Capitalism - When does/did it stop being useful?

[Gold Against The Soul]

Generally at what point has it served it usefulness? What conditions are in place? For example Russia in 1917 with just 4% of the population being workers, was it simply not ready? If so, when would it would have been? Was Marx view not that capitalism would have to develop worldwide (or be dominate worldwide) before the conditions for Socialism would be in place?

[bezdomni]

Well, I guess it doesn't technically outlive its full historical usefulness until it is overthrown.

It depends on what you mean by "usefulness". If by usefulness you mean "has it created and international proletarian class and have the bougeoisie emerged as the ruling class in essentially every country on the planet?" then yes, it has served that purpose ans has been ready to go for quite some time.

If by usefulness you mean "is its historal role over?"...then I would answer "you tell me."

[Rawthentic]

Well I mean, we are living in a period of decadent capitalism where capitalism has lost all of its progressive elements.

Its role was to expand and create the productive forces to a point where they no longer sufficed. I think we know that we are beyond this point.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

On a global scale, capitalism is only now starting to lose the last vestiges of its usefulness (as the last remaining feudal societies are turning to capitalism and beginning to industrialize).

Within Europe or North America, however, capitalism lost its progressive elements a long time ago, before World War II.

[Chocobo]

Whether or not capitalism is "Useful" is a point of few. Capitalism has no set definition on its use value. To some, its "use" is that of possibility of one day standing at the top of a skyscraper and staring down at the cities, knowing that they are wealthy and powerful.
Its use for them then, is possibility, which, believe it or not, is rather high with capitalism.

To another, capitalisms "use" may never have been. Or at least acknowledged if any. The 6 year old Indonesian girl working fabric machinery right now probably doesn't see a "use" to it except the small income needed for her family. Perhaps maybe she doesn't even have a family. Does she even know what capitalism is? Does she realize that her living conditions are at an extreme low compared to other parts of the world? Maybe not.

And perhaps, to the majority, capitalism simply is. Its "use" does not matter. There is not time for thinking of such a thing as its "use". It simply is and we must get by. To them, it matters not if capitalism is simply a grassland with a few pretty flowers here and there while the rest is dying grass. As long as they can get their small profits and capabilities thats all that matters.

So maybe use is too personal a view for us to really discuss off of.



Its role was to expand and create the productive forces to a point where they no longer sufficed. I think we know that we are beyond this point.
I don't know what prophecy told that but that sounds far too much a personal implication for it to be considered really.

[gilhyle]

My answer is this - once imperialism started (circa 1880), alternatives to capitalism started to become preferable. But that does not mean that capitalism ceases to be 'useful'. Even within the period of its decay, capitalism is still capable, episodically, of expanding the forces of production in major ways. Usually the price is very high in terms of suffering and distorted economic and social structures that will have to be unwound to create more rational social structures - but it is still an expansion of the forces of production.

Furthermore, even in the form in which such growth takes place within capitalist society, it still involves processes of socialization which are long run achievements for humanity.

What it has ceased to be is the most efficient and effective way to develop the forces of production.

Incidentally, this leaves aside the whole question of whether it is useful as a way of distributing wealth and supproting the welfare of people alive today...... but that is another issue.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ But what about the various forms of state monopoly capitalism: primitive (like Lenin's), reactionary (including but not limited to economic fascism), and revolutionary?

[Dimentio]

According to the Technocratic Movement, around 1920 in North America.

[Tower of Bebel]

There are certain features of a society that has reached its limits:

It has no demographic growth.
Social structures are old fashioned.
etc.

[gilhyle]

Are you saying no society which has reached its limits has demographic growth as a feature ?

[Dr Mindbender]

The argument that we owe our development as a species to capitalism is debatable to say the least. If anything, the postponement of the (global) revolution only serves to hinder our scientific, technological and cultural progress.