Skip to content

LastSuperpower

Sections
Personal tools
You are here: Home » Forums » Main Forum » How long can capitalism survive?
 

 • How long can capitalism survive?

Document Actions
Replies: 5   Views: 2449
Up one level
You need to be a registered member to post to this forum. Register now.
Prev topic | Next topic

 • How long can capitalism survive?

Posted by keza at 2007-05-02 01:57 AM
I've started this new thread  for discussion  issues raised by cyberman  in the global warming thread.  I'll cut and paste the relevant posts into this one.

In response to the article "Red and Green Don't Mix" cyberman wrote:


You probably think that I'm a very slow learner,  but I'm still having problems understanding the 'Red and Green don't mix' theme that you are doing your best to explain to me:


For instance you say that: For reds, modern industrial society is creating the conditions for a future communist society, with bourgeois relations of production being the obstacle to its achievement.


I think I can understand why you don't like the greens. They aren't Marxist enough. Right? OK Let's leave them out of the discussion for now. Maybe if you can answer the following questions , I'll be able to understand the rest of what you are saying:


1)Approximately, what sort of timescale do you have in mind for this "future communist society" ?  Months/Years/Decades/Centuries


2) Are you saying that the levels of production we have at the moment are high enough for a socialist transition ? Yes/No


3) If the answer to 2) is no;  is that in disagreement with Marx,  who was talking about a revolutionary transition over a hundred years ago, when the levels of industrial production were much less than they are now? Yes/No




4) If "bourgeois relations of production" is the problem, are you still saying that the bougeoisie as class needs to be swept away by working class action? Or, should we back off a bit and co-operate with the capitalist classes to help them build up their levels of production, and help create a smoother  transition to our "future communist society"?





I replied:





These aren't "yes/no" questions.


My  quick response is that you view things very mechanically.  Capitalism can survive for as long as people don't overthrow it.  There's no magic moment at which the level of productive forces makes the transition inevitable.  This is true whether the system is booming or going through a bust. 


The reality is that currently there's no Left that is capable of leading a revolutionary movement which could overthrow capitalism and build a communist society.  What passes for "left" is a reactionary pseudo-leftism which needs to be cleared out of the way.  Until that happens and a genuine left comes into existence  capitalism will face no threat.  This has nothing to do with the level of productive forces.





and then cyberman responded with:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Productive_Forces

Is this close to what you are saying?





I think I now understand  your approach a little better. How about this?


1) Capitalism is a largely progressive historic force. There is plenty of justification in Marx's writings for this assertion.


2) The history of socialism has largely been one of failure in the 20th Century. Much of what has passed for the socialist struggle has been conducted on a psuedo-left, rather than a genuine left agenda. Therefore, we need a new and different agenda.


3) Capitalism has had, and does have, many enemies. Many of these have been reactionary in nature. The most modern manifestation of these reactionary class enemies are the Greens , who should be strongly opposed. For example: The case against global warming and environmental degredation needs to be made forcibly.
4) We need to be co-operative with the capitalist classes, to build up production and create a level of affluence which is absolutely essential for any future communist society.


5) We also need to co-operate with the progressive forces of capitalism in other ways. For instance, changes to industrial relations and taxation laws which are intended to modernise and improve capitalist productive forces, should not necessarily be opposed in some knee jerk pseudo-left fashion. The privatisation of previously state owned industries, in many countries,  has been shown to have had a progressive effect. Futher privatisations should be supported if they can be shown to be progressive. 



6) We should not necessarily oppose military interventions by the large capitalist countries of the USA, Russia and China. Many of their enemies have a reactionary agenda and we should side with the progressive forces of capitalism against those.



7) Military spending should not necessarily  be regarded as a wasteful use of resources. Many, if not most,  of the technological advances of the 20th and 21st century have been made possible , at least in the early stages of their development, by government spending for military purposes. Military spending should be regarded as largely progressive in nature.


.....

 "The Theory of Productive Forces" , see  the link in my last post,  seems to have been only espoused, up until now,  by the USSR and, pre-capitalist,  China under Mao. So you've exetended the range of this to encompass 21st century progressive capitalism also?
Manager
Posts: 593

 • Re: How long can capitalism survive?

Posted by keza at 2007-05-02 04:27 AM
Cyberman, the point I was trying to make in my post above is that in the advanced capitalist world it is not a matter of "waiting" for the  level of productive forces to increase.

The issue is the lack of a Left and the (obviously related) lack of a political program.  Until there is a genuine Left, capitalism will continue, no matter how advanced the level of production.  It's a resilient system and won't be overthrown even in the case of an economic collapse if  there  is  no-one able to offer real leadership.  It's mechanical  to think otherwise. 


Our preparedness to support the progressive aspects of capitalism is not some sort of crude tactic aimed at "build(ing)  up production and creating a level of affluence which is absolutely essential for any future communist society."  We support economic development and bourgeois democracy because these things are good in themselves. People have better lives in democratic societies with advanced economies than in more backward, semi-feudal, autocratic societies.  It's just part of being progressive to unite with those who want to push things forward and oppose those who prefer stability and want to hold things back.


I don't see military spending as "progressive".  It's just the reality that under capitalism military spending had led to important scientific breakthroughs.  The fact that science has largely depended on funding from the military is a very clear example of the way in which capitalism holds things back.  However abstract demands to channel military funding  into  education  or poverty relief (or something else) are just that - abstract, feel-good demands. 

The pseudo-left sits on the sidelines and complains about how bad things are, how oppressed and powerless we all are - and so on.  The genuine Left looks for what is possible and unites with others to make that a reality.  We try to win, rather than to just convince people that everything is terrible.  There's a big difference between a protest movement and a movement for change.
Manager
Posts: 593

 • Re: How long can capitalism survive?

Posted by arthur at 2007-05-02 01:18 PM
cyberman,

I guess you are seriously trying to figure out where we are coming from. Unfortunately we haven't presented a coherent account and would not necessarily agree on one. Meanwhile I'll respond with some personal off the cuff responses to your 7 numbered points:

0) wikipedia article on "Theory of Productive Forces" is interesting background for this discussion. I agree with the Marx quotes in it and do not agree with point of view of the wikipedia author. I should write an account of actual Stalinist and Maoist positions but not now.

1) Modern industry is a progressive force. Capitalism is parasitic and moribund. Semi-feudal relations are long overdue for forcible suppression.

2) Both the Russian and Chinese revolutions were enormous social advances in the 20th century. Subsequent temporary and partial defeats in both have focused attention on the centrality of the two line struggle between Marxism and revisionism as it became blindingly obvious that the counter-revolutionary forces were not only inside the Communist parties and spoke in Marxist language but in their top leaderships. Their (reactionary) conceptions of "socialism" like those of the Second International were widely mistaken as being "left" in the West as well and have helped paralyse development of any left agenda at all while fading into richly deserved irrelevance throughout the world. The term "pseudo-left" is an application of that concept to the absurd situation we are currently in where openly reactionary viewpoints are widely regarded as "left". Depicting the history of struggle as one of "failure" is a characteristic feature of ruling class politics. The pseudo-left enthusiastically promotes isolation in time and space with an endless message that humanity cannot move forward anywhere, anytime.

3) A reasonable statement of what we have actually been saying due to extreme irritation at the Greens being regarded as the left. What we should be saying would be slightly more nuanced. Many people who consider themselves "Green" do not agree with the extreme reactionary views we are denouncing and the extreme reactionary Greens are not as central a problem as we might give the impression of.

4) Cooperation with oppressors and exploiters retards the development of the productive forces. Sharp conflict accelerates such development. Reactionary opposition to oppressors and exploiters that explicitly opposes "affluence" and openly aims to retard the development of the productive forces even more has nothing in common with progressive struggle of any kind, let alone left politics, never mind Communism.

5) Both state owned and private capital are capital. Support for the state form over the private form reflects the total bankruptcy of "socialists". This term "socialist" has been the label of a bourgeois political tendency for more than 150 years, as explained in the 1888 preface to the Communist Manifesto:

Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.
6) We demand and insist on forcible armed overthrow of tyranny and side with those in the ruling class who recognize that is in their interests too against the dominant views of most of the capitalist class in favour of continuing to actively promote or at least appease tyranny.

7) Armed suppression of tyranny obviously requires spending on armed forces. Bourgeois armed forces will be used only in the interests of the bourgeoisie so we have no stake in them as such. The retardation of R&D to the point at which it relies on an investment in military technology is a symptom of the general parasitism and moribundity of capitalism. The opposition to even military R&D and prevailing pacifist sentiment in a world where most of the population does not even have bourgeois democracy is a symptom of how extremely moribund capitalist society has become.
Manager
Posts: 559

 • Re: How long can capitalism survive?

Posted by Cyberman at 2007-05-02 10:12 PM

Yes I must admit to having tried to put words into your mouth - just to get a reaction! Of course you are quite right when you say that capitalism will last as long as people let it. It has been a more resilient system that Marx may have imagined. Ironically, as far as Marx is concerned, the capitalists have probably read his theories over the years and learned not to be too complacent.

But anyway, the conditions are,  in most developed countries are far from being pre-revolutionary. If the working classes are having problems, the first thing that they'll try to do is fix them under the present system, by demanding concessions from the ruling class. If they are complacent, the  bourgeoisie will seize their opportunity to claw back concessions that they made previously. In Australia this is happening right now with the Howard government's changes to the Inductrial relations laws. So, I'd say that it was important for socialists to just do what they can and concentrate on what is possible. Besides the workplace, action on housing is an area which could be fertile ground for marxists and socialists. The sky-rocketing price of houses has created a new divide in our society between those who do and do not own property.

A revolutionary situation will only develop if it is not possible for the ruling and working classes to strike a bargain. This could happen during a time of war or severe economic depression. It is possible that an economic depression could be brought about by severe shortages of oil and other natural resources, or the consequences of global warming, or the consequences of a reduction in industrial production in an attempt to avert it.

I take your point about the use of the words socialism and communism. However, the English language has changed since Marx's day. Communism, to most people,  means a USSR or Red China 'state socialist' system which is unlikely to attract much working class support in the 21st century.  

 

 

 
Member
Posts: 412

 • Re: How long can capitalism survive?

Posted by confused at 2007-07-04 08:58 AM

Thanks cyberman! "communism to most people means USSR or Red China". It should be more like social utopia or ecomimic utopia.  All capitalism is anyway is a circulation of money,or take money to make more money. capitalism will last as long as there is money.  Just take for instance this land is your land this land is my land.  Without money its still the person who owns it. The bank still owns mine.

 

 
Member
Posts: 7

 • Re: How long can capitalism survive?

Posted by Cyberman at 2007-07-27 05:20 PM

Comrade Confused,

To most people, Communism is synonymous with the sort of systems that were in place in Eastern Europe and the USSR.  However, in Marxist theory, Communism is the ideal, Socialism is the reality or a transitional phase.  The USSR is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Money is still part of a socialist economy; and furthermore, money and Capital aren't quite the same thing.

Utopia isn't what we are aiming for either. I think that might just be a little too boring!

Its probably better to not start off with too much Marx. One of my favourite books is "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" by Robert Tressell. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tressell

A tale of the destitute and poor of Mugsborough. He took his  characters from the real town of Hastings, on the south coast of England. The main character, Owen , tries his best to explain to his sceptical workmates how the cards are stacked against them, and at times it's done very funny way. The main message of the book, that working people have to change the capitalist system, of which they are the direct victims, explains it all very well, and should remove some confusion.
Member
Posts: 412

 
Powered by Plone

This site conforms to the following standards: