capitalism and eternal growth

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to pre-monetary or Hunter-gatherer type societies or economies unless you have a very wide definition of trade and markets.

Not of course that that really matters in the context of this discussion.

Anyway, I'm with ag here - and Andre Gunder Frank of whom I believe ag shares little fondness but this is for you, anyway, Tweed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism. I would share the view that those three terms of pretty meaningless and should be abandoned for the purpose of analysis. Think of it as eliminativist sociology.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why do people - especially scientists who dip their toes in social science - always seem to think that we are now living through TEH MOST EXCITING TRANSFORMULATION ERA EVAR!!!111? I? I don't see it personally. This is - except in regards to technology - an incredibly conservative era compared to any time between 1920 (or maybe even the 1890s) and 1979. And I don't see much cultural change on the horizon, growth or not.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The interesting aspect of all this is whether the current economic model can survive in a non-growth context, or rather which parts of it will have to be reformed/changed.

This is far more interesting than the capitalism stuff IMO.

Look at Japan then and enough with the theorizing.

Btw, I would recommend reading Edward Hugh on this.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why do people - especially scientists who dip their toes in social science - always seem to think that we are now living through TEH MOST EXCITING TRANSFORMULATION ERA EVAR!!!111? I? I don't see it personally. This is - except in regards to technology - an incredibly conservative era compared to any time between 1920 (or maybe even the 1890s) and 1979. And I don't see much cultural change on the horizon, growth or not.

The Forward March of Labour Halted. No question mark.

That, of course, is a major cause of that. I wouldn't deny that. Not the only one though.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of those things have been disappearing for quite some time - I would say only #6 and #8 better describe the world of 2013 than they do that of 1913.

And if the term "Second Scientist Revolution" means anything akin to the idea of the Author then it began when.... with Special Relativity perhaps, which was discovered in 1905... or perhaps with the beginning of Quantum Mechanics... which was in the 1920s i.e. before my grandfather was born.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I think AG did a good job.

He basically derailed it from the start by claiming not to understand basic political and sociological concepts. The whole was basically ruined by feigning ignorance about basic marxist or marxist inspired concepts instead of debating them. I cant see how that is doing a good job.
 

No he didn't. He pointed out that they are pseudo-concepts. That's all.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I think AG did a good job.

He basically derailed it from the start by claiming not to understand basic political and sociological concepts. The whole was basically ruined by feigning ignorance about basic marxist or marxist inspired concepts instead of debating them. I cant see how that is doing a good job.
 

No he didn't. He pointed out that they are pseudo-concepts. That's all.

That they are "pseudo concepts" is an opinion and starting out claiming that you don't know what capitalism is whitout offering a decent argumentation as to why you dont recognize this basic concept was never going to get us anywhere productive.

If you start out debating terminology you almost never get anywhere remotely interesting. Its the great travesty of academic debate that so much time is wasted clarifying concepts and a major reason why its so often sterile.

Even practical concepts like "actual producers" were dismissed, as if a distinction between people who produce goods and services and those who monitor and administrate this process doesn't exist and apparently there is no "current economic model" in the world!

Any analysis of society that aspires to be scientific should use terms that are clearly identifiable and have specific meanings. "Capitalism" to my mind has neither of those things. I've already posted that Gunder Frank quote which pointed out that the idea of "Capitalism" in Marxism was based on a form of historical determinism in which Capitalism was one stage of historical development - up from Feudalism - that would eventually and inevitably lead to Communism. The history of the last 100 years should demonstrate the problem of this vision of historical stage theory meanwhile I should add many medievalists since the 1970s have rejected the concept of 'feudalism' as a meaningful term for describing the whole social totality of the middle ages.

In short, the Marxist metaphysics which underlaid Capitalism as a concept was wrong. If this debate seems sterile to you well that's because we are talking about ideas which effect how we run and operate the whole of society, that highly complex system of which we have little understanding. It would thus be to wrong to make our decisions on the basis of incorrect conceptual errors. Our concepts must be good. So to show the idea is meaningful the burden of proof imo is on you.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Also all this talk of "economic models" as social totalities (that Capitalism is not a just term which can describe a type of exchange or, perhaps more accurately, a type of economic relations but society as a whole) suggests that we could change easily out of 'Capitalism' if we wanted to? Ignoring the problem of identifying who 'we' are, how do we do this? Even if you take the idea of a transition between Feudalism and Capitalism seriously (and I don't) it took hundreds of years even well in the 20th century

[Tetro Kornbluth]

"Capitalism" to my mind has neither of those things. I've already posted that Gunder Frank quote which pointed out that the idea of "Capitalism" in Marxism was based on a form of historical determinism in which Capitalism was one stage of historical development - up from Feudalism - that would eventually and inevitably lead to Communism.

as an aside, this is more of a 'vulgar-Marxist' concept taken from a Stalinist catechism than anything else.  it is far from demonstrable that Marx ever argued along these lines, though he suggested them once or twice. 

Ok. Fair enough. I must go back to my Marx then but that thus raises two problems: 1) If Capitalism is a thing that is changeable (i.e. Is not a permanent condition of humanity but a development from human history) then surely it arose out of particular historical and intellectual conditions. If not the 'transition from Feudalism', then what? and 2) If the notions of Capitalism we are arguing about are descendent from the Catechisms of Stalinism, what does they say of our notions?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

"Capitalism" to my mind has neither of those things. I've already posted that Gunder Frank quote which pointed out that the idea of "Capitalism" in Marxism was based on a form of historical determinism in which Capitalism was one stage of historical development - up from Feudalism - that would eventually and inevitably lead to Communism.

as an aside, this is more of a 'vulgar-Marxist' concept taken from a Stalinist catechism than anything else.  it is far from demonstrable that Marx ever argued along these lines, though he suggested them once or twice.  

Ok. Fair enough. I must go back to my Marx then but that thus raises two problems: 1) If Capitalism is a thing that is changeable (i.e. Is not a permanent condition of humanity but a development from human history) then surely it arose out of particular historical and intellectual conditions. If not the 'transition from Feudalism', then what? and 2) If the notions of Capitalism we are arguing about are descendent from the Catechisms of Stalinism, what does they say of our notions?

to go even further, I don't believe Marx ever used the word 'capitalism', preferring instead more specific phrases like 'capitalist mode of production'.  I'm not sure how we even got started on this as if we look at my OP there is nothing particularly marxist about it, and I don't use specifically Marxian categories like surplus-value or exchange-value or etc.

My attack wasn't against Marx per se so much that Marxian-derived concept of 'Capitalism' that was referenced in the OP which wasn't particularly Marxist either.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

how is it Marxian derived?  it is not as if the use of word itself is limited to Marxists.  I freely admit that my natural interest in the left has led Marxism to have a disproportionate influence on my modes of thought, but has never before prevented with communication with others on a basic level.

No. Of course it's not limited to Marxists. That's the point. But the idea that 'modes of production' are a key historical structural of which is the current, existing one is referred to as 'Capitalism' is an idea with its origins in Marx (and Hegel too obviously, if you are talking about Historical structuralism).