Is capitalism actually dying, despite appearances?

[GoodSarmatian]

I feel like this is what I mean. I mean the American style of Wild West capitalism. Becoming a universal healthcare high minimum wage sort of economy would be "death of capitalism" by my meaning.

As long as you don't abolish stock markets and publicly traded corporations as a concept it's still capitalism.
It would just be Capitalism Done Right (or as right as it can be done) and not the Exploitative Tragedy Turned Farce Turned Tragedy we have now, or the Hamfisted Dystopic Parody That Might As Well Be Soviet Propaganda that the Republicans are trying to create.

 

[civvver]

No it's not dying. Tech and global competition is simply reducing the price of labor while costs of other things keep going up so it appears out of balance and then everyone asks if it's dying and we should move to something else.

 

[Smellincoffee]

A thousand years from now, there will still be marxists writing that the collapse of capitalism is right around the corner. They'll be right there with Christians waiting on the rapture.

 

[Lohrenswald]

A thousand years from now, there will still be marxists writing that the collapse of capitalism is right around the corner. They'll be right there with Christians waiting on the rapture.

The Roman Empire will last forever

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm forced to admit, though, as I see the more outlandish and strident and oafish defenses of capitalism, it seems like it's desperately ill.

The thing, it's been this way for over a century. Marx was making this argument in the 1860s. Past a certain point of development, "dying" seems to be the normal state of capitalism, in that it staggers from crisis to crisis without ever resolving any of its underlying structural flaws, just kicking them down the road for future generations to deal with. Luxemburg once said that those Marxists who are inclined to wait until capitalism simply collapses under its own weight will be waiting until the sun burns out, and I'm inclined to agree: capitalism stumbles from crisis to crisis, and will do so indefinitely, causing more misery with ever lurch, until people decide to replace it with something else.

I think what's lending particular urgency to this most recent episode of crisis is not so much the death rattle of capitalism, but of a certain kind of liberal and democratic capitalism. Modern electoral politics is often a choice between vaguely multicultural technocracy and emphatically reactionary populism, which seems to leave little space for the public sphere that, if it did not cleanse capitalism of its sins, at least allowed for comforting spectacles of self-flagellation.

 

[Samson]

No it's not dying. Tech and global competition is simply reducing the price of labor while costs of other things keep going up so it appears out of balance and then everyone asks if it's dying and we should move to something else.

What other things are getting more expensive? Here is a graph of comodity prices, and sure there is a pretty big hump last decade in metals and energy, but I am not sure it really seems to explain much, as there was such a slump in the recession.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The thing, it's been this way for over a century. Marx was making this argument in the 1860s. Past a certain point of development, "dying" seems to be the normal state of capitalism, in that it staggers from crisis to crisis without ever resolving any of its underlying structural flaws, just kicking them down the road for future generations to deal with. Luxemburg once said that those Marxists who are inclined to wait until capitalism simply collapses under its own weight will be waiting until the sun burns out, and I'm inclined to agree: capitalism stumbles from crisis to crisis, and will do so indefinitely, causing more misery with ever lurch, until people decide to replace it with something else.

I think what's lending particular urgency to this most recent episode of crisis is not so much the death rattle of capitalism, but of a certain kind of liberal and democratic capitalism. Modern electoral politics is often a choice between vaguely multicultural technocracy and emphatically reactionary populism, which seems to leave little space for the public sphere that, if it did not cleanse capitalism of its sins, at least allowed for comforting spectacles of self-flagellation.

Just tagging you from the "Conspiracy theory" thread. I didn't want to miss your post in case you responded.

 

[timtofly]

Capitalism will become virtual reality. Any thing else will be virtual on top of that reality.

 

[inthesomeday]

@Sommerswerd

Anyways I agree with Traitorfish. "Powerful" and "rich" people, as you say, wouldn't be able to oppress everyone else in a post-capitalism society because they wouldn't exist in a post-capitalism society; unless of course the economic means were organized once again into an oppressive, undemocratic structure. I advocate not letting that happen.

However on another note I think this is an interesting thread. No I don't think capitalism will die unless something kills it. Right now, to use the (barely an) allegory of a virus, capitalism is, however, killing its host, which is to say the planet Earth and by extension the human species. Capitalism itself is doing great though, as any virus does when it has successfully infected the host.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

When FDR instituted the New Deal the right claimed he was killing capitalism, he said he was saving it. He also went on to be one of the most popular presidents of all time and was reelected for 4 terms.

Part of the problem we have in the US is we've been doggedly devoted to supply side economics since Reagan, maybe even longer. We have not let the pendulum swing back to demand side and now our middle and poverty class are feeling the squeeze. I honestly think we'll either elect a socialist democrat like Bernie or Corbyn or we will continue to feel the squeeze. I'm not completely against supply side but without a healthy pendulum swing the economy will only get sicker and sicker. Empower the consumers (the bottom 99%) and capitalism would re-emerge as a solid ideology. Demand for goods and services creates jobs and economic growth. Tightening spending and giving tax cuts to people that don't actually need them is simply the wrong answer right now.

 

[Hrothbern]

To avoid a wall of paper no examples:

Capitalism is basically driven by the economic cost price advantages of an increased scale size of the "machinery" needed that delivers desired goods and the capital investment intensity of that "machinery".

Assuming that the psychological desire to have always new and more goods of mankind does not change over time
Assuming that we will face no lasting limits caused by durability and sustainability of natural resources and energy

The over time unavoidable diminishing of capitalism comes from the technologial knowledge development enabling to saturate the input-output response curve between needed scale size/capital and cost price improvement at a over time decreasing amount of scale size/capital needed..

 

[Sommerswerd]

@Sommerswerd

Anyways I agree with Traitorfish. "Powerful" and "rich" people, as you say, wouldn't be able to oppress everyone else in a post-capitalism society because they wouldn't exist in a post-capitalism society; unless of course the economic means were organized once again into an oppressive, undemocratic structure. I advocate not letting that happen.

But "powerful" and "rich" people existed in pre-capitalist societies, right? And those folks still oppressed the poor and weak back then didn't they?

Or is it your position that society has always been "capitalist" even in ancient times before they came up with the moniker?

 

[cardgame]

No it's not dying. Tech and global competition is simply reducing the price of labor while costs of other things keep going up so it appears out of balance and then everyone asks if it's dying and we should move to something else.

Tell me civver, if labor has no money to spend then how does the economy work?

 

[inthesomeday]

But "powerful" and "rich" people existed in pre-capitalist societies, right? And those folks still oppressed the poor and weak back then didn't they?

Or is it your position that society has always been "capitalist" even in ancient times before they came up with the moniker?

They did exist in pre-capitalist societies. I think that they have the potential to not exist in post-capitalist societies, if folks will fight for it. Read what I said a little more carefully.

 

[civver_764]

They did exist in pre-capitalist societies. I think that they have the potential to not exist in post-capitalist societies, if folks will fight for it. Read what I said a little more carefully.

That sounds great! Where do we start?

 

[El_Machinae]

An actual inheritance tax would go a long way. I certainly don't mind a person being able to pass on permanent retirement to their kids, that's a grand long-term dream. But with the way finance works, a person can pass on permanent retirement to their kids and have the wealth they pass on be self-accumulating.

It's a fundamental imbalance in the system, where the people who don't need to work end up with an ever-greater control over wealth while the people who do need to work end up with an ever-lesser amount.

On top of that, an actual progressive income tax. Income taxes, along with incentives to invest to pro-economy spending, is the key to long-term growth for the median worker. But you need both sides. The income taxes reduce the amount of money that can be used to control more wealth. And the tax deduction creates incentive to actually create more wealth. Wealth creation and wealth control are really different things.

But in a truly post-capitalist society, which actually can't really exist, but we know the direction we need to go, what's needed is the creation of currency that can be distributed evenly. This gives something for the capitalists to fight over, while still providing incentive to create and supply goods that are affordable.

 

[Cutlass]

"Free market" economics is critically on life support. Conservatives have been trying to destroy that for decades. Crony capitalism is the only capitalism they will settle for.

 

[civver_764]

An actual inheritance tax would go a long way. I certainly don't mind a person being able to pass on permanent retirement to their kids, that's a grand long-term dream. But with the way finance works, a person can pass on permanent retirement to their kids and have the wealth they pass on be self-accumulating.

I'm not understanding how an inheritance tax would change that? It would just be slightly less money that is "self-accumulating", right? And aren't you ignoring the fact that wealth can be created? i.e. Just because some wealth is consolidating at the top doesn't mean that new wealth isn't being created at lower levels. And it wouldn't really be "self-accumulating" right, since any accumulation would involve investment into the economy?

It's a fundamental imbalance in the system, where the people who don't need to work end up with an ever-greater control over wealth while the people who do need to work end up with an ever-lesser amount.

Is this really true? Do people who need to work actually have less wealth, or just a smaller share but more wealth overall (since the total amount of wealth increased)?

On top of that, an actual progressive income tax. Income taxes, along with incentives to invest to pro-economy spending, is the key to long-term growth for the median worker. But you need both sides. The income taxes reduce the amount of money that can be used to control more wealth. And the tax deduction creates incentive to actually create more wealth. Wealth creation and wealth control are really different things.

Don't income taxes just change who controls the wealth? I.e. from private individuals to the state? What makes the state better than private individuals? Especially in a system like ours where political influence can essentially be bought?

But in a truly post-capitalist society, which actually can't really exist, but we know the direction we need to go, what's needed is the creation of currency that can be distributed evenly. This gives something for the capitalists to fight over, while still providing incentive to create and supply goods that are affordable.

But what's going to prevent this "evenly distributed" currency from being consolidated at the top again?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Tell me civver, if labor has no money to spend then how does the economy work?

Simple. Exports! You exploit the working class at home and sell the goods in other countries with more purchasing power. It has worked for Germany so far (and less well in the GDR in the past). Might not work for much longer since the Merkel governments have been hell bent on inpoverishing the rest of Europe and Germans are becoming increasingly sick of it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

They did exist in pre-capitalist societies. I think that they have the potential to not exist in post-capitalist societies, if folks will fight for it. Read what I said a little more carefully.

After "reading more carefully" my position stands. My point was that "capitalism" in and of itself wasn't the root issue. You've essentially agreed, by moving the goalpost from "getting rid of capitalism" to "getting rid of the rich and powerful people by fighting to organize society into a democratic non-oppressive structure" which is really just nebulous rhetoric that boils down to "utopia."

So yes I agree, in the sense that if we create utopia... in the way that you subjectively define it, then there will be no rich or powerful people oppressing everyone. But by that metric, someone else could just as easily envision a "capitalist utopia" where there would be no oppression and perfect democratic processes, and all we have to do is "fight for it". Again we seem to agree that the root problem is the powerful oppressing the weak, which I argue is an issue existing independent of "capitalism" in and of itself.