The revolutionary Marxist argued that capitalism's fundamental logic makes its replacement by social-democratic reform impossible. Her ideas are more relevant and urgent than ever.
Great article. I’m particularly interested in why we don’t take the opportunities that crisis allows? Why people don’t seee the contradictions? And why the left has lost all energy & ideas.
This is good and timely for me as I was just thinking about creating a post about how all of this clusterfuck chaos really boils down to two words: late capitalism. The American system, being premised on LC, has spawned the white collar criminal politician and technology has given it the ultimate weapons of social control colluding with the already feudal class comfort zone mind control of the religious masses.
However, before we start shouting "Viva la revolution!" consider the impact of emergent AI on "labor" for a minute. First, let me clarify that I am aware that most of what we hear about it is pure hype and there are some great books and podcasts by programmers and tech writers explaining the reality of it versus the hype that the general public gets. I myself have done presentations on this topic discussing the human drives and analyzing the 80 years of the attempt (aka digging the hole that you can't stop digging) to create AGI from a humanities perspective.
But, now I have realized a motivation that I had not thought of even though it is right in front of me: replacing the workers so they can't revolt in a way that serves their survival.
Firstly, bring on the revolution - you have nothing to lose but your credit card.
Follow on, workers have been turned into (selfish) consumers in most western societies - trade unions can’t beat shopping malls and cheap holidays in Bali.
Finally, the financialisation of society has enhanced the position of the wealthy without the need to actually ‘produce’ - workers become less relevant.
Yes. I was going to talk about financialization more in relation to Luxemburg’s discussion of credit but it seemed a bit tangential and it was getting a bit long already.
Capitalism may be the death of us. Nevertheless, it has adapted sufficiently to prevent any mass movement for a new system. We did not see starvation and uprisings.
Consider John Kay's new book that concludes that capital is mostly now incidental.
Kay's perspective is well beyond my own personal observation, based on the tax code having determined it to be the case (real life in practice and not in theory), that there are some endeavors where capital has always been incidental.
What are the implications?
Seems that capitalism, as would be socialism, is an intervention. Intervention = medicine = poison (if one overdoses). One intervention by those who control capital and one intervention by government (or some other democratic institution). Perhaps reasonable minds could differ as to which intervention, taken in moderation, is superior. And maybe the prescription would be dependent on context and lead the same reasonable mind to a different conclusion based on circumstances. But interventions are the exception to normal, healthy operations. Don't take pills unless you need them.
For the rest of the economy that really requires no intervention (capital is incidental), which would appear to be a significant majority of our services based economy, workers can negotiate with the check-writers (consumer). At least, as soon as the check-writers wake up to their role or decide to put down the video game controls. But if the check-writers do wake up, the workers probably should avoid "malingering" in their performance. In my experience, malingering workers are, at the same time, tough consumers that demand their money's worth. But there will be no place for the malingering worker to hide.
Ryan, Thank you for taking the time to ask for clarification.
You appear to be evaluating the disagreement between the socialist reformists and the revolutionists under the assumptions that 1) socialism is the desired outcome, and 2) that revolution is the way to get there.
I am challenging those assumptions while limiting my argument to my "observation" that there are many areas of economic activity in which capital is (and has been) incidental and Kay's "observation" that capital is always incidental. "Incidental" means, regardless of what the capital need might be, that capital is available to those with a good plan involving competent people serving a widely held need/demand.
Prospective "capitalists" (entrepreneurs desiring to form investor owned businesses rather than consumer owned businesses) originating within and desiring to serve marginalized communities and classes (the "oppressed") might have a problem acquiring capital. But check-writers (consumers) of marginalized communities and classes (still the oppressed) could easily take coordinated action themselves without having to pay equity dividends for capital. But they can attract non-equity capital. Thus, achieving the same quality at a lower cost, better quality at the same cost, or both a better quality and a lower cost.
Capitalism and free markets are not the same thing. Socialism and markets are not the same thing (see China). Apparently, neither capitalism nor socialism are necessary in great swathes of the economy. To the extent that either is necessary for what remains, there is a conversation to be had. Those who oppose capitalism would argue that it has stacked millions of bodies due to predation and a lack of compassion. Those who oppose socialism would argue that it has stacked millions of bodies intentionally in order to retain power.
Great article. I’m particularly interested in why we don’t take the opportunities that crisis allows? Why people don’t seee the contradictions? And why the left has lost all energy & ideas.
Thank you for making me think
This is good and timely for me as I was just thinking about creating a post about how all of this clusterfuck chaos really boils down to two words: late capitalism. The American system, being premised on LC, has spawned the white collar criminal politician and technology has given it the ultimate weapons of social control colluding with the already feudal class comfort zone mind control of the religious masses.
However, before we start shouting "Viva la revolution!" consider the impact of emergent AI on "labor" for a minute. First, let me clarify that I am aware that most of what we hear about it is pure hype and there are some great books and podcasts by programmers and tech writers explaining the reality of it versus the hype that the general public gets. I myself have done presentations on this topic discussing the human drives and analyzing the 80 years of the attempt (aka digging the hole that you can't stop digging) to create AGI from a humanities perspective.
But, now I have realized a motivation that I had not thought of even though it is right in front of me: replacing the workers so they can't revolt in a way that serves their survival.
Firstly, bring on the revolution - you have nothing to lose but your credit card.
Follow on, workers have been turned into (selfish) consumers in most western societies - trade unions can’t beat shopping malls and cheap holidays in Bali.
Finally, the financialisation of society has enhanced the position of the wealthy without the need to actually ‘produce’ - workers become less relevant.
Yes. I was going to talk about financialization more in relation to Luxemburg’s discussion of credit but it seemed a bit tangential and it was getting a bit long already.
When insurance companies, financial institutions, and banks talk, in all seriousness, about their "products"...!
But it did adapt?
Capitalism may be the death of us. Nevertheless, it has adapted sufficiently to prevent any mass movement for a new system. We did not see starvation and uprisings.
Consider John Kay's new book that concludes that capital is mostly now incidental.
Kay's perspective is well beyond my own personal observation, based on the tax code having determined it to be the case (real life in practice and not in theory), that there are some endeavors where capital has always been incidental.
What are the implications?
Seems that capitalism, as would be socialism, is an intervention. Intervention = medicine = poison (if one overdoses). One intervention by those who control capital and one intervention by government (or some other democratic institution). Perhaps reasonable minds could differ as to which intervention, taken in moderation, is superior. And maybe the prescription would be dependent on context and lead the same reasonable mind to a different conclusion based on circumstances. But interventions are the exception to normal, healthy operations. Don't take pills unless you need them.
For the rest of the economy that really requires no intervention (capital is incidental), which would appear to be a significant majority of our services based economy, workers can negotiate with the check-writers (consumer). At least, as soon as the check-writers wake up to their role or decide to put down the video game controls. But if the check-writers do wake up, the workers probably should avoid "malingering" in their performance. In my experience, malingering workers are, at the same time, tough consumers that demand their money's worth. But there will be no place for the malingering worker to hide.
I will have to read this book but I’m unsure what you mean here.
Ryan, Thank you for taking the time to ask for clarification.
You appear to be evaluating the disagreement between the socialist reformists and the revolutionists under the assumptions that 1) socialism is the desired outcome, and 2) that revolution is the way to get there.
I am challenging those assumptions while limiting my argument to my "observation" that there are many areas of economic activity in which capital is (and has been) incidental and Kay's "observation" that capital is always incidental. "Incidental" means, regardless of what the capital need might be, that capital is available to those with a good plan involving competent people serving a widely held need/demand.
Prospective "capitalists" (entrepreneurs desiring to form investor owned businesses rather than consumer owned businesses) originating within and desiring to serve marginalized communities and classes (the "oppressed") might have a problem acquiring capital. But check-writers (consumers) of marginalized communities and classes (still the oppressed) could easily take coordinated action themselves without having to pay equity dividends for capital. But they can attract non-equity capital. Thus, achieving the same quality at a lower cost, better quality at the same cost, or both a better quality and a lower cost.
Capitalism and free markets are not the same thing. Socialism and markets are not the same thing (see China). Apparently, neither capitalism nor socialism are necessary in great swathes of the economy. To the extent that either is necessary for what remains, there is a conversation to be had. Those who oppose capitalism would argue that it has stacked millions of bodies due to predation and a lack of compassion. Those who oppose socialism would argue that it has stacked millions of bodies intentionally in order to retain power.