Will Capitalism Fall?

[ebeneezer]

Because it is synonimous with human nature. Absolute Fact. It will last forever.

Tell me please, when will it fall? You guys have been predicting this for a while...

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:09 AM
Because it is synonimous with human nature. Absolute Fact. It will last forever.

Tell me please, when will it fall? You guys have been predicting this for a while...
How the hell can it be synonymous with human nature when it has only existed for less than 1000 years?

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by ThisAnarchistKillsNazis+Aug 4 2006, 09:19 AM--> (ThisAnarchistKillsNazis @ Aug 4 2006, 09:19 AM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 10:09 AM
Because it is synonimous with human nature. Absolute Fact. It will last forever.

Tell me please, when will it fall? You guys have been predicting this for a while...
How the hell can it be synonymous with human nature when it has only existed for less than 1000 years? [/b]
people have always had private property in one form or another. they desire it. whereever people are free, they will have private property.

The derire to collect private property is EVOLUTIONARYILY stronger than the dersire to distribute it just in the same ratio is capitalism is stronger than communism.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by ebeneezer+Aug 4 2006, 10:22 AM--> (ebeneezer @ Aug 4 2006, 10:22 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:19 AM

[email protected] 4 2006, 10:09 AM
Because it is synonimous with human nature. Absolute Fact. It will last forever.

Tell me please, when will it fall? You guys have been predicting this for a while...
How the hell can it be synonymous with human nature when it has only existed for less than 1000 years?
people have always had private property in one form or another. they desire it. whereever people are free, they will have private property.

The derire to collect private property is EVOLUTIONARYILY stronger than the dersire to distribute it just in the same ratio is capitalism is stronger than communism. [/b]

What about in ancient times, when they didn't use money and had few possessions in the way we do?

[BobKKKindle$]

The Way in which Capitalism must continually search for new and efficient means of producing commodities, and the way in which new markets must be achieved at all costs means that an alternative is inevitably by necessity. I am of course referring to Imperialism - that before manifested itself in globalisation, and neo liberal free trade, but with the advent of the Iraq war, is now manifested in the military domination of lesser nations so as to conquer resources and markets.


Imperialism is Capitalism in that stage of development in which the domination of Monopoly and finance Capital has taken shape, in which the Export of Capital has aquirred pronounced importance, in which the division of the world by international trusts has begun, and in which the partition of the earth by the great Capitalist Powers has begun Vladimir Lenin, Imperialism

Failure to Resist Imperialism, the final stage of Capitalism, will mean the demise of Humanity in the name of Profit (Although no doubt it will come in the guise of the Stars and Stripes, and Freedom from Terror) and so we have no choice but to destroy Capitalism, and with it the Hegemony of the United States if Humanity is to live free from domination and repression.

Aside from the above, it should be further noted that Capitalism is exhibiting signs that indicate a system in decay, or at least on the verge of a crisis.

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/121_crisis

[Whitten]

people have always had private property in one form or another. they desire it. whereever people are free, they will have private property.

During the earlies ages of human history, the primitive communist tribes had no private property. The slave societies of ancient and classical times, or the roman empire, the slave class was not entitled to property, they were the property oftheir owners. In feudal times, even the aristocracy were not allowed private property, they governed the property of their king.

As you can see, these systems which have existed far longer than capitalism, have never used the idea of universal private property. Why should a system that has existed for a few centuries be "synonimous with human nature", in complete disregard for millions of years of human society without it.

[Socialistpenguin]

Indeed. In primitive times, private property only consisted of what you could carry with you, as there was much need to travel for better sources of food. Sentimentality of unwieldy objects could've proved to be fatal. Also, there was no parasite class because of little surplus, as practically everything caught or foraged would be consumed immediately: a non-contributing parasitic class above them would have had dire consequences for the rest of the group.

[Herman]

people have always had private property in one form or another. they desire it. whereever people are free, they will have private property.

So? It doesn't matter. The ruling class has had more property because the ruling class owned the means of production throughout the different stages of society. Whereas the labourers, the peasants, the working class have been alienated from their own creations, from the product of their own labour.


The derire to collect private property is EVOLUTIONARYILY stronger than the dersire to distribute it just in the same ratio is capitalism is stronger than communism.

Wrong. There is no proof of this. Can you give me a scientific analysis of the human brain, to check for whatever gene states, 'I am greedy, I must take rather than distribute'? No, you can't, because such a thing doesn't exist. This human nature of yours is a myth.

[Rollo]

I've been lightly drinking so I didn't read the whole thread but I would like to point out there are still tribes in indonesia and africa that are 100% pseudo anarchist tribes. They have no police, government or capitalism. The men are the hunters and the women make the clothes and gather fruits and berries. Everybody contributes and it works fine, explain why it wouldn't work anywhere else?

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:09 AM
Because it is synonimous with human nature. Absolute Fact. It will last forever.
to posit that anything is "synonymous" with human nature is sheer fraud. the question of human nature is presently beyond the grasp of any scientist, so you're left with half-assed guesses as to what can and can't happen, i.e. you have the kind of drivel floating through the air that makes such threads possible.

the best thing we can say is that human nature is volatile, an idea that has been corroborated by countless years of experience.. and experiment.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by ThisAnarchistKillsNazis+Aug 4 2006, 04:32 AM--> (ThisAnarchistKillsNazis @ Aug 4 2006, 04:32 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:19 AM

[email protected] 4 2006, 10:09 AM
Because it is synonimous with human nature. Absolute Fact. It will last forever.

Tell me please, when will it fall? You guys have been predicting this for a while...
How the hell can it be synonymous with human nature when it has only existed for less than 1000 years?
people have always had private property in one form or another. they desire it. whereever people are free, they will have private property.

The derire to collect private property is EVOLUTIONARYILY stronger than the dersire to distribute it just in the same ratio is capitalism is stronger than communism.

What about in ancient times, when they didn't use money and had few possessions in the way we do? [/b]
we've been using money for thousands of years, in one way or another.

[More Fire for the People]

If capitalism is human nature, why is it a recent invention?

[colonelguppy]

its not a recent invention. markets have been around for thousands of years, they've just been clouded through out time by political/religous strife, like any other system would be.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:06 PM
its not a recent invention. markets have been around for thousands of years, they've just been clouded through out time by political/religous strife, like any other system would be.
How was feudalism a market system? Or how were primitive socieites a market system? And capitalism is not merely a market, it is production by businesses that are owned by those who extract surplus-value off the labor of those who do not own businesses.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+Aug 4 2006, 02:12 PM--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ Aug 4 2006, 02:12 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 01:06 PM
its not a recent invention. markets have been around for thousands of years, they've just been clouded through out time by political/religous strife, like any other system would be.
How was feudalism a market system? Or how were primitive socieites a market system? And capitalism is not merely a market, it is production by businesses that are owned by those who extract surplus-value off the labor of those who do not own businesses. [/b]
of course there were markets in fuedalism, well within it atleast. it was just blurred from earlier forms by the way society was politically organized, there was still the fundementals of private ownership and voluntary transaction of goods between lords. the only difference was that peasants we allowed few political/property rights, but that doesn't mean the spirit of the market wasn't there.

and yeah, thats not the definition of capitalism.

[More Fire for the People]

and yeah, thats not the definition of capitalism.
I don't see how it's not. It's the exact abstraction of the historical period of capitalism that distinguishes it from all other abstractions of historical periods.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:09 AM
Because it is synonimous with human nature. Absolute Fact. It will last forever.

Tell me please, when will it fall? You guys have been predicting this for a while...
But if Marxism is so impossible, then why do the capitalists spend so much time and money on slandering it and libelling it to repel people from it? Why would they waste time and money beating a dead horse.

It is impossible to predict an exact time of revolution. Revolutionary movements have already begun, particularly in Venezuela, but it is impossible to predict an exact date of victory, given that they succeed in the first place.

[Enragé]

the human nature argument is the most moronic argument in existance

prove to me that human nature even exists,
then prove to me that its capitalist!

people are formed by their surroundings, by the society in which they live, by the prevailing habits

and thats what capitalism is, a habit

[Comrade-Z]

of course there were markets in fuedalism, well within it atleast. it was just blurred from earlier forms by the way society was politically organized, there was still the fundementals of private ownership and voluntary transaction of goods between lords. the only difference was that peasants we allowed few political/property rights, but that doesn't mean the spirit of the market wasn't there.

Actually, the "spirit of the market" was very much lacking in the middle ages. Those who produced for exchange rather than use were looked at as immoral profit-mongering usurers (that's where the word usury comes from--when people in ancient times first started to charge fees for letting other people use the stuff that they produced. Charging interest on money was just one method of usury. Producing for exchange--not producing for our own use, but producing in order to earn a profit from letting others use it--was another method of usury).

Indeed, the very definition of a commodity is that which is produced for exchange rather than use. The medieval peasant produced almost entirely for use--that is, his master's use (and his own use, to a lesser extent). There was very little circulation of money and very little market activity. The temporary trading fairs in Flanders in the 12th century were really extraordinary events at the time.

And, of course, private property rights didn't didn't exist for slaves!


we've been using money for thousands of years, in one way or another.

The ancient Lydians were the first to use money. Before that, I guess people just defied "human nature."

You know what the divine right monarchs were saying in 1500 AD, right?

"The monarchy is the most supremely just, divine, and natural institution of mankind. Any talk about taking away the monarchy is absurd. We are clearly born superior, being God's appointed stewards on Earth, and our entire civilization would fall to pieces without our benevolent rule. Our rule is eternal." The Enlightenment thinkers laid that mythology to rest.

I'm just barely old enough to remember the sentiment concerning communism in the mid 1990s. People were saying, "With the fall of the USSR, it's finally been defeated forever! Capitalism has triumphed!" And now, ten years later, we're still here.

I'd like to know, in the opinion of the pro-capitalists, what creates communists? Spoiled kids who don't want to do any work? Sounds more like feudal princes or the Walton kids to me, and they certainly don't have communist sentiments. And do you ever anticipate communism going away as a serious force? In 3000 AD, assuming the Earth is still capitalist, as you probably expect, do you anticipate the same types of things going on them that are going on now? Strikes? Occasional riots? Communist movements?

[DPCC2002]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:22 AM


The derire to collect private property is EVOLUTIONARYILY stronger than the dersire to distribute it just in the same ratio is capitalism is stronger than communism.
I believe most of the Native American tribes had no form of private property during their entire existence. They had the level of consciousness to understand the Earth is not here for our taking.

[Zingu]

The fall of capitalism?

Inevitable.


Falling Rate of Profit (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49460&hl=Falling+Rate+of+Profit)


More discussion about it here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44841&hl=Falling+Rate+of+Profit)


Marx's own writing on it: "Capital: Volume 3" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch13.htm)

Capitalism relies on surplus value, but its headed on its own course of diminishing surplus value, I haven't quite got there yet in my reading, but I've got a fair idea of it by these posts and other discussion.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by ebeneezer+Aug 4 2006, 09:22 AM--> (ebeneezer @ Aug 4 2006, 09:22 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:19 AM

[email protected] 4 2006, 10:09 AM
Because it is synonimous with human nature. Absolute Fact. It will last forever.

Tell me please, when will it fall? You guys have been predicting this for a while...
How the hell can it be synonymous with human nature when it has only existed for less than 1000 years?
people have always had private property in one form or another. they desire it. whereever people are free, they will have private property.

The derire to collect private property is EVOLUTIONARYILY stronger than the dersire to distribute it just in the same ratio is capitalism is stronger than communism. [/b]
On the evolution point, that's not true at all.

Firstly, going on empirical evidence, the capitalist mode of production and it's focus on acquisitiveness, exploitation of the planet and unsustainable growth is leading us, and thousands of other species to extinction- hardly an evolutionary beneficial position.

Secondly, it you take the "selfish gene" point of view, humans are laregly genetically similar, which means that our genes should be prompting us to look out for one another. Additionally, often things that benefit others also benefit us- like providing particular services in an area. So selfishness and pivate property really have very little to do with anything.

I love how you state that something as contentious and completely unproven as 'human nature' as "absolute fact." Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.

[Yamashita]

Just wondering, would all the years of free trade in ancient times, even the Silk Road and so on, be considered as i guess "capitalism"?

Hasn't "private" business existed since like, ever? Just wondering.

[Zero]

Well "business" as we know it has changed over the centuries, first appearing as the well-to-do slave owner in ancient societies, or the fruit salesmen in the market square who buys directly from the farmers. Like different struggles over the years, it has taken different forms when faced with different environments.

Though I'm not near the historian that I wish I was, so I can't say for sure when the origins of business 'officially' emerged. Maybe someone else can help with that.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:01 PM
Just wondering, would all the years of free trade in ancient times, even the Silk Road and so on, be considered as i guess "capitalism"?

no, those things merely point to the existence of markets. capitalism as a dominant system has only been around for a few centuries. it emerged through mercantalism, which opened up (or, "globalized") the world to an extent, an on-going process that's still around today.

[Yamashita]

first appearing as the well-to-do slave owner in ancient societies, or the fruit salesmen in the market square who buys directly from the farmers. Like different struggles over the years, it has taken different forms when faced with different environments.

What? Are you saying that the first businesses where "slave owners"? :huh: I don't seem to agree on that, masons, welders, fisherman, etc. Im positive private business has existed since the earliest humans, and it wasn't slavery.


no, those things merely point to the existence of markets. capitalism as a dominant system has only been around for a few centuries. it emerged through mercantalism, which opened up (or, "globalized") the world to an extent, an on-going process that's still around today

Well, capitalism is a "market" economy. And yes capitalism as we know it today has been around for a few centuries i guess. But what's the difference today from say, the Venitian states of the time of Marco Polo for example? What is the major difference today of the free market systems, than from the "market" systems of the past? Well i guess in the past you probably had to pay taxes to the King or something, but yet again we pay taxes to the government.

Isn't everywhere you can have your own private business and profit from it, "capitalism"? Because than capitalism has existed since recorded history.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Yamashita"
What? Are you saying that the first businesses where "slave owners"? I don't seem to agree on that, masons, welders, fisherman, etc. Im positive private business has existed since the earliest humans, and it wasn't slavery.
Well, not really. Thats just the first example that came to mind of an organised form of connecting labor to buyers. Theres probably other examples.

[Yamashita]

Well, not really. Thats just the first example that came to mind of an organised form of connecting labor to buyers. Theres probably other examples.

Ohh, ok fair enough. I get you now. :blush:

[red team]

Well, not really. Thats just the first example that came to mind of an organised form of connecting labor to buyers. Theres probably other examples.

More accurately, the buyers have a monopoly position in society in being the owners of wealth in which they "promise" to pay you back some of it in exchange for your labour by giving you "promissary" notes as a wage. The part they don't tell you about is that this is impossible as they set a higher price for their products as a result of your labour than what they gave you for your labour. This is clearly impossible to fulfill so what you have is essentially a game of musical chairs played with money. Somebody, somewhere will have to go into debt, go bankrupt, work for free.

If connecting labour with buyers is your only criteria then so-called socialist countries could also fit the bill as this is what they also do.

[Abolish Communism]

Will Capitalism Fall?

Well, the problem here is that commies don't view one capitalism as "better" than another capitalism. Most here that I have argued with view the Bill of Rights as a sham, and civil justice in the United States as by the rich, for the rich. To Marxists here at RevLeft, the 14th Amendment and King's movement were of no consequence to the overall concept of America. Our removal of the property ownership requirement for voting, back around the 1830's, is again, no biggie to you guys.

So discussing this is a waste of time.

It is fair to say that merchantilism replaced fedualsim around the 1300s, and that capitalism replaced it around the 1700s.

Capitalism, in the sense of average people being involved in their finances is only about 300 years old in Europe and the Americas. Other places throughout the world eventually became "capitalist" through trade.

Since about the 1880's, capitalism in the U.S. has evolved, and that's the answer to this question. Capitalism will evolve. Like all things, they change, or they die. China's a prime example of this.

Capitalism will not die, but it will also not return to 8 year olds in mine shafts, non-regulation of air and water, and bargaining units ruled illegal.

[red team]

Capitalism will not die, but it will also not return to 8 year olds in mine shafts, non-regulation of air and water, and bargaining units ruled illegal.


So how do you compete with those who do have lower production costs from using super-exploited labour? Do you know how many expendable, destitute workers there are in the world that can be worked until exhaustion and death? How can you compete against that? There is an answer for those who want to compete, but then your up against people in the developed world who choose not to participate in such a competition because there's no meaningful rewards for them to do so.