Is the notion of a "final crisis" justified?

[IBleedRed]

Is the idea of a "final crisis" in capitalism justified? Every major crisis has seen radicals claim "this is the big one", and every time capitalism has rebounded and even continued to grow (after the Depression for example).

Is capitalism always going to be able to adapt? Are our notions of a "Ragnarok/Rapture of capitalism" unfounded, or is there a genuine empirical foundation supporting the prediction that capitalism will experience a point of no return?

[Manic Impressive]

Are you asking whether capitalism will collapse? If so the answer is no, it will have to be pushed. Capitalism will always adapt and change to whatever best sustains profit. The only 'point of no return' is when the market and the state have been abolished and is therefore no longer capitalism. So no while the law of value exists there will always be a 'point of return' for capitalism.

I think you could say that when a majority of the world's working class have reached the conclusion that the market system must go; that would be a point of no return for capitalism.

[Captain Red]

The only reason they managed to get out of the last finical crisis was by taking huge amounts of loans the economy today isn't stable it will probably collapse soon

But if it doesn't it will probably be at cost of the environment anyway, you can't save the environment and the economy at the same time. And when the environment collapses the economy will soon follow

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, obviously, the question is just what is understood as that finality. The banal and correct understanding would run along the lines of claiming that the social crisis preceding and culminating in social revolution and the creation of communist social relations is the final crisis, but that's not what is meant by such concepts:

1) What is meant is that at some point capital ought to find it impossible to enter another cycle of accumulation - the big one, the collapse. As such, this represents a dangerous lack of understanding of the dynamics of capital accumulation and potentials for renewing the whole process (as well as conditions which are necessary, including state action and so on).

2) This could be reinterpreted in the light of imminent ecological disaster and/or an energy crisis which would entail mass death toll and most probably the creation of other kinds of social formation, but probably still class based. This obviously suffers from some problems but IMO it is not to be rejected outright - but that is because it covers real problems and processes that are completely alien to the former view.

The former is to be definitely rejected.


Is capitalism always going to be able to adapt?I think it's best to ask yourself what is this capitalism that needs to adapt? How has it historically adapted and at what costs?

[IBleedRed]

LinksRadical, do you mean to say that capitalism can go on indefinitely in that it can address its internal contradictions, but that external factors may pose a serious threat?

So capitalism can never bring itself down?

[Slavic]

LinksRadical, do you mean to say that capitalism can go on indefinitely in that it can address its internal contradictions, but that external factors may pose a serious threat?

So capitalism can never bring itself down?

Capitalism will never bring itself down for its own sake. Marx predicted that capitalism would cease not because its inherent contradictions would produce such an outcome, but because its inherent contradictions increases the chance of a revolutionary situation developing.

As long as there is an individual who is directly profiting from the labor of others, there will exist in some form a type of capitalism. Although the recent crises has been said to "severely hamper" the economy, it is untrue that is has "severely hampered" capitalism. Many capitalists generated enormous profits from this crisis. Capitalism is alive and well.

[IBleedRed]

Capitalism will never bring itself down for its own sake. Marx predicted that capitalism would cease not because its inherent contradictions would produce such an outcome, but because its inherent contradictions increases the chance of a revolutionary situation developing.

As long as there is an individual who is directly profiting from the labor of others, there will exist in some form a type of capitalism. Although the recent crises has been said to "severely hamper" the economy, it is untrue that is has "severely hampered" capitalism. Many capitalists generated enormous profits from this crisis. Capitalism is alive and well.

Do the crises get worse and worse each time? If capitalism persists, does it inevitably lead to a growth in the gap between rich and poor (for example, among other things)?

If capitalism persists indefinitely with growth across all income groups, and with only mild crises, then that makes it very likely it can keep going right along for a long time.

[cyu]

If capitalism persists, does it inevitably lead to a growth in the gap between rich and poor (for example, among other things)?

Capitalism is sometimes checked by democracy - assuming capitalists haven't already corrupted the democracy they infect. There are also times in which leftist revolution in various parts of the world puts enough fear into capitalists that they allow more equality into the "democracies" they rule. From http://www.revleft.com/vb/your-favorite-political-t171310/index21.html

http://i.imgur.com/kmfHB16.png

[Thirsty Crow]

LinksRadical, do you mean to say that capitalism can go on indefinitely in that it can address its internal contradictions, but that external factors may pose a serious threat?
I'm not claiming anything about indefinite periods of time and any such thing.

Addressing the barriers to further, profitable accumulation - that happened, historically. Any reasoning about whether it can happen again must be bound to the concrete situation at hand, the concrete situation faced by global capital. There is no need to abstract from this.

Apart from that, I don't think this internal-external stuff makes sense. What is external to the historically produced world that gets its shorthand in "capitalism"? A meteor hit, perhaps. But I didn't state that it is impossible to abolish capital. And this needs to be done "internally", so to speak.


So capitalism can never bring itself down?This vague and metaphorical way of speaking makes it really hard to actually understand what you mean.
To go along with this rhetoric of bringing down - capital can bring itself down, and it can bring itself up again, but it will necessarily go down yet again when the conditions for that second cycle of profitable accumulations cease to exist - and all depends on the activity of the global working class.

Why don't you tell us what do you envision as that collapse, that capital bringing itself down?

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

if there is a "final crisis" for capitalism it will be one of two things imo.

A: the crisis which happens to be chronologically closest to revolution, or

B: the crisis representing capitalism exhausting the resources it must consume to maintain constant economic expansion, resulting in widespread environmental destruction and the degradation of human society.

obviously I subscribe to the whole "socialism or barbarism" shebang, in my mind an important aspect of revolution is that it removes the condition (e.g capitalism) under which situation B seems to be a looming inevitability.

A crisis won't bring about the end of capitalism as we talk about it (i.e the survivable end) alone, without revolutionary working-class movement to overthrow it it will stubbornly stagger onwards until the bitter end. However, the crises of capitalism arguably do represent windows of opportunity to foster working-class consciousness as the failings of capitalism as a system appear more obvious to a wider group of people.

[Red Shaker]

Marxism is not deterministic. Capitalism has a tendency to crisis. These crises can be an economic one or they can be a war. In either, they enhance to possibility of building a revolutionary movement. If the movement is not strong enough to defeat the capitalist, they will recover and rebuild their system, thus there is no final crisis as long as capitalism continues to exist.

[IBleedRed]

Will we ever get a crisis as bad as the Great Depression again? Or are the worst crises now sufficiently kept at bay by various institutions and policies?

[Axiomasher]

Is the idea of a "final crisis" in capitalism justified? Every major crisis has seen radicals claim "this is the big one", and every time capitalism has rebounded and even continued to grow (after the Depression for example).

Is capitalism always going to be able to adapt? Are our notions of a "Ragnarok/Rapture of capitalism" unfounded, or is there a genuine empirical foundation supporting the prediction that capitalism will experience a point of no return?

The forces of capitalism have rescued themselves from the recent/current crisis peak through the wholesale transfer of public monies (i.e. the bailouts) and by pushing harder at the privatisation of what has remained of publicly-funded/organised institutions/services. In the UK, for example, the capitalist class are doing their best to do away with all but the minimum of welfare provision. But next time, presumably, they won't be able to pull the exact same tricks as all these things will be spent, there'll be no public services to cut down on to fund bailouts. I can't help think that the next 'round' will start to genuinely impact on the next social class on the ladder, the middle-class. There's only so much squeezing of the poor they can undertake before it becomes counterproductive and too expensive to keep a lid on their response.

[tallguy]

Is the idea of a "final crisis" in capitalism justified? Every major crisis has seen radicals claim "this is the big one", and every time capitalism has rebounded and even continued to grow (after the Depression for example).

Is capitalism always going to be able to adapt? Are our notions of a "Ragnarok/Rapture of capitalism" unfounded, or is there a genuine empirical foundation supporting the prediction that capitalism will experience a point of no return?It's game over for capitalism. Marx was right about all its inherent contradictions. He was only wrong about the timing because of the capacity for physical growth allowing dislodged workers to find new employment in new sectors as they arose. However, we have now hit the resource buffers at a global level meaning that growth is essentially over. In, fact the reverse is heading our way, at least in terms of the global average capacity for it. Consequently, all of the intractable contradictions that Marx initially identified are finally coming home to roost. Either we return to pre-capitalist serfdom or we get socialism. Now is the time for the left to get its shit together. Instead all I see is petty in-fighting and an obsession with identity politics and the far-end-of-a-fart nuances of linguistic niceties.

It's fucking pathetic.

[Axiomasher]

It's game over for capitalism. Marx was right about all its inherent contradictions. He was only wrong about the timing because of the capacity for physical growth allowing dislodged workers to find new employment in new sectors as they arose. However, we have now hit the resource buffers at a global level. Consequently, all of the intractable contradictions that Marx initially identified are finally coming home to roost. Either we return to pre-capitalist serfdom or we get socialism. Now is the time for the left to get its shit together. Instead all I see is petty in-fighting and an obsession with identity politics and the far-end-of-a-fart nuances of linguistic niceties.

It's fucking pathetic.

There's also a reasonable argument that the two World Wars of the twentieth century went some way to interrupt capitalism's self-destructive trajectory with the immediate post-WWII decades in particular creating a false impression of 'normal' capitalism in a continued 'advance'.

[RedWaves]

Is the idea of a "final crisis" in capitalism justified? Every major crisis has seen radicals claim "this is the big one", and every time capitalism has rebounded and even continued to grow (after the Depression for example).

Is capitalism always going to be able to adapt? Are our notions of a "Ragnarok/Rapture of capitalism" unfounded, or is there a genuine empirical foundation supporting the prediction that capitalism will experience a point of no return?


No, it will just go through these phases like it always does. Weather that be Fascism or other types of pure Capitalism, it's never going to just fully collapse.

Capitalism adapts and survives through any means. The only way to destroy it is by a revolution by the people. A true Leftist Revolution and we are not going to see that in America since most people still have this cold war brain from all the propaganda they grew up with.

[cyu]

Will we ever get a crisis as bad as the Great Depression again? Or are the worst crises now sufficiently kept at bay by various institutions and policies?


The more power that is concentrated in fewer hands, the more likely that extremely stupid ideas and policies of one form or another will follow - since everyone else will become more afraid to challenge or even question those in power.

Capitalism allows for this to happen because there's nothing inherent about capitalism that prevents one person from becoming obscenely wealthy while impoverishing everyone else - and as this allows the capitalists to gain massive power, it also discourages people from calling out their stupidity - possibly leading to even worse catastrophes than previously thought possible.