Did Capitalism benefit society (in Europe after Feudalism)?

[Erinr2013]

I'm going to fumble a lot trying to explain my question so please bare with me.

I'm just going to give a few examples:
Someone brought up in my other thread how wage labour affected relations between men and women, which is a negative affect.

The working did not have to answer to a king and the feudal hierarchy was completely destroyed due to capitalism, which is a positive affect.


Do you think Capitalism had more or a negative or positive affect on society?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Capitalism, at one point, was a progressive system (the development of industry, doing away with feudalism, etc.) The progress made by capitalism was absolutely necessary to even conceive of a possible future communist system. However, capitalism has outlived its historically progressive role, and therefore is no longer necessary nor desirable.

[Aleister Granger]

Before capitalism, people were certain that kings were God-men and that serfdom and slavery was God's righteous path.
What Western capitalism did in its earlier days is, at the very least, to be commended: turned kings into nothing more than fat greedy old men. Of course it made its very own fat greedy old men soon enough. :glare:

[Blake's Baby]

Capitalism, at one point, was a progressive system (the development of industry, doing away with feudalism, etc.) The progress made by capitalism was absolutely necessary to even conceive of a possible future communist system. However, capitalism has outlived its historically progressive role, and therefore is no longer necessary nor desirable.

We'll make a Left Comm of you yet.

I wouldn't say it was impossible to conceive of a communist society though; there were plenty of conceptions of communism going back to the dawn of history. It's just impossible to bring it about in any meaningful way before the advent and development of capitalism.

[argeiphontes]

I suppose capitalism is some realization of Liberalism, so it was indeed useful. I don't think anything was necessary though, that's dialectical materialism. In which case, how could I be sure that capitalism's usefulness was indeed over?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, of course. Capitalism was a huge improvement, in the sense that it was/is the first economic system in history that has delivered long-run economic growth, a phenomenon that simply didn't exist before say the 16th century, really.

The result of this has been the biggest rise in living standards in history, a corollary of technical innovation, scientific and medical innovation, and related to these, enlightenment thought.

Which is why I think we are probably correct to say that a communist society would probably have been impossible without the various advances that capitalism has brought us over the past few centuries.

[cyu]

Did slavery benefit society?

We could have executed the heathens, but instead of killing them, we enslaved them. Thus it was in our interest to ensure their biological well-being, which is a positive effect.

Do you think slavery had more of a negative or positive effect on society?

If you give society the choice of being either shot in the head or peppersprayed in the face, even if they beg for the pepperspray, that doesn't mean it was good for society.

[Blake's Baby]

As opposed to, killing everyone? probbly positive in that light. Not good for the slaves, to be sure (better than being dead) but overall I think its possible to say that Antique Slave civilisation had some positives.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Personally, I'm of the mind that "progress" represents the worst of Hegelian idealist baggage in Marx. Whatever markers one may chose (steel output, life expectancy, etc., let alone "economic growth"), they remain ideological rather than objective. Trying to establish whether or not a means of production is "better" or "worse" isn't the sort of thing that we should pretend is possible in material terms.

Further, capitalism is premised on forms of accumulation that aren't strictly capitalist in the sense of wage labour, and certainly don't include the rise in "living standards" (eh?) associated with capitalism. To be explicit, there are more slaves in the world now than there were in the era of the transatlantic slave trade (my source for that is George Caffentzis, speaking on a panel at Dalhousie University, which was recorded but isn't yet online). So, when we talk about "capitalism" we have to talk about real existing capitalism - which is premised on all sorts of "pre-capitalist" forms of violence and exploitation that can't really be called "pre-capitalist" at all, insofar as they remain fundamentally necessary. Further, they largely exclude those within them from the "benefits" of capitalism, in some cases leaving people worse by almost any marker you care to chose.

As for its relationship to the possibility of communism, I think that's still yet to be decided: so far, the only definitively communist societies of any longevity have been pre-industrial, and usually outside of the "progressive" European development of "slavery-feudalism-capitalism" that many Marxists (following Hegelian idealism) seem to take for granted. As for communist moments - they've appeared from the German peasant wars through 1917 (in a largely agrarian Russia!), so positing developed capitalism as a precondition for communism seems counter-intuitive (unless it's the "magic bullet" that has been thus far missing?).

So, is capitalism negative or positive?
It doesn't matter - it's history. Our ethical judgement won't change it.
Rather, we should be asking "How did capitalism happen?" "What were the contradictions and confrontations that lead to its development?" "What 'doors' to communism did capitalism close, and which did it open up?"

[argeiphontes]

Which is why I think we are probably correct to say that a communist society would probably have been impossible without the various advances that capitalism has brought us over the past few centuries.

That's probably true. How could you expect people to act in a way conscious of their situation and of history unless a certain level of advancement is reached? That level isn't encouraged in feudalism because it's not in the ruling class's interests.

[#FF0000]

Like TGDU, I'm hesitant to say it was "progressive" and even moreso to say "good". If it was progressive, it was in the sense that it allowed for far, far greater production than previously possible (like, exponentially greater)

[Blake's Baby]

It was technically progressive, in that it allowed greater wealth to be produced with less work, thereby allowing for the possibility of socialism; it was socially progressive in that it posited the idea of general freedom, and (for the most part) removed the idea of people belonging to other people.

It ceased to be socially progressive a long time ago (progressive against the vestiges of feudalism is not the same as progressive compared to the possibility of socialism) and its technical progress is more and more destroying the planet (pollution, nuclear energy/weapons, overfishing, desertification, etc).

One might almost say it's decadent.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I hope you'll excuse my line-by-line approach to this, but taken as a whole it's too ideological - too much the "big lie" of enlightenment liberalism - to even talk about. That said, I feel like your conclusion (that capitalism is increasingly decadent) is solid, so please consider my criticism accordingly.


It was technically progressive, in that it allowed greater wealth to be produced with less work [. . .]

Wait, what's "wealth"? How is it measured? Kilogrammes? Dollars?
Secondly, what do you mean "with less work"? Where has capitalism decreased the working hours of people relative to pre-capitalist social forms? Also, do you include reproductive labour in this formulation?


[. . .] thereby allowing for the possibility of socialism[. . .]

Oh? This seems like conjecture, since, thus far, capitalism doesn't seem to have realized the possibility of socialism any moreso than any pre-capitalist forms.


t was socially progressive in that it posited the idea of general freedom, and (for the most part) removed the idea of people belonging to other people.

For starters, I don't know how relationships of re/production "posit" things - but I admit that I'm maybe making a semantic cheap-shot. In any case, capitalism (as I mentioned above) hardly "removed" the idea of people owning others, since in the era of global capitalism, slavery not only persists, but has proliferated. Secondly, where this isn't the case, it has reframed the ownership of humans in terms of relationships of debt, where the whole of a person's means of material reproduction is the property of others. That is to say, capitalism has exacerbated the ownership of life in real terms by overcoming its formal limits.


It ceased to be socially progressive a long time ago (progressive against the vestiges of feudalism is not the same as progressive compared to the possibility of socialism) and its technical progress is more and more destroying the planet (pollution, nuclear energy/weapons, overfishing, desertification, etc).

One might almost say it's [I]decadent.

I will say that I more-or-less agree on this point. Whether or not capitalism was "progressive" in ethical/material terms vis-a-vis feudalism, it was the result of real contradictions within feudalism that were beginning to express themselves in increasingly sharp class struggle. I think we can see the contradictions within capitalism increasingly beginning to render it untenable not only politically but ecologically. Decadent is absolutely apt.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

echhhh I'm not sure whether we should look at the rise of capitalism in such simple terms as "was it good or bad". (hell, there's basically nothing we can look at like that when you get down to it. Unfortunately, nothing is that easy. The Garbage Disposal Unit has already outlined more or less what I feel on this matter:


So, is capitalism negative or positive?
It doesn't matter - it's history. Our ethical judgement won't change it.
Rather, we should be asking "How did capitalism happen?" "What were the contradictions and confrontations that lead to its development?" "What 'doors' to communism did capitalism close, and which did it open up?"

On a more personal note, I'm about to embark on an academic journey that asks those kinds of questions. I'm studying and writing my dissertation on what is arguably the first "bourgeois revolution" in England in the 1640's and the effects that had in Europe (and across the Atlantic in the Americas) through the rest of the 17th century. Something like that, anyway.

[Blake's Baby]

I hope you'll excuse my line-by-line approach to this, but taken as a whole it's too ideological - too much the "big lie" of enlightenment liberalism - to even talk about. That said, I feel like your conclusion (that capitalism is increasingly decadent) is solid, so please consider my criticism accordingly.



Wait, what's "wealth"? How is it measured? Kilogrammes? Dollars?
Secondly, what do you mean "with less work"? Where has capitalism decreased the working hours of people relative to pre-capitalist social forms? Also, do you include reproductive labour in this formulation?...

By concentrating capital and technically innovating capitalism has provided things that would have been impossible to realise under earlier social forms. Even if the Romans knew of steam engines and railways and water-mills and coal power, even if the factory system was developed in 12th century Italy, it was not until the 18th century that the generalisation of these techniques and practices and inventions began to produce suffiently to raise the real prospect of socialist production - production for real human need.

What is 'wealth' in this context? That which is produced which has the potential to satisfy human needs.



...
Oh? This seems like conjecture, since, thus far, capitalism doesn't seem to have realized the possibility of socialism any moreso than any pre-capitalist forms...

Much as powered flight was impossible, until it happened?

Socialism depends on the productive capacity to fulfill human needs. Capitalism has provided the productive capacity to do that. It hasn't provided socialism for sure, it's up to us to do that.



...
For starters, I don't know how relationships of re/production "posit" things - but I admit that I'm maybe making a semantic cheap-shot...

No, you're right, it was of course the ideologues of the bourgeoisie who did that.


... In any case, capitalism (as I mentioned above) hardly "removed" the idea of people owning others, since in the era of global capitalism, slavery not only persists, but has proliferated...

I'm not sure this is true. Almost the entire population of Europe was at one time more-or-less 'unfree'; if not formally slaves, then serfs, legally unable to leave the land, and though not chattels like furniture, were legally little better than animals. Now there are far fewer people in a similar situation.


... Secondly, where this isn't the case, it has reframed the ownership of humans in terms of relationships of debt, where the whole of a person's means of material reproduction is the property of others. That is to say, capitalism has exacerbated the ownership of life in real terms by overcoming its formal limits...

I don't know what debt levels were like in the Middle Ages so I'll have to defer to you on this.


...
I will say that I more-or-less agree on this point. Whether or not capitalism was "progressive" in ethical/material terms vis-a-vis feudalism, it was the result of real contradictions within feudalism that were beginning to express themselves in increasingly sharp class struggle. I think we can see the contradictions within capitalism increasingly beginning to render it untenable not only politically but ecologically. Decadent is absolutely apt.

The implication then would be that there was a period of feudalism which was 'decadent' (because of the contradictions) and that capitalism was therefore (before its own contradictions multilied to crisis-point) a less crisis-ridden/decadent system.

I think this qualifies as 'progressive'. Progressive primarily for the bourgeoisie to be sure. But I think progressive for the people who didn't starve to death every 7th year, weren't bought and sold as goods or along with bundles of land, who saw their standards of living increasing (very very slowly), and were marginally less often subject to the whims of their feudal 'betters'.

[Rafiq]

We'll make a Left Comm of you yet.

I wouldn't say it was impossible to conceive of a communist society though; there were plenty of conceptions of communism going back to the dawn of history. It's just impossible to bring it about in any meaningful way before the advent and development of capitalism.

The ideology of communism is exclusive to capitalist relations. The conception of a historical communist tendency that reaches back to the ancient world is ideological as such.

[Blake's Baby]

Are you saying that there were no 'communist believers' before 1500 or 1700 or 1850 or something? I've seen documents that disprove that assertion, there are all sorts of texts that were written before the establishment of capitalist society that posit the idea of communism.

I'm not claiming that it would be possible to implement communist society before capitalism developed productive capacity and the proletariat. I'm saying that communism as an idea (a utopian ideal if you like) pre-existed capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm going to fumble a lot trying to explain my question so please bare with me.

I'm just going to give a few examples:
Someone brought up in my other thread how wage labour affected relations between men and women, which is a negative affect.

The working did not have to answer to a king and the feudal hierarchy was completely destroyed due to capitalism, which is a positive affect.

Do you think Capitalism had more or a negative or positive affect on society?

I think an issue with the question might be in how we define society; better for whom?

As others have said, capitalism is "progressive" in a sense that it is a superior system to feudalism in terms of increasing wealth and surplusses. This isn't a moral question of "is it good" or is "life good" under capitalism, it's just that as systems, capitalism is more economically dynamic and in certain ways less prone to rebellions or aristocratic feuds than feudalism (but capitalism also creates bigger wars and its own kinds of rebellions).

In other abstract ways capitalism created new possibilities which then may have generally allowed people of different classes new opportunities. Laborers were no longer tied to the land which is both disorienting in some ways, but also frees laborers to do many different kinds of tasks and potentially live in many different kinds of ways (rather than family farming because it was a necessity). So people could have more mobility and diversity in lived experiences. Living standards are also better now, although I think this mainly comes as a result of class struggle (and working class movements), not something that "naturally" comes in a trickle-down form from the system.

But this view of change is also problematic because I think it turns people into "things" of history. On a less abstract level, the rise of capitalism, as experienced by laboring masses (workers, craftspeople, pesants) and the colonized, happens as Marx described: dripping with blood and dirt.

Capitalism did not just come from struggle with feudal aristocrats, it also meant destroying and upending the lives and customs of European pesants and people in other parts of the world and people fought this process all along the way (and still do where capitalism got a late foothold). So pesants fought the privitization of common lands and being thrown off of estates, they were not "liberated" from feudalism in most cases though because the landless pesants still had to have a "master" or "lord" to claim them and so the lives of the new proletarians were repressed a lot through laws controlling their movement and often compelling them to sell labor directly (whereas now it's "normal" - we have no choice because most of us only know capitalism couldn't find land or even if we couldn't grow enough spuds to feed outselves).

And in many ways people often preferred and defended their rights to the commons and the right to their own land and not to have to search for work or be put into service. In the US where there wasn't an established pesantry, it was often fathers who'd sell their daughters to mills to work, it was immigrants who couldn't get their own land who became prols. At that time life in cities as a worker wasn't a better situation than being a small farmer.

So I think in the experience for regular people, capitalism is profoundly contradictory because it creates new possibilities and the potential to do things like feed everyone, free masses of people from being stuck farming for generations with few other options, it creates the possibility for new urban living arrangements where women can labor and support themselves. But at the same time, the need to ensure a working class and the need to generate profits by exploiting that working class also denies people these same possibilities.

[Rafiq]

Are you saying that there were no 'communist believers' before 1500 or 1700 or 1850 or something? I've seen documents that disprove that assertion, there are all sorts of texts that were written before the establishment of capitalist society that posit the idea of communism.

I'm not claiming that it would be possible to implement communist society before capitalism developed productive capacity and the proletariat. I'm saying that communism as an idea (a utopian ideal if you like) pre-existed capitalism.

Our disagreement then, lies with how we actually define the 'idea of communism'.

[Blake's Baby]

OK. If you don't think utopian yearnings for an egalitarian society count as the 'idea of communism' then we're probably in agreement, though I think your definitions are strange.

[Rafiq]

OK. If you don't think utopian yearnings for an egalitarian society count as the 'idea of communism' then we're probably in agreement, though I think your definitions are strange.

You're missing the point. Ideas are not eternal forces pervasive in societies regardless of their social relations in which men are mere instruments of their will. No matter the consciously, or rational similarities between Communism and what you may find in the ancient times (or in any other time before the proletariat existed) , they are derived from very different class contexts and are therefore very different ideas after all. The ideological structure of each according ideology is completely different. Even if they espouse their goal to be all things in common, that's just rhetoric, it doesn't say anything about the specific ideological foundations of said movements. Communism is as old as the proletariat is and no older. The rest is not the Communism we identify with but something else entirely.