Capitalism Can Last 1000 Yr by Re-Inventing Itself

[MurderInc]

I continue to read that thre is so much belief that capitalism cannot last.

Remember that capitalism continues not because of secret meetings of the ruling class, who argue to one another, "OK, we gottem fooled...What do we do next?"

Most people support capitalism because its part of the culture.

If you ask an American over 35 why they wouldn't consider Marxist socialism, those who would care to answer you would do so with the frame of reference of China and the former USSR. All the theroy is meaningless to them because of the lousy examples Lenin, Stalin and Mao have made of socialism. And many know China is a de facto capitalist system.

People under 25 can't relate to anything "non-capitalist" or Marxist. They have no frame of reference or example. No one knows of anyone who lives such a philosophy.

As capitalism begins to seriously be threatened, many in the middle class will call for reform in the corporate system: fair pay of taxes and support for medical and educational needs of society, greater authority for labor at the decision making and earning level, and something like an economic bill of rights.

I base this on an examination of U.S. history and the various reform mvements that had, from a U.S. perspective, notible successes:

Civil service and employment reform of the 1870's - 1890's
Labor changes regulating the length of work days, child labor laws and the right to strike in the '30's.
The increase in union power in the early 50's and the rise of the great middle class

I write this not to challenge revolutionary thought, but to begin a discussion of what the middle class will do to contine free enterprise. don't expect them to sit on their hands.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by MurderInc
Most people support capitalism because it's part of the culture.

Not exactly.

They accept capitalism because it's still working...still delivering a "middle-class" standard-of-living.

IF Marx was right, that cannot continue indefinitely. More and more people are "pressed" downwards and the wealthy become smaller in number and grow wealthier and wealthier.

We can see signs of this "strain" even now...when it takes two full-time workers and a load of debt to "maintain" that "middle-class" standard-of-living.


As capitalism begins to seriously be threatened, many in the middle class will call for reform in the corporate system: fair pay of taxes and support for medical and educational needs of society, greater authority for labor at the decision making and earning level, and something like an economic bill of rights.

They can "call" for it all they want...they won't get anything but hoarse.

In the "global market place", the pressure is on to reduce labor costs. Reforms cost money that the rulling classes in the "old" capitalist countries can no longer afford to spend.

If you are fairly young, there's a good chance that you will live long enough to see the end of social security in the U.S.


I write this not to challenge revolutionary thought, but to begin a discussion of what the middle class will do to contine free enterprise. Don't expect them to sit on their hands.

The trend seems to be towards enhanced repression. More police, more prisons, more "gated communities", more private security guards (and private prisons!), more intrusive policing of all forms of dissent.

Indeed, it's even been suggested that the burden of security will be the "crucial factor" that "brings down the whole system".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[MurderInc]

QUOTE (MurderInc)
Most people support capitalism because it's part of the culture.


(Redstar2000)
Not exactly.

They accept capitalism because it's still working...still delivering a "middle-class" standard-of-living


Here I have to disagree with you. In general, ALL systems are around because they "work". But capitalism' greatest achievement has been its general indoctrination into the American culture. We don't have "workers" political parties that function in America any more than we have class consiousness.

Children are not brought up to be "pro-capitalist" in America, though many European households use the words communist or socialist in telling their children how they are aligned politically.

Our culture includes built in to it the SELLING of capitalism as part of normal life. Children are brought up on the overall concept of freedom of choice, which includes freedom to consume and make consumer choices.

But no one here walks around and says, or probably even thinks, "we're free enterprise because it's still working".

Feudalism worked for over 500 years, but the Plague placed too much pressure on the lord & vassel system that was not prepared to deal with the concept of cooperation.

The capitalist powers showed in World War II that they are very capable of working together to achieve a goal. Hence, the heart of my thesis, that capitalist nations are capable of adaptation.

Your comments about the wealthy classes versus the poor. I don't have statistics, but I'll bet the poor had a far harder time in 1906 than they do in 2006. There were no child labor laws, no social security, no medicare, and no to a whole bunch of stuff. You wrote about the bottom being kicked further to the bottom. Many of the things the American worker has today wouldn't have been dreamed of 100 years ago.

There has been a study over this private security craze sweeping America. It would interest you to know that some poor communities are also trying to get these devices. These also include city planning in lower class neighborhoods that creates only one enterence into the community; that is, one street that enters a grid of interior streets that 1) prevents people from using a community as a thorowfare, and 2) assists in community members knowing who's in their neighborhood.

It's possible capitalists can exploit this by hiring many people to protect the poor as well as themselves, including more for a low wage.

All I'm saying is that direct action is better than waiting for it to all come down. Because it might, uncooperatively, not come down on its own and may need a push or two.

[Leo]

Most people support capitalism because its part of the culture.

If you ask an American over 35 why they wouldn't consider Marxist socialism, those who would care to answer you would do so with the frame of reference of China and the former USSR. All the theroy is meaningless to them because of the lousy examples Lenin, Stalin and Mao have made of socialism. And many know China is a de facto capitalist system.

First of all, one must remember that the world does not consist of the United States and the rest is not irrelevant. It is true that there is a strong ideological effort to make capitalism part of the American culture, and it is thought to be working, but this is a spectacle. In fact, it appears to be working (with signs of strain as Redsar2000 pointed out), but this spectacle is caused by the exploitation of the labor force and resources of the third world. When the third world stops allowing the capitalists to exploit its resources and labor, the spectacle will dissapear very quickly then we will see the real situation capitalisms in, in the United States which is something I expect to be truly grim, even tragic.


In the "global market place", the pressure is on to reduce labor costs. Reforms cost money that the rulling classes in the "old" capitalist countries can no longer afford to spend.

Exactky... I think this by itself shows that the capitalist system is really near the end in the global area. If they can't afford reforms, they can't prevent revolution.


But capitalism' greatest achievement has been its general indoctrination into the American culture.

As I have said before, world is not limited to America. US has a capitalist utopian image, but the image is false, their wealth doesn't come from the sky, it comes from the rest of the world, it has the sweat and blood of the third world on it.


Children are brought up on the overall concept of freedom of choice, which includes freedom to consume and make consumer choices.

But no one here walks around and says, or probably even thinks, "we're free enterprise because it's still working".

The truth is not always easy to accept. The hegemony wants them to think that they have freedom of choice, which includes freedom to consume and make consumer choices and they want to think that way as well because the rest of the world is a spectacle for the ordinary American. It is a distant, unimportant spectacle, they don't want to realize the reality behind the spectacle, they don't want to realize that the person who made their clothes are starving right now. They are fooled by the spectacle because they can afford to be fooled by the spectacle.


The capitalist powers showed in World War II that they are very capable of working together to achieve a goal. Hence, the heart of my thesis, that capitalist nations are capable of adaptation.

Adaptation, yes, but not in the way you think. Nationalism, or patriotism as it is more oftenly called here, which is a concept of superior nation instead of superior race, as in racism, is one of the best ways of making the masses obediant and that will not be abolished, neither will countries or borders. But other than that, not only WWII but the recent process of Globalization also shows that they work together when it is profitable or necassary.


I don't have statistics, but I'll bet the poor had a far harder time in 1906 than they do in 2006. There were no child labor laws, no social security, no medicare, and no to a whole bunch of stuff. You wrote about the bottom being kicked further to the bottom. Many of the things the American worker has today wouldn't have been dreamed of 100 years ago.

In America, the situation for workers is better, but in 1906, labor force of the rest of the world wasn't exploited in the level it is exploited right now. Third world today is worse than US in 1906. Besides the situation of the workers right now in US makes it possible for the utopian capitalist spectacle to be created and accepted. Capitalism seems like working because it has a convincing balance of production and distribution, but in order the keep this balance, there has to be a growing income imbalance, therefore the convincing balance of production and distribution is an artificial balance, and it is bound to collapse.


All I'm saying is that direct action is better than waiting for it to all come down.

Yes, I most definetly agree with that one. Capitalism is bound to collapse, but we, as intellectuals are a part of this process. The historical mission of the intellectuals is very critical. If intellectuals can unite the entire workers of the world, which will take all kinds of action, then the united and conscious workers will abolish capitalism and start building the future.

[MurderInc]

First of all, one must remember that the world does not consist of the United States and the rest is not irrelevant. It is true that there is a strong ideological effort to make capitalism part of the American culture, and it is thought to be working, but this is a spectacle. In fact, it appears to be working (with signs of strain as Redsar2000 pointed out), but this spectacle is caused by the exploitation of the labor force and resources of the third world. When the third world stops allowing the capitalists to exploit its resources and labor, the spectacle will dissapear very quickly then we will see the real situation capitalisms in, in the United States which is something I expect to be truly grim, even tragic.


Yes and no. First of all, this post was about America. The United States is more powerful internally than you may think. Your allusion to the U.S. needing a third world to make things cheaply is only a recent phonominan (please be kind as I spell this word). In fact, many can remember a time when nearly everything was made in the USA, and only crap came from abroad.

Many aspects of America can be remedied by an equal American product and resoursfullness. It only appears as though American can't make stuff cheaply. If the third world stopped selling $60 DVD players or instead sold higher priced textiles, then the U.S. wouldn't cry itself into a little ball. America would adapt. Ironically, many of the so-called communist nations are the ones providing the stuff to America. Form an American point of view, it's probably silly to think that America should feel guilty of cheap products made in a communits country.

Many of the things America does through capitalism, this indoctrination of the young I wrote about, are not based on specticle, and have nothing to do with other countries. When a young boy plays little league, as a rule here, most or all of his clothes and equipment are made in the USA. The rest of the world could vanish tomorrow, and it wouldn't effect his game or field one bit.

America produced a TON of wheat, and uses it for itself. It sells to other countries, too, but that has nothing to do with feeding itself.

If the world decided not to sell the U.S. oil, things would be hell for a while, but eventually that would push new invention and achievement.

This is the built in problem with Socialism: Invention is the achievement of the single mind. The USSR couldn't produce squat in new technology. No insentive. Even if an Edison was socialistic, and worked for the common good in a Marxist society, there would be no approval for 1/2 the stuff he tinkered with. But the public could pick and choose what they liked.



Exactky... I think this by itself shows that the capitalist system is really near the end in the global area. If they can't afford reforms, they can't prevent revolution.


This is pure wishful thinking. Socialists have been claiming capitalism is near the end for over 100 years. What is at the end is capitalism as defined by the corporation dictating terms to weak nations. There is no reason why capitalism won't adapt. Business is VERY CAPABLE of adaptation. It fuels business.



The truth is not always easy to accept. The hegemony wants them to think that they have freedom of choice, which includes freedom to consume and make consumer choices and they want to think that way as well because the rest of the world is a spectacle for the ordinary American. It is a distant, unimportant spectacle, they don't want to realize the reality behind the spectacle, they don't want to realize that the person who made their clothes are starving right now. They are fooled by the spectacle because they can afford to be fooled by the spectacle.


As mentioned above, this is not specticle on many American traits, but part of American fabric. And this hegemony thing that everyone's tripping about is only a recent concept. It is not necessary for the rest of the world to be capitalist for capitalism to succeed. This is probably Marx's big mistake: the presumption that one capitalist nation, with resources aplenty within its borders, MUST have overseas markets and labor. It really doesn't have to have any of that. It merely needs to sustain itself. It's only the upper 2% of America who have defined capitalism as the right of people to make tons of money at others' misery. The system "if capitalism is a system, can change.



Adaptation, yes, but not in the way you think. Nationalism, or patriotism as it is more oftenly called here, which is a concept of superior nation instead of superior race, as in racism, is one of the best ways of making the masses obediant and that will not be abolished, neither will countries or borders. But other than that, not only WWII but the recent process of Globalization also shows that they work together when it is profitable or necassary.

World War II did have those elements, but the U.S. believing it was the superior race to the Germans and Japanese was not at the heart of the Allied victory. (Hey, today is VE Day.)


[QUOTE]In America, the situation for workers is better, but in 1906, labor force of the rest of the world wasn't exploited in the level it is exploited right now. Third world today is worse than US in 1906. Besides the situation of the workers right now in US makes it possible for the utopian capitalist spectacle to be created and accepted. Capitalism seems like working because it has a convincing balance of production and distribution, but in order the keep this balance, there has to be a growing income imbalance, therefore the convincing balance of production and distribution is an artificial balance, and it is bound to collapse.[QUOTE]


Here I agree with what you point out, it is merely that we differ in that you believe it will colapse, while I believe it can adapt.

My fear is that we will not act to overthrow it in time. This inevitability thing is crap. It takes guts and action. Which is the crux of my argument.

[Leo]

Yes and no. First of all, this post was about America. The United States is more powerful internally than you may think. Your allusion to the U.S. needing a third world to make things cheaply is only a recent phenomenon (please be kind as I spell this word). In fact, many can remember a time when nearly everything was made in the USA, and only crap came from abroad.

Many aspects of America can be remedied by an equal American product and resourcefulness. It only appears as though American can't make stuff cheaply. If the third world stopped selling $60 DVD players or instead sold higher priced textiles, then the U.S. wouldn't cry itself into a little ball. America would adapt. Ironically, many of the so-called communist nations are the ones providing the stuff to America. Form an American point of view; it's probably silly to think that America should feel guilty of cheap products made in a communist country.

This post was about America but America is so deeply connected to the rest of the world that we can’t think of it in a separate way. Secondly, I know very well how powerful US is internally as well, I live in the US! (Although that situation will change soon.) Imperialism is not a recent phenomenon; it is as old as capitalism. This is how the whole system became possible, by the artificial balance caused by the imbalance of income and exploitation of other lands.

I disagree that many aspects of America can be remedied by an equal American product. Technically it can be done, but then America will be in the situation world is in today, it will be a miniature of the world, so eighty five percent of its population will be doing slave labor in sweatshop like places, a significant population will be starving etc, so there will be huge economical crises, depressions etc, and eventually a revolution.


Many of the things America does through capitalism, this indoctrination of the young I wrote about, are not based on spectacle, and have nothing to do with other countries. When a young boy plays little league, as a rule here, most or all of his clothes and equipment are made in the USA. The rest of the world could vanish tomorrow, and it wouldn't affect his game or field one bit.

But indoctrination itself of any kinds is based only on spectacle. A young boy’s equipment might have been made in US, workers are exploited in US too, but his sheets, shoes, the ball he kicks, toys are made outside. He would think that the rest of the world could vanish tomorrow, and it wouldn’t affect his game or field, and he thinking this is the spectacle, because it would affect his life so much. Everything is related to each other.


This is the built in problem with Socialism: Invention is the achievement of the single mind. The USSR couldn't produce squat in new technology. No incentive. Even if an Edison was socialistic, and worked for the common good in a Marxist society, there would be no approval for 1/2 the stuff he tinkered with. But the public could pick and choose what they liked.

I don’t think this is a problem with socialism or Marxism. It is most definitely a problem with the USSR. I would think that in the real communist society, the inventor wouldn’t need incentive or approval as long as he works all his best in the way he thinks he serves for the best of humanity. In a communist society, people do what they want to do.


Socialists have been claiming capitalism is near the end for over 100 years. What is at the end is capitalism as defined by the corporation dictating terms to weak nations. There is no reason why capitalism won't adapt. Business is VERY CAPABLE of adaptation. It fuels business.

Capitalism will try to adapt, but I don’t think they can adapt, not after the workers are united. The strength of business, capitalists and imperialists are a whole bunch of spectacles, the real, conscious source is labor, once they lose control of labor, they will either have to join labor, or die simply because they can’t survive on their own.


And this hegemony thing that everyone's tripping about is only a recent concept.

Hegemony was first described by Gramsci in the twenties, so yes it is historically recent, but not more recent our lifetimes. I would advise you to read his work, there might be several things you don't agree (as for in my case, they were), but it is quite interesting.


It is not necessary for the rest of the world to be capitalist for capitalism to succeed. This is probably Marx's big mistake: the presumption that one capitalist nation, with resources aplenty within its borders, MUST have overseas markets and labor. It really doesn't have to have any of that. It merely needs to sustain itself.

So you think 'capitalism in one country' (ironic huh?) is possible. As I have said before, theoretically it is possible but it is impossible for the country the remain the same way it did before. Capitalism must preserve the artificial balance to continue functioning, and to preserve the artificial balance, the income imbalance must grow increasingly, so this would as I said before, turn US into a miniaturized model of the current world. Nevertheless, in practice things are never so simple, all those transitions occuring in the world would affect the US workers themselves. Even if capitalism manages to preserve itself in one country, a revolution there won't be that much of a challenge.


Here I agree with what you point out, it is merely that we differ in that you believe it will collapse, while I believe it can adapt.

My fear is that we will not act to overthrow it in time. This inevitability thing is crap. It takes guts and action. Which is the crux of my argument.

Well, of course if we don't overthrow it, it won't collapse! I think you see yourself, and your fellow intellectuals, out of the picture, and you think it depends on what we do from the outside. However we are very much in the picture, and taking the action you find necassary is our historical mission to unite the workers. The same thing you describe as 'inevitability' is something effective in our lives as well. We react to events around us, this is what brings all those thoughts of revolution to our minds.
As for the idea of 'inevitability' itself, it becomes a philosophical topic. Past events were 'inevitable' in a way, because they only happened once, and they couldn't happen again. Future is objectively not so different from the past, so in a way it is inevitable. The moment, the situation we are living in right now is actually the only time we are free, and the choices we make now create the inevitable, and the choices we make are our historical mission.
Will it happen? Will we, as intellectuals, fulfill our historical mission? I don't know, looking at the stance of the world I can say that we have a big shot, and I won't wait to act.

[MurderInc]

Leo Uilleann:
Thank you for not ranting bur for making solid arguments. I appreciated the intellectual discussion and there is much sense in some of your points.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by MurderInc
In general, ALL systems are around because they "work". But capitalism's greatest achievement has been its general indoctrination into the American culture.

I will concede the point that for many people in the U.S., capitalism is "just the way the world is"...like it's hot in the summertime and cold in the wintertime.

But I think you exaggerate this "ideological hegemony" quite a bit. Lots of people are very cynical about the "ideals" professed by capitalist ideologues.

Look at these threads from Opposing Ideologies...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49747

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49512

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49118

Notice that these items don't come from "leftist malcontents" but directly from the bourgeois media themselves...suggesting that they are at least somewhat concerned over the "shakiness" of thier "hegemony". :)

And then there's this one...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48511


Your comments about the wealthy classes versus the poor. I don't have statistics, but I'll bet the poor had a far harder time in 1906 than they do in 2006. There were no child labor laws, no social security, no medicare, and no to a whole bunch of stuff. You wrote about the bottom being kicked further to the bottom. Many of the things the American worker has today wouldn't have been dreamed of 100 years ago.

In 1906, working people had very low "expectations"...people now resent it when the system "fails to deliver" that "middle-class" standard-of-living.

They will have a lot to resent over the coming decades.


All I'm saying is that direct action is better than waiting for it to all come down. Because it might, uncooperatively, not come down on its own and may need a push or two.

Indisputable. The nature of that "push" is, of course, very controversial here. Few here are willing to subordinate themselves to a "vanguard party" in order to "push capitalism over the edge".

The Leninists here argue strenuously that those of us unwilling to join their "army" are "do-nothings" simply "waiting" for capitalism to fall of its own weight.

If Marx was right, it will fall of its own weight.


This is the built in problem with Socialism: Invention is the achievement of the single mind. The USSR couldn't produce squat in new technology. No incentive.

No.

Technological innovation is unquestionably a social phenomenon. And the Russians were very good at it...in the areas where they deployed resources for that purpose.

They were not interested in producing lots of interesting new consumer goodies...so they did very poorly in that regard.

But they did build the most consistently reliable spacecraft on Earth.


This is probably Marx's big mistake: the presumption that one capitalist nation, with resources aplenty within its borders, MUST have overseas markets and labor.

It rather seems to have worked out that way. All of the capitalist countries seem to be in a "feeding frenzy" over foreign markets, foreign resources, and foreign (cheap) labor.

Seems to me that Marx "got this one right".


The system, if capitalism is a system, can change.

But "for better" or "for worse"?

Looks like "worse" to me.


My fear is that we will not act to overthrow it in time.

"In time" for what? The 11:00 PM News?

Great revolutions, "system-changing" revolutions, seem to come "when they will"...when truly enormous numbers of people have "had enough". We do whatever little we can to "help that along", but it's not something that we can "make happen" to suit our convenience.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Leo]

Thank you for not ranting bur for making solid arguments. I appreciated the intellectual discussion and there is much sense in some of your points.

Oh, thank you for posting the topic, I enjoyed the intellectual discussion as well. Ranting is not good, I don't approve with ranting or polemics etc.


I will concede the point that for many people in the U.S., capitalism is "just the way the world is"...like it's hot in the summertime and cold in the wintertime.

But I think you exaggerate this "ideological hegemony" quite a bit. Lots of people are very cynical about the "ideals" professed by capitalist ideologues.

Look at these threads from Opposing Ideologies...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49747

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49512

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49118

Notice that these items don't come from "leftist malcontents" but directly from the bourgeois media themselves...suggesting that they are at least somewhat concerned over the "shakiness" of thier "hegemony". smile.gif

And then there's this one...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48511


I am not really surprised, I find it possible to observe that rejection of the system, the first rebellion, in the United States. Oh, by the way;


France 50% disagreed! :D

:) :D :lol: Maybe I should consider going to France in the near future. Maybe we all should...


The potential for an international communist movement is significant.

Yes, most definetly...


My own prediction for communist revolution in the United States is c.2100 -- but it's quite possible that I may have been considerably too pessimistic.

I think you are a little pessimistic. Once the process starts, I would guess that it would take about fifty years to replace capitalism with communism globally, and the last place revolution will happen is probably US, so I'd say fifty years. Maybe I am too optimistic.


The Leninists here argue strenuously that those of us unwilling to join their "army" are "do-nothings" simply "waiting" for capitalism to fall of its own weight.

If Marx was right, it will fall of its own weight.

I agree with Marx here, the revolution is capitalism falling of its own weight, because its own weight is actually 'labor' force. Leninists are a necassary force to unite the workers simply because they exist. I see it necassary to unite with Leninists too. Of course we must be on guard and hopeully when the workers are united, they will realize that they don't need any leadership.


Great revolutions, "system-changing" revolutions, seem to come "when they will"...when truly enormous numbers of people have "had enough". We do whatever little we can to "help that along", but it's not something that we can "make happen" to suit our convenience.

I believe truly enormous numbers of people have "had enough". As you have said, The potential for an international communist movement is significant. Now is the time for us to do the little to help that along, to fulfill our historical mission as intellectuals which is uniting the workers.