Tackling "Last Stage" Theory

[Lamanov]

Considering the fact that the "Imperialism" theory developed by Lenin is sustaining quite a blow by constant reafirmation of global domination of Capital, not as a decadent feature of existing society, but, on the contrary, as the absolutization of the dominance of Capital world wide and the colonization of everyday life by it, it is more than obvious that this theory is obsolete.

Couple of factors could be crucial for its initial selfsubscribed deadline, but even if I don't want to discuss Lenin himself, I would like to point them out: his political views which this book (same name) was intended to follow, and his leaning on Kautsky and Hilferding - including all Orthodox schemas.

Now, I'll quote Aufheben, Decadence, III (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_4_dec3.html), and their challenge to the theory:

Against this notion that capitalism matured for a mere twenty years in the later part of the nineteenth century and has ever since been in decline, it can of course be countered that the world has become far more capitalist during the course of the twentieth century than it has ever been. This view would seem to become substantiated once we grasp the development of capitalism not in terms of the decline of the law of value, but in terms of the shift from the formal to the real subsumption of labour to capital and the concomitant shift in emphasis from the production of absolute surplus-value to the production of relative surplus-value.[13]

[Footnote 13:] [Marx grasped the nature of class exploitation in capitalist society as being hidden in the payment of a wage for a period of labour some of which - necessary labour - replaced the wages, the rest - unnecessary labour - produced a surplus-value. Absolute surplus-value increases surplus-value by extending the working day. Relative surplus-value increases surplus-value by decreasing the amount of time necessary to reproduce the wage. Relative surplus-value thus requires an increase in productivity. The two forms are not mutually exclusive, but one can say that as capitalism develops there is an important shift where the application of science and technology to the revolutionizing of the productive forces in pursuit of relative surplus-value becomes decisive.]

So, basicly, their concept is this: capitalism as a system is making a shift from the concentration to the extraction of absolute surplus value to the extraction of relative surplus value, following / or followed by, reorganization of social life that corresponds to the changes in the sphere of production, and the methods of fertilization of value (production of surplus value). This shift is a crucial element that shows, not how capitalism is getting "old", but how it's becoming more fit and mature.

[KC]

Someone once suggested to me that the original title of the work was Imperialism: The Latest Stage of Capitalism and that the name was later changed during the Stalin era. Although I've never really looked into it, does anyone know the validity to this claim?

[Die Neue Zeit]

You guys really should read this CPUSA article (not necessarily revolutionary in its blatant reformism, but at least credible on some theoretical points):

Against the Grain - Was Lenin Defective? (http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/197/1/76/)


Lets take a closer look. Lenin’s theory, according to the authors, made the "fundamental mistake" of assuming "capitalist economic stages and crises." Lenin was "defective" in his "historical reading of imperialism" as well as his understanding of capital accumulation and, lastly, his view that "inter-imperialist rivalry" was "an immutable law of capitalist globalization."

...

We can, without accusing Lenin of having a defective historical understanding, agree with P&G that it is false to maintain that "the nature of modern imperialism was once and for all determined in the kinds of rivalries attending the stage of industrial concentration and financialization associated with turn-of-the [19th]-century monopoly capital."

But of course they are correct. No Marxist, especially Lenin, would maintain history gets frozen at a particular stage of its development. Lenin says of his definition of imperialism that it is convenient to sum up the principle aspects of the phenomena he is describing but "nevertheless inadequate" because all definitions [and theories based on them] are "conditional and relative" because all historical social events and formations are in flux.

...

P&G also deny that imperialism is the "highest stage of capitalism." They do this because they are historically situated in the 21st century phase of "globalization" and Lenin’s theory, now almost a century old, dealt with the capitalism of his era. Therefore they maintain that what he was observing was "a relatively early phase of capitalism." They could have saved themselves a lot of unnecessary Lenin criticism had they been more historical themselves. Capitalism is not going to go back to a previous stage of independent national capitalisms. It will continue to internationalize itself through the process we call "globalization" and what Lenin was describing was a relatively early phase of the highest stage of capitalism. What we call "globalization" is just a euphemism for the domination of the world by a handful of powerful states dominated by financial and monopoly elites that continue to plunder the world in their own interests. Lenin saw that this system was really a transitional system to an even higher form of economic development – namely socialism. This transitional nature of the "highest stage of capitalism" is presently obscured by the temporary world dominance of US monopoly capitalism.

We should be absolutely clear about this, Lenin meant by "highest stage" not that the historical features of capitalism in his epoch were fixed for all (capitalist) time, as P&G seem to imply, but only that capitalism had, as capitalism, no higher stage to evolve into that would renounce the need to export capital (finance capital especially) and find markets abroad. Globalization is just the latest stage of monopoly capitalism as it has transformed itself and developed since the days of Lenin, but it is still the logical outcome of the situation described by Marx and Engels in 1848.

...

It is true that Lenin could not foresee the specific historical development that has resulted in "neoliberal" globalization dominated by one "superpower." But it is also true that the theory laid out by Lenin in Imperialism: The Highest Stage Of Capitalism remains the best starting point for any attempt to understand the contemporary world.

And by the way, following the logic of absolute value giving way to relative value, the same thing has occurred long ago with monopoly and with shareholder ownership (pyramidal shareholdings instead of absolute buy-outs).

Microsoft doesn't control 100% of the OS market. Intel doesn't control 100% of the CPU market. However, they are quite capable of exercising monopoly power.

Overall, the central premise that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism remains correct.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by CPUSA+--> (CPUSA)Lenin saw that this system was really a transitional system to an even higher form of economic development – namely socialism. This transitional nature of the "highest stage of capitalism" is presently obscured by the temporary world dominance of US monopoly capitalism.[/b]

And back to Hilferding and Bernstein!

Lenin implied that the "socialized production" on a global scale would be "taken over", and that the only step remaining was the abolition of private enterprise.

This attitude corresponds to Lenin's project of taking over capitalism, not of destroying it: "Capitalism has created an accounting apparatus in the shape of the banks, syndicates, postal service, consumers’ societies, and office employees’ unions. Without big banks socialism would be impossible. ... A single State Bank, the biggest of the big.. will be... the skeleton of socialist society."

Of course, such endeavor is ridiculous, because "taking over" capitalism as such does not guarantee its destruction. Lenin calls for a "revolution" that will simply arm the reform of capitalism from inside, but that will not destroy it in its essence.


Originally posted by CPUSA+--> (CPUSA)But it is also true that the theory laid out by Lenin in Imperialism: The Highest Stage Of Capitalism remains the best starting point for any attempt to understand the contemporary world.[/b]

Simply because it gives us initial traces of forming global enterprises - empyrical data, analyzed - that is, as a good source on the "birth of modern imperialism" on a historical level, but not on a theoretical level as such.


[email protected]
And by the way, following the logic of absolute value giving way to relative value, the same thing has occurred long ago with monopoly and with shareholder ownership (pyramidal shareholdings instead of absolute buy-outs).

Yeah, but that shift means precisely what I say it means: not "decline" of capitalist society (as Orthodox ideology implies), but its increasing ability to dominate whole aspects of life, production and social relations.


Hammer
Overall, the central premise that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism remains correct.

Meaning what?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+June 09, 2007 11:15 pm--> (DJ-TC @ June 09, 2007 11:15 pm)
CPUSA
Lenin saw that this system was really a transitional system to an even higher form of economic development – namely socialism. This transitional nature of the "highest stage of capitalism" is presently obscured by the temporary world dominance of US monopoly capitalism.

And back to Hilferding and Bernstein! [/b]
^^^ But I do agree with you there, though. I did put the disclaimer above regarding CPUSA's REFORMIST agenda. They also make the mistake of thinking that monopoly capitalism is "really a transitional system."

I take it you haven't read my Stamocap (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65240&view=findpost&p=1292297131) thread yet? :huh:


Lenin implied that the "socialized production" on a global scale would be "taken over", and that the only step remaining was the abolition of private enterprise.

Yeah - taken over by revolutionary force, hardly something that the proto-fascist Bernstein would've said.


This attitude corresponds to Lenin's project of taking over capitalism, not of destroying it: "Capitalism has created an accounting apparatus in the shape of the banks, syndicates, postal service, consumers’ societies, and office employees’ unions. Without big banks socialism would be impossible. ... A single State Bank, the biggest of the big.. will be... the skeleton of socialist society."

I've seen that quote so many times. If you want to get into a quote-fest:

"Theoretically, there can be no doubt that between capitalism and communism there lies a definite transition period which must combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy. This transition period has to be a period of struggle between dying capitalism and nascent communism—or, in other words, between capitalism which has been defeated but not destroyed and communism which has been born but is still very feeble." (Economics and Politics in the Era of the DOTP)

"Yesterday, the main task of the moment was, as determinedly as possible, to nationalise, confiscate, beat down and crush the bourgeoisie, and put down sabotage. Today, only a blind man could fail to see that we have nationalised, confiscated, beaten down and put down more than we have had time to count. The difference between socialisation and simple confiscation is that confiscation can be carried out by “determination” alone, without the ability to calculate and distribute properly, whereas socialisation cannot be brought about without this ability." (Left-Wing Childishness)

This goes hand in hand with Marx's contradiction of capitalism: the socialisation of production occurring under private ownership whose interests are of capital.



BTW, ever heard of enterprise resource planning software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_resource_planning)? ;)

[Led Zeppelin]

I skimmed over DJ-TC"s post; can anyone say "taking out of context"?

Man, you've taken so many stuff out of context that it isn't funny anymore. Of course anyone can "refute" Lenin, Marx, Engels, whoever, in such a manner, that doesn't mean anything.

For example DJ wrote that Lenin talked about taking over capitalism instead of destroying it, what the hell?? Of course we have to take over capitalism, that is, the means of production as is advanced by the capitalist system, we don't destroy that! We only destroy the capitalist state-machinery, politically, not the means of production economically!

Christ, how petty can someone be? And then to have the ability to say that Lenin was reformist with a straight face, now that takes some courage and child-like innocence (better to say ignorance) right there.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Leninism+--> (Leninism)For example DJ wrote that Lenin talked about taking over capitalism instead of destroying it, what the hell?? ... we don't destroy that! We only destroy the capitalist state-machinery, politically, not the means of production economically![/b]

A-a-and here we go... :rolleyes:

No, we don't "destroy the means of production" ... We destroy the essence of capitalism, its basis -- the relationship which is founded on the actual moment of production: alienated labor, or, if you prefer, "fertilization of value": production and extraction of surplus value by agents of capital.

If we don't destroy that (i.e. - as Bolshevik government didn't - reinstalled by Lenin's programme of "New Course", Trotsky's "Militarization of labor", etc.) - we don't revolutionize society. Thus I call it "forced reform" - "taking over" - as it reforms the existing relations, gives them new shape and form, but does not trascend them.

Now, given that we moved on...


Originally posted by Hammer+--> (Hammer)I take it you haven't read my Stamocap thread yet?[/b]

Ehh, no. And given the time: I will not. Why don't you write an article, or an essay for that matter?


[email protected]
Yeah - taken over by revolutionary force, hardly something that the proto-fascist Bernstein would've said.

Lenin founded his ideological standpoint on Plekhanov, Bernstein, Hilferding and Kautsky ... later, he calls them "renegades" -- which means: "they were okay then, but now..."


Hammer
I've seen that quote so many times. If you want to get into a quote-fest: [two quotes] ... This goes hand in hand with Marx's contradiction of capitalism: the socialisation of production occurring under private ownership whose interests are of capital.

First quote, if you like to take it as correct, which, unfortunately - you do (do you?), leaves us with an impression that Lenin allready knows how these relationships change and, well, "intertwine". However, one cannot simply forget how socialists (fighters for socialism) at that time seen this transformation simply through changes in the laws of value... nothing more, nothing less. One false conclusion driven from a false premise.

Second quote, of course, gives us no information to how this "calculation" and "distribution" are delt with ... I suppose we are supposed to know this? Given the time when this article was written War Communism was on agenda and we know how all that worked. Besides, it fits perfectly with the former quote because it does not give us the most important information of them all: what are we allocating?


Now, back to the subject, please... After all, we're not dealing with Lenin but with something else...

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 11, 2007 09:16 pm
No, we don't "destroy the means of production" ... We destroy the essence of capitalism, its basis -- the relationship which is founded on the actual moment of production: alienated labor, or, if you prefer, "fertilization of value": production and extraction of surplus value by agents of capital.

If we don't destroy that (i.e. - as Bolshevik government didn't - reinstalled by Lenin's programme of "New Course", Trotsky's "Militarization of labor", etc.) - we don't revolutionize society. Thus I call it "forced reform" - "taking over" - as it reforms the existing relations, gives them new shape and form, but does not trascend them.

Now, given that we moved on...
You're being incredibly odd. I just thank Marx that you (or others who think like you, and there were a hell of a lot of those around back then) weren't in the place of Lenin and Trotsky to make those decisions, if you were, the Soviet government would've collapsed in a matter of, oh, probably days.

Theory is all great and fun, but when you have to put it in practice it almost never comes out the way it should have.

If what you propose happened in the USSR, the entire economic system would've collapsed, and for what? Just so you could prove that an abstract theory proves that "real socialism" can work for a few days?

And by the way, if by "agents of capital" you mean communist, class-conscious revolutionaries, then yeah, you're right, they were "agents of capital", and I don't see anything wrong with that, hell, it's what we are fighting for, that workers control their own capital, their own labor, etc.

And as I proved in the other thread, the problem is not with an entity taking surplus value from the workers (it's really funny because you never thought of the fact that that entity could be controlled and composed of workers themselves, did you?), the problem is with the entity in place and the fact that it is really working in the interest of the proletariat or not.

It was until Stalin's counter-revolution in the USSR, so logically we support that.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:03 am
You're being incredibly odd. I just thank Marx that you (or others who think like you, and there were a hell of a lot of those around back then) weren't in the place of Lenin and Trotsky to make those decisions, if you were, the Soviet government would've collapsed in a matter of, oh, probably days.

I guess we'll never know. :rolleyes:


Theory is all great and fun, but when you have to put it in practice it almost never comes out the way it should have.

False. Theory is built out of practical experience. Just because you think that all political forms of revolution ("Leninism") are set, you block your way for any theoretical - and thus, practical - breakthrough.


If what you propose happened in the USSR, the entire economic system would've collapsed, and for what? Just so you could prove that an abstract theory proves that "real socialism" can work for a few days?

False. It was happening, thorugh workers' own creative abilities. "Soviets", "factory committees", "cooperatives" - they were not a "theoretical discovery" applied by Lenin and Co. but a practical solution comming out of the class struggle and political struggle of the working class. But the problem was that they didn't fit into the "plan" because of the initial difficulties expected in country like Russia. What was actually happening was pushed aside - "and for what?" - well, ask Lenin: "disciplining labor" and "looking up to the Germans".


And by the way, if by "agents of capital" you mean communist, class-conscious revolutionaries, then yeah, you're right, they were "agents of capital", and I don't see anything wrong with that, hell, it's what we are fighting for, that workers control their own capital, their own labor, etc.

Now I "thank Marx". :lol:

Capital is dead labor sucking out living labor. If living labor is directed by direct needs expressed thorugh consensus of the producers, dead labor ceases to dominate, and production of surplus value isn't the priority any more. But if a force external to the producers imposes external planning designed for whatever ("progress", "socialism", "state capitalism") and in the name of whoever ("in the interest of the proletariat") the "laws of value" continue to operate and political structure is designed to maintain the economic structure based on alienation of labor, out of the hands of the producers. Thus, "New course", "NEP", "War Communism", etc.

What you said - oh, but you love using this expression - "contradicts" itself.


And as I proved in the other thread, the problem is not with an entity taking surplus value from the workers [...] the problem is with the entity in place and the fact that it is really working in the interest of the proletariat or not.

Nice try. :lol:

But cope with this: "entity" composed by the efforts of the Lenin government soon after Lenin's withdrawal elects ... big fucking whoops! ... Stalin.


(it's really funny because you never thought of the fact that that entity could be controlled and composed of workers themselves, did you?)

Oh, man, the nerve on this guy. :rolleyes:

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 16, 2007 11:59 am
False. Theory is built out of practical experience. Just because you think that all political forms of revolution ("Leninism") are set, you block your way for any theoretical - and thus, practical - breakthrough.
Yes, and the practical experience of your own particular brand of Marxism was...what? Oh right, nothing.

So in terms of practical experience, Leninism, or real Marxism, has experienced more than you, theoretically that equates in a higher sensitivity to practical issues. Which we see again in this debate, wherein you propose solutions that are idealist, and I propose solutions that are practical and fit in the theoretical frame-work of Marxism.



False. It was happening, thorugh workers' own creative abilities. "Soviets", "factory committees", "cooperatives" - they were not a "theoretical discovery" applied by Lenin and Co. but a practical solution comming out of the class struggle and political struggle of the working class.

All of this was of course limited to the cities, and did not translate in a coherent nation-wide organization, which is required for any modern economy to function.

The fact that you believe that those workers councils, who ran local factories and such, could continue to function in isolation from the economic totality of the whole nation, and be succesful, just shows that you have no idea how an economic system works.


Capital is dead labor sucking out living labor. If living labor is directed by direct needs expressed thorugh consensus of the producers, dead labor ceases to dominate, and production of surplus value isn't the priority any more. But if a force external to the producers imposes external planning designed for whatever ("progress", "socialism", "state capitalism") and in the name of whoever ("in the interest of the proletariat") the "laws of value" continue to operate and political structure is designed to maintain the economic structure based on alienation of labor, out of the hands of the producers. Thus, "New course", "NEP", "War Communism", etc.

What you said - oh, but you love using this expression - "contradicts" itself.


"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes." Marx

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal." Marx

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby." Marx

Stop thanking the person who disproves you.

What part of "Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby" don't you understand?

Or are you perhaps saying that 1917 Russia was ready for socialism in terms of material conditions? :lol:

[Severian]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 09, 2007 12:58 pm
Considering the fact that the "Imperialism" theory developed by Lenin is sustaining quite a blow by constant reafirmation of global domination of Capital, not as a decadent feature of existing society, but, on the contrary, as the absolutization of the dominance of Capital world wide and the colonization of everyday life by it, it is more than obvious that this theory is obsolete.mature.
What? On the contrary, the "global domination" of capitalism, and its continued growth into every corner of the world, is to be expected if Lenin's theory is correct....until capitalism is overthrown in the advanced capitalist countries.

Unless this is just another gripe about how capitalism hasn't been overthrown....


Couple of factors could be crucial for its initial selfsubscribed deadline,

There's no "deadline" in Imperialism by Lenin.

Look, no revolutionary has ever expected capitalism to fall apart by itself - or we wouldn't be revolutionaries. Capitalism must be overthrown, and that's a matter of politics, of the subjective element. Economic analysis can predict coming decisive class battles - and Lenin was right about that, certainly!

It can't guarantee victory. But Lenin's political approach was better at producing it than any other....


capitalism as a system is making a shift from the concentration to the extraction of absolute surplus value to the extraction of relative surplus value,

In other words, if this argument is to make any sense: capitalism is increasing its profitability through increasing the productivity of labor, not through lengthening the working day, or squeezing the working-class harder.

As someone who's been working a bunch of 12+ hour days and 6-day weeks lately, I'm inclined to disagree.

The productivity of labor has been increasing in recent decades. But I'd argue that's mostly through speedup, increasing the intensity of labor, not through investment in new productive technology. Investors seem more interested in financial-market speculation.

In the recent bosses' offensive, overtime and especially the intensity of labor (measured by productivity, etc.) - has increased greatly. There's been stagnation in inflation-adjusted wages, and during the 80s, even reduction. The social wage (social benefits) has been slashed across the industrialized world, often with social-democratic parties leading the charge.

Their need to do this - their need to increase their profit rates by squeezing workers harder - is a symptom of the long-term structural problems of their system. More generally, we can't say that capitalism is experiencing a period of much expansion, stability and prosperity - despite it's much-hyped "victory over communism" or what have you. Rather, it's experiencing slow growth, instability, and malaise.

This question of how much life capitalism still has in it - is probably worth debating.

But to debate it more usefully, it'd help if you'd express yourself in a more straightforward way.....postmodernist gibberish from people like the Aufheben group doesn't usually help with that.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:52 pm
Yes, and the practical experience of your own particular brand of Marxism was...what? Oh right, nothing.

So in terms of practical experience, Leninism, or real Marxism, has experienced more than you, theoretically that equates in a higher sensitivity to practical issues. Which we see again in this debate, wherein you propose solutions that are idealist, and I propose solutions that are practical and fit in the theoretical frame-work of Marxism.


Sorry, hate to jump in here.
But...
If we go on what you just said, so far as experience, and theory being based out of practice, etc.
Well, if applied to Marxist-Leninism, it has been tried a few times (through various ways), and all of which, have led to (more or less) tyrannies (whether under Stalin, or in China).
Have you not just disproved your own political philsophy by stating that?

[Led Zeppelin]

No, because I'm not a Stalinist, and I recognize why those experiences ended in failure. It was due to objective material conditions in those nations and the failure of the revolution to spread.

[Lamanov]

Leninism, you are a sensless child hiding behind quotes of grandfather Marx and papa Lenin, for which you do not what they mean and what they are supposed to eradicate in this case. First two parts of your post are simply rants, an attempt to "discredit" your opponent, so to speak, so I'll concentrate on short explanation of Marx quotes - first one says "birthmarks", not "heart", an "arm" or "brain" from "the mother" ... now, since this is a simple metaphore, you should figure it out - after all, "you know your Marx". Second confirms my story: with consensus among the producers different needs are satisfied differently, because they are not and cannot be "equal". Third quote is torn out of the context of Marx's text (I'm guessing this is the 'Gotha programme' critique) and put below Lenin and his own, shall we say, 'deeds'.


Severian, OK, I'm glad someone came to adress the issue itself. I will, in this case too, skip "Imperialism" part of your post, even if not for same reasons as above, of course. I'd rather concentrate on the issue.

Now, Aufheben simply claims that there is no objective force decline in capitalism. Rather, capitalism itself came into a mature and "fit", "top shape" stage, by its constant shift from the extraction of a.s.v. to concetration on r.s.v. Of course, no one is claming that capital simply ceased to increase labor time or decrease constant capital, but rather, it's moving towards increase in productivity and all elements that pus towards r.s.v.

Thus, it's not "declining" due to "objective material forces" or "laws". On the contrary, they [Aufheben] are trying to revive "subjectivist" theory of decline which states that emancipatory action of the proletariat is the real decline in capitalism, as claimed by Pannekoek, SI and autonomists.

[Severian]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 18, 2007 09:34 am
Severian, OK, I'm glad someone came to adress the issue itself. I will, in this case too, skip "Imperialism" part of your post, even if not for same reasons as above, of course. I'd rather concentrate on the issue.
Good, because it seems to me that Lenin and Imperialism are basically dragged in at random. The issue in dispute here is more basic....as you seem to acknowledge in this post. It wasn't Lenin who first wrote that there are objective laws governing the decline of capitalism.


Now, Aufheben simply claims that there is no objective force decline in capitalism. Rather, capitalism itself came into a mature and "fit", "top shape" stage, by its constant shift from the extraction of a.s.v. to concetration on r.s.v.

Yes, I know. And I gave some reasons why I don't think this is the case. I'm going to take up one quantitative measure in a minute.


Thus, it's not "declining" due to "objective material forces" or "laws". On the contrary, they [Aufheben] are trying to revive "subjectivist" theory of decline which states that emancipatory action of the proletariat is the real decline in capitalism, as claimed by Pannekoek, SI and autonomists.

OK, that's a welcome clarification. It seemed to me this involved some dispute about whether capitalism was in decline, or at least whether it was ripe to be overthrown. That stuff about missing a "deadline" for revolution and so forth.

It's kinda refreshing, anyway new and different, to encounter someone on this board emphasizing the subjective factor in history. Since it's so often completely denied or ignored.

OK, now, it occurs to me there's one easy quantitative measure of change in absolute surplus-value, at least: the the length of the workweek. I'm going to take the U.S. as an example, since it's the world's largest economy, but if anyone has more countries' stats that'd be welcome.

PDF file (http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/pdf/ch2.pdf) - on page 14 of that there's a graph of average workweek in manufacturing, changing through the 20th century.

I really recommend looking at it, since a picture's worth a thousand words. For those who won't or have technical trouble, here's a summary:

In 1890, the typical factory work schedule was ten hours a day, six days a week,
for a total of sixty hours. Thereafter, it fell steadily, reaching thirty-five hours per
week in 1934. Expecting this trend to continue, most observers anticipated the
advent of a twenty-hour workweek. It never happened. The average factory workweek climbed to forty-five hours at the peak of production during World War II,
declined to forty hours after the war, and remained at that level until the early
1980s, when it began to inch upward. By 1999, the average manufacturing
employee worked about forty-two hours per week......Unlike weekly and daily hours, annual work hours continued to decline slowly because of longer vacations, more sick and parental leave, and time off for obligations such as voting, jury duty, and military reserve service.

So from this, you might conclude that capitalism "matured" most rapidly in the first part of the century, and did so much less thereafter. Maybe even went into reverse since the 1980s? (Not coincidentally, that when the bosses' offensive against workers really kicked in heavy, with lots of unionbusting and wage-slashing.)

'Course, this clearly does have everything to do with that subjective factor, specifically the workers' movement's fight for a shorter workweek. Which has been on hold since WWII, in this country.

But whatever the causes of changes in working time, you still end up concluding that if capitalism is still "maturing" or "becoming more fit" by reducing its reliance on absolute vs relative surplus-value - it's done so much less since WWII than before.

Oddly, this seems to be the reverse of when capitalism, in the advanced capitalist countries anyway, was in the most trouble politically. So all in all, this explanation doesn't seem to be of that much use

[Lamanov]

OK, this graph serves our discussion perfectly. Of course, we have to see that this is only one side of the story: absolute surplus value.

Now, as you yourself have pointed out, capitalism might have gone into a "maturing" period after the WW1, and again, with rapid development after WW2. So, clearly, if we hold on to this empyrical evidence and decrypt it in the hypothesis of a mentioned 'shift', we can see clearly that the notion of capitalism going into constant 'delcine' somewhere arround WW1 cannot hold on. You even stated that capitalism might be going into "reverse" arround 1980s. That's 60 years later.

Precisely 60 years of constant restating of "objectivist" 'decadence theory', as set by pre-WW1 theoreticians.


Originally posted by Severian
But whatever the causes of changes in working time, you still end up concluding that if capitalism is still "maturing" or "becoming more fit" by reducing its reliance on absolute vs relative surplus-value - it's done so much less since WWII than before.

But Aufheben hypotheses goes precisely for the given period between 1920 to 1990. They claim that in that time a mentioned 'shift' towards concentration on relative surplus value occurs.

And given the wave of development of productive forces after the WW2, how can we deny this?

Besides, shifts in extraction of absolute surplus value, according to this graph, are not suffering an 'increase', but rather a 'zig-zag', regardless of the changes occuring in the 80s and 90s, when average labor hours went up - but only from 40 to 42 hours (1900 saw 55, 1966 saw 41). This would mean that over the course of 50 years or so extraction of relative surplus value might have gone upwards, while extraction of absolute surplus value - in the wake of work-hours struggles - sustained a reluctant balance.


Thus, in conclusion:

1.) capitalist class moves away from concentration on increasing of absolute surplus value (still, of course, it wins some gains by increasing labor time [not like in 19th century though], as in the 80s, or reducing the value of constant capital and labor power by investments in cheap labor power markets), but still holds on to existing gains in struggles with the working class;

2.) instead, it puts more of an emphasis on extraction of relatve surplus value by increase in productivity of labor power, increase in division of labor, application of science (check out that graph on the increase of engineers in the US from 0,5 on 1000 people in 1900 to 7.6 in 2000), planning, increase in management participation, etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Generally speaking, doesn't every major thing move from absolutism to relativism?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6125


The transition from “superpower rule” is already underway. The centers of geopolitical power are shifting like giant tectonic plates. The trend is irreversible. The deployment of Bush’s missile defense system will only hasten the decline of the “unipolar-model” by triggering an asymmetrical war, where Forex reserves, vital resources and political maneuvering will be used as the weapons-of-choice.



Addressing the topic strictly, who said that Lenin defined imperialism as the LAST stage of capitalism?

http://www.monthlyreview.org/nfte0104.htm


In his new book, The New Imperialism, David Harvey writes (p. 127): “I therefore think Arendt is...correct to interpret the imperialism that emerged at the end of the nineteenth century as the ‘first stage in political rule of the bourgeoisie rather than the last stage of capitalism’ as Lenin depicted it.” (See also Harvey’s piece “The ‘New’ Imperialism” in the Socialist Register, 2004, p. 69.)

...

In his actual handwritten manuscript of 1916 [Lenin] gave it the title Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. But in publishing his pamphlet in 1917 he settled on Imperialism, the Latest Stage of Capitalism (following the precedent of Rudolf Hilferding who had entitled his great work Finance Capital, the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development). This is still the title given in Russian on every Library of Congress entry for Lenin’s book.

An early English-language mistranslation, appearing in a number of different editions in Britain and the United States, converted this into the “last stage” of capitalism (sometimes also translated as the “final stage”). This mistranslation is what Arendt and Harvey were referring to in the statement quoted above.

...

The 1917 revolution, [Lenin] believed, had unleashed conditions of world revolution and capitalist decline, suggesting that the highest stage of capitalism had been reached—in the very same sense as one might say that the highest stage of the Roman Empire existed under Augustus (the beginning of the Roman Empire emerging out of the Roman Republic). In the Roman case the Augustan Age represented not only the Empire’s zenith but also foreshadowed more than a millennium of decay and internal/external strife—passing through numerous additional stages—before Rome’s final demise. The term “highest” thus does not have the same meaning as “last” or “final.” For Lenin, as for Marx, capitalism would only end with social revolution and it was only to the extent that it was the “the eve of the proletarian social revolution” on a “world-wide scale”—as he said at the end of his 1920 preface—that it was possible to speak of the “highest stage” of capitalism—beyond which lay a more or less protracted period of revolution and capitalist decline.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Hammer+--> (Hammer)Addressing the topic strictly, who said that Lenin defined imperialism as the LAST stage of capitalism?[/b]

Because, allegedly, it starts to "rot". That means, it goes into "decline" as a whole. If I'm not mistaking you can find such conclusion in the final chapter of his book on imperialism.

To be fair to the subject, I'm not suggesting that Lenin himself "invented" such a claim. He simply took it over and rephrased it from his fellow 'Orthodox Marxist' thinkers. The whole concept of decline comming from that period is put into question here.


Hammer
Generally speaking, doesn't every major thing move from absolutism to relativism?

Well, we can indeed find concrete examples for your claim, and probably everywhere, but that's not the point. We have to undestand what this means in each concrete situation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+June 23, 2007 11:55 am--> (DJ-TC @ June 23, 2007 11:55 am)
Hammer
Addressing the topic strictly, who said that Lenin defined imperialism as the LAST stage of capitalism?

Because, allegedly, it starts to "rot". That means, it goes into "decline" as a whole. If I'm not mistaking you can find such conclusion in the final chapter of his book on imperialism.

To be fair to the subject, I'm not suggesting that Lenin himself "invented" such a claim. He simply took it over and rephrased it from his fellow 'Orthodox Marxist' thinkers. The whole concept of decline coming from that period is put into question here. [/b]
Oh, thanks for clarifying.

Maybe your contention can be linked to the "business cycle" of developed countries and the lack of depression since Keynes' ideas (or, more specifically, since WWII). On the other hand, your contention COULD be countered by political aspects (formal equality before the law being a sham, freedom of speech turning into $$$ campaigns and ads, etc.).

Whatever the case, maybe Lenin was just too far ahead of his time in regards to monopoly capitalism (and globalization of telecommunication and the advances in transportation are the key here) and its political effects. Or is history simply repeating itself (with the Global Research article I posted)?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:04 am
On the other hand, your contention COULD be countered by political aspects (formal equality before the law being a sham, freedom of speech turning into $$$ campaigns and ads, etc.).

That doesn't counter my suggestion. On the contrary, it repeats my question: where's "rotting", where's decadence?


Whatever the case, maybe Lenin was just too far ahead of his time in regards to monopoly capitalism (and globalization of telecommunication and the advances in transportation are the key here) and its political effects. Or is history simply repeating itself (with the Global Research article I posted)?

Well, no, he wasn't "ahead", because he used data from his time and wanted to make a conclusion for his own "now" (then).

Simply changes in labor division and techniques do not change essence of relations that create monopoly capitalism. It existed then, it exists now. It became powerfull then, it's powerfull now.

They claimed the system is "rotting" because of it then, but still, now, it's vivid more than it was then. Who made a mistake? What are we missing here?

[Alf]

DJ: this is an important discussion but I can't help thinking you have started off on the wrong tack by looking at Lenin as the prime theorist of 'decadence'. Aufheben's article seems to me to argue that the idea of decadence is rooted in 'Second International' marxism, an assertion which requires a complete misreading of Marx, who is the real 'guilty party' for developing the argument that capitalism had objective limits to its development. In other words, this is basically a discussion about his materialist view of history (as summarised in Preface to a Critique of Political Economy) and about the fundamental aims of Das Capital. I will try to come back to this when I have more time but it would be good if you could contribute to the thread on decadence going on in 'Learning'


http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67827&st=0