Capitalism's Collapse [Archive]

Lardlad95

6th March 2004, 19:47

Marx, the brilliant economic theorist was right on a good number of things. However his greatest idea, was the assertion that the economic system of capitalism would collapse. Unfortunately there was one thing he did not anticipate.

That Capitalists would be able to incorporate some aspects of socialism into capitalism to keep it from collapse. He did not realize how slick capitalists could be, they knew that if they stayed with the present course of action Marx's predictions would come to fruition. So they offered some meager concessions that kept them in power and took the edge off the sword Marx created.

So I ask you my friends, how does capitalism collapse when capitalists are able to give some concessions to the people, making the working class think they are getting a fair shake?

The sword of socialism is dulled, how do we sharpen it again and prove that capitalism is headed toward an eventual collapse.

ANd i"m asking form an economic standpoint.

This whole thread kind of goes along with my assertion that teh movement needs more economists...in addition to political scientists, lawyers, and buisness majors.

Monty Cantsin

6th March 2004, 23:42

Capitalism is headed toward an evolution into corporatism. I’ve explained my reasoning before but it anyone wants me to talk about Keynesians again I will.

redstar2000

7th March 2004, 00:54

...how does capitalism collapse when capitalists are able to give some concessions to the people, making the working class think they are getting a fair shake?

This question has actually come up quite a few times. Here's one of the better threads...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...&f=6&t=20444&s= (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=20444&s=)

The recent trend in all of the advanced capitalist countries seems to be an effort to "take back" those concessions...a little at a time.

Ironically, the capitalists call this "reform".

I think it was only a few days ago that the fuhrer of the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan, suggested that working people must be made to work longer before retirement and their benefits need to be reduced.

To me, then, the question becomes: is this the long-term trend in capitalism? Are things going to steadily get worse for the working class?

Was Marx right, after all?

Or is it possible for the capitalist class to enter into a new period of granting economic concessions to the working class, raising the standard-of-living, etc.?

I don't think it is. One reason I am indifferent to "left reformism" is that I don't think it's really practical any more...there aren't going to be any more "Franklin D. Roosevelt's" or "New Deals".

The "next wave" of working class militancy will probably begin in an effort to "hold onto" what was gained by their grandparents.

And if conditions continue to deteriorate, then I expect the re-emergence of a real proletarian communist movement...ready and willing to make revolution.

But we'll see.

This whole thread kind of goes along with my assertion that the movement needs more economists...

I can only agree with that sentiment. Every time a question of Marxist economics comes up on this board, I feel the limb shaking under my feet.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim

7th March 2004, 01:27

Capitalism, as we know it will collapse, it is inevitable. The introduction of globalisation has essentially signed western capitalist worlds its own death wish. Ironic really that capitalists never ending attempts to profit from the short term while ignoring long term issues will be their downfall.

My logic is this, if we look at the Rostow Model (http://test.woodgreen.oxon.sch.uk/economics/development/dev_models/dev_stages.htm) you can see that as a country develops economically it will eventually reach stage 5, like most of the western world. Stage 5 is characterised by most of the population involved in tertiary industry, thus making the country reliant on foreign importations. To get these importations of goods then the resources must be extracted and developed in the poorer countries of the world, as they are the only people who have the resources and the cheep labour available to process and extract the goods, this leads to investment from multinational corporations. This investment immediately increases the country its affecting up the stages of the Rostow model. This is how capitalist theory goes anyway, of course the fundamental flaw is obvious, if everyone reaches stage 5 of the Rostow model then there is little to no actual production or extraction of materials, so you get world wide crash.

However like all capitalist ideals it doesn’t work. This cycle inevitably leads to an increase in the countries economy and an increase in the cost of processing and producing goods, making their purpose from a capitalists perspective obsolete. So they move on to new countries to exploit and then discard. However the counties they leave never return to how they were, they still retain the economic status they had, just to a lesser extent. Never again will they receive the kind of prosperity they had they will sink to stage 2-3 and stay that way. Thus remaining in relative economic limbo until their economy completely fails at which point they return to stage 1-2. But sooner or later your going to get to the point where resource rich poor countries are exhausted, then you get world wide crash.

Globalisations forced increase of economic prosperity in poor countries unnaturally increases their stage, and creates this vicious cycle which has only one end, collapse. First to individual countries then the capitalist giants will fall. It is inevitable.

Lardlad95

7th March 2004, 04:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 01:54 AM

This question has actually come up quite a few times. Here's one of the better threads...

You would give me a link to your thread. It does look good though. I read your initial post and I'll dive a little deeper into teh thread tomorrow

The recent trend in all of the advanced capitalist countries seems to be an effort to "take back" those concessions...a little at a time.

Ironically, the capitalists call this "reform".

I think it was only a few days ago that the fuhrer of the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan, suggested that working people must be made to work longer before retirement and their benefits need to be reduced.

To me, then, the question becomes: is this the long-term trend in capitalism? Are things going to steadily get worse for the working class?

BUt I doubt it'll be to any one horrible point. As the job market changes the more concessions are taken back the less it'll mean. Systems analysts don't really need to worry about unsafe working conditions do they?

People in factories around the world will have to worry as the onslaught of Free Trade becomes greater, ie the implementation of the FTAA.

However I agree that eventually as Capitalism finds it's self unable to sustain social programs and concessions to workers people will wake up to the horror they've unleashed upon themselves.

The more the nation shifts the right, the more we return to lassiez faire capitalism, the more things go wrong.

THe problem is of course some new FDR pops in with a new idea, and starts the cycle all over again.

I see capitalism existing in a cycle, atleast in so called "democratic" nations like the US, where there are two political factions that balance each other out.

I don't think it is. One reason I am indifferent to "left reformism" is that I don't think it's really practical any more...there aren't going to be any more "Franklin D. Roosevelt's" or "New Deals".

I disagree, the capitalists realize something we don't. People are highley suggestive, and fickle. THey will believe that moving to the right will help them, when it doens't they'll believe the new FDR, 50 years later they'll move to the right again. We must find a way to break the cycle.

The capitalist will move to the people to the right, screw them over, then move them back to a "new" new deal. They are slicker than that.

The "next wave" of working class militancy will probably begin in an effort to "hold onto" what was gained by their grandparents.

The militancy will be quelled by a new wave of concessions

And if conditions continue to deteriorate, then I expect the re-emergence of a real proletarian communist movement...ready and willing to make revolution.

I honestly hope you are right

I can only agree with that sentiment. Every time a question of Marxist economics comes up on this board, I feel the limb shaking under my feet.

Well one of my main goals in my lifetime (other than writing bestselling novels) is to make sure that we see a new wave of Leftist UNification. With a new wave of MArxist thinkers, including political theorists, Economists, Philosophers, and Activists.

redstar2000

7th March 2004, 13:57

I don't think the Rostow model is of much help in this discussion.

For one thing, if it were really true, then the "world wide collapse" would not be followed by proletarian revolution but rather by the collapse of technological civilization altogether.

It seems to me more likely that if capitalism existed for sufficient time then the outcome would be approximate global equalization...every place would have about the same mixture of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries and wages and conditions would be about the same everywhere.

Probably not too good.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

7th March 2004, 17:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 02:57 PM
I don't think the Rostow model is of much help in this discussion.

For one thing, if it were really true, then the "world wide collapse" would not be followed by proletarian revolution but rather by the collapse of technological civilization altogether.

It seems to me more likely that if capitalism existed for sufficient time then the outcome would be approximate global equalization...every place would have about the same mixture of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries and wages and conditions would be about the same everywhere.

Probably not too good.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
Care to elaborate on the global equalization because from where I see it what Enigma suggested seems logical considering the increase in globalization.

But if you wouldn't mind, please explain this process of global equalization

Invader Zim

7th March 2004, 17:46

I don't think the Rostow model is of much help in this discussion.

I used the Rostow model merely as a representation of economic stages countries go through when they develop, to demonstrate that globalisation forces certain economic increases. So from that point of view it is a helpful aid to explain the point I was attempting to make, however from an economic point of view the Rostow model has absolutely nothing to do with my conclusion.

[b]For one thing, if it were really true, then the "world wide collapse" would not be followed by proletarian revolution but rather by the collapse of technological civilization altogether.

Indeed, I was never arguing that proletarian revolution would occur following the collapse I believe will occur. Proletarian revolution or reform before complete universal globalisation are the only solution, or very highly moderated globalisation with strict guidelines and rules.

It seems to me more likely that if capitalism existed for sufficient time then the outcome would be approximate global equalization.

I disagree, if capitalism were not to collapse then the boundaries between rich and poor would in fact increase. Less economically developed countries will become almost 100% dependant on foreign investment. When this investment is removed these countries will collapse and become extremely impoverished, even more so than they are today, all the while the richer capitalist nations will be profiting moving from country to country repeating the process. So the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer. This has only one logical conclusion, at some point or another the poor countries will collapse and the system will break down. Global collapse, however if the if this collapse could be postponed on a permanent basis then the gap between rich and poor would just keep growing.

Morpheus

7th March 2004, 20:32

Capitalism goes through cycles of reform and reaction. When revolution looks likely we get reforms, when it's less likely those reforms are taken away. Hypothetically a revolutionary movement could overcome this by completely refusing any compromise and refusing to be coopted like past movements. In addition, there are possible sources of revolution other than economic depravation. If globalizaton starts hurting reforms it can be modified through "fair trade" or a world government. The international economic system set up after WW2 was designed, through tarrifs and other things, so that nations could implement a welfare state without capital flight. If necessary, they could use similar tactics to restore the old system.

redstar2000

7th March 2004, 23:13

But if you wouldn't mind, please explain this process of global equalization.

Well, I think it stems from the capitalist motivation to search for areas where they can hire cheap labor.

The first capitalist to invest in Assholia does the best...he has to pay just a little more than the (very low) prevailing wage there. The second and subsequent capitalists have to pay a little more...trying to hire the best workers away from the first guy. As development increases, the wages continue to climb.

Back in the home country, where plants are being closed, wages stagnate or start to decline.

The differential between the wages paid in the home country and the wages paid in Assholia decreases.

Eventually, if capitalism lasts long enough, they will converge towards a common wage...everywhere.

The thought has occurred to me: perhaps the workers of the world can't unite until they all find themselves in similar material conditions.

They will believe that moving to the right will help them, when it doesn't they'll believe the new FDR; 50 years later they'll move to the right again.

Yes, that's occurred to me as well.

But here's the thing. In the last three decades or so, capitalism has been "struggling" to be profitable.

Their growth rates have not been so hot either.

Is this just temporary or is it the beginning of the end?

They might like to pull "the old switcheroo" again...but can they?

I don't think they can do it...but, of course I don't know that for certain.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

8th March 2004, 02:30

Eventually, if capitalism lasts long enough, they will converge towards a common wage...everywhere.

The thought has occurred to me: perhaps the workers of the world can't unite until they all find themselves in similar material conditions

Interesting take. I had always just assumed that the cycle would continue allowing for low wage exploitation in the third world with job loss in the industrialized nations.

But I suppose your assumption would be more likely to result in revolution.

They might like to pull "the old switcheroo" again...but can they?

I don't think they can do it...but, of course I don't know that for certain.

I'd always assumed that too. However I've come to reaize that te masses are highly suggestive, and very fickle. They forget what has happened in the past all to easily. Case in point African-American youth who seem to take their grandparents struggles in a trivial sense. Did my parents and grandparents suffer so I could exploit and degrade black women?

On the one hand people's lack of historical knowledge comes as an advantage when we want to recruit people. However this also means that the cappies can pull the switcheroo again

Severian

8th March 2004, 18:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:47 PM
Marx, the brilliant economic theorist was right on a good number of things. However his greatest idea, was the assertion that the economic system of capitalism would collapse.
When did he say that? Capitalism won't collapse, it has to be overthrown.

Capitalism has in fact gone through a number of major economic crises - as Marx did predict - and faced revolutionary challenges in some of them.

If Marx failed to predict the defeat and sometimes betrayal of revolutionary movements...well, a revolutionary's task ain't to predict defeat, but rather to do everything possible to bring about victory. As the Second Declaration of Havana puts it, "The duty of every revolutionary is to make revolution. We know that in America and throughout the world the revolution will be victorious. But revolutionaries cannot sit in the doorways of their homes to watch the corpse of imperialism pass by. The role of Job does not behoove a revolutionary."

STI

8th March 2004, 20:54

The "next wave" of working class militancy will probably begin in an effort to "hold onto" what was gained by their grandparents.

Well, this sounds pretty true. The NDP (Canada' social- democrat/democratic socialist/too- left for the Liberals party), has really shifted its focus from things like "Let's build a public healthcare system" to "Hey, vote for us, because, at least a generation ago, we caused a lot of good things and we won't get rid of them". Most of their campaigns involve 'stopping bad things' rather than 'starting good things'. They're not quite as bad as in the early 1990's, but whether or not real change will happen anytime soon depends on quite a bit of things (one of which being the New Politics Initiative). Of course, I'm using the NDP as the barometer for the leftist movement in Canada, which is accurate to a point, but not completely.

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th March 2004, 22:11

I disagree with both the theory of economic global equalization and this continuing cycle that claims which you gusy claimw ill one day come back to capitalism's very begining.

If things continue as they are going now then the wealthy will continue to get wealthy upon the expense of the poor. As has occured in America and Western Europe, the middle class of the third world will grow and demand more. The manual, unwanted, and cheap labor will be continue to decrease in availability and therefore will cease to be cheap. Long before this happens corporations will make sure to do plenty of downsizing. Eventualy they will begin to compete for labourers. To prevent the costs of their products from skyrocketing and to maintain plenty of people who are able to afford thair goods, the bourgeoisie will try to not increase the salaries of their workers. But if the workers leave, there will be more jobds awaiting them.
So the competition will resume and corporations will be forced to downsize masively.
So it might seem...
Millions will go unemployed and I assume they will stay this way pretty much. The capitalists will maintain this pretty well by never depleting the labour supply.
In fact, I think that they'll prevent the big crash this time around.
They're pretty sneaky and they won't let anything like that happen.
I predict the conditions of the third world will probably reach those of the more advanced ones such as Mexico or Brazil where there is a "middle class" which encompasses about a quarter of the population and the rest will be totally empoverished labor for exploitation.

The downfall, I assume, will inevitably be triggered by massive uprisals of unsatisfied industrial workers in the third world of the future.

redstar2000

8th March 2004, 23:53

When did he say that? Capitalism won't collapse, it has to be overthrown.

Well, I believe he said it in the concluding part of Chapter 17 in Das Kapital.

His argument was that the constraints upon the development of the means of production by the relations of production would cause the relations of production to "burst asunder"...resulting in the expropriation of the expropriators.

It's also inherent in "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time". If that is a true "law", then the capitalist system will reach a point in which it can no longer function at all. Proletarian revolution will then no longer be an "option", but a necessity...and will be seen that way by the working class.

The downfall, I assume, will inevitably be triggered by massive uprisings of unsatisfied industrial workers in the third world of the future.

It's a possibility that certainly can't be ruled out.

But will they see the need for the class to run things themselves, or will they merely follow a "great leader"...who, of course, will lead them right back into the shit.

How "sophisticated", in other words, will the class consciousness of "third world" industrial workers actually be?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

9th March 2004, 23:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:54 PM

The "next wave" of working class militancy will probably begin in an effort to "hold onto" what was gained by their grandparents.

Well, this sounds pretty true. The NDP (Canada' social- democrat/democratic socialist/too- left for the Liberals party), has really shifted its focus from things like "Let's build a public healthcare system" to "Hey, vote for us, because, at least a generation ago, we caused a lot of good things and we won't get rid of them". Most of their campaigns involve 'stopping bad things' rather than 'starting good things'. They're not quite as bad as in the early 1990's, but whether or not real change will happen anytime soon depends on quite a bit of things (one of which being the New Politics Initiative). Of course, I'm using the NDP as the barometer for the leftist movement in Canada, which is accurate to a point, but not completely.
Think about it this way...if we get rid of all of the things we've already worked for we start back at the begining..and who wants to start from scratch

Lardlad95

9th March 2004, 23:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:11 PM
I disagree with both the theory of economic global equalization and this continuing cycle that claims which you gusy claimw ill one day come back to capitalism's very begining.

If things continue as they are going now then the wealthy will continue to get wealthy upon the expense of the poor. As has occured in America and Western Europe, the middle class of the third world will grow and demand more. The manual, unwanted, and cheap labor will be continue to decrease in availability and therefore will cease to be cheap. Long before this happens corporations will make sure to do plenty of downsizing. Eventualy they will begin to compete for labourers. To prevent the costs of their products from skyrocketing and to maintain plenty of people who are able to afford thair goods, the bourgeoisie will try to not increase the salaries of their workers. But if the workers leave, there will be more jobds awaiting them.
So the competition will resume and corporations will be forced to downsize masively.
So it might seem...
Millions will go unemployed and I assume they will stay this way pretty much. The capitalists will maintain this pretty well by never depleting the labour supply.
In fact, I think that they'll prevent the big crash this time around.
They're pretty sneaky and they won't let anything like that happen.
I predict the conditions of the third world will probably reach those of the more advanced ones such as Mexico or Brazil where there is a "middle class" which encompasses about a quarter of the population and the rest will be totally empoverished labor for exploitation.

The downfall, I assume, will inevitably be triggered by massive uprisals of unsatisfied industrial workers in the third world of the future.
then in lew of this how does capitalism collapse

Lardlad95

9th March 2004, 23:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 12:53 AM

When did he say that? Capitalism won't collapse, it has to be overthrown.

Well, I believe he said it in the concluding part of Chapter 17 in Das Kapital.

His argument was that the constraints upon the development of the means of production by the relations of production would cause the relations of production to "burst asunder"...resulting in the expropriation of the expropriators.

It's also inherent in "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time". If that is a true "law", then the capitalist system will reach a point in which it can no longer function at all. Proletarian revolution will then no longer be an "option", but a necessity...and will be seen that way by the working class.

The downfall, I assume, will inevitably be triggered by massive uprisings of unsatisfied industrial workers in the third world of the future.

It's a possibility that certainly can't be ruled out.

But will they see the need for the class to run things themselves, or will they merely follow a "great leader"...who, of course, will lead them right back into the shit.

How "sophisticated", in other words, will the class consciousness of "third world" industrial workers actually be?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
Then I ask you this...is it completely necassary for capitalism to collapse before a real revolution

Eastside Revolt

9th March 2004, 23:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 12:16 AM
Then I ask you this...is it completely necassary for capitalism to collapse before a real revolution
You know that is actually kind of interesting.
It seems to me that often, socialist revolutions, dampen class consciousness. Because the proletariate, are forced to adhere to one person's, opinion of class concsiousness. For exaple, Marx hated peasants, and you can imagine how well that kind of attitude about civilization, does for Latin America, or China <_< .

Ofcourse, not that American Democracy has a better influence on class consiousness. :lol:

war is peace...

10th March 2004, 00:57

capitalism is plan simle human nature...greed what do people with power want more power...more more and more...like bush he wants more power. war agents terrorism .. war is terorrism. in capitalism the corperatiopnns control who wins and loses votes... it makes no diffrence if anyone votes

redstar2000

10th March 2004, 02:50

Then I ask you this...is it completely necessary for capitalism to collapse before a real revolution?

It probably has to get pretty close to that...in order for people to see the "compelling necessity" to do it.

In other words, I don't think it's just a matter of "first we convince one person, who convinces another person, and each of them convince two more, etc., etc. until nearly everyone's convinced".

In immediately pre-revolutionary periods, revolutionary ideas spread from a small number of people to a very large number of people very quickly.

We saw some of that in the 1930s in the U.S. -- there were a lot of people in the Communist Party then but they had a much larger group of active sympathizers. Even the Trotskyist party did surprisingly well.

Huey Long's vaguely left bourgeois populism was also surprisingly wide-spread. The crisis of capitalism made people "receptive" to alternatives in a way that simply didn't exist in the 1920s or 1940s.

My assumption is that something "like" the 1930s on a much larger and more dramatic scale will be required to make proletarian revolution seen as "the only rational choice".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

pandora

10th March 2004, 03:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 03:50 AM

Then I ask you this...is it completely necessary for capitalism to collapse before a real revolution?

It probably has to get pretty close to that...in order for people to see the "compelling necessity" to do it.

In other words, I don't think it's just a matter of "first we convince one person, who convinces another person, and each of them convince two more, etc., etc. until nearly everyone's convinced".

In immediately pre-revolutionary periods, revolutionary ideas spread from a small number of people to a very large number of people very quickly.

We saw some of that in the 1930s in the U.S. -- there were a lot of people in the Communist Party then but they had a much larger group of active sympathizers. Even the Trotskyist party did surprisingly well.

Huey Long's vaguely left bourgeois populism was also surprisingly wide-spread. The crisis of capitalism made people "receptive" to alternatives in a way that simply didn't exist in the 1920s or 1940s.

My assumption is that something "like" the 1930s on a much larger and more dramatic scale will be required to make proletarian revolution seen as "the only rational choice".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
I would agree with that, the situation in Argentina for example. ..
Today Argentina had to declare default to the IMF, I heard this on the radio waking up today and this filled my heart with sorry. I'm not the biggest fan of the idea of nation states, but to go from being a country to being a debtor to be divided up a sold to the highest bidder. It breaks my heart, but not as much as for the people who live and are from Argentina.
Back to topic, in Argentina, the situation between the haves and the have nots continued despite desperate financial straits until, the system finally broke. Up until that point the upper classes still considered themselves citizens of the previous (I say previous because it had pretty much already been dissolved as a nation ie currency by IMF, but no one told the people on the ground yet) nation state due to their "BUYING POWER"
As soon as their buying power was negated and they became aware that they were no longer considered important to buy goods they found themselves in a state of shock.
The movie 4th World War shows this shootage beautifully as we didn't receive it in the US but many of you other countries prob. did.
Buisness men taking off their shoes and attacking ATMS, throwing chairs through bank windows and joining the masses of people in the streets. This is what it takes. We saw the same thing in South Korea in 1996-7 when the congress privatized the national corp. taking out all the nations union in one fell swoop.
People took to the streets, tens to hundreds of thousands of people because their livlihood their means of existence was made a lie.
This is what it takes for people to allie, but in both cases the army was waiting for them and in walked brutal oppression. I think I know speaking with those who witnessed activities in Nicarqua only to see similar police actions in California that the U.S. tests situations for control on other nations before bringing it home. I think what happened in both instants was a test.

Monty Cantsin

10th March 2004, 04:04

http://www.bized.ac.uk/virtual/dc/copper/t.../theory/th9.htm (http://www.bized.ac.uk/virtual/dc/copper/theory/th9.htm)

Rostow's Model- the Stages of Economic Development

In 1960, the American Economic Historian, WW Rostow suggested that countries passed through five stages of economic development.

Stage 1 Traditional Society
The economy is dominated by subsistence activity where output is consumed by producers rather than traded. Any trade is carried out by barter where goods are exchanged directly for other goods. Agriculture is the most important industry and production is labour intensive using only limited quantities of capital. Resource allocation is determined very much by traditional methods of production.

Stage 2 Transitional Stage (the preconditions for takeoff)
Increased specialisation generates surpluses for trading. There is an emergence of a transport infrastructure to support trade. As incomes, savings and investment grow entrepreneurs emerge. External trade also occurs concentrating on primary products.

Stage 3 Take Off
Industrialisation increases, with workers switching from the agricultural sector to the manufacturing sector. Growth is concentrated in a few regions of the country and in one or two manufacturing industries. The level of investment reaches over 10% of GNP.

The economic transitions are accompanied by the evolution of new political and social institutions that support the industrialisation. The growth is self-sustaining as investment leads to increasing incomes in turn generating more savings to finance further investment.

Stage 4 Drive to Maturity
The economy is diversifying into new areas. Technological innovation is providing a diverse range of investment opportunities. The economy is producing a wide range of goods and services and there is less reliance on imports.

Stage 5 High Mass Consumption
The economy is geared towards mass consumption. The consumer durable industries flourish. The service sector becomes increasingly dominant.

According to Rostow development requires substantial investment in capital. For the economies of LDCs to grow the right conditions for such investment would have to be created. If aid is given or foreign direct investment occurs at stage 3 the economy needs to have reached stage 2. If the stage 2 has been reached then injections of investment may lead to rapid growth.

Limitations
Many development economists argue that Rostows's model was developed with Western cultures in mind and not applicable to LDCs. It addition its generalised nature makes it somewhat limited. It does not set down the detailed nature of the pre-conditions for growth. In reality policy makers are unable to clearly identify stages as they merge together. Thus as a predictive model it is not very helpful. Perhaps its main use is to highlight the need for investment. Like many of the other models of economic developments it is essentially a growth model and does not address the issue of development in the wider context.

Lardlad95

15th March 2004, 16:40

redstar2000

16th March 2004, 08:08

Well, we could debate "when is a 'collapse' really a collapse?".

But Russia in 1917 and China in 1945 were in extremely bad shape in many ways.

My point was simply that people have to actually see that to make proletarian revolution "plausible"...that it doesn't happen because people become convinced over time that it would be "a nice thing".

As to Cuba, there was nothing "communist" about the beginning of that revolution at all; the 26th of July Movement was based on the idea of overthrowing a dictator and instituting vigorous agrarian reform.

There is a possibility that the same thing may happen in Venezuela...a very ordinary populism "pushed" further and further to the left by U.S. imperialism.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

16th March 2004, 12:56

My point was simply that people have to actually see that to make proletarian revolution "plausible"...that it doesn't happen because people become convinced over time that it would be "a nice thing".

Can't people see it as plausible without an imminent collapse? Bad conditions aren't the same as a collapse. Capitalism can still be sucessful in a nation without the nation being on the verge of meltdown. If the conditions where the average person lives are shitty then there is a possibility for revolution. THat doesn't mean the nation is about to crumble like a sand castle.

But Russia in 1917 and China in 1945 were in extremely bad shape in many ways.
As to Cuba, there was nothing "communist" about the beginning of that revolution at all; the 26th of July Movement was based on the idea of overthrowing a dictator and instituting vigorous agrarian reform.

....there is nothing communist about Cuba now. The point is though that a revolution can occur when a nation is doing fine...financially that is.

redstar2000

16th March 2004, 19:09

Can't people see [proletarian revolution] as plausible without an imminent collapse?

It does not seem to be that way; though there's always the example of France in 1968...a "near" proletarian revolution in a period of capitalist prosperity.

It seems "natural" for us to assume that "things will go on as they have". We have a kind of "confidence" that life tomorrow will be about the same as life today.

To shake that confidence seems to "take a lot" for most people. It seems like only when things become dramatically worse -- or at least it looks like that's what's going to happen -- do most people really begin to seriously consider dramatic alternatives...like revolution.

For those who are still young and "not yet habituated" to the prevailing social order, revolutionary change is not so difficult to imagine. It's a lot harder for people who have "settled down" and takes a lot more motivation.

Even now, on those still rare occasions when people in their 30s or 40s come over to the side of revolution, you'll hear them say something like "I don't want my kids to have to live in this shit."

But it takes a lot to get those people to see beyond personal self-sacrifice -- so I can "send my kids to college" -- and grasp that no individual solutions would make any difference.

I think it takes a collapse or pretty close to that. Whether the system "might recover" is not terribly relevant...if enough people perceive the situation as "hopeless".

Extreme situations demand extreme solutions.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

19th March 2004, 22:00

It seems "natural" for us to assume that "things will go on as they have". We have a kind of "confidence" that life tomorrow will be about the same as life today.

But people are fickle. It takes very little for them to change positions, as a whole. With this pack mentality isn't it possible that even a slight shudder in Capitalisms confident shell could propel us towards revolution?

To shake that confidence seems to "take a lot" for most people. It seems like only when things become dramatically worse -- or at least it looks like that's what's going to happen -- do most people really begin to seriously consider dramatic alternatives...like revolution.

I disagree. Like I said people are highly suggestable when it comes to the group as a whole.

After 9/11 Bush's door to invade Iraq was never clearer. By slowly bringing iRaq into the picture of terrorism even though it didn't have a damn thing to do with it people became convinced that Iraq was america's sworn enemy.

Take a slightly dramatic situation, and then pound an ideology into the masses and you can get them to do as you wish. How do you thinkt eh bourgeosie media does it?

For those who are still young and "not yet habituated" to the prevailing social order, revolutionary change is not so difficult to imagine. It's a lot harder for people who have "settled down" and takes a lot more motivation.

True

Extreme situations demand extreme solutions.

Also true

redstar2000

20th March 2004, 02:03

Take a slightly dramatic situation, and then pound an ideology into the masses and you can get them to do as you wish. How do you think the bourgeois media does it?

Well, we don't and are unlikely ever to have the resources of the bourgeois media at our disposal. So that's the practical objection.

But putting that aside, I don't think the approach of "pounding an ideology into the masses" would work very well for us (though it certainly worked well for the Nazis).

If we simply wanted the masses to "follow us" -- that is, put us in power with the implied promise to do whatever we told them to do -- then the approach you suggest would have the possibility, at least, of being successful.

What I want the masses to do is to learn how to think like revolutionaries.

A few slogans are not very helpful in this regard. I want them to develop a "critical" way of looking at social reality.

If they learn to do that, then there is little danger of them waiting for you or me or some other guy to "tell them what to do"...they will spontaneously see what needs to be done and do it.

That's the only attitude, in my opinion, that would make communism practical.

And if that attitude does not exist among the masses, then the "best" outcome of our efforts would be a "benevolent" despotism...which would, all too soon, cease to be benevolent in any sense.

At this point, doing it (revolution) "the hard way" seems to be the only way.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

21st March 2004, 23:52

Well, we don't and are unlikely ever to have the resources of the bourgeois media at our disposal. So that's the practical objection.

Whos to say we wont? Just because we've historically decided to work from the basement up doesn't mean we can't start working fromt eh ground up. I know we'll never have a CNN or Fox News, but you can't contiue having hte mind set that we must fight from a base of destitution.

But putting that aside, I don't think the approach of "pounding an ideology into the masses" would work very well for us (though it certainly worked well for the Nazis).

Odd...isn't that how the Cappies say we opperate...you know brainwashing people.

If we simply wanted the masses to "follow us" -- that is, put us in power with the implied promise to do whatever we told them to do -- then the approach you suggest would have the possibility, at least, of being successful.

What I want the masses to do is to learn how to think like revolutionaries.

No my way would work to educate the masses too. It's just a different way. People draw their own conclusions, we just supply them with the materials necassary to arrive at a conclusion.

A few slogans are not very helpful in this regard. I want them to develop a "critical" way of looking at social reality.

So do I, which is why I don't think of educating the masses the way John kerry and Dubya brainwash them with sound bites. I just advocate using more resources than we have before.

If they learn to do that, then there is little danger of them waiting for you or me or some other guy to "tell them what to do"...they will spontaneously see what needs to be done and do it.

Good point, But I"m damn good at telling folks how to operate.

That's the only attitude, in my opinion, that would make communism practical.

Key word we here is think, as we've seen through out history, socialism, communism, and the like is a process of trial and error...mostly error

And if that attitude does not exist among the masses, then the "best" outcome of our efforts would be a "benevolent" despotism...which would, all too soon, cease to be benevolent in any sense.

I agree with the outcome you want. I just disagree with the way to get there.

At this point, doing it (revolution) "the hard way" seems to be the only way.

Really? Fuck that *hands in revolutionary badge and id card* I'm going to wharton school of buissness...it seemed to work for Donald trump...tehn fail him...then work for him again.