Capitalism in One Country

[RedKobra]

This may have been asked before but...

In a situation in which the European, Asian, African, South & Central American & Oceanic continents had gone socialist/communist would an island of capitalism, i.e - the United States be able to survive. If so what would this mean for the US & what might it mean for the Global Socialist Republic?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

No. Every country is dependant upon each other in a capitalist system, no country is self-sufficient autarky. How could the U.S. get all of its natural resources to survive if not from other countries? How could it rebuild its entire economy to self-sufficiency when it specifically relies on manufacturing and other services in third-world countries? When international trade ceases to exist or more specifically when commodity-production ceases to exist in the rest of the world, the island of capitalism is then destined to be consumed by the flames of the revolution, it couldn't survive for a second. It is equivalent to the entire world imposing an absolute embargo on the U.S. or any other country.

In exactly the same way as socialism can't survive in a single country, so can't capitalism. Modes of production must be global or else they can't exist.

[Palmares]

I think the history of ecocide, genocide, and general destruction of indigenous peoples the world over is testament to the fact that the progress inherent in capitalism necessitates expansionism: imperialism/colonialism.

And on top of this systemic acquisition of resources, such expansion also necessitates more manufacturers, and thus consumers. Ad infinitum (i.e. infinite growth).

Let's leave no stone unturned. :blackA:

[Tim Cornelis]

In exactly the same way as socialism can't survive in a single country, so can't capitalism. Modes of production must be global or else they can't exist.

That's not true. You're projecting capitalism as universal (typical of capitalist ideology -- time for a struggle session comrade).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/World_1000_BCE.png

[Kill all the fetuses!]

That's not true. You're projecting capitalism as universal (typical of capitalist ideology -- time for a struggle session comrade).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/World_1000_BCE.png

I neither understand your objection, nor the picture. Care to explain briefly?

[RedKobra]

I neither understand your objection, nor the picture. Care to explain briefly?

It looks fairly self explanatory to me. There are enough sources of material resources to easily sustain an, admittedly, basic capitalist society. As long as there are citizens with the capital to own the means of production then the people of the America's could easily be put to work as wage labourers.

[jullia]

In exactly the same way as socialism can't survive in a single country, so can't capitalism. Modes of production must be global or else they can't exist.

Cold war show that capitalism can survive even if they don't control all the country.

[Tim Cornelis]

I neither understand your objection, nor the picture. Care to explain briefly?

The blue are Ancient mode of production, yellow is primitive communism, green, orange, and purple are neolithic garden chiefdoms and tribal societies (transitioning societies). The Ancient mode of production existed for an enduring amount of time without being global.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

The blue are Ancient mode of production, yellow is primitive communism, green, orange, and purple are neolithic garden chiefdoms and tribal societies (transitioning societies). The Ancient mode of production existed for an enduring amount of time without being global.

Ah, yes, that's was very sloppy way of putting things on my part as I was thinking strictly in terms of socialism and current global capitalism. I stand corrected on this one.

[Blake's Baby]

Capitalism developed in one (or maybe more than one) country, and did just dandy. It eventually conquered the world, destroying feudalism and a whole bunch of other non-dynamic economic forms. But capitalism is incredibly dynamic. It has the ability to compromise other economic forms it comes into contact with - it's like an economic virus. Introduce capitalist relations into feudalism and unless constrained, before you know what's happening the traders are buying the aristocracy because they have massive amounts of wealth.

This is of course what happened, in England and the Low Countries, France, Italy and parts of Germany. Cities built on trade and 'merchant princes' in the late medieval/early modern period.

But socialist revolution doesn't proceed on the same basis. The rising bourgeoisie was able to rise to economic prominence because it was relatively unbothered by the aristocracy, who were too busy waging class war with the peasantry. The peasants were an exploited class, but not a revolutionary class. The bourgeoisie were a revolutionary class, but not an exploited class - indeed, they were an exploiting class.

The proletariat is a revolutionary class and an exploited class. This means it doesn't have reserves of another class's labour to draw on in building its power (unlike the bourgeoisie). So it can't build its own power-base 'inside' the capitalist system, unlike the way the bourgeoisie built its power-base in feudalism. The proletarian revolution must be total, because capitalism has become total; and it must be a political revolution that leads to an economic revolution, unlike capitalism which was an economic revolution that led to political revolutions.

What does all this mean? First that the OP doesn't make sense. If Europe, Africa, Oceania, Asia and South America have 'gone socialist' but North America hasn't, then Europe, Africa, Oceania, Asia and South America haven't 'gone socialist'. The revolution may be going on there but its not over, because the revolution isn't over until capitalism is defeated, and if it's continuing in North America, it hasn't been defeated.

But, were such a situation to happen, my gut reaction is that if Europe, Africa, Oceania, Asia and South America had fallen to the proletarian revolution, then North America would follow. I think once 95% of the world's population is taking part in the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, the other 5% would be hard-pressed to keep capitalism going for long.

[RedKobra]

Capitalism developed in one (or maybe more than one) country, and did just dandy. It eventually conquered the world, destroying feudalism and a whole bunch of other non-dynamic economic forms. But capitalism is incredibly dynamic. It has the ability to compromise other economic forms it comes into contact with - it's like an economic virus. Introduce capitalist relations into feudalism and unless constrained, before you know what's happening the traders are buying the aristocracy because they have massive amounts of wealth.

This is of course what happened, in England and the Low Countries, France, Italy and parts of Germany. Cities built on trade and 'merchant princes' in the late medieval/early modern period.

But socialist revolution doesn't proceed on the same basis. The rising bourgeoisie was able to rise to economic prominence because it was relatively unbothered by the aristocracy, who were too busy waging class war with the peasantry. The peasants were an exploited class, but not a revolutionary class. The bourgeoisie were a revolutionary class, but not an exploited class - indeed, they were an exploiting class.

The proletariat is a revolutionary class and an exploited class. This means it doesn't have reserves of another class's labour to draw on in building its power (unlike the bourgeoisie). So it can't build its own power-base 'inside' the capitalist system, unlike the way the bourgeoisie built its power-base in feudalism. The proletarian revolution must be total, because capitalism has become total; and it must be a political revolution that leads to an economic revolution, unlike capitalism which was an economic revolution that led to political revolutions.

What does all this mean? First that the OP doesn't make sense. If Europe, Africa, Oceania, Asia and South America have 'gone socialist' but North America hasn't, then Europe, Africa, Oceania, Asia and South America haven't 'gone socialist'. The revolution may be going on there but its not over, because the revolution isn't over until capitalism is defeated, and if it's continuing in North America, it hasn't been defeated.

But, were such a situation to happen, my gut reaction is that if Europe, Africa, Oceania, Asia and South America had fallen to the proletarian revolution, then North America would follow. I think once 95% of the world's population is taking part in the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, the other 5% would be hard-pressed to keep capitalism going for long.

Well the last paragraph was the essence of my "what if" scenario. "What if" the proletariat owned the means of production in 95% of the world but the US was an enclave of Capitalism. Its improbable, definitely, but an interesting thought experiment.

[Pancakes Rühle]

Well the last paragraph was the essence of my "what if" scenario. "What if" the proletariat owned the means of production in 95% of the world but the US was an enclave of Capitalism. Its improbable, definitely, but an interesting thought experiment.

Proletarian "ownership" of the means of production doesn't negate capitalism. I think that's a pretty common misunderstanding for a lot of self proclaimed Marxists. You have to look not at the juristic notion of ownership, but the totality of the social relations of production.

[Tim Cornelis]

Proletarian "ownership" of the means of production doesn't negate capitalism. I think that's a pretty common misunderstanding for a lot of self proclaimed Marxists. You have to look not at the juristic notion of ownership, but the totality of the social relations of production.

Wouldn't "proletarian ownership" not simply be the legal expression of the social relationships of production?

[RedKobra]

Wouldn't "proletarian ownership" not simply be the legal expression of the social relationships of production?

Juist.

[RedWorker]

The proletarian revolution must be total, because capitalism has become total; and it must be a political revolution that leads to an economic revolution, unlike capitalism which was an economic revolution that led to political revolutions.

Tim Cornelis was recently saying that the bourgeois state can't be taken over; rather, a new workers' state must be put into place. But this workers' state can't be 'created', rather it must be the result of certain economic relations. So what do you mean by political revolution here, and would the economic revolution not have to take place first?

[Slavic]

Wouldn't "proletarian ownership" not simply be the legal expression of the social relationships of production?


Except the fact that if the proletariat class exists, regardless of what they own, there still exists a class system and thus there still exists capitalism. The proletariat in this case would be a capital owning class which is seeking to destroy capital.

Silly sounding isn't it; but if the proletariat can own the means of production as an independent class, then there is no communism yet.

[Blake's Baby]

Tim Cornelis was recently saying that the bourgeois state can't be taken over; rather, a new workers' state must be put into place. But this workers' state can't be 'created', rather it must be the result of certain economic relations. So what do you mean by political revolution here, and would the economic revolution not have to take place first?

What I mean is that the working class can't build up an economic base inside capitalism then use this power as a way of taking control of the state (as the bourgeoisie did in the transition from feudal to early-modern Europe).

Instead, the working class must make itself the masters of society before reorganising it. We don't have the leverage in the capitalist system to do anything else.

In practice, yes, the action of the working class will be economic as well as political - we will be taking over the factories and transport networks and power stations. But we won't be doing this over 200 years, we'll be doing it in a couple of months. The economic transformation will be the revolution itself, not the preparation for it - because the legal form of property compels the working class to confront the state when it seizes control of the means of production. This was never a problem for the bourgeoisie. Acquiring property for them wasn't an issue, because they were moving society from one exploitative propertarian form to another. To an extent they could adapt to the state, and when they could no longer do that, they adapted the state to them.

The proletariat can't do that. It has to smash the state. But of course, until it defeats the bourgeoisie, it needs to still exercise class power. This is Tim's 'workers' state' (though I don't like the term), and it's what I mean about a 'political' revolution. If we just occupy the factories and we don't attempt to overthrow the existing state machine - we lose.

[Pancakes Rühle]

Wouldn't "proletarian ownership" not simply be the legal expression of the social relationships of production?

No it isn't... In the same respects a cooperative isn't a communist social relation of production.

[cyu]

If slavery was abolished everywhere, could one slave society survive? I would say yes - as long as those in power had enough authoritarian power. Obviously slaves would try to escape to liberated areas, but if the ruling class had enough of a military grip on their slave society, they could in theory keep everyone enslaved indefinitely.

Similarly, during the Cold War, what the American ruling class feared most was a good (socialist) example. If some random government was overthrown and replaced by (what the American establishment deemed) a basket-case government, the country would be laughed off, ignored, and capitalists would just wait for them to implode. What was far more threatening was when a self-proclaimed socialist government was brought in that threatened to perform better than what the American government could offer. This would be seen as a major threat - in that the American working class may see them as a good example and want to adopt their model (similar to slaves noticing all other countries had abolished slavery). To prevent that from happening, those in charge of American foreign policy would work their hardest to make sure that "good example" fell apart: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

[Invader Zim]

That's not true. You're projecting capitalism as universal (typical of capitalist ideology -- time for a struggle session comrade).



I'm not sure I follow your point - capitalism is truly global and has been since the 16th century. Sure, there are various species of capitalism, but markets are global and it is now difficult to envision how a capitalist state could exist today in isolation.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I'm not sure I follow your point - capitalism is truly global and has been since the 16th century. Sure, there are various species of capitalism, but markets are global and it is now difficult to envision how a capitalist state could exist today in isolation.

He was objecting (I think rightly so) to my comment that "modes of production must be global or else they can't exist.", while in fact some of the previous modes of productions co-existed with one another without necessarily being global. His response wasn't about capitalism.

Although, come to think of it, I might disagree after thinking for a while, but whatever, it's all good.

[Blake's Baby]

Capitalism has only been 'global' since the 16th century in the way that baseball is 'global' - it may exist everywhere, but the numbers of people engaged in it are really tiny. It's certainly difficult to argue that baseball is the main thing that people do, even if it exists everywhere.

Capitalism hasn't been a hegemonic system since the 16th century. It might have achieved that status by the late 19th.

[Alexios]

The blue are Ancient mode of production, yellow is primitive communism, green, orange, and purple are neolithic garden chiefdoms and tribal societies (transitioning societies). The Ancient mode of production existed for an enduring amount of time without being global.


That's not true. You're projecting capitalism as universal (typical of capitalist ideology -- time for a struggle session comrade).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/World_1000_BCE.png

We talk about capitalism's being a global phenomenon because it developed globally, in a time and context in which such a process was first feasible. The "ancient mode of production," if it existed (which it didn't, and any ancient historian or archaeologist would laugh at you for saying such) survived without being "global" because there was no conception of the world as it came to be known in the 15th- and- 16th- centuries.

[Pancakes Rühle]

Wouldn't "proletarian ownership" not simply be the legal expression of the social relationships of production?

I'll cut to the chase... workers in coop are still alienated. While in the juridical sense, it is "proletarian ownership", the production process is still capitalist. Production dominates the worker.

C.L.R. James referenced Marx, and quoted him, in "Russia: A Fascist State", addressing just this:

"So fundamental to Marx’s method was this distinction between property relations and the social relations of production that he refused to recognize property forms or property relations at all, unless they included the total relations of production; “outside of these relations bourgeois property is nothing but a metaphysical or juristic illusion.” For Marx, “to define bourgeois property is nothing other than to explain all the social relations of bourgeois production”. He wrote of the “various forms of private property, as, for example, wages, trade value, price, money, etc.” Bourgeois property relations could only be denned “by a critical analysis of political economy, embracing the whole of the relations of property, not in their juridical expression as relations of will, but in their real form as relations of material production. As Proudhon subordinated the whole of these economic relations to the juridical notion of property, he could not go beyond the response which had been already given by Brissot before 1789 and in the same terms ‘Property is Robbery.’”"