Is Capitalism In Crisis? Author of 'Karl Marx's Capital and The Present' Responds

[@dylan9966]

If anyone is looking to try and read Marx, take a look at... 1. Estranged Labor 2. Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy 3. The German Ideology (A - D) 4. Critique of the Gotha Program

[@Reality4Peace]

Most people start with the Communist Manifesto and either get put off by it, or never advance past it, leaving their understanding of Marx's contribution to history distorted.

[@dylan9966]

Yeah, I wouldn't even recommend the Manifesto as a starting point at all honestly. You have to put it in a context that you'd only gain after a basic understanding of Marx (i.e. bourgeoise does not mean the rich, etc). The "ten planks" no longer apply either, so that makes it a little confusing.

[@brianbooker8736]

I just ordered Mr. Chandrasekhar’s book and I will read it along with Bill Black’s book. I’ve been trying to get a Macro/Micro perspective of our predicament with the last couple of books I’ve read, right now I’m finishing up “Democracy in Chains” and David Harvey’s latest book. This interview was awesome and the videos TRNN been putting out are unbelievable. Capitalism is beyond crisis mode, it is headed for full blown collapse. Your guest says that finance can sustain Capitalism if the currency is stable but the US Dollar isn’t. Bretton Woods should have adopted Keynes recommendations especially his recommendation on the reserve currency being a basket of currencies. The Petro-Yuan is destabilizing the Petro-Dollar and with the US putting sanctions on oil producing nations and aggressively challenging China the destabilization will get worse. Marx got it right on everything and his only shortcoming was that Capitalism hadn’t been in existence long enough for him to get a complete understanding of its true nature. Marx knew that Capitalism was unstable and created short sine waves of instability that happened every 5 to 10 years because of the growth and contraction contradictions. It appears he knew that over a period of time these short waves would lead to Capitalism in crisis but he didn’t have the data that Paul Mason and Nikolai Kondratieff has about instability. This data shows that Capitalism also has long sine wave periods of instability that happen every 40 to 60 years. This forces Capitalism to drastically reshape its appearance as it did in the 1920’s and the 1970's. I believe there is another even longer sine wave of instability that happens at the 240 to 260 year mark that causes Capitalism to collapse completely and that is what is happening now. We have the technology to get rid of Capitalism, the market place and the need for currency. We have the technology to create a post carbon world and we’re going to have to start using that technology. The Arctic is melting and what we are witnessing with the jet stream is a result of that melting. We have jet stream ridges that are staying in one spot for weeks at a time creating a high pressure dome of heat. Our old way of doing things means chaos in these types of conditions. We’re blaming Russia and China for everything bad that happens to us now but what does our power grid really look like, did we replace the surge protectors that caused the 2003 blackout, are our peaker unit’s state of the art, are our black start procedures up to date and are there up to date hard copy black start procedures in case we can’t access information on computers. It’s hard to predict how complex systems will behave but the trajectory we are on doesn’t look good. With Trump in the WH it appears that Capitalism is dealing with its internal contradictions the way it always does, create reactionary counter measures to the crisis that insures Capitalism's eventual collapse.

[@susanraezer1590]

For capitalism to work, it needs to be restrained by the government.

[@philgwellington6036]

Thank you Lynn, and team. Good presentation.

[@chycho]

Nice interview. Thank you.

[@rev.stephena.cakouros948]

From Handbook for American Conservatives [Amazon] “The rate of failure of Socialism stands firmly at one hundred percent.”

[@StJames37]

BS: the nordic countries are repeatedly rated as the best/happiest places to live. They are all heavily (democratic) socialist. I'm Canadian and would never wish to live in the US - let alone even vacation there.

[@tibne2412]

Except for social democracy, coops of large and small sizes from organisations like Monsanto down to small cafes found in most cities, to all the big capitalist companies which basically use Leninist central planning without the social element.

[@aleaiactaest8354]

Great guest. Very educative.

[@liam314]

Excellent discussion

[@AlexCab_49]

Why are there people saying "not real capitalism" if that WAS capitalism! others even calling it "authoritarian socialism" in the comments which is laughable.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Because it's part of the ideological doctrine of the US Far Right, what is called there "libertarianism". In Europe we'd say ultra-liberals but in the USA "liberal" means "social-democrat" or "social-liberal" because terms like "socialist", let alone "communist" were effectively banned by means of political persecution in the Red Scare and the Witch Hunt, so lefties became "liberals" and real liberals lost their reference, so they became anarcho-capitalists, if such thing is possible, i.e. "libertarians". However their love for liberty is only about free exploitation (ideologically "free market", "true capitalism", in reality Thatcherite Fascism, Pinochetism).

[@puti2147]

Financial Burden in a Financially Capitalized Economy is unsustainable as it does not lead to Productive Capitalism. Ultimately an Economy based on Financial Capitalism which is entirely service based cannot sustain an economy no matter how much Financial input one may infuse in to it. However only a Productive Capitalistic & Income Equality based Economy can bring about balanced & Sustainable Economies going forward.

[@susanraezer1590]

Surud Patel Yes with no product to sell, you cannot sustain a country.

[@rallypojken]

Thanks!

[@williamolsen20]

When you look at FDR pushing back at capitalism in order to save it, is troubling. Capitalism pushed back, and has succeeded in accumulating more wealth and power. Now we have more income inequality since the gilded age. Greed seems to overcome any of these major players in the capitalist system, and then the working class suffers because of it.

[@BigBennKlingon]

This guy is on the money. Capitalism's highly regulated "golden age" inevitably gave way to liberalization and the growth of financial capital (fictional or otherwise). Social democracy cannot overcome the "anarchy" of capitalism and is a dead end for the working class.

[@marciukspuks5353]

that is simply not correct. what gave way to neoliberals like milton friedman was establishment's misunderstanding of the 70s stagflation and opportunism.nothing more.

[@BigBennKlingon]

The failure of capitalism's welfare state was not a result of ideology. Capitalism's inherent contradictions simply could not be overcome by Keynesianism. It failed. There are no solutions to be found within capitalism. It must be replaced.

[@marciukspuks5353]

"inherent contradictions" is just an empty slogan. what specific contradictions cannot be overcome exactly?

[@LuisAldamiz]

@PissedFechtmeister: no, the 1945-1971 golden age of Capitalism had no significant recessions, it was extremely stable and had almost full employment by design. Why? They had to compete with the USSR. All that changed with the advent of Toyotism and the great failure of the Bolshehvik system to adapt to it, which was most clearly expressed in the night of my birth: 20-21 August 1968, when the Warsaw Pact brutally quelled any attempt to make Democratic Socialism and thus adapt to Toyotization. That gave Pinochet, Thatcher and Reagan a blank cheque to do as they wanted because the alternative had been destroyed from the inside.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@PissedFetchmeister: you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. The "welfare state" (New Deal and similar stuff) was introduced precisely because there was huge poverty, aggravated by the 1929 great crisis, which risked socialist revolution all around. That and some other planned state intervention (including major cesions of around 10% GDP to the working class) solved the problem of poverty, unemployment, etc. but at a cost: inflation. Thatcher and Reagan did not end with inflation, they just transposed it to the credit bubble, they privatized it.

[@MasterOfSparks]

Chandrasekhar fails to mention one vitally important detail. During the "golden age of capitalism" the rich were taxed at such a high rate that they were forced to defer their gains by growing business enterprises by creating jobs and investing in infrastructure. Had they simply put the money in their pockets (as they do under low taxes) the government would have taken it away from them. This gives the gov't money to spend on things like the National Highway System and NASA which creates more jobs. To hear capitalists tell it you would think the gov't burns the money it gets in taxes. Actually it keeps the money circulating. Without high taxes the rich Hoard the wealth among themselves at the expense of everyone else. Another problem under capitalism is that the rich increase their own wealth by keeping wages down. They do everything they can to get more work for less money. Whether that means using machines and cheap foreign labor or making employees work off the clock. Or by any other means they can find to keep wages down. The rich forget that the laborers are, collectively, also their customer base. Without money to spend they cannot consume. Credit can help to a point. But there is a limit to that and your customers end up with debt and must pay off previous consumption before consuming anything new. So again we come to a halt. The bottom line here is that consumption is the force that drives the economy. Having mentioned none of that I'd give the speaker a C minus. But he has one additional failing when he claims that taking public assets like land and turning it over to the private sector creates new wealth. Actually all it does is transfer wealth held by the many into the hands of the few. A families trip to a national park becomes a billionaire's private view. So I'm forced to give this clown an F.

[@MasterOfSparks]

PF turn on one of those classic auto auction or collectables auction TV shows. Or look at the prices stocks are getting. You'll see them running up prices on things FAR beyond the prices they should be. Why? Because they have to put their money some place. They've got too damned much of it. And they fucked everyone else to get it. They will lay off workers and ship jobs out of the country. Actually gut a thriving business for pocket cash. And all that money just floats at the top where it does the economy no real good at all. Half of what Jeff Bezos (Amazon) has would literally end world hunger and not impact his lifestyle even slightly. In order to have a "real" economy the masses have to be able to consume things. And actually there's only $1.63 Trillion in actual cash total. Most money is electronic score cards. So probably no swimming pool. But here's a link to a $2 Million teddy bear and a $5 Million model car. www.worldstopmost.com/2017-2018-2019-2020/products/most-expensive-toys-world-top-10-cheapest-best-selling-list/

[@MasterOfSparks]

E Lectricity There are two basic narratives. The first came about long around the Great Depression and WW II. It says that the rich are parasites. That we need unions so that workers get fair wages and decent treatment. The other came with Reagan. It said that the unions were bad and that if left untaxed the rich would grow a stronger economy for us all. They are both generational outlooks. The "Greatest Generation" that overcame the Great Depression, defeated Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito, built the National Highway System and the strongest middle class the world has ever known, put a dozen men on the moon and so much more also elected the most liberal President in US history, FDR, FOUR TIMES. The generation that voted for Reagan twice can't even fix the roads or put their own grandchildren through elementary school. Now you have to choose which of those narratives you're going to support. But before you do go watch an episode of "All In The Family". In the 1970's Archie Bunker had a job on a loading dock. With that he was able to pay off his house in New York City while his wife stayed home. He put his daughter and her husband through college without acquiring debt. And he retired with enough savings to buy a bar "Archie Bunker's Place". So if you prefer the economy that we have now after 40 years of Reaganomics then keep supporting that narrative. But if you'd rather have the quality of life that we had 40 years ago then support the narrative that produced that lifestyle. Personally I think you, and many others, bought a line of bullshit. And history refers to the reason that you all did as "the Southern Strategy". You might want to look that up.

[@MasterOfSparks]

PF because auctioneers know the market value for what they are offering. They say this should sell for around X dollars. Then when the auction is over they're like, "That's a much higher price than we expected." So I ask myself why did it sell for so much. Well when Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet have as much wealth between them as the lower half of the US population money becomes less of a lifestyle enabler as it is a way of keeping score in an insane game. And things are going to get a lot crazier. Americans are being led to an economic slaughter. Check this out: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fZmlmYOjoqZli7c

[@MasterOfSparks]

PF They know what the sales prices have been for similar items in the recent past. For example if 5 similar style houses in a particular neighborhood with similar features have sold for $350K in the last 6 months and now you have one sell for over $1M something unusual has just happened. Particularly if other nearly identical houses are available in the normal price range. According to wikipedia one of the factors in the subjective theory of value is "the law of diminishing returns". That applies to too few people having too much money. And that is exactly what I'm talking about. We have foolishly enacted laws that allow one class of people to accumulate far more wealth than they need (to where the money looses its perceived value) while depriving others of basic necessities of life. Those in the fortuitous group tend to become arrogant. This has sometimes been cured in history by the implementation of short pieces of rope and sharp objects.

[@bikegatar.820]

Excellent choice, NR. The link is Thom Hartmann's interview with Nancy McClean, author of the must-read book "Democracy in Chains:The deep history of the radical right's stealth plan for America". This is an absolutely crucial book to read.

[@stephenyount3148]

#WALKAWAY

[@MrDXRamirez]

Striking difference in the way Marx himself treated economic categories and the way modern economist treat them. You get no sense from the modern economists of the real production relations behind the categories they use and the language is dry. Lawyers and academic economists really know how to pollute the english language. It doesn't matter what they call themselves or what theoretical stance they have the terminology lacks context, meaning, significance. The word "asset" is generally defined as a useful thing, in economics it means a 'monetary value', in business school it means property or equipment bought for business use. Marx leaves all that behind and looks at what people do in society as a common routine action, they work and they trade property, i.e., what they make, simply, they produce, use and exchange, and here he begins to look at the form of production and circulation in its present reality. If someone is useful their labor becomes a value because it has not value in society. An individual feels their self worth when they are producing value. Their work is the property of another and they are surrounded by the property of others. Real production relations take the form of a commodity. Everyone's work is equal to each others work in every private transaction is the first problem with capitalist relations encountered. Their differences vanish, I think this is a key cause for much worker dissatisfaction with the corporate world. That products of all kinds of labor are equally values and appear as a quantity of value of the products of labor, and from this, you get a society of laws, institutions and classes built around the products of labor and not the people who make the material world of products. In the bourgeois world, academic social science is no friend to labor. Workers will have to read Marx themselves when they decide to overthrow the bourgeois order.

[@MrDXRamirez]

You know, when I read comments that bear an opinion on a subject without explaining the subject they opine about, I suspect the opinion maker does not know what they are talking about! I take you to be a romantic not a historical scholar if a restoration of artisanship would fit perfectly in this late stage of capitalism by your opinion. Law of value is, (A=B= TL), calculus, there is nothing foolish in the use of a formula to demonstrate the concept of value arising from two things equal to each other in exchange, a private transaction expresses a value-relation to the total labor of society. The problem then becomes if two equal things exchange how does one party in the transaction get rich and the other party poorer. I wouldn't call Newton foolish for discovering the law of gravity, here you are, calling Marx foolish for using the same calculus as Newton...to explain to us the operations of the economy are not abstract but very real, just not perceptible to the naked eye.

[@bikegatar.820]

Who is it who you are claiming "debunked' the labor theory of value?

[@Reality4Peace]

Great comment. Marx was a philosopher who in the process of trying to prove his philosophy, became an amazing economist and interpreter of human behaviour in general.

[@bikegatar.820]

These two authors you cited are adherents of the Austrian School, which is akin to the monetarist school (think Chicago Boys and acolytes like Milton Friedman), whose ideas are destroying society for private profit. The Austrian School is ably and amply refuted by economists such as Michael Hudson. Read his book The Bubble and Beyond or find his videos here on youtube. There are *many* other scholars who debunk the Austrian School and the Chicago School.

[@bikegatar.820]

YOUR argument is not a counter-argument. You're the one who invoked the two major SAINTS of the Austrian School. You admit that the Austrian School may be wrong. The Austrian School maintains that the LTV is invalid. This so-called "debunking" by the Austrian School is laughable. It doesn't even pass the laugh test for simple economic reality. In place of the LTV, the Austrian School posits what they call the "Subjective Theory of Value". The Subjective Theory of Value is a chimera that is used by the rich class to justify their pillage of the remaining 99%.

[@frybucket]

Try to see how governments around the world interfere with people going about their daily business. Think about how you are hampered by the government everyday? And don’t just say that roads and regulations help you if you think clearly about them you will see what the proliferation of roads and rules has done to destroy the environment and eat up peoples resources and time.

[@snoopy_peanuts_77]

she reminds me of the lady from the Blacklist :) ....sorry sidebar

[@ankersman]

Oh, can't get the text in Kindle and print is out of stock. Typical bourgeoisie stitch-up engineered for hype & maximum profit.

[@AntonioGarmsci-cy5vt]

Why use the word Anarchy when you speak of capitalism? Is it a kin to the red baiting from the past?

[@LuisAldamiz]

Read Bakunin and you'll learn something about what "anarchy" meant for him, what is much closer to the common use of the word and quite distant of its use by self-proclaimed "anarchists". For the Russian Revolutionary Socialist (that was his self-labelling), anarchists were the followers of Proudhom, whom he despised, and anarchy had a positive meaning only in the sense of chaotic situation that opens a door for revolution, this much type of "anarchy" he favored or at least he expected with some hope, but never as goal but as necessarily harmful road to be walked.

[@frybucket]

Corporations are government created and protected entities. Look at the Citizens United decision. Articles of incorporation are issued by government. Patents, copyright, tradmark, in fact, the Fed, which keeps interest rates artificially low helps business. Not to mention, subsidies, business loans, foreign aid. It also limits the liabilities of individuals within a corporation. So if they do something that really damages another person they are protected from prosecution by the government. Jeez, what were the bailouts and QE about but the government protecting business from its own mistakes?

[@SuperNhodge]

Please stop calling this obvious authoritarian socialism as capitalism call it what it actually is.

[@LinLinvy]

lol what? so US is socialism? LOL comrades we have won, no need to do revolution anymore.

[@SuperNhodge]

If you like a socialism that uses your tax dollars to prop up big banks and failed businesses like GM then yeah no revolution needed. Socialism is an economic system that puts government in charge of industry there are many ways for government to do this but the one in america has always been an authoritarian version that puts the industries that crush workers promote poverty and concentrate wealth and power into fewer hands. Very similar to the version instituted in russia and china.

[@LinLinvy]

Ilfart 218 What????? Socialism is workers ownership of the mean of production. It is not "Socialism is when government does stuff" Damn you don't even know what you're talking about.

[@SuperNhodge]

Private ownership by a group of private citizens is still private ownership. Just like a plurality of private people owning a corporation(mostly what we have with our current system) as opposed to the roads bridges and sewers(which are owned and run by the government) is socialism. Don't get me wrong I like socialism just fine but not our current brand of socialism.

Yes, but communism or socialism are not the answer. #NLRBE

[@E.lectricityNorth]

There is no such thing as capitalism, other than the crony kind--which is in fact corporate welfare, IE where small groups of people control large parts of the economy by purchasing politicians in order to write laws that benefit themselves. If there ever was a time when capitalism existed, it was long, long ago. Capitalism implies that there is a free market, wherein two parties may conduct business freely, without the yoke of state or state religion dictating the terms and collecting middleman fees, or taxes. When has that ever occurred? Not even TRNN is a free market. Its ideologies are disseminated at the whim of its largest donors, who happen to be anti-white racists aiming to remove those of European stock from this world.

[@susanraezer1590]

E. Lectricity Nicely said.

[@aaronwriterguy]

There's no such thing as "true" capitalism. Capitalism inevitably becomes corporatism in the real world. Turns out capitalists don't really like competition, preferring monopoly instead. Also, they are perfectly fine with government handouts, bailouts, no-bid contracts, you name it, etc. The truth is that Capitalism depends upon government support in order to survive.

[@lutherblissett9070]

Capitalism does not imply there is a "free market", even the term "free market" is misunderstood. It originally meant a market free from rentiers, not regulations, taxes, or govt.

[@CancerousZit]

You mean, "Is Corporatism in crisis?" I do not think we have had true capitalism in a long, long-time.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodla2091]

CancerousZit Communism is a fools dream

[@MrCrashDavi]

Capitalism has never been tried.

[@blowme1048]

I don't think any pure system has ever existed or will they have and will always deviate to some degree.

[@unknowndevice007]

*Bazelgeuse* If it's so, then Capitalism is a maniacs' reality

[@rafaelpena4269]

CrashDavi..Huh?

[@frybucket]

Capitalism is never in crisis. It is government that causes crisis. It always has and it always will. The Great Depression was lengthened and intensified by New Deal Policies. Those policies continue to haunt us today in heath care, food production and wage controls.

[@FFUDS]

Anthony Lima, you're sure that the New Deal didn't get America out of the Great Depression?

[@LinLinvy]

Nope, the government is the one that stop the crises over and over again. You think capitalist corporation can survive without bailout from the government? Anarcho-capitalism would lead to megacorporations with 0 care of human live, it is a hell on earth

[@frybucket]

Corporations are part of the government. So... of course they wouldn’t survive without government. Good riddance to them as well.

[@frybucket]

In what aspect of the depression did the government end it? In terms of the human condition thousands of men were thrown into a meat grinder. Millions died including 400,000 Americans. Now isn’t that depressing? It only ended the depression after it lifted price controls and let The US people help rebuild europe and Japan.

[@LinLinvy]

Anthony Lima corporation is part of government ? Wtf.... So how do you think capitalism should exists? No capitalist would or could stay as "mom and pop shop" forever, they gonna evolve into something bigger when they are successful enough and that's it to be a corporation

[@rallypojken]

Thanks!