No. It will hold off the crisis.
No. It will be saved by liberals.
Yes! It will collapse.
Results 1 to 20 of 104
Will capitalism collapse?
.
Last edited by GracchusBabeuf; 12th February 2010 at 01:17.
I voted that it would collapse mainly because that we could only hope. America is under allot of stress and this new stimulus bill, I almost guarantee will not work (thus throwing another billions of dollars that we dont have, right down the drain) I think something big is going to happen.
So the capitalist system of production for profit results in this crazy situation: (1) people have to starve - not because there is not enough food but because there is too much of it; they have to do without the things they need, because there is too much of those things on hand;(2) because there is too much, manufacture is cut down, throwing thousands out of work;(3) being out of work and therefore not earning, those thousands lose their buying capacity. The grocer, the butcher, the tailor all s, as a result. That means increased unemployment all around, the crisis gets worse. ---Alexander Berkman
I wish it would but i dont think it will ever happen.
I don't believe that capitalism will collapse by itself, but it is a system with internal antagonisms that over and over again will weaken the system. But I think that only the organized working class could actually make capitalism disappear. (and a "collapse" without a strong revolutionary movement would not be a good thing anyway)
We are unfortunatly quite weak at the moment, I find it hard to believe that we will succeed during this crisis, but we do have a great chance to grow so that we will be in a much stronger position in say 10-20 years. We must stop laughing at the system fucking up and start organizing instead, put in the next gear. Time to get serious.
As much as I hope capitalism will collapse (and better today than tomorrow!) I don't think so. Maybe this type of capitalism will collapse but I'm sure the liberals will do their best to hold capitalism alive, even if they have to restrict it a little bit. But still, it would be capitalism again.
Hehe, take a look at the national debt. I don't think this dip will cause its death, but honestly, some day someone is going to need some money back, or people are going to realize the US will never pay them back and stop giving out loans. Once the loans stop going out... what will the US do to save itself?
Nope. It'll probably wind up as some stupid off shoot of welfare capitalism.
I won't hold my breath.
Maybe next recession.
"Walter" was Grandad's first name. "Rich" was his middle name, a middle name passed down through the generations right until (ironically, since our family is now wealthier than it ever has been) me, who didn't get it. Curse you, father!
Yet the audacity of the bankers is derailing that strategy. Bankers are not hiding the fact that they are the ruling class, they are also not hiding their total contempt for all classes beneath them.
Not without help. Push, comrades, push!
The liberals and social democrats already had most of a century in which their synthesis was dominant--and failed. I call it the 20th century synthesis, in which private capital and capitalist economics remained predominant, their impact buffered slightly by a degree of business regulation and redistributive welfare state programs. This synthesis was necessitated by the rising left movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and globalized in the wake of the Russian Revolution and the Great Depression. However by the late 20th century, the objective factors which had led to the emergence of this synthesis had changed. In the capitalist countries deindustrialization took hold, changing the organization of production and the socialization of the working classes. Notably, the self-organizations of the working class, unions, community organizations, genuine labor and socialist parties withered along with industrialization. At the same time the political, economic and intellectual failures of "existing socialism" led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and its appeanages. With the internal and external challenges to capital neutralized, the Reagan-Thatcher era saw a sort of post-industrial Restoration of the unchecked dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and laissez-faire capitalism. However, this Restoration period is proving to be short-lived, as the economic nostrums of the 19th century, however appealing they might be to the current generation of capitalists in terms of allowing for a new round of primitive accumulation, simply aren't applicable to the modern, fully globalized, instantaneously financed capitalism of the 21st century.
However, I don't believe any attempt to restore welfare statism of the sort of the 20th century synthesis will succeed, as the social and economic basis on which it was founded is gone. That's why the Reagan-Thatcher regime was able to collapse that synthesis with a mere wave of the hand. Trying to resurrect the 20th century synthesis will prove to be a case of building a house on the sand.
Last edited by DancingLarry; 17th February 2009 at 09:00.
The Soviet Union didn't collapse under its own weight?
I don't know what you mean by this.
"The sun shines. To hell with everything else!" - Stephen Fry
"As the world of the spectacle extends its reign it approaches the climax of its offensive, provoking new resistances everywhere. These resistances are very little known precisely because the reigning spectacle is designed to present an omnipresent hypnotic image of unanimous submission. But they do exist and are spreading.", The Bad Days Will End.
"(The) working class exists and struggles in all countries, and has the same enemies in all countries – the police, the army, the unions, nationalism, and the fake ‘socialism’ of the bourgeois left. It shows that the conditions for a worldwide revolution are ripening everywhere today. It shows that workers and revolutionaries are not passive spectators of inter-imperialist conflicts: they have a camp to choose, the camp of the proletarian struggle against all the factions of the bourgeoisie and all imperialisms." -ICC, Nation or Class?
what the hell is this shit about liberals?
Liberalism is not some sort of ideology which has the upper hand on the development of capitalism. That doesn't make any sense.
"The sun shines. To hell with everything else!" - Stephen Fry
"As the world of the spectacle extends its reign it approaches the climax of its offensive, provoking new resistances everywhere. These resistances are very little known precisely because the reigning spectacle is designed to present an omnipresent hypnotic image of unanimous submission. But they do exist and are spreading.", The Bad Days Will End.
"(The) working class exists and struggles in all countries, and has the same enemies in all countries – the police, the army, the unions, nationalism, and the fake ‘socialism’ of the bourgeois left. It shows that the conditions for a worldwide revolution are ripening everywhere today. It shows that workers and revolutionaries are not passive spectators of inter-imperialist conflicts: they have a camp to choose, the camp of the proletarian struggle against all the factions of the bourgeoisie and all imperialisms." -ICC, Nation or Class?
The collapse of the capitalism is inevitable, but it will not be done within the western world. The third world countries are already up to their necks full of capitalism, and if the western world tries to squeeze out even more, something is going to happen. And the moment the third world countries start to gain their rights, the western world will collapse (after all, our "wellfare" is based on inadequate human rights in the third world). Capitalist "wellfare" is also based on non-stop economical growth. However, we all know it is impossible to sustain such growth in the long term, due to the fact that planet earth is a limited resource, no matter how endless it seemed in the 1800's. Sooner or later the earths resources will dry out, and the world is forced to abandon consumerism. Capitalism will collapse, and if not, it is destined to enforce dramatic attitude changes.
I do think that socialism (whether it will be called socialism or not) is inevitable, but I do not think it will be done during this crisis. Perhaps next time.
I agree with the last sentiment but I think the time line is off. 10-20? I think we can see a massive upsurge in class struggle in the next year and become a serious threat again. Like you say, we just need to get serious in our organizing and push forward the antagonisms that have been handed to us on a platter.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
It is unlikely that capitalism will ever collapse of its own accord, as there are always going to be weapons available to the bourgeoisie by which they can stabilize the system and restore profitability, including fascism, which destroys workers organizations in order to drive down wages, and a strengthening of imperialism, which leads to the more intense exploitation of the global periphery and provides outlets for surplus capital. The question of whether the current crisis will lead to capitalism being overthrown and replaced with socialism depends entirely on the actions of the working class, and the ability of socialists to assume a leading role and direct popular resentment and frustration against capitalism instead of allowing workers to fall into the hands of the bourgeoisie. It is unlikely that the bourgeoisie will be able to manage the crisis by restoring the welfare state, because bailing out the financial sector has already led to a huge increase in government debt, and so the bourgeoisie may be compelled to resort to coercive measures (such as those mentioned above) in order to maintain control of the situation and safeguard against the threat of social revolution. This crisis differs from those which have taken place in the past in that it is the first crisis taking place in the context of a globalized economy, and so no country will be able to escape its effects.
it will collapse, but whether or not we or fascists take advantage of it is up to us.
The problem is that the current negitive rate of profit means even if the capitalism could get workers to work for free would still result in negitive growth, there is just way too much capital chasing after too few surplus value no mater how much capitalist exploit workers. The only solution to save capitalism is the destruction of capital so fewer capital is chasing surplus value, yet capitalists are refusing to allow their fictional capital be destroyed and have turned to the bourgeois states to prop up the value of their fictional capital that is deeping the crisis.
From a social ecology perspective...
I don't think capitalism will collapse from this economic situation. There are too many social welfare programs -- even in the US -- that will keep it from happening. This is quite a different situation from the Great Depression. Also take into account the waning influence of labor and the ability of capitalism to coopt movements, and you have an uphill battle.
Murray Bookchin and others argued that advanced capitalism will not collapse due to internal contradictions, such as economic crises. By looking at the recent past, we can see that he was right. Since the Great Depression, capitalism has become more managing. There are social "safety nets" in place that didn't exist in the 1930s in the US.
Principally an economic model (duh), capitalism has worked its way into all aspects of society, becoming a dominant form of society, as well (though really it doesn't replace our social relations so much as destroy them, turning immaterial needs that were once fulfilled by society into material needs satisfied by the market -- i.e. friendship now becomes MySpace). This allows capitalism to coopt movements and redirect worker/consumer outrage.
Bookchin would argue that because of this, capitalism has been able to regulate almost all aspects of our existence -- particularly our relationships (to goods, to each other, to authority, etc.). Therefore, it is able to manage us during economic crises that come about due to its own internal contradictions (as we are currently seeing; where is the revolution? Even in Iceland, all that has come about is a change in government).
This, in a nutshell, is the current economic critique from a social ecology standpoint.
So, I don't believe that this is the economic crisis that will bring down capitalism. I believe the impetus for the overthrow of capitalism lies in the external crises that it causes -- namely, environmental/economic destruction. I'd love to talk about this with anyone interested. For more about these ideas PM me or see:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=1280
http://www.revleft.com/vb/consumer-c...434/index.html
However, what would happen if this crisis was the downfall of capitalism? Would it just get rebuilt? Is the revolutionary left loud enough, strong enough, coherent enough, and immersed enough to have any say in what the next form of society will take? Djehuti has already touched on this issue. To me, it's a rather scary thought. I don't think we laid the groundwork as we should have. The consciousness just isn't there yet.
I agree that capitalism is bound to fail no matter what, despite all the actions the US government is trying to take (the stimulus bills for example).
Capitalism has a few directions it can go but they all lead to failure. I believe the first and most likely direction capitalism will take is through its natural cycle. The efficiency of a capitalist economy fluctuates throughout time, which has been obvious over the past 100 years. It has been said that The Great Depression was no where near as bad as what the US is experiencing today.
If the US economy survives this recession and possible future depression, it will only last so much longer until it is faced with a more extreme economic crisis. After a while, it is going to get to a point to where the US economy is going to fall.
Another reason capitalism is bound to fall is directly through its economics. Capitalism is based on free trade and so on and so on. With the world's natural resources being used up at an unbelievable rate, the idea of supply and demand will be exaggerated. There will be a high demand for necessities such as oil and possibly even food. At this point, a capitalist economy can either choose to fall or choose to adopt Socialism which would obviously be a working solution.
And one more reason capitalism could fall is through force. Some sort of national (hopefully universal) realization could spur the beginnings of the Revolution... but of course you all already know about that...
