Has Capitalism Helped?

I mean, Marx argued the capitalism brought about the pre-conditions for socialism, namely a world of post-scarcity.

I think you could debate (and, indeed, many anarchists have) whether industrialization could be a collectively driven directly from a subsistence (say a peasant or agricultural) society. Marx's response, however, would be the inherently collective nature of capitalist production is what builds up the solidarity and consciousness needed for a socialist revolution.

DHarvey sayz that refrigeration was pretty huge. The question is, do we give the praise for things like refrigeration, cars, air conditioning to capitalism or simply human ingenuity?

A lot of other things like airplanes and much of modern electronics takes on another form when we consider that it is to a certain extent the product of state funding for military technology. Is that capitalism? Sounds like state socialism to me.

Interesting questions. Capitalism, and industrialisation, because both are linked, have traditionally forced large amounts of people from forms of countryside peasant farming to a town/city based experience. From a solitary to collective experience in the eyes of the capitalists, and authoritarian marxists. The marxists at least seemed to consider the industrialisation and capitalisation of the peasants a positive step on the road to socialism and communism. A necessary change?

Ghost Whistler

My take is that it is ingenuity that leads to research and invention. People discover and create things because they want to, not because they are profitable.

So, I think that's definitely true. But it's also true that capital - and capitalist states - invest a lot into research for purposes of profit (or to undermine workers power, autonomy, etc).

I don't know, I just think Marx could probably accept that statement without having it undermine the larger point he was trying to make, know what I mean?

It's made our lives better in some respects, worse in others. As far as it has made our lives better -- compared to what? It's not enough to say that we are better off with capitalism than with the arrangements that came before it, that perhaps did not result in as much of a technological boom. Capitalism > Feudalism or Capitalism > USSR are not such ringing endorsements of the system -- they could only be considered as such if we accept the idea that those are the only choices.

Also, we have to consider that we didn't only get refrigeration and computers, but we also got nuclear weapons and global warming. Both of the latter should be considered major technological achievements of this system, and both could lead to our demise.

Soapy #3

‘Sounds like state socialism to me.’

Do you mean state capitalism?

Infektfm #7

Agreed with most of this post.
The last word in the first paragraph, ‘choices’, would have been better as ‘possibilities’, because no one thought, ‘Oh, let’s have capitalism for a change’.

Capitalism expanded the means of production and thereby made possible a post-scarcity world. Was it a precondition for communism? To speculate about the possibility of some alternative economic development instead of capitalism - well perhaps the answer is in some parallel universe. It is a bit like wondering - if shit became valuable would the poor be born without a butt-hole. Capitalism’s dynamic economic imperatives and the resultant contradictions - like the need to educate its workforce, now allows the possibility of more people than ever before to make choices about the future.

Auld-bod

Soapy #3

‘Sounds like state socialism to me.’

Do you mean state capitalism?

Infektfm #7

Agreed with most of this post.
The last word in the first paragraph, ‘choices’, would have been better as ‘possibilities’, because no one thought, ‘Oh, let’s have capitalism for a change’.

Capitalism expanded the means of production and thereby made possible a post-scarcity world. Was it a precondition for communism? To speculate about the possibility of some alternative economic development instead of capitalism - well perhaps the answer is in some parallel universe. It is a bit like wondering - if shit became valuable would the poor be born without a butt-hole. Capitalism’s dynamic economic imperatives and the resultant contradictions - like the need to educate its workforce, now allows the possibility of more people than ever before to make choices about the future.

Good points -- I agree

It is a bit like wondering - if shit became valuable would the poor be born without a butt-hole.

Oh man, I almost spit out my tea reading this line! Priceless.

Yeah, that's definitely true, too.

Re: Ebola. Certainly pharmaceutical companies invest inmore profitable research, meaning things like ED get more money thrown at them than Malaria, which is pretty fucked.

Hey Chilli can you link me any texts or arguments around the necessity of capitalism az a precondition for communism? I personally could imagine a linking up of the peasant revolts which occurred in the medieval period, particularly as most had a very utopian ideology driving them

Oh goodness. Can any or libcom's resident Marx scholar jump in and start quoting chapter and verse...?

At the risk of being repetitive:

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

Marx, 'Preface to a contribution the critique of political economy', 1859

Lest we forget that capitalism also hinders innovation.

For example, electronic goods are now purposefully manufactured to break after their warranty voids to fule consumerism.

Or the fact that cheap, important things (like medcine) are made expensive.

Or even certain that certain unprofitable but very useful products are surpressed. (I think I heard that Polaroid or Kodak suppressed the invention of the digital camera for fear it would damage their market in film. This may however be false.)

Capitalism has increased the living conditions of people overall, and it created an incentive to industrialize, one of the pre-conditions of socialism in most forms. Marx never had any beef with capitalism, despite what most people think. He thought that there were certain contradictions in capitalism which will inevitably cause it to crumble down, either by revolution or by some sort of economic collapse. Look up the Law of the Negation of the Negation. Capitalism has run it's course.

Capitalism has increased the living conditions of people overall

Blimey, I've just got to hear the evidence to back that one up?!!!

Marx never had any beef with capitalism, despite what most people think

Yes, yes he had many beefs. Enough beefs to make a herd of cows out of it.

WTF is going on here? Pig, beef? Anti vegan conspiracy on Libcom once again. I'm wise to your game you carnivorous bastards.

From what I gather the standard of living of workers in the industrial revolution actually fell during the the first few decades of the industrial revolution, and that it only rose as a result of the workers movement. I also found that the life expectancyou of workers during the industrial revolution actually fell during most of the 19th century, but can't find all the links rn.

The standard of living of 11th century peasants in the north of England was higher then that for most people today.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/dec/06/medieval-britons-richer-than-modern-poor

If capitalism never happened I'd never of had libcom to exchange views with likeminded peeps.
Speaking of which who is interested in discussing with me the eating habits of Karl Marx? I heard he had an appetite for mutton, which is why I think he was a bastard.

Patient insurgency #22

‘The standard of living of 11th century peasants in the north of England was higher then that for most people today.’

Well my reading of the Guardian piece informs me it was referring to Ghana, Cambodia and Tanzania, Ethiopia and Burundi, not ‘most people today’. That capitalism developed from sustained economic development makes sense - how else could the emerging capitalist class amass their capital.

Today and for many years capitalism has sustained itself by devouring and exploiting anything it can to maintain its growth. However making sweeping claims for the advantages of life as a peasant in medieval England over life for the majority of today’s world is fantastical. Is this logic applicable to the medieval Scots, Irish and Welsh, etc.?
If you believe all you read – you’ll eat all you see.

EDIT
That many people in the middle-ages were not living ‘hand to mouth’ has been revealed several times on TV’s, ‘Time Team’ excavations over the years. So being a couch potato has some benefits.