The collapse of capitalism

Hugh Rodwell m-14970 at
Fri May 3 01:18:08 MDT 1996

Rahul wrote:

>there is no reason that capitalism has to
>collapse. It has in fact proven extraordinarily effective in defending
>itself against its inherent contradictions.

Which is a fair enough answer to my question.

Now, along with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and a few others, I disagree.
I think the inherent tendency of development in capitalism is one of
uncontrolled pushing at and breaking the limits of both society and nature.
Neither society nor nature will be able to take much more of it. Hence the
classical Marxist alternative of 'socialism or barbarism'.

Note that it has not been capitalism that has 'proven extraordinarily
effective in defending itself against its inherent contradictions'. This
defending has been mainly done by the propping-up provided by the
counter-revolutionary, class collaborationist policies of Stalinism and
Social-Democracy during the postwar period -- holding back and misdirecting
the enormous power of the organized working class both nationally and
internationally to keep capitalism in power, on its feet and feeding a few
crumbs to the workers.

Now that the counter-revolutionary Stalinist regime has collapsed, we are
beginning to see what capitalism/imperialism can manage on its own without
the  counterweight of organized working class pressure within its managing
circles -- and it was bad enough even during the postwar boom (Vietnam).

> Besides, by "long run," I
>didn't mean until the millennium, when Lenin, sitting at the right hand of
>Jesus, will raise all the communist martyrs from their graves, but merely
>within the next generation or so.

OK, so who's being vague now? If you see a change coming pretty soon, tell
us how you see it developing (and how it differs from the classical
scenario). Also perhaps you could tell us if there are any political
conclusions we can draw from such developments.



     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list