capitalism creating abundance
- This topic has 12 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I got this:
"Although the SPGB has always rejected our conception of decadence, it holds some conceptions which are not far from it in practice, such as the idea that from the beginning of the 20th century capitalism had created the material conditions for abundance and thus for the socialist transformation, rendering capitalism ‘obsolete’. But the full implications of the system becoming a barrier to human progress have never been drawn by the SPGB,"
from this:
Book Review – The Alternative to Capitalism
Submitted by ICConline on September 14, 2013 – 08:34Thanks to a link from Adam
I don't think I'm violating any copyright etc.
I think rather than "capitalism had created the material conditions for abundance and thus for the socialist transformation" it's the assembly line, mass production and technological advance that created that. What do you all think? I Don't think we should give capitalism any undeserved credit either.
Good point. I think what is meant is that the way capitalism works (accumulating capital through the reinvestment of profits) has had as a consequence the development of the productive powers of society as most reinvested profits are invested in new, more productive equipment and ways of organising production, to the extent that plenty for all is now technologically possible.Of course since all this more productive equipment has been produced by the working, they, not abstract capitalism, brought it into being even though within the context of capitalism and its economic laws.Mind you, like Marx, we have always seen that capitalism has played a progressive role in human history but that now this is no longer the case. It's obsolete, passed its sell-by date, or however you want to express it.
Probably shouldn't bother posting this but…I'm no authority, scholar, but it wasn't capitalism. Only thing wasn't plentiful was food due to famines and that was improved by the green revolution, which can't really be attributed to capitalism, was science which would have gone on. Before capitalism and mass production had (too much) clothing, shelter. Can have plenty of education, some medical.Even in feudalism, they were reinvesting. Building a better mousetrap dates to before 6000 years ago.It has always been about might creating inequality.Not much independent thinking, not much using empirical evidence here.
"I think rather than "capitalism had created the material conditions for abundance and thus for the socialist transformation" it's the assembly line, mass production and technological advance that created that".But who, or what, were the drivers of this technological advancement? The assembly line, etc etc. It was the Capitalist system, ensuring that productive methods were even more, profitable. It was in the interests of Capitalists to do this. They did not create these conditions because they gave a tinkers cuss, about us, the workers, our conditions of living! They did not raise the levels of production so they could satisfy our "needs".Everything, in any given epoch, springs from the present mode, (existing then) of the mrethod of production. In Capitalism, it is "production for profit". Things are not produced for their, "use" value. They are produced in the expectation of, "profit". If profit will not accrue, production will not start.This is what Capitalism is predicated on. It is the reason, Capitalism wil not, nor ever can, be run in the interests of "EVERYONE" but only the interest of the "tiny", Capitalist, minority.Once one understands this "basic" tenet, one can understand Capitalism, our place, as a class within it and the only viable alternative, out of it, "production for direct human use", which production is under the auspices of us all, for us all, in the interests of, "US ALL".Steve Colborn.
I hope more ppl reply, tho don't expect it, but in reply to: "But who, or what, were the drivers of this technological advancement? The assembly line, etc etc. It was the Capitalist system, ensuring that productive methods were even more, profitable. It was in the interests of Capitalists to do this." You are buying into the same drivel capitalists use to justify capitalism. And you keep twisting to make Marx right. People have tried to refine and improve upon invention and production probably from day one, certainly for millenia. It is in our nature, our capability. Better yields, better tools, better mousetrap. Engineers, inventors and people who care about efficiency like me do it beause we want to, are even driven to. But yes I'd rather do it for all of humanity, than just the people who can pay me. The rest is just you spouting the party line, which , btw, I understand and agree with. Caps weren't necessary. Thou doth protest too much. A little more independent thought wouldn't hurt, either.
Sorry Admice, I keep forgetting that Caps are considered shouting, rather than used to "stress" a point. As to "twisting to make Marx right", or "towing the party line", I cannot agree with that position.In Capitalism, if firms do not take R+D seriously, then one thing will happen, their competitors will and those firms "standing still" will be swallowed up. Invention and innovation is a "must", given the competitive nature of Capitalism Regardless of mans "nature", this is about the "nature" of Capitalism". Efficincy for a Capitalist firm, is about cutting, or keeping costs, down.Never knew there was a party line, by the way. If there was, I'd probably be one of the last people to follow it. As someone who first joined the Party 32 years ago, I did so because I agreed with the analysis of present day society they put forward and their analysis of why it needed changing. Opinions I have seen no reason to change.I would really like to know, finally, why you think my "thought" is'nt independent now! Quite a few peeps would probably say, it was too independent already. Stevie C.
admice wrote:I Don't think we should give capitalism any undeserved credit either.A Monty Python sketch comes to mind that included the quesstion 'what have the romans ever done for us?'It 's not a matter of giving capitalism credit; this is where we are at the moment. The emergence of capitalism gives rise to ideas of communism. I don't myself apply a moral measure or judgement with regard to capitalism and communism. Without capitalism there would be no possibility of communism. Unless you can offer an alternative analysis?
An alternative analysis would take a book, but there was communism in 'primitive' societies, so capitalism wasn't necessary.Small point but I realized your caps were for emphasis, my point being I didn't need the emphasis, I'm not that dense and you don't need to propagandize.I shouldn't have posted the lack of independent thought etc. Was an ad hominem statement, but I am frustrated by the overall dogmatic statements and repeating of statements that really aren't supported by empirical evidence in this group.I agree on some points of WSM and some will have to agree to disagree. I would hope more on the left or far left, or 'our definition of what we are' will coordinate together, without capitulating to essential points like not having a vanguard which then goes on to dictate to all.
admice wrote:An alternative analysis would take a book, but there was communism in 'primitive' societies, so capitalism wasn't necessary.This is why I object to the term primitive communism. For me the quote marks are in the wrong place, better would be primitive 'communism'. As what is meant by communism is not a society based on 'to each according their abilities to each according their need'. Primitive communism may have been a classless society but it was far from a society of abundance. It was a society where you could find yourself so hungry that you may have to eat your neighbour or a family member.As Engels said
Quote:Was not the abolition of private property possible at an earlier time?No. Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations.Private property has not always existed.When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property. And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order.So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and extending the forces of production – so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society’s productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development.The agrarian Middle Ages give us the baron and the serf; the cities of the later Middle Ages show us the guildmaster and the journeyman and the day laborer; the 17th century has its manufacturing workers; the 19th has big factory owners and proletarians.It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production.Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.and Kautsky on the differences between the priorities of the feudal lord compared with the capitalist
Quote:One feature of those times, however, stands out in marked contrast to our own. In these days the chief object which the capitalist sets before himself is the accumulation of wealth. Your modern capitalist can never have enough money. His great desire is to employ his whole income in amassing capital, expanding his business, undertaking fresh enterprises, or ruining his competitors. After acquiring his first million he strives for a second, for he fears being outstripped by some rival, and wishes to secure his possessions. The capitalist never employs his whole income for his personal consumption unless, indeed, he is a fool or a spendthrift, or unless his income is insufficient for his wants.Moreover, the wealthiest millionaire can lead the simplest of lives without diminishing the respect in which he is held. Whatever luxury he may permit himself, he keeps out of sight of the general public – in ball-rooms, chambres-séparées, in hunting-boxes, card-rooms, &c. Consequently, the millionaire is indistinguishable from the mass of his fellow-citizens when he is in the street.A very different state of things existed under the system of natural production and petty manufacture. The incomes of the rich and powerful, whether in natural products or money, could not be invested in shares or government bonds. The only use to which they could put their revenues was that of consumption, or – so far as they consisted in money – in the accumulation of valuable and imperishable things – precious metals and precious stones. The larger the incomes of temporal and spiritual princes and nobles, of patricians and merchants, the greater their luxury. Being by no means able to expend their wealth on themselves, they employed it in keeping up large establishments of servants, in the purchase of fine horses and dogs, in clothing themselves and their dependents in sumptuous apparel, in building lordly palaces and furnishing them as magnificently as possible. The craving for amassing treasure contributed only to the increase of luxury. The haughty lord of the Middle Ages did not, like the timorous Hindoo, bury his treasure in the ground; nor did he deem it necessary to shield it from the sight of thieves and tax-collectors, as do our modern capitalists. His wealth was the sign and source of his power, and he displayed it proudly and ostentatiously in the sight of all men; his garments, his equipages, his houses, glittering with gold and silver, with precious stones and pearls. That was indeed a golden age; and a golden age for art as well.Interestingly he uses the term natural production there. I remember the last primitive communism thread on here. ALB found the original German of 'primitive communism' which actually translates better as 'natural communism'. I still think it's a mistake to include the communism part in it. You might as well say the proletarians of ancient Rome lived in primitive capitalism. While there might be some similarities it does not make it the same thing.
Ed wrote:This is why I object to the term primitive communism. For me the quote marks are in the wrong place, better would be primitive 'communism'. As what is meant by communism is not a society based on 'to each according their abilities to each according their need'. Primitive communism may have been a classless society but it was far from a society of abundance.admice wrote:i agree the 2 communisms are not the same.I think that the notion of a return to some form of Communism is just a Hegelian leftover. That is, Hegel's notion of matter separating itself from spirit (geist) and history being the process of the estrangement from, and the reconciliation back to, of matter and spirit.So, spirit becomes whole again, back to its natural state. Thus, 'primitive communism' is returned to through modern communism, having go through the estrangement of material property.I agree with Ed, though. If we were to follow this schema, it would be better to name it 'primitive classlessness', because it wasn't a society based on 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'.I think it's better to regard Communism as potentially the highest point of human development so far. Its main similarity to hunter-gatherer society is in its lack of an exploitative class structure.Mere lack of class exploitation does not equal Communism. Communism must include democratic methods of human organisation, including the historically learnt liberal values of respect for individuals, minority opinion, freedom of speech, etc.; democracy is not simple 'majoritarianism', as some of those same property-owning liberals allege.
I may be wrong but I think originally the party used primative communism not as an example of how society could be but as a refutation that all societies have – or have to have – classes and property: That there are examples of societies without property relations. Property is not inherent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.