Self-Sabotage of Capitalism

[Anonymous No.18172512]

Any more modern works on this theme of Schumpter?

QRD
>capitalism over time automates the role of the entrpreneur
>capitalist efficiency over time expropriates the bourgeoisie from their social & economic function and replaces their role with an administrative PMC of big business
>PMC function as a nomenklatura indistinguishable from a socialist state

[Anonymous No.18172526]

>>18172512
Check out 'Putting my head in the bin'

[Anonymous No.18172530]

Excerpts that flesh out the idea from 'Can Capitalism Survive?' Chapter 12; 'The Obsolescence of the Entrepreneurial Function':

The perfectly bureaucratised giant industrial unit not only ousts the small or medium-sized firm and "expropriates" its owners, but in the end it also ousts the entrepreneur and expropriates the bourgeoisie as a class which in the process stands to lose not only its income but also what is indefinitely more important, it's function.

The function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionise the pattern of production. To act with confidence beyond the range of familiar beacons and to overcome that resistance requires aptitudes that are present in only a small fraction of the population and that define the entrepreneurial type as well as the entraprenual function. This function does not essentially consist in either inventing anything or otherwise creating the conditions which the enterprise exploits. It consists in getting things done.

1/?

[Anonymous No.18172542]

>>18172530
This social function is already losing importance and bound to lose it at an accelerating rate in the future even if the economic progress itself of which entrepreneurship was the prime mover went on unabated. Innovation itself is being reduced to routine. Technological progress is increasingly becoming the business of teams of trained specialists who turn out what is required and make it work in predictable ways. The romance of the earlier commercial adventure is rapidly wearing away, because so many more things can be strictly calculated that had of old to be visualised in a flash of genius.

[Anonymous No.18172549]

>>18172542
Economic progress tends to become depersonalised and automatized. Bureau and committee work tends to replace individual action. If capitalist evolution—"progress"—either ceases or becomes completely automatic, the economic basis of the industrial bourgeoisie will be reduced to wages paid for current administrative work. His position, like that of the (Medieval) warrior class, is threatened as soon as this function in the social process loses its importance... those needs are being served by other, more impersonal, methods.

The true pacemakers of socialism are not the intellectuals or agitators who preached it but the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, and Rockerfellers.

[Anonymous No.18172570]

>>18172542
2/3
>>18172549
3/3

[Anonymous No.18172574]

Capitalism doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.18172583]

>>18172574
Isn't there a Buddhist general for you to post in?

[Anonymous No.18172613]

>>18172583
It doesn't. All the ideal systems can never be realized. What we have in the world is power and mere interpretations of power.

I'm 30 years old. I've seen people debate these systems for decades as they were being conquered. These discussions do noting but waste your energy.

We should instead talk about our values and what life means to us. If a nation is rooted in a healthy philosophy of life, strong values will thrive. If strong values thrive, then it doesn't matter what economic system is in place because people will be guided by their sense of right/wrong instead of mere material ends.

[Anonymous No.18172623]

>>18172512
Daniel Bell's The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism obviously

[Anonymous No.18172645]

>>18172623
ty, looks good. Any 21st Century recs?

[Anonymous No.18172670]

>>18172512
Capitalism isnt an "ideology" its human nature. Literally, capitalisms definition is "a 'system' in which most (or all) modes of production lie in private hands and goods circulate between private actors in an unhindered manner"

this isnt rocket science. this is literally human life 101. private actors exchanging goods with each other.

to say that "capitalism cant survive" is like saying that human nature cant survive. its absurd.

the only situation in which i see capitalism sort of dying out is when we, indeed, do REPLACE human nature with.. robot nature ;)

[Anonymous No.18172671]

>>18172613
Economic relations are social relations, they are extremely important fundamental social relations. Social relations are what society is, therefore the economic system plays a large role in determining the nature of a society and its values.

[Anonymous No.18172685]

>>18172670
This is your future

[Anonymous No.18172707]

>>18172670
Read the excerpts posted to see the flaws in your argument.
>>18172530
>>18172542
>>18172549

Capitalism destroys its own social basis of being by expropriating and replacing entrapreneurs with a professional managerial class of large businesses who in all but name function as a nomenklatura of socialist states that existed during the Cold War.

Schumpeter was an Austrian school economist and political anti-Marxist. His theory of creative destruction is taught as standard economic theory to this day.

[Anonymous No.18172715]

>>18172671
Economic systems co-evolve with cultural values.

In Africa, for example, many men are highly independent. In some places it's a taboo to take orders from another man.

We can observe societies and their economic systems and conclude that it is a fact that values fundamentally shape economic systems.

[Anonymous No.18172762]

>>18172715
Economic relations are a fundamental type of social relations that are determinative of values. The feudal knight is no longer the paragon of virtue because our economy is no longer based on agriculture and villeinage/serfdom-lord relations.

[Anonymous No.18172780]

>>18172762
Read your response a few times. This is the best way to realize how ridiculous your arguments are.

[Anonymous No.18172783]

>>18172707
Im from Poland. I know all there is to know about real life socialism and the way my country works right now in no way resembles the way it worked 50 years ago. The only sense I can find in this argument is that, true, the nomenklatura (the Party) did sort of operate like this one big corporation, with suits, boards, dynamics, etc. but the biggest difference is that we have.. many corporations. And not just 1 corporation ruling over us all.

Your (and these guys') argument would work if all big corporations nowadays secretly worked together but thats basically the NWO conspiracy theory - yikes.

[Anonymous No.18172784]

You forgot the second part anon.
>Can capitalism survive?
>Can socialism work?

[Anonymous No.18172790]

>>18172780
Why are you posting on this board?

[Anonymous No.18172831]

>>18172790
Why are you?

Anthropology provides clear evidence that a people's values shape their economic relations, not the other way around. It seems to me that when economic relations overcome cultural values, a society destroys itself by annihilating its self-myth.

[Anonymous No.18172872]

>>18172831
I don't see how studies of primitive Africans or Pacific Islanders are relevant to the European experience of feudalism and capitalism. Social values are inherently social because they only exist in the context of a relation. Economics is a form of social relations. Therefore economics determines social values.

[Anonymous No.18172896]

>>18172783
The argument is that smaller and medium business in time gets wiped out by the efficiencies of big business so that industries consolidate into the Amazons, Walmarts, etc. to dominate an economy, managed by a PMC, akin to a socialist economy.

[Anonymous No.18172905]

>>18172872
> Economics is a form of social relations. Therefore economics determines social values.
You are either a troll or the greatest midwit of all time.

[Anonymous No.18172920]

>>18172905
When and where is there a form of pre-economic man whose values are not determined, in part, by his economic relations? In what way are economic relations not social relations? In what way can a social value exist outside the context of a social relation? Utterly bizarre line of argument.

[Anonymous No.18173472]

>>18172613
Christianity already tried to better "values" 2000 years ago. It failed miserably, and today, the world has more jewish values than ever. Commodity, money, usury, trade.
You cannot change values for better values if the core of the mode of production is profit, which is a negative value.
The truth is, you have never read Marx, and don't know what it is about. So you compensate your lack of knowledge on the subject with subjective opinion.
> If a nation is rooted in a healthy philosophy of life, strong values will thrive.
If this nation has shit relationships of production, no matter his "values" are, live will be mediocre. You cannot have a class based society, and expect people to be good christians. Wake up lamb of God.

[Anonymous No.18173491]

>>18172715
>We can observe societies and their economic systems and conclude that it is a fact that values fundamentally shape economic systems.
It's exactly the opposite. The development of Capitalism led to the english and french revolution.
The development of industrial Capitalism led to the necessity of female work, and thus the feminist movement. etc... Historical materialism verifies itself in history.

[Anonymous No.18173518]

>>18172831
You do realize that the wage worker/ owner of the means of production duality, is, in fact, a social relation, don't you? How can this social relation have any "healthy philosophy of life" in itself? Protip: it can't. Because those two classes have antagonist interests. You cannot have "good values", "good morality", "healthy philisophy" if a society is fragmented into two antagonist blocks.

[Anonymous No.18173536]

(...)
Also money itself is a social relation. It is a universal mean of exchange, by which people collectively agree to exchange a particular amount of work, against something that contain an equivalent amount of work. Gold does this. It represent a quantity of human work. And exchanging this Gold, this crystalized human work, is a social relation.

[Anonymous No.18173558]

>>18172512
>capitalism over time automates the role of the entrpreneur
False. Entrepreneurship is extremely rare to begin with, and success is even more rare. Can't be automated.

>capitalist efficiency over time expropriates the bourgeoisie from their social & economic function and replaces their role with an administrative PMC of big business
False. However it is the case under corporatism, which is basically socializing all failures, while privatizing profit.

>PMC function as a nomenklatura indistinguishable from a socialist state
This is true. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest.

[Anonymous No.18173598]

BASE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE DETERMINE EACH OTHER YOU MIDWITS.


BASE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE DETERMINE EACH OTHER AND NEITHER IS THE SOLE DETERMINER OF THE DIRECTION OF SOCIETY.

READ A FUCKING BOOK

READ A FUCKING BOOK

[Anonymous No.18173633]

>>18173558
>False. Entrepreneurship is extremely rare to begin with, and success is even more rare. Can't be automated.
He didn't mean entrepreneur, as genius inventor/investor. Probably more like factory manager.
>However it is the case under corporatism, which is basically socializing all failures, while privatizing profit.
Even if the corporatism hypothesis, as a new mode of production, which is distinct from Captialism, is true, which it isn't, since what we have today still is the basic wikipedia definition of Capitalism, we won't go back. Because modes of production don't go backward, and if corporatism is the most efficient mode of production to this day, corporatism will be kept as the default mode of production.
>Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest.
If there is different classes, it is not communism.

[Anonymous No.18173637]

>>18173598
Did you miss the bottom assertion, "the base is generally dominant"?
In any case, if you went this far to post this, you are saved.

[Anonymous No.18173656]

>>18173598

>asserting marxist BS as fact

This is where we're at I guess
NGMI

[Anonymous No.18173675]

>>18172670
this "human nature" sure seems unstable

[Anonymous No.18173707]

>>18172670
>human nature is 400 years old

[Anonymous No.18173713]

>>18172574
Based.

[Anonymous No.18173722]

>>18172783
Look up "interlocking directorate" -- there is more than one Big Corp sure but mostly the big boys are all interrelated and interdependent and 'on the same page'.

[Anonymous No.18173723]

>>18172670
>Capitalism isnt an "ideology" its human nature

[Anonymous No.18173759]

>>18172670
Pure ideology.

[Anonymous No.18173804]

meh the problem with Capitalism is that's it's jsut hedonism with a coat of self delusion about humanism.
Those people have turned humanism into narcissism. So when you add this '''ethical'''part to hedonism, just get cognitive dissonance, privileging only women. Because only women can naturally handle neuroticism. That's right a vagina is a neurotic by birth and they are the only living creature with this feature. A man cannot be neurotic without being driven towards suicide.

Now the big picture problem with the secular democracy is that the fantasy of the hedonists is that hedonists will hug each other once all their desires are met.
This is why marxism is materialism, ie reducing everything to material conditions and money, and why they push for more and more cheap goods.

hedonists get acclimated to their current situation, but they need more and more pleasures and less and less hardship to feel happy, otherwise they get depressed.

This is why atheists (who are hedonists) confuse happiness with having free stuff, free goods and services.
According to marxists, people are happy only they have the material conditions for it.

Liberals define freedom and happiness with an opulence of goods, an orgy of sense pleasures and they call this progress.

Okay, but since hedonists need bigger and bigger breakthrough to ease their life, they get depressed when those breakthroughs do not happen, like it has been the case since the 80s.
They freak out when there is a recession and they whine that progress stagnates.

For 2 centuries atheists could hype their human rights has progress and the right side of history, because human rights is just giving people more and more of an easy life.
However it is never enough.

[Anonymous No.18173826]

>>18173598
Why, yes, I will read a book.

Whoops, looks like Marx was wrong.

[Anonymous No.18174329]

>>18173675
Human nature changes with history. We have a different human nature now in hipster manhattan than in feudalism or antique sparta. ;s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_human_nature

[Anonymous No.18174375]

>>18173723
Actually it's neither. There is no real human nature. Human nature is different with different levels of production.
It's not either an ideology, since the level of development of productive forces determines the level of trade and consumption, which determines civil society, which determines the political state.
Capitalism is a mode of production.

[Anonymous No.18174396]

>>18173804
Yes, and? What is to be done? Go to Church? Pray God after my working day?

[Anonymous No.18174796]

It's the economists pretend to be smart thread! If you were smart, you'd be accountant or rocket scientist. Your whole profession is Hegel teir crap. Go shit up biz.