Is Capitalism Already Dead?

[Led Zeppelin]

Are we socialists asking the right question about capitalism? Most theories can be seen as answers to particular questions, just as most of our political activities follow from the theories that we use. Thus, questions lead to theories, which lead to action. So it is absolutely essential in dealing with capitalism that we begin with the right question.

Marxists, who view capitalism as a historically specific social formation with a beginning and an ending, have traditionally asked one or another version of the question, "When will capitalism die?". This has had a profound effect on all our political strategy and practice. But what if capitalism is already dead? Then, the appropriate question is - "When did it die, and what should our reaction be?"

No, I am not jesting, nor is this just a polemical point. When exactly something dies is not easy to determine. As regards the individual, is it when everything in the body stops working? Or is it when the heart stops? Or when one goes into an irreversible coma? Or contracts a terminal disease? There is obviously a process here, and one could make a case for focusing on any of these moments as the moment of death. The same is true of a social system, such as capitalism. Because it appears to be alive and even strong, many are likely to be shocked by my assertion that capitalism is already dead. I would only ask you to recall, however, what Marx taught us about the deceptive nature of appearances.

Have you ever seen a chicken with its head cut off, how it runs wildly about, sometimes for several seconds, before it collapses and dies? If you are small and unlucky enough to be in its way, you can get badly hurt by these final gyrations. Capitalism is a lot like this chicken. It has died, but doesn't know it, and is flailing away in its death throes, causing terrible harm to everyone within striking distance.

Capitalism died the moment the conditions necessary for accumulating capital on the scale required by the enormous amount of wealth available for investment could no longer be assured. It died when the related conditions that are indispensable for selling all of the rapidly growing amount of finished goods likewise evolved out of reach. Today, there are simply not enough profitable investments in the production and distribution of goods, given the gigantic sums seeking such investments; nor are there enough people with the purchasing power to buy the mountain of goods that have already been produced.

These problems, of course, have always existed as part of capitalism - Marx presents them as internal and necessary contradictions of the capitalist system. But only recently have these problems become terminal. Earlier, major wars and a Cold War came to the rescue of the system by destroying and wasting enough wealth to create new opportunities for profitable investment. Thankfully, in the age of nuclear power, a major war is unthinkable (and if it occurs, there will be no one around to reap the benefits), and minor wars, as in the Gulf and Yugoslavia, do not destroy enough to play the same economic role in capitalism that was played by World Wars I and II. The alternatives that have arisen - like investment in the former "socialist" lands, the expansion of credit, space exploration, etc. - are simply too little to take up the slack.

As for being able to sell the growing amount of goods that are produced, here too capitalism seems to have come to the end of its tether. At the very time that developments in technology have led to an enormous increase in the amount of goods available for sale, the spread of capitalist production into many poor countries has given rise to a global working class whose low earnings permit them to buy an ever-diminishing proportion of what they make. The result is that capitalism is being suffocated with goods it can't sell. In the past, depressions - like major wars - provided a solution of sorts for this problem by destroying and wasting the goods that could not be sold as well as the factories that made them, so that capital could begin all over. Essential to the success of this formula was the link between increased investment and a rise in employment. Now, however, with the advances in automation, computerization, and robotization, new production does not necessarily mean more jobs. And without more jobs, the working class will not be able to consume more and help trigger the heightened investment that brought capitalism out of previous slumps. My point in all this is that while capitalism is not at its beginning and not at its end, it is definitely at the beginning of its end.

Complete article here: The Question is Not - "When Will Capitalism Die?" but "When Did it Die, and What Should Our Reaction Be?" (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/china_speech.php)


__________________________________________________ __________


I tend to agree with the article. In my opinion capitalism as a social system has become obsolete. The only thing that needs to be done now is for the working class to overthrow it. For that to happen class-consciousness needs to be raised, which is the main task of the vanguard.

What are your opinions?

[KC]

I agree that capitalism is obsolete, but this doesn't mean that it's "dead". But I do agree with you on the need for organization within the working class, and I am guessing that as capitalism decays further living conditions will fall and this task will become more popular.

(And no, I didn't read the article! :P )

[Led Zeppelin]

You should have, it proves that capitalism as a system is dead, i.e., obsolete.

[KC]

Dead isn't the same as obsolete. For example, a computer could be obsolete, but it still runs; it will only be dead when it ceases to function.

[Connolly]

IMO, capitalism is neither dead nor obsolete.

It continues to revolutionise the systems of production just fine. It hasnt "outgrown" anything.

And to use KCs analogy, if you can still install new hardware and software on that old computer then its not obsolete.

Maybe thats why the vanguard is needed, to invent these "all new", into the future computers so that the old one needs to be thrown out.

Pitty they cant see the future in order to do this. :rolleyes:

God might give them a hand.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by The RedBanner+--> (The RedBanner)It continues to revolutionise the systems of production just fine. It hasnt "outgrown" anything.[/b]

Your arguments are so silly.

Technology will never cease to advance, if we go by your logic capitalism will never be dead nor obsolete.


And to use KCs analogy, if you can still install new hardware and software on that old computer then its not obsolete.

Yes, and new hardware and software will always continue to be invented.


Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected]
Dead isn't the same as obsolete. For example, a computer could be obsolete, but it still runs; it will only be dead when it ceases to function.


Article
When exactly something dies is not easy to determine. As regards the individual, is it when everything in the body stops working? Or is it when the heart stops? Or when one goes into an irreversible coma? Or contracts a terminal disease? There is obviously a process here, and one could make a case for focusing on any of these moments as the moment of death. The same is true of a social system, such as capitalism. Because it appears to be alive and even strong, many are likely to be shocked by my assertion that capitalism is already dead. I would only ask you to recall, however, what Marx taught us about the deceptive nature of appearances.

Have you ever seen a chicken with its head cut off, how it runs wildly about, sometimes for several seconds, before it collapses and dies? If you are small and unlucky enough to be in its way, you can get badly hurt by these final gyrations. Capitalism is a lot like this chicken. It has died, but doesn't know it, and is flailing away in its death throes, causing terrible harm to everyone within striking distance.


That's why you should read the article before you respond to it.

[KC]

Have you ever seen a chicken with its head cut off, how it runs wildly about, sometimes for several seconds, before it collapses and dies? If you are small and unlucky enough to be in its way, you can get badly hurt by these final gyrations. Capitalism is a lot like this chicken. It has died, but doesn't know it, and is flailing away in its death throes, causing terrible harm to everyone within striking distance.

That's a really shitty analogy, because the chicken's still alive. The author even admits to it when they say that it runs wildly about "before it...dies". So capitalism might be like a chicken with its head cut off, but it's not dead yet.

[Connolly]

Your arguments are so silly.

Technology will never cease to advance, if we go by your logic capitalism will never be dead nor obsolete.

Capitalism will be dead when it is no longer compatible with technological advance and changing social relations.

It is compatible with present production methods and social relations.

With your logic, feudalism could have been overthrown without the development of the steam engine and the growing socialisation of production. :rolleyes:

It is necessary to overthrow a particular mode of production when it can no longer further the developments of production without compromising itself.

Feudalism could not further its production methods without destroying itself as the steam engine naturally meant the socialisation of production - which then lead to the development of the up an coming bourgeoisie.

Its overthrow was necessary.

Capitalism can, and is, furthering its methods of production without compromising its own position.

It has not become obsolete.


Yes, and new hardware and software will always continue to be invented.

Yes, but the hardware "slots and ports" of the new computers might change - then rendering the old computer obsolete from further updates.

Thats when to throw it out - when it cant be updated.


This question is like the Christian version of the "coming of Christ" - "its going to be this time, my generation will be the one".

Accept it - capitalism is far from finished.

[Comrade-Z]

Your arguments are so silly.

Technology will never cease to advance, if we go by your logic capitalism will never be dead nor obsolete.

No, actually, at a certain point technology will cease to advance if it is being constrained by an obsolete social system. Or, at the very least, its implementation will cease to advance, which has the same effect on society.

A hypothetical example would be computer file-sharing technology that would promise dramatic increases in the standard of living, but which would be held back or "fettered" by the obsolete capitalist relations of production.

Wait, why am I saying "hypothetical"? This is already happening!

Edit:

Another possible example: renewable energy and fusion power. Renewable energy promises the possibility of decentralized energy generation which requires much lower levels of capital investment than coal or nuclear plants to get going. One reason renewable energy is being held back, possibly, is that it would threaten the energy monopolies and give ordinary citizens the power of energy production (and thus capital generation).

Fusion power would be even more threatening to the capitalist system. By promising practically limitless amounts of clean energy, fusion power would leave no excuse for scarcity to exist. It would definitively usher in the existence of superabundance. Of course, the capitalist class needs things to be scarce so that they can be sold for a profit. They will have to make things artificially scarce by destroying a part of the product and productive forces. Such purposeful waste, when contrasted with people badly in need of the things that the capitalists are throwing away, will clearly demonstrate the obsolesence and ineptitude of the capitalist class. Clearly, it will have become "unfit it rule."

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+--> (Khayembii Communique)That's a really shitty analogy, because the chicken's still alive. The author even admits to it when they say that it runs wildly about "before it...dies". So capitalism might be like a chicken with its head cut off, but it's not dead yet. [/b]

A chicken with its head cut off is, per definition, already dead. When the author said "before it dies" he was referring to the body that runs wildly about, the chicken as it once was is already dead by that time.

The same applies to capitalism. As a social system it is already dead, but it is still "wildly running about" in a deformed manner, like the body of the chicken in the analogy. Also, I believe the analogy has a deeper meaning. Without its head the chicken cannot eat, it cannot sustain itself, it is therefore doomed to die in a very short period of time. The spasms the body of the chicken produces are unconscious reactions of the nerves in it, they are not conscious actions produced by the brain, which in animals is always connected to survival.


Originally posted by The [email protected]
With your logic, feudalism could have been overthrown without the development of the steam engine and the growing socialisation of production.

Flaw.

The development of the steam engine, and the growing socialization of production (etc.) were the cause of the bourgeois to exist as a class.

The "gravediggers of feudalism" (as Marx put it) existed as a class when they took over political power in the shape of the French revolution. That is all that is required for societies to change, a gravedigger class powerful (and in our case, conscious) enough to take political power and shape society as it sees fit.

The proletariat as a class already exists, it is already powerful enough to take over, all it needs is to be conscious, which is more difficult than the bourgeois becoming conscious because the vast majority of the population are proletarian.

This time, for society to advance, the vast majority of people need to become conscious, instead of a small group, which was the case before in historical advances. Technology made it possibly for the proletariat to become the largest class in society, in that respect it was crucial in the process of proletarian revolution.


Yes, but the hardware "slots and ports" of the new computers might change - then rendering the old computer obsolete from further updates.

Thats when to throw it out - when it cant be updated.

Then we'll get a new computer, won't we? (to get out of the analogy for a second; Imperialism, neo-colonialism etc.)


Comrade-Z
No, actually, at a certain point technology will cease to advance if it is being constrained by an obsolete social system. Or, at the very least, its implementation will cease to advance, which has the same effect on society.

Yes, true, and we see this today with numerous technologies which already exist, but are not implemented by current society because they do not yield enough profits. The capitalist system is holding back technological development, it is retarding it.

Only a social system based on socialized means of production can change this.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution and other trade of goods and services, for profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Clearly, capitalism is not "already dead" because the characteristics which make our world capitalist still exist. You may argue that capitalism is in the process of dieing (which it is), but the effects of capitalism (which are part of its definition) are still in existence and therefore it is still in existence.

The writer of the article has a poor grasp on the English language and how arguments are supposed to be put together to make a valid conclusion.

Even if the chicken is dead because it's head is cut off (which is semantics), the destruction is causes while dieing is capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is not dead, though it is dieing.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Capitalism is very much alive.

And as long as the people support capitalism, it will, I believe, continue to live.

[Connolly]

The development of the steam engine, and the growing socialization of production (etc.) were the cause of the bourgeois to exist as a class.

The "gravediggers of feudalism" (as Marx put it) existed as a class when they took over political power in the shape of the French revolution. That is all that is required for societies to change, a gravedigger class powerful (and in our case, conscious) enough to take political power and shape society as it sees fit.

I see what your saying.

But,

1) the class consciousness of the feudal bourgeoisie did not always exist, but, infact, required a particular level of production to come into existance.

2) the steam engine went through various degrees of transformation, with various amounts of existing bourgeoisie.

The existance of a class in a social system does not determine whether the system is ready to be transformed.

The emergence of the first few bourgeoisie within feudalism did not mean feudalism as a whole needed to be changed. The productive forces (technology being fundamental to this) were required to reach a particular level before class consciousness could be reached, and therefore, actual sight of what sort of state and property laws they required.

Not only were the productive forces responsible for the emergence of a new class, but were responsible for the development of the class consciousness too.

Those first few bourgeoisie to emerge within feudalism did not have class consciousness - they could not see beyond their present feudal mode, they had small demands when faced with the feudal state.

Only when the bourgeoisie productive forces grew to the point where feudalism could no longer facilitate its further expansion (through feudal property relations and feudal state power), and where the bourgeoisie grew powerful enough to challenge the feudal state was it necessary and possible for its overthrow.

What I am trying to say is, the simple existance of the proletariat within present capitalism does not necessarily mean capitalism needs to be overthrown.

The proletariat have the power in numbers of course (as they did 100 years ago too), but not the class consciousness - which is brought into existance through the productive forces.

The productive forces continue to be revolutionised without being held back by capitalist production relations, state laws or intervention.

The same cannot be said for the powerful bourgeoisie within feudalism, who's own systems of production were held back by feudal laws(property being most important), feudal relations to production and feudal political power.

The emerging capitalist mode was being held back by the feudal state whos interest was to protect the feudal upper classes and their property relations. Revolution of the bourgeosie was necessary.

So, basically - iv probably said it all ready, the capitalist relations to production and the state are not holding back the development of new and greater productive forces.

Of course, as Mrax predicted, capitalism is to an extent through overproduction - but thats relative.

Class consciosness can come about when particular material conditions come into existance - so that the proletariat can actually see what steps and actions to take, where they have sight of what they want - where they can see the new mode of production they require.

If this were not the case, and if the proletariat were brought "class consciousness" (aka false consciousness), they could change society no matter what productive level existed - ignoring the fact that society is based around the mode of production and its forces. That is what "bringing" "class consciousness" does - its void of any relation to the actual productive forces. If it had any true relation to the productive forces - then such a notion wouldnt exist - as the productive forces alone create class consciousness by creating "opening" material conditions for which the proletariat can see what they want.

I hope that explains somewhat. :mellow: