Whilst I'm convinced that capitalism is inherently cyclical, imperialist, destructive, and have been for many years, I still have one pretty important hangup: Where is the definitive proof that capitalism must end? It doesn't seem to be found in the labour theory of value, or the law of accumulation– these only prove the ongoing antagonism between the classes, and not that such an antagonism must eventually end. It doesn't seem to be found in the critique of imperialism either, this only shows how the bourgeoisie induct new countries into the capitalist process, and how they offset and attempt to distract from the detrimental effects of accumulation.
But I can imagine a state of history in which the tension between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat keeps going on, with the bourgeoisie constantly artificing new pointless commodities, and humanity, stuck in its fetishism, continues to consume them, and workers simply show up every few decades to win some reformist concessions.
I don't know everything and it's entirely possible I'm missing critical So I want to ask you good people if you've ever been convinced of such a thing, that the eventual development of capitalism will likely culminate in something new. Because it feels to me that maybe the class war is eternal.
>>2386240This kind of response cedes materialism in favour of the exact sort of moralist attitude that I'm talking about in the OP, that I don't think can be an adequate ground for achieving socialism, though apparently some retards like
>>2386269 are illiterate and think I'm saying the exact opposite.
>>2386312>what stops capitalism from reforming?the way in which it functions, reforms do not fundamentally change the misery which capital creates and requires to live
>it basically became untenable to be a feudalist for economic reasonswhy, when and where?
>>2386315what im saying is not a metaphysical statement about history, it's pretty instrumental to the practicals of how we achieve and run a socialist system and it's sad you can't see that? why go in socialism *as a system broadly* if we're functionally temporarily redistributing the spoils of capital accumulation only for it to claw its way back?
>>2386317oh you misunderstand im not saying reforming into more humane socialism, im talking abourt it literally re-forming
>>2386320> why go in socialism *as a system broadly* if we're functionally temporarily redistributing the spoils of capital accumulation only for it to claw its way back?first of all that's not what I'm saying because socialism is not just redistribution of wealth and le epic socialist commodity and wage labour, unless you do think that's what it's about, in which case you're just wrong
Sincerely, I think it's pretty obvious why people would want to remain in a socialist society as opposed to a capitalist one, once they finally realise the former has to go and the latter needs to be made. Why would one voluntarily go back to poverty, wage labour, constant war, etc? (I think that's what you mean when you say capitalism literally re-forming)
Secondly, your argument is definitely metaphysical because it relies upon hist-mat, which is philosophical nonsense which Marx himself came to give up eventually, that's why we know that a crisis of capital isn't just le forces of production vs relations of productions but is actually a necessary process which capital itself requires to stay alive
the point is always the same one… Judging something on the basis of what it does is different from judging it on the basis of how long it's going to last.
I recommend you read those 2 articles I linked, they essentially explain what I mean in a much more detailed way. One of those is pretty short too so I really hope you read them
>>2386322but is that due to some sort of supra-historical law or due to the struggles between the bourgeouis class and the aristocracy?
>>2386360Of course that's not what I think. What I do think is you can't make your political goals a reality based on hoping people fulfil their 'rational self interest'. We've seen how capital corrupts this many times.
My argument is not based on 'forces of production vs relations of production' only, really I'm an empiricist myself in this regard: I can explain in empirical terms how the economics of feudalism for example produced the conditions for a new system which would overtake it. I don't really care what your opinions are on metaphysics-proper, I am not interested in buying into some alternative metaphysical view you're selling either. When I am talking about materialism I mean simply that you should be able to show how the economics of capitalism lend themselves not only to crises but also lead to an irreconcilable unfixable collapse, otherwise your political ideology is based on wishful thinking IMO.
I'm not really interested in the articles because I think you sent them based on a mischaracterisation of my position.
>>2386360The struggle between the bourgeois class and the aristocracy, which does NOT mean ideological-political struggle, it means economic, material struggle.
>>2386397 (me)
Like, what do you think class even means? Political blocs? It refers to distinct sectors of economic actors. The bourgeoisie invest, the proletariat labour for wage. Is what I'm saying I.E., that you should be able to describe an empirically-backed analysis that shows capitalism must eventually fail, really that metaphysical for you?
>>2386404 (me)
You seem to be under the impression I'm asking you to go all 'unity of contradictions' hegelian dialectics on me here. I'm not asking you to give me some Kautskyite bullshit. I'm asking for an economic argument for why capitalism should eventually fall into a deep economic crisis from which a new system would likely permanently emerge, as what happened with feudalism.
>>2386408 (me)
The only reason I'm using the word materialism here is because most of you are responding with some pie-in-the-sky "the will of the proletariat to its liberation" idealist bullshit
>>2386404yes because as I said it's just hist-mat rehashed, leftist circles have been over this for the last century using it as a justification for literally anything, the fall of the soviet union, colonisation of india, etc.
>>2386408there is no reason as to why capitalism has to fall, full stop. I don't understand why you need so bad to cite some "law of history" a la sociology major to justify you not wanting to put up with the shit they give you anymore. It's really just as simple as that
>>2386411I really don't think that's idealist at all, it just seems that you don't want to accept it because you want to make it seem like people should just abandon capitalism because it's gonna fail (or, perhaps because it's already failing?). But what you're doing here is effectively just being an opportunist, you're just going along with the tide (if we suppose such a tide even exists) because that's what History wills, how is this any less Ideological than what I said about how people just need to look at what they're given ans understand that that's it?
again, read the articles
>>2386445>yes because as I said it's just hist-mat rehashed, leftist circles have been over this for the last century using it as a justification for literally anything, the fall of the soviet union, colonisation of india, etc.
>there is no reason as to why capitalism has to fall, full stop. I don't understand why you need so bad to cite some "law of history" a la sociology major to justify you not wanting to put up with the shit they give you anymore. It's really just as simple as thatI think that's stupid as hell to call that metaphysical while talking about 'political will'. I think your metaphysical beliefs are insane. Moreover, if you believe that there's no economic reason for capitalism to destabilise in any lasting sense, then socialism will never constitute itself in a stable long-term manner and is doomed to backslide within a century, and is ultimately a doomed project 'as a system'. Better to focus simply on the interests of workers than producing a working alternative system in that case.
Are you some kind of closet christcom?
>I really don't think that's idealist at allIt's definitionally idealist to make all your beliefs recourse to 'the will'. Holy shit read a book.
>>2386479how is talking about people wanting things metaphysical, you do know people in real life will things literally all the time
>if you believe that there's no economic reason for capitalism to destabilise in any lasting sense, then socialism will never constitute itself in a stable long-term manner and is doomed to backslide within a century, and is ultimately a doomed project 'as a system'.I really don't see how the fact that there is no inherent reason to the collapse, fall, or whatever you want to call it, of Capitalism means that socialism can't work.
I think that the question as to whether capitalism falls by itself or not is completely different from whether socialism is a "stable system" (whatever that even means). I really don't understand the logical connection
If we suppose that slavery, for example, was a particularly variable and dynamic system, and therefore had a propensity (dunno if that's the correct word) to collapse, that would tell us nothing about whether or not what was to come would be more stable. You can only answer that question by looking at the next system as it works and functions for itself
>>2386326i talk with so much emphasis
ooooooooh they so sensitive
>>2386148>Where is the definitive proof that capitalism must end?it can only reside in the process of it's destruction just like the definitve proof faudalism innevitable end resides in the existance of capitalist society
trying to put such proof in a study of capitalist society would be utopian and teleological
>>2386397>I can explain in empirical terms how the economics of feudalism for example produced the conditions for a new system which would overtake it.you only know this because it led to those consequences
>you should be able to show how the economics of capitalism lend themselves not only to crises but also lead to an irreconcilable unfixable collapseno, thats impossible that will only become apparent when/if such collapse happens
>otherwise your political ideology is based on wishful thinking IMOyou only think this because you have a mechanicist view of materialism you think structural contradictions themselves will make the revolution but the subject of history are not the structures but humans
read the feuerbach theses marxism isn't deterministic
>Ctrl+F "TRPF">0 resultsThe absolute state of this board.
Also,
>>2387135 is correct in his final sentence, Marx alludes to the idea that communism and worker emancipation is not inevitable, and that the fall of capitalism does not guarantee revolutionary reconstitution. As he states in literally the first part of the communist manifesto:
<The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class struggles.<Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. >>2387144yeah i actually expected at least one poster to mention TRPF.
Obviously nothing is inevitable but the whole point of empirical study is to form predictive models
Unique IPs: 19