Re: The death agony of capitalism

[m-14970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Hugh Rodwell)]

I wrote:

>>What he means is just that capitalism isn't dead yet. Which isn't the same
>>thing.

Doug replied:

>Obviously it's not dead. But neither is it showing any signs of terminal
>illness. I keep asking you for signs of that - specific signs, not
>citations from dead authors - and I've yet to hear one. Profitability is
>up, wages are down, unions are weak, and socialism is politically
>neutralized.

You're deaf. The examples I give are immediately discounted by you as
irrelevant. Too bad -- the changes that come will take you and others who
fail or refuse to see the crisis afflicting capitalism by surprise, and you
won't have been preparing yourselves or anyone else to meet them. I don't
think you're open to argument on these questions -- your principles make
you dismiss a priori any arguments threatening them.

Profitability, wages and unionization are conjuncturally variable.

Socialism is less politically neutralized than it has been since the 1930s.
I've argued this many times. The domination of the international labour
movement by Social Democracy and Stalinism has been the biggest neutralizer
of socialism possible. This domination is now in tatters and a process of
regeneration is under way. It's taking place beneath the media surface of
society. It's a molecular process within the working class, the unions and
community movements. When it makes qualitative leaps in terms of
organizational and political strength, this will come as no surprise to
those of us who see it  happening, and as a great surprise to those who
don't see it happening.

Once again, what would a superficial empiricist have made of Lenin's
Letters from Afar and his April Theses in 1917? Or of someone who claimed
in 1915 or 1916 that a victorious socialist revolution was on its way in
Russia? Why did Lenin write that a 'single spark can ignite a prairie fire'
after the Easter Uprising? I mean, it was crushed! Imperialism was proved
invincible!

>Lest I be accused of being a bourgeois apologist, let me make
>it clear that I'm not happy about this state of affairs.

You are preaching the overwhelming power of imperialism and the feebleness
of the working class. This is your analysis of the balance of forces in the
class struggle. It's wrong, and it's political consequences favour the
bourgeoisie, regardless of whether you like it or not. I don't like
flinging accusations around, and you obviously don't like bourgois
supremacy or bourgeois policies. You do however argue consistently and with
commitment for the power of the bourgeoisie and the weakness of the working
class. And you lack historical perspective, as the following remarks on the
epochs of Marx and ourselves reveal:


>>And why do Marx, Lenin and Trotsky so consistently write that capitalism
>>has outlived itself and that socialism is on the agenda? Why do both Lenin
>>and Trotsky characterize our epoch as the epoch of transition to socialism?
>
>"Our" epoch and their epochs are not the same. Marx wrote during a period
>when capitalism was subject to many severe panics and crises; in the U.S.,
>nearly half the late 19th century was a time of recession or depression.
>When Ricardo wrote, there were no such generalized crises. These real
>historical experiences had an effect on theory. Quote-mongers seem immune
>to actual experience. Today, capitalism experiences crises, but so far the
>state management apparatus has successfully prevented a total 1930s-style
>implosion in the First World. There is much depressive misery in the Third
>World, but so far there have been few sustained and powerful political
>challenges to the neoliberal order.

This is utterly shallow and shortsighted.

Marx lived in an epoch when free competition capitalism was maturing and
already by the end of his life becoming overripe. Engels lived to register
the triumphal entry of monopoly capital on the scene.

If we view the current epoch as Marxists, from, say, 1914 (1905 would serve
as well), we can see that the crises that have recurred with fearsome
regularity have been very deep and each one of them potentially terminal
for capitalism (WWI, October, British General Strike, 1927 Chinese
revolution, Great Depression, Germany 1933, Spain, WWII, postwar
independence and revolutions especially Yugoslavia and China, the Korean
war, Suez, Hungary 1956, nationalism and dictatorships in Latin America and
the Middle East, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran, Nicaragua, imperialism slamming into
a brick wall in the late 1980s, the collapse of Stalinism (including
Yugoslavia) destabilizing the world status quo -- this is a terribly
abbreviated selection). These events more than justify Lenin's and
Trotsky's characterization of the imperialist epoch as one of wars and
revolutions. Additionally, they included the historical dimension of the
resolution of the class struggle in favour of the working class by
characterizing it as the epoch of the transition to socialism.

When you write 'so far', Doug, you are discounting most of postwar history.

I wrote:

>>Marx was overwhelmingly emphatic about the *historically
>>inevitable inability* of capitalism to overcome its inherent barriers:
>>
>>        The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under
>>its feet
>>        the  very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and
>>appropriates
>>        products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all,
>>are its
>>        own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are
>>        equally inevitable.
>>
>>        Manifesto, 1848

Doug replies:

>These quotes all center on the socialization of production and the
>political potential of the proletariat - the first creates the
>material/social preconditions for socialism, and the second, the political
>impetus. None of them talk about "death agonies."

You want it in so many words? The extent of centralization, monopolization,
proletarianization etc, was already sufficient in Marx's day to allow him
to formulate the *inevitable* end of capitalism resulting from these
processes. They had increased so far by the early decades of this century
that Lenin and Trotsky had no doubts at all about characterizing capitalism
as dying. You think the historical development of capitalism has gone
backwards since then? Less centralization, less monopolization, less
proletarianization?

The survival of capitalism to the present is entirely due to the crisis of
leadership in the international working class provoked by the
counterrevolutionary victory of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and the extra
lease of life this gave the Social Democrats in imperialist countries. Not
at all to any amazing powers of resilience on the part of capitalism.

>I have a suspicion,
>though I've not really worked this out, that a lot of the more unfortunate
>crisis theorizing in Marxism was a tradition instituted by Engels, who,
>whatever his virtues, was not the most subtle or complex of thinkers.

This is wrong. If you want to argue it, specify. Are you claiming that Marx
preached reversibility and equilibrium as the dynamic of capitalist
development?


>There should be a long moratorium on phrases like "the death agony of
>capitalism" and "the irreversible crisis."

There should be a thorough discussion about what the 'death agony of
capitalism' entails for Marxists and the international labour movement,
beginning now.

Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---