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
>>2387218>yeah i actually expected at least one poster to mention TRPF.well that is your answer, TRPF is a consequecnce of LTV
>it can also backslide into barbarismright which wouldn't be capitalism so capitalism would have ended
>a socialist system that emerges can always open up new territories which can then be captured by a re-emerging capital.this doesn't make any sense. where is your empirical data showing capital re-emerging from a socialist system?
>>2388782The rate of profit has a tendency to fall; it doesn't mean it can't go up, or that socialism can't be transitory, right?
>right which wouldn't be capitalism so capitalism would have endedCapitalism ends all the time by this logic- breakdown theory usually refers to an absolute crisis from which it cannot recover.
>this doesn't make any sense. where is your empirical data showing capital re-emerging from a socialist system?What doesn't make sense about it? Russia or basically any failed socialist state would apply here.
>>2389123>The rate of profit has a tendency to fall; it doesn't mean it can't go upit can go up temporarily but that doesn't counteract the tendency, thats why its called a tendency
>or that socialism can't be transitorydepends what you mean. socialism has a transition phase before it becomes full communism
>Capitalism ends all the time by this logicyeah im talking about capitalism as a system not individual capitalist states. the global capitalist system has to end at some point because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. a historic example of this on an individual state level would be nazi germany.
LTV shows us that market competition consolidates into monopoly, competition also incentivizes capitalists to implement technology to create more product but this has the effect of increasing the organic composition of capital which lowers the rate of profit. individual capitalists dont care because they get more absolute profit by gaining greater market share.
in a situation where there a monopoly there is no incentive to increase productive forces to get more profit and the only remaining traditional source of profit it so cut wages. this leads to a crisis as workers become unable to purchase what they produce.
the alternative is to expand extraterritorially into new markets, and this is what is called imperialism, conquest specifically driven by monopoly stagnation within legal borders.
when extraterritorial expansion is blocked by existing imperialists or the weakness of a given bourgeois state they instead turn inward and reduce wages and public services - this is where you get austerity. but both of these are temporary fixes and cannot overcome the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, they just hold it back for a couple years.
the logical conclusion if you continue in this system is slavery, and when you have capital owners on one side and slaves on the other, you no longer have bourgeoisie and proletariat but something different. and yet this still does not overcome the rate of profit falling, so the capitalists also have to take back from the slaves and this is when you get labor camps that work people to death with no compensation whatsoever.
what we can see by analyzing the current world conditions and crisis, using the ukraine war as an example, is that global capitalism has reached a new level where extraterritorial expansion is becoming increasingly impossible while the limits of austerity being able to counteract falling profit rates are also being reached.
when i say barbarism i mean a transition of the global world order from capitalist imperialism, to a new stage of world slavery as a global system. thats what "socialism or barbarism" means, not sorta going back and forth in half measures here and there in little pockets but a paradigm shift to a new global system of barbarism. thats not really something you can come back from and will basically lead to humanity splitting bourgeoisie and workers into genetically distinct species.
>Russia The USSR? you have to distinguish between socialism as in a project to establish socialism and socialism as the higher stage of communism, a stateless classless moneyless society where production is from each to each according to ability and need.
a "socialist system" to me implies a world wide international. similarly i dont see how you go back from that. what are the empiric economic reasons that would provide for that?
either way capitalism will end, because it cant counteract the falling profit rate. people will want to say techno-slavery is still capitalism, but you dont have proles if you dont have wage labor. you would still have a class society, but technology will eventually make it impossible to have class struggle. whether it is one or the other will depend on which class has power going into the transition.
>>2389706>unless you have material reasons for why it can’t come back I’m inclined to think that socialism can precipitate its revivalyeah i dont think that makes sense. where is monarchy "coming back"? what are the material reasons for it coming back?
communism is predicated on the building of sufficient productive forces enabling post-scarcity. it doesn't make sense to have private ownership in a post-scarcity society. this is a paradigm shift where quantity creates a new quality, like how you cant go back to monarchy once you have a certain quantity of private producers.
chatgpt says grossman agrees with me. i cant tell if this is just some engagement post to make the radlibs think and pph go up but you already have an answer in mind or if you disagree with your own screenshots? the use of the luxemburg flag makes me think you already know the answer to OP is "socialism or barbarism"
>>2389719>feudalism could make an easy comebacki dont think so. i think we just call it something like techno-feudalism because we dont have a new word yet, but its not the same thing, its a repetition of difference on a higher level. in the same way capitalism is also distinct from markets generally. history doesn't repeat it rhymes.
>>2389723>Well scarcity can always be artificially generated right?but why? you are just saying anything could happen. it could but what are the material reasons?
>people can simply re-invent currency and markets in an attempt to form a monopoly over resourceswhy? they could, but will they?
>I can explain strong economic reasons why capitalism outcompetes aristocracy in a way that prevents aristocracy’s revival. Can you do the same w socialism?yeah capitalism cant increase productive forces when under monopoly conditions. socialism can. china is the example. centralize state planning under democratic dictatorship overcomes the profit motive that limits the production of new productive forces according to individual incentives.
>>2389733I don’t disagree with Grossman. I just am taking the thought a bit further.
> i dont think so. i think we just call it something like techno-feudalism because we dont have a new word yet, but its not the same thing, its a repetition of difference on a higher level. in the same way capitalism is also distinct from markets generally. history doesn't repeat it rhymes. I agree with this. However I don’t think feudalism can’t make a comeback. There are cases where capitalist societies have collapsed into feudal ones.
> yeah capitalism cant increase productive forces when under monopoly conditions. socialism can. china is the example. centralize state planning under democratic dictatorship overcomes the profit motive that limits the production of new productive forces according to individual incentives.I’d like to hear some elaboration on this. I think it makes a lot of sense for core resources like food, water, energy, etc. But not so much when it comes to non-fungible ones such as art, certain consumer goods, etc. Take for example coca-cola. Coca-cola is not really bought ‘as a drink’, it’s a consumer discretionary.
>>2389735>Maybe I decide to use that time and my produce to start making a new commodity that isn’t really strictly necessary but let’s say some demand is generated bc people think it’s pretty or whatever. What prevents anyone from enacting such a plan and restarting the accumulation cycle.well a single commodity wont do much against a whole system. its not like you can control basic needs like food and housing because you invent a widget.
>We’re not in a moneyless society at this pointin real life or the hypothetical? im talking about a hypothetical where we have achieved that moneyless "system". at that point there is not going back.
>How are you gonna get socialism over the line before accumulation & markets kick back in?dtop? central planning etc. marxism basically. thats the whole point of the distinction between materialism and psychoanalyzing about consciousness. it also requires consciousness but that is determined by the objective material base of capitalism in crisis. thats marx's point, that communism comes from the objective conditions of productive forces being increased to a state of abundance, and this abundance is predicated on a necessary rational planning as opposed to market compition.
>>2389748>There are cases where capitalist societies have collapsed into feudal ones.right thats why im focusing on world systems not pockets of backwardness. they are the exception not the rule.
>I’d like to hear some elaboration on this. Take for example coca-cola.I dont think it really matters if people buy things for branding or whatever. A change in the material base precedes a change in consciousness. We could speculate about why people have a desire to acquire certain things and relate that to alienation but I think its less important than creating the conditions that overcome it. Unless you think its human nature, but I would just counter that human nature is adaptation to material conditions and that a change in conditions, like an abolition of scarcity, would lead to a reduction and eventual elimination of things like greed as the material incentives to take from others to ensure your own survival would no longer exist, it might take a few generations of people growing up in this new abundance and for people who remember the old ways to die out and their trauma to exit public consciousness but it would happen eventually.
The reason is the same one I think Grossman gives. TRPF means monopolists reach a point where they cant reinvest profitably in increasing production. Or at least it approaches an asymptotic limit where the diminishing returns incentivize cannibalism of the material base that enables production itself resulting in collapse.
>>2389766I won’t respond to the top half of this bc I want to give the benefit of the doubt and get to the meat of your argument
> TRPF means monopolists reach a point where they cant reinvest profitably in increasing production.My understanding of the rate of profit is essentially like an ROI on fixed capital, and so on a global level maybe even if socialism is dominant, on a micro-basis capitalist relations could always exist on the frontiers of production. I also am not 100% convinced, though generally I agree, that society wouldn’t simply fall into barbarism instead of advancing towards socialism. It does seem though, in your credit, that there would be some bias of people towards not destroying the entire underlying machinery of society, one would hope at least.
>>2389790>I also am not 100% convinced, though generally I agree, that society wouldn’t simply fall into barbarism instead of advancing towards socialism. Right thats why there is a subjective factor as well. Crisis increases consciousness, but its not simply that consciousness or education determines the outcome, but it is a necessary factor. The subjective factor has to meet the material base. Its dialectical.
>that there would be some bias of people towards not destroying the entire underlying machinery of society, one would hope at least.one would hope but its certainly not the case with capitalists. Thats why I said what determines which way it goes will be who is in power during the transition. If you have DtoB you get barbarism, DtoP you get socialism. If we take either route at the inflection point then it would be a transition to no longer being capitalism because whoever is in power would logically abolish wage labor to continue its existence as a class regardless of consequences. What determines one or the other is if the productive forces are publicly owned or continue to be privately owned. You still have to overcome the primary contradiction of capitalist production which is exploitation in the Marxist sense. Slavery is also abolishment of exploitation as there is no longer private appropriation profit without wage labor.
>so on a global level maybe even if socialism is dominant, on a micro-basis capitalist relations could always exist on the frontiers of productionyeah we can see this dynamic in China where SOEs dont have to deal with profit because they are subsidized but emerging markets are still given to market competition. This works because emerging markets havent established monopoly but the base of society will always be how much food you can make to feed people. As new industries become socially necessary they consolidate into monopoly and then get nationalized and democratically administrated. I dont see a new industry overturning socialism unless the dtop lets it get out of hand, which can of course happen during the transition period which may last decades or even a century, but not after. It would make sense for an emerging industry to have this capacity in a fully capitalist society like the US where tech-AI produces more profit through financial trickery, and it could happen in China if they loosen monetary controls too much and certain industries become inflated relative to the base of society as tech makes things like agriculture super productive and therefore not profitable but letting investors have that kind of power would be a huge mistake for communists.
>>2389805Hummm speaking of, are we assuming for this hypothetical that nation-states don’t exist? What about imperialist influence from remainder capitalist countries?
Also, do you think that a socialised alternative will generally outperform a capitalist structure in any situation where-in there’s some market? Or are you under the impression that the state would use its monopoly to either dismantle the original or produce a better version using economies of scale? In either case it sounds to me like on some level you accepted that there has to be some capitalist frontier for socialism to use as evidence for interest being present.
>>2386148>Where is the definitive proof that capitalism must end?…how the bourgeoisie induct new countries into the capitalist process, and how they offset and attempt to distract from the detrimental effects of accumulation. <"By the time a tumor reaches clinical detectability, it contains around 10^8–10^9 cells. However, during tumor formation, significant cell loss occurs due to cell death. In some estimates, it could take up to a thousand cell generations, over a ~ 20-year life-span of a tumor, to reach clinical detectability, which would correspond to a “theoretical” generation of ~10^30 cells. These rough calculations indicate that cancers are under negative selection. The fact that they thrive implies that they “evolve”, and that their evolutionary trajectories are shaped by the pressure of the environment." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41418-024-01402-6
>maybe the class war is eternalA tumor can't evade dialectical struggle except inside a laboratory:
>HeLa (/ˈhiːlɑː/) is an immortalized cell line used in scientific research. It is the oldest human cell line and one of the most commonly used. HeLa cells are durable and prolific, allowing for extensive applications in scientific study. The line is derived from cervical cancer cells taken on February 8, 1951, from Henrietta Lacks, a 31-year-old African American mother of five, after whom the line is named. Lacks died of cancer on October 4, 1951.<HeLa cells, like other cell lines, are termed "immortal" because they can divide an unlimited number of times in a laboratory cell culture plate, as long as fundamental cell survival conditions are met (i.e. being maintained and sustained in a suitable environment).Liberalism is eternal (in a petri dish)
Unique IPs: 26