people know that they can build a better world than this one.

E:

Understanding dialectics is absolutely essential for Marxists.
and it's a damn shame that it's nigh-on impossible to understand. Oh well.

[Art Vandelay]

and it's a damn shame that it's nigh-on impossible to understand. Oh well.

It really isn't once you get a couple different works on it that do a good job making it more accessible. I found it was easiest for me to read the works of more recent Marxists, for example Bertell Ollman's 'Dance of the Dialectic' as well as George Novak's 'Introduction to Marxism', and then to move on to more classic works from Engels and Trotsky on the topic. I'm strictly referring to Marxian Dialectics, I've heard attempting to read Hegel is another matter.

[L.A.P.]

Since you are intent on expunging the most attractive aspects of Marx why should I read more of him? I doubt it was the intricacies of his labor theory of value that won Lenin, Luxemburg etc. over to Marxism.

this is ridiculous

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

maybe I should elaborate that I understand historical dialecticism/materialism/whatever perfectly well (and i stay awake at night wondering why i didn't get something that gobsmackingly obvious on my own), it's the whole materialist dialectic which always evades my understanding (nasty aftertaste of Hegel notwithstanding)

[Popular Front of Judea]

So tell me why anyone that is not a intellectual should read Marx in depth? Why should a laborer such as myself bother to read more than the Manifesto?

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I'm the wrong person to ask about why people should read stuff, I'm afraid, I have a tendency to read everything (even at one point, a tumble-drier manual. You might say it was a bit of a dry read)

Joking aside, surely it's patronising to divide people into "intellectuals" and labourers. There's no magical dividing line between people with their high-falutin' books and theories and people who work for a living. I'd go as far as to say that I find that a pretty offensive concept. Let people read what they want. Personally, I think it's worth reading Marx in-depth whoever you are, it's nice to have an understanding of the back-stage workings of the manifesto, so to speak. Some people will find it heavy going - that's what companion texts and so on are for.

[ckaihatsu]

For starters, those two things don't necessarily run parallel.


Agreed, as previously.





The obvious examples include shifts from "primitive communism" to early slave-states, or the destruction of relatively egalitarian societies by colonialism (certainly not a universal feature: obvs. colonialism also displaced/destroyed/absorbed hierarchical "states").


Yup.





Case in point, global capitalism represents simultaneously the greatest industrial output and greatest material disparity in human history ever.


Yes.





Secondly, despite the superficial "objective" sound of "economic terms" how does one calculate "overall development"? Steel output? Average caloric intake? Surface area covered by concrete? Grain production?


Actually, yes, all of the above.

We know that civilization is defined by its production of a material surplus, so the more bulk material output -- hopefully relatively evenly-distributed -- the more 'overall development' there is, objectively.





Your suggestion that there is a definite "progressive" character vis-a-vis one mode of production relative to another remains deeply subjective.


No, it *isn't* subjective, because some modes of production are simply more productive than others, per unit of work effort put in. This productivity prowess is what's at stake, because while the bulk output of one society / civilization may be more *materially* progressive than others', we know that continued class rule is *not* socially progressive, and even holds back realistic potentials for further increases in material production.





To further complicate matters, in many cases, some of those indicators would mark less industrialized societies as more materially progressive.


Certainly you'll admit, though, that less-industrialized societies are *typically* less productive than more-industrialized countries are -- you're choosing to emphasize the *exception* to the norm.





So, like, it's a pretty useless framework, in general terms. One can make specific statements, concerning judicial/traditional frameworks and particular types of production (Liberal democratic capitalist Canada produces more aluminum than the Six Nations Confederacy did), but positing either as "progressive" is a leap into (liberal) idealism.


I don't mean to mix-up *material* 'progress' (productivity) with *social* progress, so please don't do it yourself, either.

If you're going to throw out the concept of 'social progress' altogether then that makes a class analysis impossible, and precludes all motivation for class struggle from below -- if no social progress can be discerned then there's no improvement possible to fight for.





Hopefully this also addresses other points in your post.


You may have overlooked this one:





Like, there is clearly still plenty of "room" for capitalist development,





Please do elaborate here, in present-day terms.

[Popular Front of Judea]

The question that is still on the table is why I should read more of Marx -- given my apparent interest in his least desirable aspects.

There is a line between academics and working people. It may not be magical, but it is there. I cannot remember one time we talked about the crude historicism of some of Marx's writings in the cab of the delivery truck. Not once.


I'm the wrong person to ask about why people should read stuff, I'm afraid, I have a tendency to read everything (even at one point, a tumble-drier manual. You might say it was a bit of a dry read)

Joking aside, surely it's patronising to divide people into "intellectuals" and labourers. There's no magical dividing line between people with their high-falutin' books and theories and people who work for a living. I'd go as far as to say that I find that a pretty offensive concept. Let people read what they want. Personally, I think it's worth reading Marx in-depth whoever you are, it's nice to have an understanding of the back-stage workings of the manifesto, so to speak. Some people will find it heavy going - that's what companion texts and so on are for.

[L.A.P.]

The question that is still on the table is why I should read more of Marx -- given my apparent interest in his least desirable aspects.

There's more to Marx than Capital and that passage from A Contribution.

The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napolean - great work on political representation and class struggle

The German Ideology - theory of ideology and historical materialism

Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 - theory of alienation, even if it is his most Hegelian text. Just to name a few.

I don't even know where you get that you shouldn't read A Contribution, book has my favorite Marx quote: "It's not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness". It's just that passage in the OP warrants criticism.


There is a line between academics and working people. It may not be magical, but it is there.

It's purely symbolic, and reinforced by your presupposed compliance with it. Workers can be intellectuals (it may not pay the bills), academics can be incompetent quacks.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Perhaps someone can expand on what it means to "further develop"?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I thought the Labour Theory of Value, which is basically the theoretical core around which Marxist politics pivots, would be quite important. Apparently this is not the case for some people here.

Seriously without things like the LTV there is no justifiable way of determining capitalism as being inherently exploitative, which would basically destroy the arguments put forward by all manner of far leftist. I would argue that anti-capitalist economics are extremely important as far as far-left politics go, insofar as they are what justifies them in the first place. Otherwise, rightists and others can blame economic hardships on external forces and other scapegoats (like what has been done in practically every country on earth for the past few decades). One of the biggest pitfalls the modern left has encountered is the fact that they do not have an economic 'backbone' to support their reasoning and observations - just weird romanticist concepts of Keynesianism and other liberal fantasies.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

i don't think capitalism will ever dry up, run out, ect... all it takes is someone asking "what's in it for me?" or putting a price on something. it should be an honor to look out for eachother, not because of reward or recognition, but just to do it.

Idealism at its best. Capitalism exists because of greed, socialism will exist because of solidarity and kindness.

But whether or not capitalism is on its last leg is hard to foresee. I'd disagree with people saying definitely that capitalism is going to just be on decline from now on, that it's usefulness is all worn out, etc, because we really just don't know. People thought capitalism was on its way out in like the 1800's, that it had exhausted all it's resources. Then shit like the car came into existence and literally changed the whole landscape. We don't know if a new technology, a new method in production, new ways to use resources, etc, boost the economy and change the dynamics of the market to make capitalism thrive.

What's important, in my view, is the preconditions for communism exist, plenty of reason to call capitalism out of date and useless.

[blake 3:17]

Marx didnt think capitalism would shrivel up and die, then socialism would just sprout up in its place, he'd thought we's overthrow once it outlived its usefullness, which it did along time ago.
The way i see it there's only two ways the system will go, socialist revolution, or catastrophe. (Like nuclear war or an envionrmental crisis) its like rosa luxenburg said "socialism or barbarism."


I thought that way for a long long time.

Luxemburg's prediction was a long time before the establishment of any form of state socialism and Europe was on the brink of socialist revolution.

What if things don't go that way? What if there is a catastrophe but forms of socialism develop?

I have many criticisms of Rosa Luxemburg as well as a lot of admiration, but there's no way she could anticipate the past 100 years.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

The question that is still on the table is why I should read more of Marx -- given my apparent interest in his least desirable aspects.

There is a line between academics and working people. It may not be magical, but it is there. I cannot remember one time we talked about the crude historicism of some of Marx's writings in the cab of the delivery truck. Not once.

just because there currently exists a divide doesn't mean that that is the way it should be. There's nothing really stopping anyone from learning about Marx. I'll give you an example from my life, my grandad Jack was a dedicated socialist and read around the subject a lot, and he was a mechanic at Vauxhall's.

As to your reading Marx - read more if you want to, it's not really up to us to tell you what to read and how to think.

[ckaihatsu]

Idealism at its best. Capitalism exists because of greed, socialism will exist because of solidarity and kindness.

But whether or not capitalism is on its last leg is hard to foresee. I'd disagree with people saying definitely that capitalism is going to just be on decline from now on, that it's usefulness is all worn out, etc, because we really just don't know. People thought capitalism was on its way out in like the 1800's, that it had exhausted all it's resources. Then shit like the car came into existence and literally changed the whole landscape. We don't know if a new technology, a new method in production, new ways to use resources, etc, boost the economy and change the dynamics of the market to make capitalism thrive.

What's important, in my view, is the preconditions for communism exist, plenty of reason to call capitalism out of date and useless.


I think what may be missing here -- and from many discussions -- is a rundown of capitalism's inherent tendency to *crash*, meaning that it *has* exhausted all possibilities for further development, and is only extended *artificially* through the use of credit-type instruments, the raiding of public funds, slashing of wages, etc.

In other words, if the market is supposed to be such a paragon of 'invisible hand' economic coordination, there would be no good reason for *any* crash, since the world keeps turning, obviously, and prospective buyers and sellers continue to seek exchanges.

It's a libertarian / liberal misconception that 'innovation' is what's required to spark new demand and willingness to make purchases, since the system only regularly creates economic *inequality* and siphons off workers' buying power through the workings of finance and indebtedness.





On October 11, 2008, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that the world financial system was teetering on the "brink of systemic meltdown."[4]

The economic crisis caused countries to temporarily close their markets.




Beginning October 6 and lasting all week the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed lower for all 5 sessions. Volume levels were also record breaking. The Dow Jones industrial average fell over 1,874 points, or 18%, in its worst weekly decline ever on both a point and percentage basis. The S&P 500 fell more than 20%.[7] The week also set 3 top ten NYSE Group Volume Records with October 8 at #5, October 9 at #10, and October 10 at #1.[8]

It has been noted that recent daily stock market drops are overall nowhere near the severity experienced during the last stock market crash in 1987.[9]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_crash#Crash_of_2008.E2.80.932009


What matters to us politically is how far people will put up with capitalism's excesses -- including market crashes -- and still continue to look back to the market system for some kind of rehabilitated normality. What if, for example, the social price of retaining markets happens to be putting up with years and years of dictatorial-type rule -- ?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I think what may be missing here -- and from many discussions -- is a rundown of capitalism's inherent tendency to *crash*, meaning that it *has* exhausted all possibilities for further development, and is only extended *artificially* through the use of credit-type instruments, the raiding of public funds, slashing of wages, etc.

In other words, if the market is supposed to be such a paragon of 'invisible hand' economic coordination, there would be no good reason for *any* crash, since the world keeps turning, obviously, and prospective buyers and sellers continue to seek exchanges.

It's a libertarian / liberal misconception that 'innovation' is what's required to spark new demand and willingness to make purchases, since the system only regularly creates economic *inequality* and siphons off workers' buying power through the workings of finance and indebtedness.

What matters to us politically is how far people will put up with capitalism's excesses -- including market crashes -- and still continue to look back to the market system for some kind of rehabilitated normality. What if, for example, the social price of retaining markets happens to be putting up with years and years of dictatorial-type rule -- ?
I don't think capitalism has exhausted its development because of an economic crash, I mean really how many have there been throughout history? And capitalism is still here hundreds of years later by artificial means? What is artificial about capitalists slashing wages, raiding public funds, and the credit system, these have been going on since forever. Marx comments in Capital "National debts, i.e., the alienation of the state...marked with its stamp the capitalistic era...The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation. As with the stroke of an enchanter's wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and thus turns it into capital..." This activity is nothing new to the capitalist class. If there's one group of people who don't want to follow rules and prop themselves up with artificial means its the capitalist class. These "artificial" programs have become an integral part of capitalist society.

I don't know if new innovations are required to create new demand but to deny that innovations create new avenues for massive capital accumulation is just not true. And currently the capitalist class is sitting on some of the biggest piles of cash just waiting to spend it. Will it happen? I don't know, I'm not a fortune teller, but I'm not going to completely discount the possibility with the track record capitalism has.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't think capitalism has exhausted its development because of an economic crash, I mean really how many have there been throughout history?
The key questions are which kind of development and the issue of the difference between historical economic crises.

In case of development, if we mean technological development and the general development of the productive forces, the wall up against which capital arrives is automation driven reduction of necessary labor time. And as far as social development is concerned, the crucial issue here is that what does progress linearly is the amount of value destroyed (devalorization throug crisis and, in the last instance, war) which is necessary for the recuperation of the potential for profitable accumulation. In this sense, development necessarily entails great loss, one which will be borne out by the working class, in one way or another.

In this sense, the issue is what does it take to get out of this crisis. And I think, though I do not claim this for sure, that the process of devalorization is nowhere near complete by today, and that even worse consequences might come in the future. This is precisely the problem with the piles of cash you mention - they can't go anywhere, and if they do, they're lost. The conditions for this need to be created, and no state intervention, apart from war, can ensure that.


So, in short, there is much more than a one-sided question of potential for development of capitalism suggests. First of all, the issue is, at what cost and through which mechanisms will it be enabled.

[emilianozapata]

Capitalism crashes and then the public who are being exploited by it in the first place have to bail it out. What you are seeing in countries in the west especially in the UK and USA is the shift to a neofascist structure because the people in charge embrace corporatism, neoliberalism, and divide and rule tactics to keep the workers ignorant of the real causes to their plight in life. I don't think capitalism has exhausted all its possibilities in further development, it just crashes then recovers.

''fascism is a merge between corporate and state power.'' Benito Mussolini

[ckaihatsu]

I don't think capitalism has exhausted its development because of an economic crash, I mean really how many have there been throughout history? And capitalism is still here hundreds of years later by artificial means?


Sure, I get what you're saying -- you're arguing 'bourgeois social construction' here, and will say that they'll just invent some other shit for us to chase our tails over. But I'll maintain that capitalism's internal machinations have a logic of their own, one that leads to severe crashes, and there *may* arise a particular set of conditions in which the bourgeoisie just finds it too difficult to re-establish a familiar status quo, after a *very severe* market crash.

A 'subjective' revolutionary mass movement could also figure in here, with overall results for the better.





What is artificial about capitalists slashing wages, raiding public funds, and the credit system, these have been going on since forever. Marx comments in Capital "National debts, i.e., the alienation of the state...marked with its stamp the capitalistic era...The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation. As with the stroke of an enchanter's wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and thus turns it into capital..." This activity is nothing new to the capitalist class.


Of course -- your point is well-taken.





If there's one group of people who don't want to follow rules and prop themselves up with artificial means its the capitalist class. These "artificial" programs have become an integral part of capitalist society.

I don't know if new innovations are required to create new demand but to deny that innovations create new avenues for massive capital accumulation is just not true. And currently the capitalist class is sitting on some of the biggest piles of cash just waiting to spend it. Will it happen? I don't know, I'm not a fortune teller, but I'm not going to completely discount the possibility with the track record capitalism has.


Ehhhhh, there's no reason to try to worm the 'innovations' thing in -- it carries such a mystique and mythos with it that even revolutionary leftists (apparently) misplace the fact that the search for new markets, for profits, is what drives capitalism, and imperialism, and genocide, etc. 'Innovation' definitely takes a back-seat to whatever is simply more profitable, old or new.

[ckaihatsu]

As an additional point I'll mention that so many of your / our vaunted major technologies have been funded by *government research subsidies*, and/or are byproducts (spin-offs) of *military* applications -- not from stylish edgy grassroots science labs showcasing the best of the ever-intrepid private sector.

[Popular Front of Judea]

That of course includes the internet itself.


As an additional point I'll mention that so many of your / our vaunted major technologies have been funded by *government research subsidies*, and/or are byproducts (spin-offs) of *military* applications -- not from stylish edgy grassroots science labs showcasing the best of the ever-intrepid private sector.

[ckaihatsu]

That of course includes the internet itself.


Yup.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I agree with what you and LinksRadikal are saying ckaihatsu. Innovations in the system are not the only way to get out of crisis and it's not like new innovations are assured to save it(I mean innovations are part of the problem in the first place right). But this part of the equation always seems to be missing in these discussions about capitalism exhausting itself out into oblivion. I completely agree that capitalism holds inherit contradictions which cause crashes and that there could be a crash which makes it nearly impossible for capital to continue to accumulate.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree with what you and LinksRadikal are saying ckaihatsu.




Innovations in the system are not the only way to get out of crisis


If it worked, we would have a solid timeline to look back on, where we could point to some kind of 'masterstroke' that repeatedly saved the U.S. / world economy at some points in time. As history *actually* went, there was a virulent Great Depression that the country and world could not shake, until the U.S.'s war production effort for WWII went into full swing.





and it's not like new innovations are assured to save it


Correct.





(I mean innovations are part of the problem in the first place right).


It may be how you look at / define this -- if the innovation is primarily for material destruction, as with weaponry, then, yeah, that's a problem.





But this part of the equation always seems to be missing in these discussions about capitalism exhausting itself out into oblivion. I completely agree that capitalism holds inherit contradictions which cause crashes and that there could be a crash which makes it nearly impossible for capital to continue to accumulate.


Okay.

[Thirsty Crow]

I completely agree that capitalism holds inherit contradictions which cause crashes and that there could be a crash which makes it nearly impossible for capital to continue to accumulate.
I think we need to be clear on this: it depends solely on the working class if a crisis will make it nearly impossible for capital to continue to accumulate (plus a potential environmental catastrophe). On its own and without proletarian action, no crisis will ever be "the final one", automatically crippling capital.

[More Fire for the People]

Is your refrigerator running? If not, then yes—locally capitalism has exhausted itself.
Are the majority of refrigerators running? If yes, then no—the majority of capital is not exhausted.

Humor aside—and still present—there’s a lot of unclear language surrounding the statement ‘Capitalism exhausts its possibilities of development.’ Let us examine the presumptions of such a statement.
Nigh, there is an inexhaustible possibility of presuming this or that about capitalism but for the sake of examining the argument let us set up a few presumptions which might allow us to conclude that ‘capitalism exhausts its possibilities of development’.
First premises:
Let us define capitalism, exhaustion, possibilities, and development.
For the sake of introduction, I am consulting Webster’s’ a reliable source with personal deliberations to in-follow.




an economic system characterized by private (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/private%5b1%5d) or corporate ownership of capital (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capital) goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20market).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism


We’re in trouble. I’m in trouble, are you in trouble? Already the density of words turns my right-minded-self troublesomely unclear and painful. We, with Webster’s, are trying to narrow capitalism to a definable, almost quip-like, moment of explanation.
We have here an ‘economic system’. Compare this pragmatic use of the words-phrase ‘economic system’ with the words-phrase ‘natural system’ and ‘philosophical system’. What is system? (We will return to ‘economic’ momentarily) How do we know we two and three and so on are defining the word ‘system’ in cooperative ways?
Let’s breathe, and bask a li’l in its graciousness. ‘It’, hitherto summoning us a God and Nature and Universe, the benevolent ‘it’ of spiritual-material and mental-physical collections and absorptions, is in-defining ‘system’ in a peculiar way which is both intelligible and cooperative. Fortitude and fortune of this divine well-spring; we have innumerable methods of explicating the shared relationship to the word ‘system’.
1. The self-intuitive: a system is an irregular-regulation of momentary im-movements within a field of otherwise ‘in-systemic’.
2. A system is a routine of habits within a field of chaos or the ‘im-predictable’.
3. My favorite for the purpose of this conversation, a ‘system’ is a naming of allocation of possibilities within a field of impossibilities.
I’ll return to devour these explications in a little while. Examine the flaws of each and for which reason we will be delving into the Greco-Latin explication of the word ‘system’ when I return. Namely, the apparent definition of ‘system’ in one is the best for me yet negligibly escapes circular reasoning to the point that one must ask ‘Is definition one circular reasoning?’. Two, definition two is good but muddled. Three, definition three seems to explain ‘system’ but what is in reality phenomenal explication of possibility.
For now, I leave the Greek definition of ‘system’ available and inquire from others potential definitions of systems.




"the whole creation, the universe," from Late Latin systema "an arrangement, system," from Greek systema "organized whole, body," from syn- "together" (see syn- (http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=syn-&allowed_in_frame=0)) + root of histanai "cause to stand" from PIE root *sta- "to stand" (see stet (http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=stet&allowed_in_frame=0)). Meaning "set of correlated principles, facts, ideas, etc." first recorded 1630s. Meaning "animal body as an organized whole, sum of the vital processes in an organism" is recorded from 1680s; hence figurative phrase to get (something) out of one's system (1900). Computer sense of "group of related programs" is recorded from 1963. All systems go (1962) is from U.S. space program.


http://etymonline.com/?term=system


Together-cause-to-stand. Hint: System implicates the question or curiosity as to explain what in in the ‘togetherness’ of the universe stands and furthermore togetherness-stance in-systemic pollenates a set of principles, observations, facts, ideas, etc. surrounding the instances of togetherness. What is causing the stand within the togetherness of nature, economics, and philosophy?



Let us examine “An economic system”: within the field of togetherness—for which I would not call totality but ‘in-totalities’ , and too which have found similar shared relationship with the word ‘samsara’ in the Hindu-Buddhists traditions—there is worth noting and explication an in-compulsion to together-stances in households to thrive. Yes, a universal summons to which we may preliminarily comment a universal summons in households to thrive and through the capitalist system, to thrive capitally. I’ll return when I am done searching the refrigerator for food.

[ckaihatsu]

I think we need to be clear on this: it depends solely on the working class if a crisis will make it nearly impossible for capital to continue to accumulate (plus a potential environmental catastrophe). On its own and without proletarian action, no crisis will ever be "the final one", automatically crippling capital.


Granted, but at the same time I don't think that everyone in the world will remain on the bleachers, crossing their fingers while "the big one" touches down like a tornado, with everyone hoping for the best -- any historic crisis of capital simply makes *our* job easier, since people will be forced to turn away from typical reliance on the market system.

[CyM]

This debate completely misses the point Marx was making.

Capitalism has already past its limits as a progressive system capable of developing the productive forces. The first world war was proof of that. Marx did not live long enough to see it, but imperialism, the fusion between finance capital, the state, and the big trusts, is a sign that capitalism has outgrown its progressive phase.

Does this mean the end of new technologies and the end of any growth at all? Of course not! Did the stagnation of the slave system in roman empire mean no more new slaves? No! But the way the slave economy functioned was not the way it did in its youthful vigour, but as a sick man crawling to his death. The same is the case with capitalism since the first world war.

The war was a sign that they had reached the limits of the market on a world scale, divided up the earth, and could no longer avoid overproduction by expanding into new markets by competition. Instead, they had to smash into each other's markets, destroy surplus product and even human beings, etc...

Capitalism today is at a stage where, while new technologies are still produced, the profit motive requires that they be hobbled, handicapped. The internet is a perfect example, but there are others.

Anyways, comrades are making a mistake in this debate, they are confounding the systemic crisis of capitalism, which has been present since at least the first world war, ajd the cyclical crises of capitalism. Within a period of systemic crisis and decline, there can be periods of upswing and even boom. Even big booms like in the post war period. But these mudt eventually come to an end, and sooner or later, the systemic crisis reasserts itself.

Today's recession is so big, that this will become more evident than ever.

The capitalists can always, of course, find a way out of the cyclical crisis eventually, open up a new boom that temporarily hides the systemic illness. But at what cost? The last time it cost more than 9 million lives in a world war. No, that option is not immediately open to them in the age of nukes. They will have to go the old fashioned way, massive austerity, for a decade or two, as the head of Canada's national bank said.

This is a perspective for a decade or two of class struggle.