'Capitalism is finding its fulfillment in a planned economy, like the Soviet Model'?

[Bilan]

I thought this was an interesting statement from Raoul Vaneigem's the Revolution of every day life:




From the point of view of constraint, everyday life is governed by an economic system in which the production and consumption of insults tends to balance out. The old dream of the theorists of perfect competition thus finds its real perfection in the customs of a democracy given new life by the lack of imagination of the left. Isn't it strange, at first sight, to see the fury with which 'progressives' attack the ruined edifice of free enterprise, as if the capitalists, its official demolition gang, had not themselves already planned its nationalized reconstruction? but it is not so strange, in fact: for the deliberate purpose of keeping all attention fastened on critiques which have already been overtaken by events (after all, anybody can see that capitalism is gradually finding its fulfillment in a planned economy of which the Soviet model is nothing but a primitive form) is to conceal the fact that the only reconstruction of human relationships envisaged is one based upon precisely this economic model, which, because it is obsolete, is available at a knock-down price. Who can fail to notice the alarming persistence with which 'socialist' countries continue to organize life along bourgeois lines? Everywhere it's hats off to family, marriage, sacrifice, work, inauthenticity, while simplified and rationalized homeostatic mechanisms reduce human relationships to 'fair' exchanges of deference and humiliation. And soon, in the ideal democracy of the cyberneticians, everyone will earn without apparent effort a share of unworthiness which he will have the leisure to distribute according to the finest rules of justice. Distributive justice will reach its apogee. Happy the old men who live to see the day!

Chapter 2. (http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/36)

I found this to b e quite the claim, does it have any relevance, or accuracy for its time, or for ours?

Discuss!

[BobKKKindle$]

This claim could clearly be seen as appliable to the historical context in which Vaneigem was writing. In the post-war era governments used fiscal policy to sustain a high level of economic growth and avoid the problem of the business cycle - and this was widely cited as evidence that it was possible for Capitalism to overcome the tendency to enter crisis. However, the economic theory which supported this policy (Keynesian economics) has now been rejected in favor of neo-classical economics which emphasizes the role of market forces as more efficient than state management.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well didnt the russian bolshevik (bukharin?) say there were 2 competing dynamics in imperialist capitalism. The first was a strengthening of individual blocks of capital, which the introduction of private armies and police forces, and the weakening of the nation state and the movement away from directing the economy (like neo liberalism) and the other was the centralisation of capital into the hands of the state and core industry run by the state in order to ensure the continuation of the capitalist system. much like the current nationalisation of finance banking etc and the post ww2 european economies.

obviously, neo liberalism is failing, so the other seems much more likely.

[Bilan]

obviously, neo liberalism is failing, so the other seems much more likely.

What do you mean it's 'failing'? In what sense?

[La Comédie Noire]

I found this to be quite the claim, does it have any relevance, or accuracy for its time, or for ours?


On the social side:

I think a lot of capitalists conceded to social reform becuse the tyranny of capital causes poverty and strife for the working class. After the russian revolution a lot of capitalists were afraid workers in their countries would also revolt. So they made social safety nets that would assure even the poorest of society could receive basic needs like food, shelter, and medical care. At best it was inefficent.

On the economic side:

Multi National coporations engulf many different branches of industry, it's impossible to be incharge of that much without planning out consumption and labour. What Adam Smith thought of as Capitalism is gone.


Now a days, Capitalists are pushing to dismantle the social safety nets because they are becoming too expensive. Leading conditions for all working class people to become worse. Neo Liberalism is not failing, Liberalism, in the economic sense, is emerging again.

[PRC-UTE]

Neo-liberalism is indeed failing. this has been widely noted, even by its staunchest defenders such as the Economist. the current economic crisis has its roots partly in deregulation of finacial lending practices, specifically in the way that the global financial system was more ad-hoc than any one regulatory body or institution in control. and now to be pulled out of the hole they've dug, they require state intervention. The neo-cons in America (who are the most aggressive neo-liberals in the world, despite their title) have all but run their 'movement' into the ground.

The OP offers a lot of insights. There were some even better posts not long ago by ComradeOM about contemporary capitalism being a planned system re-translated into free market terms, something to that effect.

Also see Henri Levebfre's analysis on the post-WWII economy as 'a bureaucratic society of controlled consumption', if I remember that correctly.

[DancingLarry]

I'd split the definition of "neoliberalism failing". Instrumentally, as a system to provide economic development and opportunity for individual humans and our societies, I think an argument could be made that it is failing, as any other form of capitalist development can be seen to be a failure as well. But in terms of extending the capability of capital to maximize its rate of return, and as a political-economic hegemonistic system, neoliberalism is little short of triumphant.