Introduction by Link
This is a response to a text by CMcl that appeared on the website, A Free Retriever's Digest (AFRD) [1], entitled "In Defence of Historical Materialism Part 1" [2].
CMcl has written previous articles appearing on the same website which were primarily aimed at criticising the positions of the International Communist Current on the decadence of capitalism, one of which - "Has Capitalism entered its Decadence since 1914?"[3] - presented a substantial set of empirical evidence relating to the development of capitalism from the start of the 20th century.
In my opinion this text requires serious examination, because it certainly does raise questions as to the ICC's interpretation of what has happened to the economy in the past hundred years. It questions the validity of the ICC's reading of empirical evidence and its head-in-the-sand approach to economic development.
However, CMcl draws from this data an analysis which simply rejects the start of capitalist decadence in 1914, instead of reassessing what decadence is or should be. Capitalism has got itself into a mess that is substantial and it seems simply unjustifiable to depict all that we have experienced as the era of a progressive capitalism. CMcl does this on the basis that ascendancy is a period of economic growth for capitalism and decadence is a period of economic decline.
What I aimed to do with earlier texts -"Is Decadence an Economic Phenomenon?" [4] and "What are fetters on the Forces of Production?" [5] - was to question this point of view and discuss, within the context of historical materialism, further interpretations of what is happening in capitalism's decadence and particularly to bring the role of the productive forces back into the discussion.
CMcl has produced the first part of his response to my texts and we await his second part with interest.
I do thank CMcl for the substantial and serious response to the arguments I presented on the AFRD website and the ICC forum, but in my opinion I do think that he fails to address directly enough the issues raised in my text "What are fetters on Productive Forces?"[6] and focuses too much on the ICC. I therefore feel it appropriate to develop and repeat some of the content of this earlier text to strengthen my argument against some of the classic interpretations of historical materialism.
I too will reply in two parts, and this first part will focus on the theoretical issues and criticisms raised by CMcl, because these issues are key to an understanding of Marx's historical materialism, and I do not see that CMcl interprets this correctly. To this end I am using a number of quotes from Marx and others to show that there are opinions which have to be considered as valid, despite CMcl's objections.
I am sure there is substantial agreement between us about the importance of historical materialism, and by this I mean the concept that being determines consciousness and human society is the basis of historical development (not man the individual, and not god the all-powerful). On this foundation we see that history is the history of class struggle, which leads to successive modes of production, each experiencing periods of ascendancy and decline.
However it is clear there are differences in the interpretation of the decline of modes of production and this is the focus of my discussion; not, as CMcl's title implies, the whole of historical materialism.
My previous text, "What are fetters on Productive Forces?" [7], raised questions about the traditional marxist viewpoint of the decline of a mode of production as a purely economic contradiction, a view that has dominated the latter part of the 20th Century. This view is represented by both CMcl and the ICC.
I believe that Marx presented more than this one argument to explain the process in which societies reach an obsolete phase and I have quoted him to demonstrate this. As CMcl ably showed in his reply, Marx was also not that clear on what exactly the decline of capitalism would involve and when it would happen [8] so it seems rather inappropriate to contend that it is necessary to recognise only one theory as to its cause and its effects.
I intend to produce a further response, to tackle the questions raised by CMcl as to whether 1914 or 2000 has been the turning point in the development of capitalism; this is an important issue for discussion and I do not intend to ignore it.
Finally, I would like to clarify one point: according to CMcl, I believe that "...it is no longer the brake but the acceleration of the development of the productive forces that would constitute the reason for the entry into decadence of capitalism"; this is just not what I said. There are causes for the entry into decadence but the acceleration of the productive forces is not one of them.
Interpretations of the Decline of a Mode of Production
by Link
The central argument for CMcl, as he explicitly asserts in the following quote from Section 2, is that is that there is ONLY one possible interpretation of Marx's analysis of historical materialism and this is that the economic factor is the ONE determinant of the decline of any given mode of production.
Marx and Engels elaborated the materialist and historical conception of the evolution of societies by identifying the dialectic between the social relations of production and the productive forces, a dialectic which defines, for all class societies, an ascending phase where these relations energize these forces and a phase of obsolescence where these same relations slow them down. [9]
The whole text rests on this foundation, and he calls it a defence of historical materialism! Hardly, it is merely an assertion as to what CMcl believes is one element of historical materialism, but he provides little or no theoretical analysis to defend it.
Is this the only possible interpretation? This is what I intend to focus on in this text to demonstrate that with regards at least to capitalism this is an insufficient and narrow interpretation.
Let us look first at a famous quote from Engels that is certainly open to interpretation but should serve as a caution against being too determinedly focussed on economic indicators.
According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure ... also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents ... the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.... [10]
CMcl demonstrates that Marx and Engels were unclear about the conditions of decadence, which is an important point to recognise but he nevertheless asserts that Link inverts "the definition put forward by Marx in order to evacuate the contradiction, i.e. to affirm that the obsolescence of capitalism would be characterized, not by a brake, but by an unprecedented development of the productive forces, a development so important that it engenders wars and irreparable ecological disasters putting humanity itself in danger."[11]
Whilst I would agree that it is the growth of the system that threatens irreparable ecological disaster, I do not at all suggest that the level of growth defines or characterises decadence.
CMcl however fails to analyse just how Marx puts forward this definition that there can only be a brake on productive forces, let alone justify this assertion, and in fact uses a series of quotes and analyses from Marx (section 2) that act rather to justify my argument, eg. "The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer serve to further (bourgeois civilization and) the bourgeois property relations; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these relations, by which they are fettered". [12]
This quote from the Communist Manifesto quite clearly starts from the perspective that the productive forces have become too large for capitalist society – something CMcl says is not an analysis that corresponds with historical materialism! That this section of the Communist Manifesto goes on to say that relations of production are a fetter on the productive forces is quite true, but then I do not deny that.
What I am arguing is that both the relations and the forces or production have an impact on the decline of a mode of production, not just the one that CMcl believes. He not only fails to investigate how I am re-interpreting historical materialism, if that is at all the case, but he also fails to provide any explanatory defence of the classic marxist interpretations of Marx on the topic. He just asserts it must be true.
There is no question that economic decline as a product of internal contradictions can be and is a feature demonstrated in a period of decadence but to argue that economic decline is the only factor that demonstrates a mode of production is decaying is a rather narrow, dogmatic approach. I refer back to my brief review of previous modes of production[13] in which I point to political, social and external factors that impacted on the development of historical modes of production. As the quote from Engels at the start of this section suggests, other factors can and do come into play.
The Conflict between Forces of Production and Relations of Production
So, before looking at other factors, let us look at what Marx had to say regarding the conditions for the decline of a mode of production and discuss the issue of whether there is only one interpretation of how modes of production decline as CMcl suggests? To start this discussion, we must again use another famous quote because it is key to a presentation of the issues:
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. [14]
I have highlighted two sections of this quote. The second is clearly the basis for the conventional interpretation of decadence in that fetters are taken to place a type of limitation on the production forces. This viewpoint has clearly been the basis of the communist left's analysis of capital's development since its re-emergence in the second half of the 20th century.
As I have previously suggested, a fetter could be a complete barrier or a factor that slows down production, it can be open crises and it can also mean a distortion of what could be achieved by the existing productive forces. Any of these interpretations are possible but as we can identify different modes of production in history, it is also the case that the interpretation of what fetters are will apply will be different depending on the mode of production [15].
The first highlight is however usually ignored but it is clearly suggesting that the production forces clashes with the capacities of the relations of production to produce because they have grown too much!
CMcl's explanation of decadence in every mode of production rests solely, as we have seen, on the concept of fetters limiting production and causing economic decline in the respective mode of production. Solely, nothing else will do. What he doesn't understand about historical materialism is that the productive forces are not a passive force in social development, they are in fact the driving force of social evolution.
Both interpretations of the quote from Marx are economic issues and both are components of his view of historical materialism and the evolution of modes of production and entirely logical and feasible within the capitalist system.
To the extent that the labour process is solely a process between man and Nature, its simple elements remain common to all social forms of development. But each specific historical form of this process further develops its material foundations and social forms. Whenever a certain stage of maturity has been reached, the specific historical form is discarded and makes way for a higher one. The moment of arrival of such a crisis is disclosed by the depth and breadth attained by the contradictions and antagonisms between the distribution relations, and thus the specific historical form of their corresponding production relations, on the one hand, and the productive forces, the production powers and the development of their agencies, on the other hand. A conflict then ensues between the material development of production and its social form. [16]
In other words it is the forces of production that drive forward humanity and the relations of production develop to correspond to the level of those productive forces that have been achieved. This is true for all modes of production although it must be noted that Marx recognises that each mode of production has specific forms and characteristics.
Bukharin expresses the same thing in this way:
Revolution therefore occurs when there is an outright conflict between the increased productive forces, which can no longer be housed within the envelops of the production relations, and which constitutes the fundamental web of these production relations ie property relations, ownership of the instruments of production, This envelop is then burst asunder. [17]
Lastly we can find the same viewpoint expressed by Engels:
Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science art, religion etc; that therefore the production of the immediate means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch form the foundation up which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, the ideas on art and even on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must therefore be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hither been the case. [18]
And let us not forget Gorter's book on Historical Materialism:
I have briefly summarized the content of our doctrine. It can be recapitulated in an outline form as follows:
1. Technology, the productive forces, forms the basis of society.
The productive forces determine the relations of production, the relations in which men confront one another in the production process.
The relations of production are at the same time property relations.
The relations of production and property are not only relations between persons, but between classes.
These relations of class, property and production (in other words, social existence) determine man’s consciousness, that is, his conceptions of rights, politics, morality, religion, philosophy, art, etc.
2. Technology is undergoing continuous development.
Consequently, the productive forces, the mode of production, property and class relations, are also undergoing constant modification.
Therefore, man’s consciousness, his conceptions and representations of rights, politics, morality, religion, philosophy, art, etc., are also modified along with the relations of production and the productive forces.
3. The new technology, at a certain stage of development, enters into conflict with the old relations of production and property. Finally, the new technology prevails. [19]
Finally in this section, let's be honest; whilst we have argued for the importance of the growth in the productive forces as the basis of social development, we also have to agree with Marx and CMcl that the relations of production do become a fetter on the productive forces in period of decadence and, indeed, Bukharin recognised this too and followed up the previous quote from him with this statement:
... the cause of revolutions is the conflict between the productive forces and the productive relations, as solidified in the political organization of the ruling class. These production relations are so emphatic a brake on the evolution of the productive forces that they simply must be broken up if society is to continue to develop. If they cannot be burst asunder, they will prevent and stifle the unfolding of the productive forces, and the entire society will become stagnant or retrogressive, i.e., it will enter upon a period of decay. [20]
What we should recognise therefore is that it not a question of either/or, it is a question of an ongoing interaction between the forces and the relations of production, Bukharin places the development of the productive forces at the core of society but recognises that the relations or production as well as the superstructure, have a relationship which impacts the strengthening and weakening of an economy in different periods.
It is just not correct to imply, as CMcl does, that the productive forces stop growing in a period of decadence.
As the quotes from Bukharin and Marx suggest the productive forces keep on growing, otherwise the relations of production could not be seen to be acting as a fetter. Historical materialism does not say that relations of production are the active factor and the forces of production are purely passive in this process.
The Relevance of Productive Forces to Capitalism
Having seen the theory in general, let us look at what Marx had to say regarding the role of the productive forces in capitalism because as i have said, we need to identify the specific features of capitalism to understand both its process of ascendancy and decline.
There appears here the universalizing tendency of capital, which distinguishes it from all previous stages of production. Although limited by its very nature, it strives towards the universal development of the forces of production, and thus becomes the presupposition of a new mode of production, which is founded not on the development of the forces of production for the purpose of reproducing or at most expanding a given condition, but where the free, unobstructed, progressive and universal development of the forces of production is itself the presupposition of society and hence of its reproduction; where advance beyond the point of departure is the only presupposition. [21]
Marx is here saying that capitalism has a specific characteristic, "the universal development of productive forces" and that this characteristic enables society to grow sufficiently to lay the basis for a revolution which creates a communistic society. One of capitalism's most important features is its dynamism. Its capacity to expand and grow is based on wage labour which enables capitalists and capitalism to profit enormously and use that wealth (and time) to focus on technological, productive, scientific, and social science advances. No previous society had the capacity to develop either technical progress nor social theory/understanding as they just changed too slowly.
In this respect, capitalism has to be understood as very different to the previous modes of production which developed slowly over millennia.
These were stable societies that had very little self awareness and where philosophic or academic skills were constrained within religious concepts. Technology developed slowly step by step through hunter-gatherer systems to sedentary agricultural farming. Slave societies gradually developed building, weaponry, clothing technologies and in fact, Greek and Roman societies developed the basic elements of technologies such as steam, hydraulics and even mechanical computers, that they just could not apply to production; they remained as playthings for the ruling classes and were lost following their demise.
Feudalism improved agricultural technologies and techniques as well as weaponry. Capitalism began by centralising productive and administrative institutions and by generating an accumulation of money and freeing up labour from legal constraints of the past it became what has been and remains the most technologically dynamic society in history. Here again we should note that the productive forces play an active role in this history of capitalism, it is the level of technology and the capacities of a 'free' workforce that enables future development.
Capitalism is therefore very different to previous modes of production, which is why Luxemburg et al called them natural economies and called capitalism a commodity economy. It is therefore totally inappropriate to expect capitalism to behave in the same way as previous societies when it comes to analysing its ascendancy and decline. It has specific characteristics which need investigation and identification.
The means — unconditional development of the productive forces of society — comes continually into conflict with the limited purpose, the self-expansion of the existing capital. The capitalist mode of production is, for this reason, a historical means of developing the material forces of production and creating an appropriate world-market and is, at the same time, a continual conflict between this its historical task and its own corresponding relations of social production. [22]
What is more, these are not isolated statements that could be put down as mistakes or a lack of clarity, Marx holds firm to this explanation of social development and returns on many occasions to the theme. This next quote is from Wage Labour and Capital:
We thus see that the social relations within which individuals produce, the social relations of production, are altered, transformed, with the change and development of the material means of production, of the forces of production. [23]
And again in Theories of Surplus Value:
Over-production is specifically conditioned by the general law of the production of capital: to produce to the limit set by the productive forces, that is to say, to exploit the maximum amount of labour with the given amount of capital, without any consideration for the actual limits of the market or the needs backed by the ability to pay; and this is carried out through continuous expansion of reproduction and accumulation, and therefore constant reconversion of revenue into capital... [24]
And here is another confirmation of Marx's view of historical materialism from Capital Volume 3:
The contradiction of the capitalist mode of production, however, lies precisely in its tendency towards an absolute development of the productive forces, which continually come into conflict with the specific conditions of production in which capital moves, and alone can move. [25]
As you can see from these quotes, Marx is basing the development of society on the conditions that the growth of the productive forces generates. His historical materialism is based not on the development of relations of production determining the forces of production but on the forces of production impacting upon the relationships that are generated.
It is surely obvious that when capitalism comprises of small scale craft industries there is no need for example for mass distribution mechanisms, Personnel and Wages Departments, management theories etc but these conditions changed as capital developed the capacity to produce in factories on a mass scale with powered machinery and large numbers of workers. Thereupon there came about a need for far more complex organisational structures within businesses and in society as whole. Large factories came about because of the change in technological capacities not because there were masses of workers waiting at the gates.
The modern division of labour is determined by the modern instruments of labour, by the character, description and combination of machines and tools, ie by the technical apparatus of capitalist society. [26]
The technological and social developments then led to what Lenin and Bukharin termed monopoly and finance capital when the concentration and centralisation of capital created new institutions and new business structures as the nation state became fully formed (this will be further explained in the second part of this text) at the end of the 19th century. The nation state took ever greater control over the management of the national economy and became the foundation for what we call today state capitalism. These technological and social developments therefore led to drastic changes taking place in capital's relations of production.
CMcl has been dismissive of the idea that economic growth, despite it being just another economic factor, can be present in any way in the period of decadence of capitalism.
However as we have seen, there are specific features to capitalism that differentiate it from previous modes of production and one is that ongoing growth is essential to capitalism.
So now we have the concept that capital can or must keep growing in both its ascendant and decadent periods, and therefore decadence must be analysed differently to the traditional view that CMcl and the ICC present.
Lenin was also clear that imperialism represented the decay of the capitalist system but it would not prevent the growth of the productive forces.
It would be a mistake to believe that this tendency [ie. of capitalism] to decay precludes the rapid growth of capitalism. It does not. In the epoch of imperialism, certain branches of industry, certain strata of the bourgeoisie and certain countries betray, to a greater or lesser degree, now one and now another of these tendencies. On the whole, capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before; but this growth is not only becoming more and more uneven in general, its unevenness also manifests itself, in particular, in the decay of the countries which are richest in capital (Britain). [ 27]
CMcl rejects all these arguments to support his limited view of historical materialism. I shouldn't have to point this out but it is one of the things that both CMcl, and the ICC, apparently fail to understand, ie. that accumulation of capital means the economy is growing and without accumulation, it is not capitalism! And the outcome that is apparent, certainly over the past few decades, is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is not an empty slogan; neo-liberalism since the 1990s, quantitative easing from 2008, the reactions to the covid pandemic have all seen to it that the privileged are better off from all that government support and the rich soak up the cash that is pumped into economy via banks and financial markets because all it does is make the assets they hold increase in value. By feeding the financial industries it further stimulates new profits for the rich because they can make greater profits on the financial markets than can be obtained through investing in industry.
This brings us to one more major element of Marx's analysis of capital that has been ignored.
The Relevance of the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall
If there is nothing in the model of capitalism that prevents continuing growth in decadence, there is, in fact a law that says it must continue - the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (TROPF). [28]
It is noteworthy that CMcl, having disposed of Luxemburg's theory of accumulation, has not taken up any other analyses of accumulation or crisis theories in his text. He completely avoids any mention of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and its impact on capital's development despite Marx's voluminous writings on the topic.
So what are the key points that Marx makes about the impact of the falling rate of profit?
We have shown how the same causes that bring about a tendency for the general rate of profit to fall necessitate an accelerated accumulation of capital and, consequently, an increase in the absolute magnitude, or total mass, of the surplus-labour (surplus-value, profit) appropriated by it... It is evident that within the proportions indicated above a capitalist disposing of a large capital will receive a larger mass of profit than a small capitalist making seemingly high profits.[29] (my emphasis)
To emphasise this point, the impact of the FROP is that is leads not only to increased accumulation, and accelerated accumulation at that, but also to a continual increase in the mass of profit.
The law that a fall in the rate of profit due to the development of productiveness is accompanied by an increase in the mass of profit, also expresses itself in the fact that a fall in the price of commodities produced by a capital is accompanied by a relative increase of the masses of profit contained in them and realised by their sale. [30]
What this means is that as the capitalist economy increases in size, the rate of profit gets smaller and the mass of profit increases. This is a key indicator that growth in capitalism and into its period of decline is to be expected. It is a permanent consequence of the TROPF and must be present in both ascendancy and decadence. Outside a total failure of production the mass of profit must tend to grow. Is this not a very good description of what has happened to capitalism over the past 4 centuries?
It is an obvious thing to say that in 1762 when Matthew Boulton built the first modern factory and the remainder of the economy comprised mostly of small craft workshops that it was relatively easy for capital to double in size because that increase was not that large. Today it is very much harder and takes longer to double in size but the scale of capitalism today means that an average 3% growth in GDP per year leads to a much greater economy doubling in size in little more than 20 years; this is a tremendous volume of growth.
The rate of profit is an indicator of accumulation that is falling proportionately and drives individual capitals forward, but contradictorily enough, it is at the same time, a sign of the enormous level of growth that the economy as a whole is achieving. The mass of growth is a product of the exploitation of the working class and the increasing levels of surplus value created by the capitalist production. It is what is called enhanced production and this is the norm for capitalism probably until the very end of its life. [31]
To summarise this section, I am arguing that both growth and fetters on production exist within a declining capitalism.
I think it is clear that we can see fetters on production in the way that capital produces for exchange and for profit and not for need, in the nation state and in the class struggle itself; but this does not prevent increasing growth of capital.
I do not argue that capitalism is capable of infinite growth: I do however suggest that growth in decadence is not something that should be ignored and dismissed; it needs explanation and clarification by the communist left.
I do also accept that this does raise questions about crisis theory and how the decay of capitalism will present itself.
External Influences on Capitalism
The last section emphasised the issue of external factors impacting upon the development of capitalism. Here CMcl accepts that these exist but sees this as secondary influences and diminishes their influence; he is not alone in this. Within the context of Marx's theory of historical materialism then, is there such as thing as an external influence on a mode of production? Is the possibility of ecological apocalypse merely a factor of secondary importance within capitalism?
CMcL: Certainly, external factors can intervene in the evolutionary dynamics of societies, and one would have to be blind to deny them. However, as a general rule, their importance is secondary and depends fundamentally on the evolution of internal contradictions [32] (original emphasis)
In reviewing Marx's writings on ecology and nature, it is very clear that he saw nature as an external factor which is very important and states that the mode of production depends upon it - this makes it far more than a secondary influence. In fact Marx and others have argued that production absolutely depends on the natural world for all resources so it must have a significant relationship with each mode of production.
To say that man is a corporeal, living, real, sensuous objective being with natural powers means that he has real, sensuous objects as the objects of his being of vital expression, or that he can only express his life, in real, sensuous objects... Hunger is a natural need; it therefore requires a nature and an object outside itself in order to satisfy and still itself.... A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being and plays no part in the system of nature. [33]
Marx was very clear in this quote that production absolutely depends on the natural world for all resources so there is a significant relationship between humanity and nature which forms an essential part of each mode of production.
In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate — i.e., does production take place. [34]
And in discussing the geographical expansion of capital he explicitly refers to external factors:
We can speak of an ‘external limit’ to the expansion of a system (its incapacity to enlarge its field of action) and of an ‘internal limit’ (the incapacity to go beyond a certain level of productivity). [35]
Here, Marx explicitly points to both external factors and to internal contradictions. This also reflects the idea that nature is a productive force but one that stands outside any given mode of production because. The issue is rather how each one can use nature. Production depends on nature as well as labour. So nature, the planet, space are all external factors that exist and in appropriate times must come into relationships with the mode of production in existence and of course be changed by it.
Actual labour is the appropriation of nature for the satisfaction of human needs, the activity through which the metabolism [Stoffwechsel] between man and nature is mediated. [36]
Bukharin in his work, Historical Materialism, also tackled this topic directly:
The metabolism between man and nature consists, we have seen, in the transfer of material energy from external nature to society; the expenditure of human energy (production)is an extraction of energy from nature, energy which is to be added to society (distribution of products between the members of society) and appropriate by society (consumption); this appropriation is the basis for further expenditure etc, the wheel of reproduction being thus constantly in motion. [37]
And further made the point:
We have said that these contradictions are of two kinds: between the environment and this system, and between the elements of the system and the system itself.[38]
Luxemburg, in explaining her theory of accumulation, starts from the recognition of external factors, pre- and non-capitalist societies, and, while both CMcl and I disagree with her theory, she is completely correct in identifying pre-capitalist regions of the globe as external to capitalism and she is also correct in pointing out that the world market is completed when capitalism has come to dominate these regions of the globe through its geographical expansion.
The world is limited in size and whilst the resources can be more efficiently used and requirements will change with the change of current technology, the different modes of production represent different stages in the growth of the productive forces. Not only are the internal contradictions different for each but so are the external contradictions and influences.
Capitalism as a very dynamic system of production is at a stage where it is confronting the limitations presented by the world. It is at the stage where it is starting to irreversibly damage the resources that are used for humanity's survival.
In summary, it is evident that in capitalism we need to recognise that the threat of socialism or barbarism is becoming real. Today it is not just like the 1914-1945 period when capitalism was in a total mess and resorting to world wars as the only way to resolve conflicts. At the start of the 21st century we have reached a stage where the continued growth of economic and social activity is coming up against the problem that the planet can no longer cope with the disruption it causes. There is no longer sufficient space on the planet to maintain life as it has been in the past and the environmental damage being caused today is staring humanity in the face.
In the second part of my response to CMcl I intend to focus on the discussion of the changes taking place in capitalism at the start of the 20th and the 21st centuries
Link February 2022
[1] available at https://afreeretriever.wordpress.com/ [2] available at https://afreeretriever.wordpress.com/portfolio/in-defense-of-historical-materialism-part-i/ [3] available at https://afreeretriever.wordpress.com/portfolio/has-capitalism-entered-its-decadence-since-1914/ [4] available at https://afreeretriever.wordpress.com/portfolio/discussion-contributions-on-the-question-of-capitalisms-decadence/7/ [5] available at https://afreeretriever.wordpress.com/portfolio/discussion-contributions-on-the-question-of-capitalisms-decadence/8/ [6] Link 2021 What are Fetters on the Productive Forces? available at https://afreeretriever.wordpress.com/portfolio/discussion-contributions-on-the-question-of-capitalisms-decadence/8/ [7] ibid [8] In fact to add to the examples provided by CMcl, in my understanding of Chapter 25 of Capital Volume 1, Marx presents an analysis of what is happening to the working class and capital and appears to suggest that the revolution must come because of the trends taking place at that time, ie,. capital getting wealthier and the working class working longer hours and being paid less, leading to absolute pauperisation. [9] CMcl 2021 In Defence of Historical Materialism Section 2 available at https://afreeretriever.wordpress.com/portfolio/in-defense-of-historical-materialism-part-i/ [10] Engels 1890 Letter to J Bloch https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm [11] CMcl 2021 In Defence of Historical Materialism Section 2 available at available at https://afreeretriever.wordpress.com/portfolio/in-defense-of-historical-materialism-part-i/ [12] Marx The Communist Manifesto quoted in CMcl 2021 In Defence of Historical Materialism Section 2 available at https://afreeretriever.wordpress.com/portfolio/in-defense-of-historical-materialism-part-i/ [13] Link 2021 What are Fetters on the Productive Forces? available at https://afreeretriever.wordpress.com/portfolio/discussion-contributions-on-the-question-of-capitalisms-decadence/8/ [14] Marx 1859 Preface to a Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm [15] Examples of fetters in previous modes of production would be, in hunter/gather societies, the limitation of materials and a very basic technology; in slave society it was the reliance on slaves that limited the expansion of the use of technology; in feudal society, it was the independence of local communities and the restriction to production for need [16] Marx 1894 Capital Vol 3 Chap 51 available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ [17] Bukharin Historical Materialism Chap 7 available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/index.htm [18] Engels quoted in Mehring F 1893 Historical Materialism, New Park Publications 1975 [19] Gorter Historical Materialism Chap 3 available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/historical-materialism.htm [20] Bukharin Historical Materialism Chap 7b available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/index.htm [21] Marx, 1857-61, Grundrisse, Notebook 6 [22] Marx Capital Vol 3 chap 15 available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ [23] Marx 1847 Wage Labour and Capital available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ [24] Marx Theories of Surplus Value Chapter 17-14 Available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch17.htm [25] Marx Capital Volume 3 chap 15 available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ [26] Bukharin Historical Materialism available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/index.htm [27] Lenin, 1916 Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Chapter 10 [28] There is obviously a debate as to what happens when insufficient profit is produced but proponents of the theory see the consequence as war leading to a reduction in the value of constant capital. In any case, no one suggests that there is a set rate that would cause a crisis, let alone the decadence of capitalism [29] Marx Capital vol 3 chap 13 available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ [30] ibid [31] Marx used the idea of simple production to explain his model of capital and this is a scenario where only enough surplus value is created to replace the used raw materials and components (current assets) and repair the production machinery. In other words, the system has to make sure that the creation of surplus value precisely fits these needs and there can be no technical development, no population increase and no increase in capital assets. This is not how capitalism works. Let me propose another scenario where not enough surplus value is produced to undertake the tasks of simple reproduction: the repercussions would be insufficient profit to keep production going, production would come to a rapid halt, the population would be starving, and capital as a social system would collapse quickly if not almost instantaneously because no capitalist will manufacture if a profit cannot be produced. The last option here could only happen in a total collapse of the production system, the first option is impossible to anticipate, so the only viable reality is that capitalism keeps producing surplus value, increases the population and accumulation so society and the economy keeps growing - at whatever rate the productive forces and the relations of production allow. [32] CMcl 2021 In Defence of Historical Materialism available at https://afreeretriever.wordpress.com/portfolio/in-defense-of-historical-materialism-part-ii/4/ [33] Marx 1844, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Chapter Critique of Hegelian Dialectic , available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm [34] Marx 1847 Wage Labour and Capital available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ [35] Marx Capital vol 3 chap 13 available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ [36] Marx 1863 Theories of Surplus Value, available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/index.htm [37] Bukharin 1921 Historical Materialism Chapter 5 available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/index.htm [38] Bukharin 1921 Historical Materialism Chapter 3 available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/index.htm
留言