i believe capitalism has been decadent on a world scale since the early 20th century, what are other peoples views on decadance becuase i know most 'marxists' disregard this central theme of marxism in regard to present day capitalism

It is true that our so-called Western civilisation today has become increasingly decadent. The symbol of this decadence can, I believe, be seen in the increasing consumption of the alcoholic beverage known as 'port' -

http://www.infinity8design.com/images/port-wine.jpg

port has been consumed since ancient times. During the enlightenment period of european history it became identified as a symbol of both the ancien regime aristocracy and the growing bourgoisie. Under Russia's first Revolutionary government, port was outlawed, representing as it did the class enemies of Tsarist days. However, the growth of capitalist/fascist organisations in the post cold war has seen the mass production and export of port around the world. Millions of child workers in Portugal's Douro valley are forced to spend 12 hours a day making port for american hyper-corporations. Please help.

I could do with a glass of port though. Ah, port.

it would suprise me that the reason a lot of people drink port is because it used to be a symbol of ancin regime aristocracy and bourgoisie, at least not out here in belgium, where indeed a lot of people drink the stuff. It's cause it's got a real easy taste, a bit like martini has, unlike for example wodka

I think decadence comes from a need to portray oneself as oneself belongs to a "higher" class, or act like your class is suposed to act, with a lot of shit around the essence. Acting like you belong in a higher class may even get you there, or give you the feeling you are "better", give you the feeling you are not just poor working class, making people to think better of you.

I'm of two minds on the subject:

Firstly I agree, the conspicuous consumption of capitalism is kind of disturbing, seen in a lot of things; like giant land barge SUVs, trends - especially in "cool" shoes (like those white expensive Nikes or whatever, that guys try to keep clean - I mean they're shoes if they're dirty it means they're doing their job) or clothes, etc.

But, I also believe most of the time when the subject is brought up it's usally by some primitivist wacko who seems convinced that abundance is some kind of "sin"

The solution seems to be that in a communist society people who want such things have to produce them themselves since it would be difficult to convince the community to grant resources for such items, and collectives dedicated to repair should be able to refuse to repair such things (I'm thinking especially in regards to my huge SUV example)

i meant decadence by the marxist definition in terms of capitalism being 'decadent' and 'reactionary' as oppossed to 'ascendent' and progressive. as marx said a mode of production becomes decadent when its social relations become 'fetters on the productive forces'

I don't think that modern capitalism has reached the "end of the road" yet, but we're definitely heading in that direction.

These are clearly reactionary times in the first world. No new social innovations have been made in decades and the biggest visible changes have been regressive rather than progressive.

The rising ascendency among the rulling class of "Christian Conservativism" , the very institution that the bourgeoisie fought so hard against, shows us that we are moving steadily backwards.

Indeed, it is rather significant that the most "advanced" and "current" political and economic theories around today are actually nothing more than rehashes of century old ideas. "Neo-liberalism" and "neo-conservatism", both clearly meant to seem quite "neo", are in fact nothing more than regurgitated turn of the 20th century "liberal" nonsense.

You know, the stuff that was so thoroughly debunked seventy years ago.

Capitalism seems unable to come up with anything new anymore.

At the same time, however, there are certainly changes happening. The biggest story of the 1990s was the explosion of the internet, and despite early hopes of a global ".com market", the fact is that internet purchasing is immensly below econmists' predictions.

Instead, the real innovations are happening outside of the capitalist paradigm. "Free software", "content piracy", "online communities", it's all small right now, but it's pretty much the first real massive technological shift in the last 30 years.

And the capitalists are fighting it!

Clearly, we're getting close to the end, here. But, unfortunately in Marxist terms, "close" can be a very long time. And getting there's not going to be pretty.

We're in for some "hard times".

Decadence by way of materialism and commercialism is the main way that the Capitalists keep the working classes suppressed, predominantly in the 'first world' (I hate that term). By encouraging people to measure themselves on the basis of their material worth, as opposed to been intrinsicly 'good' or benefical for society, decadence is seen as the height of social progression. This is why rich people are seen in some way 'better' than poor people, even if they have actually done nothing to earn the possessions that they have (for instance, inheirating money from family and the like).

People then become so focused on gaining material possessions that greed becomes the main focus of their life. They live in a world where the ultimate goal is to become as rich as possible- buy the big TV, live in the big house, wear the designer clothes and thus getting through to people in the 'first world' is incredibly hard because communism is inheirantly opposed to these things.

This even goes for the working classes. They don't dream of living in a just and equal world, they dream of having loads of money, a fast car, a big TV and a big house. That is the goal, they sell their labour in an effort to achive this goal.

I believe that this is part of the reason that communism is only gained popularity in the 'first world' during serious economic slumps (when achiving a decadent lifestyle is completely out of the question for the vast majority of people), while in the 'third world' (particularly in countries where decadence is still seen as bad) communism has gained huge support and continues to do so.

Capitalism is not failing, it is not collapsing, it is nowhere near the end of the road. It may be recycling ideas, for instance neo-liberalism is moving back towards and updating the classical economics of Adam Smith and co, but then again the social structures that are our eventual goal are essentially updated verions of 'Primitive Communism' (i.e. getting rid of the 'primitive' bit on the front). Humans tend to look back before they look forward.

As for this 'Christian Conservative' bullshit. This only applies to the USA (overall), the rest of the 'first world' is getting steadily more secular. In addition to this, the USA has not got particularly more conservative, nor has it got more Christian. In fact it has got both less conservative and less Christian. The only difference is Bush is more willing to openly profess his faith and admit that it influences the choices that he makes. Other presidents have made more of an attempt to maintain the fascade of American Secularism. The main problem is the USA has never suffered the massive religious wars the way Europe has, thus they don't realise just how sensible secularism is.

I don't know in what sense you are using the word "decadent", but it is not in the Marxist historical materialist sense.

I think that you're talking about "moral" decadence, something which, of course, does not exist.

"Morality" is irrelevent in a communist discussion. People are consumeristic because they live in a class society that favours consumerism. It isn't "bad" or "good", it's just the natural consequence of capitalist society.

Well, again, "near" is a relative term, especially in social analysis. But Capitalism is clearly on the decline.

The capitalist class has not been an ascendant vibrant class in a long time.

The Bourgeoisie no longer fights superstition and regression, rather it embraces it. It is no longer a question of advancement, but rather holding on to what they have.

If Marx was right, of course, this is an inevitable stage; all class socieites must eventual advance to the point where they are no longer capable of reforming themselves, but must instead be abolished if humanity is to progress further.

I am not saying that we are at that point yet, but the signs are clearly that we are headed in that direction. It may well be centuries yet ...but I doubt it.

I would not be surprised if we see the beginning of the end of capitalism in the next 100 - 200 years.

Obviously, the sooner the better.

No they are not!

This is just more useless "negation of the negation" dialectical "spiral" crap.

Communism is not an "updated version" of anything.

Primitave societies were not "communist", in fact they were barely even societies. They were violently biggoted, sexist, and assuredly hierarchical.

There were "tribe leaders" and "chief hunters" and all sorts of pseudo-meritocratic and gerontocratic hierarchies, and there was certainly nothing approaching modern democracy.

There was no ownership, yes, but that's because there was nothing to own.

Communists don't want to return to primativism, we want to advance to communism. A state of society that can only exist, in a post-property environment.

Communism is not about the abolition of property, it's about the abolition of private property and that isn't a "return" to anything.

That is largely because different countries progress at different rates.

The United States has advanced much quicker than most European countries, mainly due to its economic dominance and relative security.

While Europe was plunged into successive wars in the late ninetheenth and early twentieth century, the US was able to advance unscathed.

Today, that means that American capitalism is much further along than European, as evidenced both by the US' monumental global economic domination, and the state of her domestic market.

Europe, for her part, is still exiting a rather lengthy period of reform, dating back to the end of the second world war. The US ended that period around thirty years ago. Today, she is in an overt period of reaction, highlighted rather spectacularly by the rise of the Christian Conservative movement.

European countries, still in a reformist stage, are indeed growing more secular but that is thanks to the good luck of circumstances. They managed to deal with a lot of their religious fundamentalists a long time ago and their domestic bourgeoisie is still attempting to keep capitalism progressive.

That does not mean that European capitalism is not headed for the same kind of reactioanry regression as American capitalism, it just means that it will manifest in a different way.

It will not be Christian conservatism, per se, but it will definitely be Conservatism of one brand or another.

Again, if Marx was right, it's inevitable.

Utter nonsense.

The social conservative movement has never been as strong as it is now.

The United States is very actively undoing the secular reforms of the past 40 years, and an increasing percentage of the population supports it.

Do you think it is a "conincidence" that we are now hearing more and more about the "ten comandments"?

That even though prayer in school was forbidden 40 years ago, it is now suddenly an issue?

How about "intelligent design" and "creationism"? Schools have been teaching evolution exclusively for almost 50 years now. But it's only in the past decade that it's become a "hot button" issue.

"less conservative and less Christian"? Try verging on Christian fascism!

You are putting the cart way way in front of the horse here.

The question you need to ask is not how did Bush's election affect American politics, it's how did American politics affect Bush's election.

Why was George Bush, an overt, rampant, dogmatic, Christian Conservatice, elected and re-elected as President?

Why are more and more socially conservative Christians being elected to fill the Senate and House?

Why are politicians suddenly feeling so much more willing to "oppenly profess [their] faith"?

In short, if the US is truly "less conservative" then what the fuck is going on!?

It is customary for Marxists to note signs of "decay" in late capitalism as "straws in the wind".

The rise of various superstitions -- supernatural and secular -- in the "west" is considered significant because this was characteristic of the "decline and fall" of both ancient despotism and feudalism.

The implied assumption is that a "decaying" ruling class gradually loses the capacity to make rational choices in its own class interests.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is now expected to cost U.S. imperialism trillions of dollars, for example. It has become a catastrophic blunder...and one can only wonder what will be next.

<<"Morality" is irrelevent in a communist discussion. People are consumeristic because they live in a class society that favours consumerism. It isn't "bad" or "good", it's just the natural consequence of capitalist society.>>
It isn't a moral arguement, materialism, consumerism, greed etc are all by-products of the existance of property and thus should be discouraged as one cannot give up the concept of property while retaining a materialistic attitude to life. Class perpetuates consumerism and consumerism perpetuates class and social stratification- you can't eliminate one without eliminating the other. In addition to this consumerism has essentially replaced religion as the most important tool used to suppress the working class in the 'first world'. But then again, I don't put too much faith in the revolutionary possibilities of the majority of people living in the 'first world'.
<<Well, again, "near" is a relative term, especially in social analysis. But Capitalism is clearly on the decline.>>
Most things are relative. Or they're guesses, educated or not.

<<The capitalist class has not been an ascendant vibrant class in a long time.>>
In America, maybe not. In the rest of the world, yes it has been. Capitalism is still spreading and developing, establishing itself in more countries and tightening its grip on the world via direct control (the country being a capitalist one) as opposed to indirect control (the pre-capitalist country being dependent on the capitalist country). India and China are edging towards developing full-blown capitalism. That's around a third of the worlds population right there. In the west the capitalist class may be slowing down, but capitalism as a whole is not declining, it is not weakening, it is spreading, reorganising and adapting to the conditions that now exist in the world.

<<The Bourgeoisie no longer fights superstition and regression, rather it embraces it. It is no longer a question of advancement, but rather holding on to what they have.>>
Once again, in America- possibly. But then again America has always been incredibly socially backward, so it's not that suprising that when the going gets tough the Puritan banner gets held up. As I've said, people tend to look backwards before they look forward.

<<If Marx was right, of course, this is an inevitable stage; all class socieites must eventual advance to the point where they are no longer capable of reforming themselves, but must instead be abolished if humanity is to progress further.>>
And that's a fucking big 'if', now isn't it?

<<I am not saying that we are at that point yet, but the signs are clearly that we are headed in that direction. It may well be centuries yet ...but I doubt it.>>
I think that we're heading in that direction too, as for time periods, I think that depends more on the 'third world' than the 'first'. The 'third world' are in a far better position to resist than the 'first world' and if they succeed in doing so then capitalism could collapse completely within the next 50 years. But I doubt it.

<<I would not be surprised if we see the beginning of the end of capitalism in the next 100 - 200 years.>>
Tis nice to see people being realistic once and a while.

<<Obviously, the sooner the better.>>
I agree

<<No they are not!

This is just more useless "negation of the negation" dialectical "spiral" crap.>>

I can't say I buy into dialectics all that much.

<<Communism is not an "updated version" of anything.>>
But it is heavily based on the 'primitive communism' that was talked about my Engels and is present in some cultures scattered around the world. The abolition of property, distribution by measure of need, collectivism, worker control etc, none of these things are new. Marxist Communism provides a economic rational, whether said rational is correct or incorrect is another matter all together.

<<Primitave societies were not "communist", in fact they were barely even societies. They were violently biggoted, sexist, and assuredly hierarchical.>>
There's a difference between 'primitive societies' and 'primitive communism'.

<<There were "tribe leaders" and "chief hunters" and all sorts of pseudo-meritocratic and gerontocratic hierarchies, and there was certainly nothing approaching modern democracy.>>
You're not describing primitive communism, you're describing early fuedalism (before the emergance of 'nations' and larger, more organised groups of people). Primitive communism refers to the very early hunter-gatherer groups that existed, not the tribalism that emerged after the invention of the concept of property and more importantly, the concept of 'owning' land.

<<There was no ownership, yes, but that's because there was nothing to own.>>
Tools, clothes, housing materials (for instance tents), possibly early games or toys i.e. the necessities of life. Consumer goods do not need to exist.

<<Communists don't want to return to primativism, we want to advance to communism. A state of society that can only exist, in a post-property environment.>>
I don't want to revert to primitivism, nor am I advocating it. Primitivists should be dropped in the Brazilian rainforest, thus eradicating their flawed arguements as they starve. But personal prejudices aside, the basic social structures (or lack there of) will be similar to the earliest human groups, only on a far greater scale with more organisation.

<<Communism is not about the abolition of property, it's about the abolition of private property and that isn't a "return" to anything.>>
Yes, it is. Private property hasn't always existed, nor will it always exist.

<<That is largely because different countries progress at different rates.>>
You assume that development is the same, or even similar for difference countries.

<<The United States has advanced much quicker than most European countries, mainly due to its economic dominance and relative security.>>
The main thing was it being able to avoid major structural damage during both WWI and II.


<<Europe, for her part, is still exiting a rather lengthy period of reform, dating back to the end of the second world war. The US ended that period around thirty years ago. Today, she is in an overt period of reaction, highlighted rather spectacularly by the rise of the Christian Conservative movement.>>
What is going on in Europe is not like what was happening in America 30 years ago. The road that Europe is taking is a capitalist one, but it is not necessarily an American-Capitalist road. In fact, if anything Europe is becoming more anti-American which will lead to more conflict between Europe and America in the future.

<<European countries, still in a reformist stage, are indeed growing more secular but that is thanks to the good luck of circumstances. They managed to deal with a lot of their religious fundamentalists a long time ago and their domestic bourgeoisie is still attempting to keep capitalism progressive.>>
Because they have seen the effects that mixing the state and the church can have on countries. Putting morality and faith aside, secularism does avoid many problems, particularly when dealing with countries of other religions.

<<That does not mean that European capitalism is not headed for the same kind of reactioanry regression as American capitalism, it just means that it will manifest in a different way.>>
Exactly. Capitalism is not monolithic, united or absolute.

<<It will not be Christian conservatism, per se, but it will definitely be Conservatism of one brand or another.>>
Exactly. Christianity isn't the issue, it's just a tool that is used by the conservatives to give credibility to their claims. That's why far right movements generally attempt to link themselves to great historical figures, in order to make their movement seem more acceptable ('continuing the legacy' and what-not) and give them a credibility that they don't actually possess.

<<Again, if Marx was right, it's inevitable.>>

And talking about inevitabilities is dangerous.


<<The social conservative movement has never been as strong as it is now.>>
It's been stronger, for instance during the 19th century.

<<the United States is very actively undoing the secular reforms of the past 40 years, and an increasing percentage of the population supports it.>>
The US has never been particularly secular, it's just that things have never been so public before.

<<Do you think it is a "conincidence" that we are now hearing more and more about the "ten comandments"?>>
We're hearing more about them as a reaction to calls for them to be removed from courthouses etc.

<<That even though prayer in school was forbidden 40 years ago, it is now suddenly an issue?>>
The banning of prayer in schools 40 years ago was a technicality, it was simply replaced by other things and besides the oath thing (which has always mystified me) mentions God in it, yes? Most of this stuff is religiously based, they object to it because they are Christians, not because they are conservative (although the two tend to go together).

<<"less conservative and less Christian"? Try verging on Christian fascism>>
Fascism- buzzword for anything anyone on the left disagrees with. The US is not fascist, it's not Christian fascism. The US is simply becoming a classical republic, close to Sparta in fact (Western Democracy is an almost carbon copy of the Spartan system).

<<The question you need to ask is not how did Bush's election affect American politics, it's how did American politics affect Bush's election.>>
I see Bush as utterly irrelivant to this issue. Bush is an idiot, he's a mouthpiece- a retard easily controlled and duped into doing whatever he's told.

<<Why was George Bush, an overt, rampant, dogmatic, Christian Conservatice, elected and re-elected as President?>>
Fear. People want strength, power and fearlessness when they are in fear. The Bush camp provides all of the above. This has happened numerous times before- in times of war or conflict conservativism tends to win out over liberalism as the populations priorities change.

<<Why are more and more socially conservative Christians being elected to fill the Senate and House?>>
For the same reason Bush was. In addition to this the Christian Conservative are the most united and cohesive group and strength and unity are important when you're in a war, particularly when you're in a war which you are actively perpetuating.

<<Why are politicians suddenly feeling so much more willing to "oppenly profess [their] faith"?>>
For the same reason that there are always mass conversions before the big battle.

<<In short, if the US is truly "less conservative" then what the fuck is going on!?>>
The US is less conservative than it was 50 years ago and I seriously doubt that it will become that conservative again. Within the Western world the US is in the middle when it comes to conservatism- the catholic countries such as Italy, Spain and Portugal are more conservative, however much of the Western world is far more liberal. Things are bad, but they could be worse. The world isn't as fucked up now as it has been.

'the world isn't as fucked up now as it has been'...?
it depends which way you look at it becuase in some ways things have never been worse than they are now. Capitalism if not overthrown threatens to destroy all of humanity and civilisation through war, global warming, famine, ecominc crisis and the spread of desease such as Aids. Conditions for the world working class have deterirated since the 70s to a massive extent. Wages in the west have largely remained the same in real terms or decreased, the social wage is under constant attack, workers are working longer and longer hours and are loosing whatever rights they had under more and more attacks. Africa has clearly never been in such a bad situation in almost its entire history and is only going to get worse as time goes on. In Latin America poverty has rocketed since the 80's( i had some statistics, something like there are now 20 million more people live under the poverty line actually i just read that this is 20 million since 1998) and as Argentina showed this can only increase as the economy of the world feels the crisis even more. Eastern Europe since the 80's also has gone from bad to worse in most cases, in Russia poverty went from around 2% in 1987 to around 35% now, life expectancy has also dropped in Russia and alcholism, prostitution and Aids have exploded (by the way i don't tell you this in support of Stalinist state capitalism).

The ecomomy has only lasted since the crisis returned in the 70's through massive bending of the rules of capitalism and the use of state capitalism in all countries. We are seeing now the massive use of debt to keep the world economy alive, the massive use of cheap foriegn labour is also part of capitalisms survival kit. Howver under the weight of a contuing economic crisis, disaster of global warming and a growing tendency of every nation fighting for their own imperialist interests as well as the spread of nuclear weapons the prospects are very bleaque for the next century.

Have you read the International communist current's articles on the subject?
http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/15/9/


Also, Aufheben's decadence trilogy is great!
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_2_dec.html

Then in whom do you place your "revolutionary faith"?

Communism can only be achieved in the first world. Clearly, the contemporary proletariat is not revolutionary, but if you reject the possibility of revolutionary potential, what hope do you have for proletarian emancipation?

Obviously. But that's not the issue here.

As you've pointed out yourself, different regions progress at different rates, there are indeed ares in the world where capitalism is in a stage of progresion, or even where it has not yet ascended.

In much of the world, true capitalism would be a step up.

Not so in the first world, certainly not in America.

In the US, capitalism has begun to "run its course". It has entered a clearly reactionary period and shows no sign of reversing. It is certainly possible that it will enter yet another stage of reform, but it seems unlikely.

At this level of technological advancement and economic development, the capitalists can no longer afford to make significant concessions to the workers, nor can they allow and real progression.

Instead, they desperately hold on to what they have and actively fight progress. That is a sure sign of a decadent class.

"Socially backwards" relative to whom?

Monarchist England under crazy old King George or Imperial France under Napoleon?

There have been times when the US has been ahead and times when it has been behind. There is no such thing as a "national character".

Yes it is.

I'm quite sure that Marx was wrong on a great deal many things, but until someone comes up with a better model, it's the best we have to work with.

Namely that "primitive communism" doesn't exist.

No I am not.

I am describing pre-agricultural paleolithic society; that is, before the advent of farming, urbanization, and property.

These societies were ecnomically equal because they were, for all intents and purposes, economically null.

Politically, however, they were characterized by gross discrepencies.

Women and men were not "treated equally", the strong and weak were not considered "equal", and collective decision making meant the rule of the chief.

Engels and even Marx may have written some musings on "returning to primitive communism", but it was just a doomed attempt to reconcile Hegelian "sipral" historiography with materialist progression.

Frankly, it seems like a waste of time to me.

No, I am assuming that all capitalist countries follow the basic capitalist model.

Remember, I am speaking in very broad strokes here. Namely that once a form of society becomes unable to advance further, those who bennefit from that society will attempt to prevent further development because it is inconsistent with their paradigm of domination.

We saw it happen with slave-production, we saw it happen with feudalism, and we are seeing it happen with capitalism.

An honest historical materialist analysis cannot help but conclude that eventually capitalism must reach the same point that all class societies reach.

The question, of course, is how do we recognize that point or, perhaps more importantly, how do we recognize when we are approaching that point.

As I have already outlined, I believe that many of the signs are here now.

No, it is actually closer to what was going on in America 40 years ago, although, obviously it is not "the same".

Again, this is about the broad strokes, not about the specific minutae.

The US went through this stage of development as the dominant global economic power with several junior partners.

Europe is going through the same stage as that junior partner with a dominant global economic power to contend with.

Clearly this results in different specififc manifestations.

But the central point, that of reform leading to reaction as capitalism approaches its end, holds.

Europe is on the precipice of the final decline. Already economic "reform" is on the horizon. It is still probably decades away, but the "end of the beginning" as it were, is coming.

You're missing the point.

I'm not saying that Europe is following an "american model", I am saying that there is a natural model of capitalism that both America and Europe are following ...America just happens to be further along.

The anti-American feelings are merely a byproduct of this development and represent the local bourgeoie's desire for local sovereignty, something that they have achieved far more than many other nations, nations which, incidently, show far higher instances of "anti-americanism".

No it wasn't.

The 19th century was more conservative, but the conservative movement was relatively weak.

There were parts of the the nineteenth century of course that, as with any century, were characterized by reaction, but for the most part, the capitalist class was largely quite progressive.

Not so anymore.

And why do you suppose that is?

Again, the decisions being challanged today were mainly made decades ago.

Abortion, prayer, affirmative action, church and state, evolution, etc... these debates were all held thirty or more years ago, but are now controversial again.

The US is not as conservative today as it was in the 1950s ...but it's getting there.

"technicality"?

What on earth are you talking about?

There were mass protests in the streets over that one! The south practically exploded.

The Christian right, for what it was then, called it the death of America!

But it stood ...until now.

Except George Bush wasn't elected in a "time of war", he was elected in a time of great "peace and prosperity": 2000.

Likewise, the Republican congress did not gain its majorities after the "terrorists struck", the gained them in a time of relative security and tranquility: 1994!

Frankly, your argument makes no sense.

The US has been moving to the right pretty progressively since the mid 1980s. This long predates "the war on terror".

I truly hope that you're right.

But hoping and "doubts" don't make facts. And the facts aren't looking too good.

That is simply not borne out by the facts.

Italy has had abortion legal for thirty years and it is a political "non-issue" today. Spain just passes a same-sex marriage law and pulled out of Iraq. All three countries you mentioned have advanced socialized health care systems!

Obviously, religion still has a great deal of power in many parts of the world. But, again, the question is not where a country is, it's in what direction is it headed.

Spain and Portugal and Italy are still moving forward. They are still making progressive economic changes.

The US is no longer moving forward.

Again, it's not "over"; it may not be for centuries.

Certainly there are still "battles being fought". There is a very good chance that a small portion of the US will have legal same-sex marriage in the next few decades ...although it will be a small portion.

There is also a decent chance of some minor proletarian gains, but they will be small and they will be temporary.

The general direction that the US is heading in is down, but if basic communist theory is at all correct, it will be ultimately beneficial.

It's been said that "it's always darkest before the dawn." Well, it's about to get really damn dark.

Here's hoping for a "red dawn"!

-- December 30, 2004

I stopped reading at this point...because anyone who could say something like this is clearly living on another planet.

The "ascendant phase" of the capitalist mode of production may have ended in the "west" around 1970. It has certainly not "ended" in Japan, China, etc.

To blandly re-state Lenin's discredited analysis as if it were "self-evident" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary does not inspire any confidence on my part that they might have anything of any further interest to say.

This is an interesting question. When Lenin described imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, was he correct ?

When Marx said that no society is overthrown until it has exhausted its potential, does that apply to capitalism now ?

How can it apply when capitalism has grown so phenomenally over the last fifty years ?

Yet I think Lenin was right (maybe for the wrong reasons, but that involves an assessment of his imperialism pamphlet).

The issue becomes dialectical at a certain point in the development of capitalism since the capacity of capitalism to accumulate and invest comes to rely (inversely) on its ability to defeat the working class strategically for whole periods.

The point about the early twentieth century is that that is the point at which a critical change happened in the pre-conditions for capitalist growth. Two things happened, periods of intense crisis and destruction became preconditions of continued growth and secondly, the development of a world capitalist economy distorted in structure (to the point of significantly lessening the potential economic benefits of a world economy) by the exercise of imperialist power became the outcome of capitalist growth.

In those senses, capitalism became decadent by 1914.

That does not mean that it became a society incapable of economic growth and development. It means it became a society in which the price of that became disproprotionate in a new way, one which means that it has ceased to be, on balance, historically progressive.

Humanity would now be better off if capitalism ceased to be the mechanism of economic development. That is the sense in which it is now decadent.

I don't believe so, Imperialism seems to a way to keep people living within capitalist countries to keep their eyes off the real problems. Or perhaps even as a twisted way to try and solve those problems (i.e. Iraq/Oil)

You would have to link this up with the Leninist belief of Capitalism's peak being Imperialism. Batista's regime in Cuba didn't reach it's full potential at all; if it can be called "potential".

Capitalism has grown phenomenally partially because of Imperialism. That and the demonizing of the Soviet Union in the past fifty years and making the people believe that Capitalism is the only good and fair system in the world.

Hardly, mass industrialization and integration of the assembly line and such would push Capitalism past previously believed limits of decadence.

Taking people with good talent and twisting their ideals to work only for money and not for the goodness of helping other people should never even have been an economic mechanism when coming out of Feudalism.

in response to djehuti :yeah i'm a sympathiser of the icc and often read their work i havn't read much of aufheben's work though.

in response to redstar: it does not fly against reality to say that capitalism reached it's zenith in 1914 even though it may at first glance sound far fetched. The point is a as gilhyle says that capitalism can still grow in its decadent period but does so in a diseased way. For example the massive period of growth from the post war boom untill around the early 70's was based on the imperialist second world war. Without this war the depression would never have ended. The world bourgeiosie after world war two had learnt from their experince of the end of the 'booming 20's' that capitalism could no longer operate in the way it used to. This is why the economy in all countries(finding its most extreme form in the 'socialist' countries) needed greater state control in order to function. As i have shown in my last post since the 70s conditions around the world have become progressively worse. Capitalism is threatening the survival of humanity( that seems a clear indication that it is no longer progressive in any way). With regards to the growth in China this is largely the result of the world economic crisis forcing the main industrialised countries to export their businesses to the third world to make use of the cheap labour. Therefore the apparent good health of the world economy is based on the morbid sickness of the world economy. Also the fact that even during this 'boom' there remains something like 300 million unemployed in China shows that capitalism still can't incorperate large sections of the world into its social set up. The groth in China is also not really bringing any gains for humanity and the working class in particular. THeir growth as an imperialist power to be reconed with clearly makes the world a more dangerous place and the economic boom has not really brought many gains for the Chinese proletariat.

Overall the point is that decadance does not mean a complete stop of all economic growth but mainly it represents the period where capitalism is no longer progressive for humanity and it becomes a historic necessity for it to be overthrown.

Since we have no clear way to measure "disproportionate price", this would seem to be an intractable problem.

I would opt for the "simple" solution: capitalism has "ceased to be historically progressive" when it stops growing and the old ruling classes can't think of anything to get it started again. Only when technological and economic stagnation is interrupted only by further decline can it reasonably be said that capitalism as a system has become self-evidently decadent.

Nor do I think it reasonable to imagine this, like Lenin did, on a global scale. There are still many parts of the "third world" in which a bourgeois revolution would be "historically progressive".

Nepal, for example.

Which is really what the Maoists there are trying to do...even though they're not conscious of that.

Quote:

jaycee

If you were just talking about working class life in the U.S., I'd have no problem agreeing with you. I've seen it with my own eyes.

In countries like Japan and China, what you suggest is self-evidently false. Workers there are, by and large, enormously better off than a mere generation ago...both materially and culturally.

Of course, that doesn't mean that there is no hardship or poverty; those things "naturally" accompany capitalist development everywhere.

Yes, that's how it starts. But it doesn't necessarily have to stay that way. The Chinese ruling class (like the Japanese ruling class 40 years ago) have already decided that "high tech" is the "way to go".

And it is! As long as any capitalist society can technologically innovate, I don't see any usefulness in calling it "decadent".

It just misleads people...suggesting that the "end of capitalism" is "just around the corner".

That's what Lenin sincerely believed...but he was wrong.

For what I have taken to calling the "senile" capitalist countries -- Western Europe and North America -- this may be indeed the truth. Capitalism could be "on its way out" before the end of this century.

Japan? How does 2150 sound?

China? How about 2250?

Maybe a little sooner...but not much. An inter-imperialist war between those two giants might "speed things up"...in the country that loses. That's a possibility that can never be entirely ruled out.

And think of the countries where modern capitalism is really just beginning...India, Brazil, Mexico, and a long list of others. Is there any historical materialist reason why capitalism should not flourish in those countries for at least the next two or three centuries?

Why should the rest of the world not go through the same path that we in the "west" went through? Do you imagine that our "senile" imperialism will be able to "stop them"?

The U.S. and E.U. cannot "stop Iran"...a very weak proto-capitalist country still handicapped by a medieval superstition.

And as is becoming increasingly obvious, the U.S. cannot "hold" Iraq...an even weaker country torn by ethnic, cultural and superstitious internal conflicts.

I think sometimes that we in the "old imperialist" countries are so "used" to being "top dogs" that we simply cannot imagine a world in which new imperial powers have "usurped our supremacy".

Like that neo-Hegelian dummy suggested, history has "come to an end".

No, it hasn't.

Yes, the emergence and rise of new imperial powers is indeed "dangerous"...as often as not because the old imperialist powers refuse to recognize new realities.

But "dangerous" is not synonymous with "decadent".

The problem with formulating the definition in this way is that from a historical materialist point of view there is no such thing as "humanity" in the abstract.

There are particular humans who live in a particular country with a particular economic system based on a particular technology, etc.

Capitalism may be entering its decadent (terminal) phase in the "old" imperialist countries...but that says nothing useful about the rest of the planet at all.

Lenin and his few remaining disciples maintain that the world can be usefully treated as if it were "one integrated system"...making it possible to have a successful "socialist revolution" anywhere.

That's been falsified...and I see no evidence to challenge the "verdict of history" on this one.

firstly if capitalism still exists anywhere in any major way by 2250 the world (or humanity at least) wont be there for it.

Secondly capitalism has to be seen from a global perspective and globally the seperation of the world into national states is one of the major forces holding humanity back. For example in Brazil it makes sense for the capitalists there to destroy the rainforest and for the chineses bourgeoisie to use the cheapest and most polluting fuels. But for humanity this poses a serious danger for its future survival.

Marx saw capitalism as progressive becuase the more it expanded the more it improved the conditions to make a communist world possable. THerefore you have to ask is communism becoming more or less possible; the longer capitalism lives, the answer due to global warming, war etc is that communism is becoming less possible as time goes on. The material conditions for it are increasingly being undermined by capitalist destruction (which it does in order to survive a little longer).

i also don't quite understand why you keep including japan as a country where capitalism is still growing or progressive (not that i think that it really is anywhere) becuase japan has been a major capitalist power since the early 20th century and has also been in an almost non stop recession since the 90s.

lastly if we look at the example of china compared to Britain in the 19th century at a time when there was an entire world market to expand into and take over where as now china can only expand into already capitalist countries and a world market which is already largely carved up between the major imperialist powers.

I take it that you are one of the "end of the world" acolytes.

That's a shame.

If you think that capitalism is going to "destroy the world" or make humans "extinct", then what else is there to say...about anything?

Last Days -- The "End of the World" Scenarios

Why?

"Perspectives" are tools. For some purposes, a "global perspective" might be the most useful one; for other purposes, a more localized perspective might be more useful.

You cannot usefully study the stars with a microscope or bacteria with a telescope. You have to use the right tool for the job.

In this instance, only a very few places have economies that are completely dominated by foreign trade. Most countries today still have predominately national, regional, and local economies.

Therefore, what happens there is mostly a product of local economic development.

And from a historical materialist perspective, that's what really counts.

So what are we doing on this board? If the probability of communism is declining with the passage of time, then we're just wasting ours.

Better to entertain ourselves "until the end", right?

Japan is presently leading the world in the development of robotics.

In addition, they've taken a series of technological advances that were actually developed in the U.S. and turned them into new means of production.

Something which U.S. capitalists were too moribund to manage to do.

I think the difference is quite striking.

It's true that the Japanese economy has been stagnant for the last fifteen years...a possible symptom of "late" capitalism.

But given their continuous and successful economic expansion in Asia, I think it's too soon to call them "decadent".

As to the academic question of exactly when Japan became a "major imperialist power", I see little to be gained from such a controversy. Some will date it from Japan's victory over Czarist Russia in 1905 and the occupation of Korea and Taiwan. Some will put it in the early 1930s with the invasion of China. And others might pick a later date.

I don't think it matters all that much.

The Chinese bourgeoisie appear to be focusing their efforts on Africa and Latin America...places where "western" capitalism "fears to tread". This may be due to the fact that Japan already has Asia "all tied up".

The idea that the "division of the world" is "finished" for "all time" is just a-historical.