Has capitalism become the only ideology?

[Andy the Don]

Is it now so enshrined within the psyche of people that they can see no alternative?

No, look at the surveys of the public regarding rail ownership, most want re-nationalisation. The public know that the private sector is not the panacea it was supposed to be. They are seeing increase prices, reduced service & greed from those at the top. People are realising that there has been a massive transfer of wealth & assets from the public to the private sectors. The railways being a prime example, government subsidy's to private rail companies are far higher than they were to public BR. Together with the cascade failure of the financial system & its, seen proved failure of self regulation. I think that people are going to be more receptive to a left of centre political message. But knowing the far they will storm in get all shouty-shouty finger pointy & scare the horses.

 

[Belushi]

feminist vegan anarchist future.

That sound slike hell on earth

 

[JHE]

What does 189-1991 refer to?

Surely you know that the putatively socialist regimes of eastern Europe were overthrown in 1989 and that the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Any time I raise the idea of socialism IRL with people I have to fight past the inevitable and valid criticisms of Stalinist totalitarian socialism

Yes, I'm sure you do (have to try to).

When Stalinism fell there were naive socialists, inc me, who thought that, with those dictatorships out of the way, the peoples of eastern Europe would opt for a democratic socialism and that socialism would take on a new lease of life in other countries as a result. We were utterly mistaken. In practice, socialism was discredited both by the grim nature of those regimes and by their fall and subsequent capitalist restoration.

 

[DotCommunist]

Surely you know that the putatively socialist regimes of eastern Europe were overthrown in 1989 and that the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.




Yes, I'm sure you do (have to try to).

When Stalinism fell there were naive socialists, inc me, who thought that, with those dictatorships out of the way, the peoples of eastern Europe would opt for a democratic socialism and that socialism would take on a new lease of life in other countries as a result. We were utterly mistaken. In practice, socialism was discredited both by the grim nature of those regimes and by their fall and subsequent capitalist restoration.

I thought that was it, but wasn't sure.

Socialism? from what I can see it isn't something to be defined by the totalitarian regimes which claimed the term. Stalinism was discredited. The resulting regimes were discredited. The corpse of the USSR was and is rotting, being picked clean by the gangsters.
But socialism isn't defined by a disaster interpretation of it

 

[shagnasty]

The news as stories everday of how big buisness interests has the ear and the financing of the major parties, and the man in the street feels left out of this equation wether this will cause the common man to rebel i don,t know .but to hope for change whithin the system is forlorn .you would expect now that nu labour can,t raise money from the wealthy and needs the union money to survive that the union leaders would fight for the man on the street but no they don,t even reflect the views of their members

 

[ViolentPanda]

Is it now so enshrined within the psyche of people that they can see no alternative?

It depends on how you're choosing to define "capitalism".

 

[exosculate]

We live in a mixed economy, massive intervention from the state. Capitalism only exists in a partial form - and this has been the case for a long time.

This isn't the Victorian era you know!

 

[JHE]

I thought that was it, but wasn't sure.

Socialism? from what I can see it isn't something to be defined by the totalitarian regimes which claimed the term. Stalinism was discredited. The resulting regimes were discredited. The corpse of the USSR was and is rotting, being picked clean by the gangsters.
But socialism isn't defined by a disaster interpretation of it

But:

1) You have noticed that, despite your wishes, socialism is associated with those regimes in many people's minds.

2) Declaring that socialism and Stalinism are very different things only serves to convince that your version of socialism would be different (in your estimation, at least). It does not provide a plausible model of a different, better, feasible socialism - the sort you want. Until you have such a model - at least in communicable theory - you will not win people to socialism in significant numbers. Without winning people to socialism in large numbers, you will never have socialism.


You seem to be one of those socialists who cannot see that we have a big problem of not having a believable model of socialism to 'sell'. Are you?

 

[elbows]

Well the current way of doing things has delivered enough results for enough people for long enough, to make it a big winner in the minds of many, and to go largely unchallenged. If we are entering an era where standards of living drop at an increasing rate, unemployment rises, and where any more capitalistic hollowing out of infrastructure & public service becomes too painful to bear, then things will change.

Im not sure how long it would take, as people will likely first seek change by voting for party with similar ideology. But if the economic crisis is prolonged, then eventually patience will run out, faith will be lost in all of the ideologies that are strong today.

Although Im not really sure how strong any institutions and ideologies are today. In some ways this is an age of disbelief, and a 'national cynicism party' might do rather well. Unfortunately we are not likely to see an upfront cynical party, but one which uses peoples cynicism and distrust of mainstream politics, ideologies, and lack of economic understanding, as a mask for some hideous fascism or other horror ideology.

Even if the state & existing parties are not threatened by a new current of political thought, there are multiple pressures which make them likely to use more authoritarianism and central control in future. Certain powerful illusions may be difficult to maintain, and may require a shift in ideology.

Then there is all the stuff about how much more individualistic we have become over recent decades. All sorts of crises or change in economic structure may render such luxuries obsolete quite quickly, and I would assume humankind still has the potential to be 'social' in times of prolonged and serious crisis, far more than in times of plenty.

There is also the view that the future will be about even more transparent corporatism, where nation states power diminishes to the point that physical force becomes a legitimate function of corporations, rather than being handled at the state level. Im not really sure corporatism will get that far, I see no signs that peoples national identity has been eroded to the point that they are likely to have more brand loyalty than sense of nation.

I guess we'll find out over the next couple of decades, Im not looking forward to it.

 

[elbows]

Well the current way of doing things has delivered enough results for enough people for long enough, to make it a big winner in the minds of many, and to go largely unchallenged. If we are entering an era where standards of living drop at an increasing rate, unemployment rises, and where any more capitalistic hollowing out of infrastructure & public service becomes too painful to bear, then things will change.

Im not sure how long it would take, as people will likely first seek change by voting for party with similar ideology. But if the economic crisis is prolonged, then eventually patience will run out, faith will be lost in all of the ideologies that are strong today.

Although Im not really sure how strong any institutions and ideologies are today. In some ways this is an age of disbelief, and a 'national cynicism party' might do rather well. Unfortunately we are not likely to see an upfront cynical party, but one which uses peoples cynicism and distrust of mainstream politics, ideologies, and lack of economic understanding, as a mask for some hideous fascism or other horror ideology.

Even if the state & existing parties are not threatened by a new current of political thought, there are multiple pressures which make them likely to use more authoritarianism and central control in future. Certain powerful illusions may be difficult to maintain, and may require a shift in ideology.

Then there is all the stuff about how much more individualistic we have become over recent decades. All sorts of crises or change in economic structure may render such luxuries obsolete quite quickly, and I would assume humankind still has the potential to be 'social' in times of prolonged and serious crisis, far more than in times of plenty.

There is also the view that the future will be about even more transparent corporatism, where nation states power diminishes to the point that physical force becomes a legitimate function of corporations, rather than being handled at the state level. Im not really sure corporatism will get that far, I see no signs that peoples national identity has been eroded to the point that they are likely to have more brand loyalty than sense of nation.

I guess we'll find out over the next couple of decades, Im not looking forward to it. Al change is inevitable, and is to be welcomed as a sign we are alive, but I worry about where poisonous ideas of the current era will lead us in times of huge crisis. Hopefully humans communicating on the net can play a small part in injecting sanity into the mindset, we need all the help we can get.

 

[butchersapron]

It depends on how you're choosing to define "capitalism".

Indeed, and almost as importantly, 'ideology'.

 

[butchersapron]

We live in a mixed economy, massive intervention from the state. Capitalism only exists in a partial form - and this has been the case for a long time.

This isn't the Victorian era you know!

State intervention is (generally) pro-capitalist. The mixed economy is a horrible cold-war conceptual model as well, there are very few non-capitalist state sectors today - if any. And, of course, the idea that a bureaucratically ran top-down alternative sector is any better than 'normal' capitalism or offers an alternative stratgey doesn't come out looking to healthy when laced against the last 60 years. Today the state and capital are joined irreversibly at the hip, mutually supporting and re-inforcing each other. They've known that for decades - see the period following the new deal esp for some particularly clear expression of this understanding.

 

[sleaterkinney]

The disillusion with socialist ideas comes with a general small c return to conservative ideas. It'll change.

What do you mean by small c return to conservative ideas?. I'm not sure the disillusion with socialist ideas comes down to that.

 

[toblerone3]

But the economic system as it stands now is unsustainable in environmental terms. On quite a fundamental level growth-oriented capitalism is wedded to the destruction of the environment. If there isn't an alternative to capitalism, one will have to be invented.

 

[sleaterkinney]

But the economic system as it stands now is unsustainable in environmental terms. On quite a fundamental level growth-oriented capitalism is wedded to the destruction of the environment. If there isn't an alternative to capitalism, one will have to be invented.

Everything bar primitivism uses up resources

 

[dennisr]

Socialists have the problem of persuading people that the dread hand of multinational corporations are fast becoming more powerful than governments.

I'm sure that 10-20 years down the line a proportion of Citizens TM might start to look fondly on socialist ideas. These things ebb and flow. The disillusion with socialist ideas comes with a general small c return to conservative ideas. It'll change.

I think more and more people - rather than less - accept the idea that huge multinationals and banking institutions have increasing power over their lives. They do that without blinking an eye. There is less illusion in the 'system' but also - at this moment a lack of a visible alternative to it. They experience fuel price rises, food price rises, energy price rises, credit crunches, environmental concerns etc. They don't automatically consider themselves socialists as a result though because socialist ideas are not that visible. There is not major platform for them.

I think the collapse of socialist ideas with a small 's' is linked to the collapse of the social democratic - reformist - project in the wake of the final collapse of the stalinist states. The labour and other social democratic parties have led the way in becoming the new neo-liberal, 'there is no alternative' parties.

As the concrete effects of neo-liberal policies impinge more and more on peoples individual lives more and more folk will inevitably start saying 'well, this is not alternative at all for most of us' - and start looking for other alternatives to what all establishment parties offer. That includes voting and supporting all sorts of extremes - left and right as they go through a process of looking for some alternative.

 

[soulman]

It depends on how you're choosing to define "capitalism".

Ok I've nicked bits of this from Wiki but it's how I see capitalism and ideology:

1.Capitalism is a specific mode of production (the way in which the productive property is owned and controlled, combined with the corresponding social relations between individuals based on their connection with the process of production) in which capital has become the dominant mode of production.

2.Ideology is the collection of ideas that give shape to the society created by the mode of production. Shapes the institutions etc.

So
1. is the base
2. is the superstructure

So what I'm saying is has capitalist ideology gone beyond being the dominant ideology to becoming the only ideology, the only alternative for people.

 

[exosculate]

Ok I've nicked bits of this from Wiki but it's how I see capitalism and ideology:

1.Capitalism is a specific mode of production (the way in which the productive property is owned and controlled, combined with the corresponding social relations between individuals based on their connection with the process of production) in which capital has become the dominant mode of production.

2.Ideology is the collection of ideas that give shape to the society created by the mode of production. Shapes the institutions etc.

So
1. is the base
2. is the superstructure

So what I'm saying is has capitalist ideology gone beyond being the dominant ideology to becoming the only ideology, the only alternative for people.

Is this the equivalent of asking a Roman if slavery is the only way, or a serf that feudalism is? etc etc and so forth. Clearly preposterous in a historical context, no?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Indeed, and almost as importantly, 'ideology'.

True. For instance, I do get the feeling that the word "ideology" is often used interchangeably with "belief".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ok I've nicked bits of this from Wiki but it's how I see capitalism and ideology:

1.Capitalism is a specific mode of production (the way in which the productive property is owned and controlled, combined with the corresponding social relations between individuals based on their connection with the process of production) in which capital has become the dominant mode of production.

2.Ideology is the collection of ideas that give shape to the society created by the mode of production. Shapes the institutions etc.

So
1. is the base
2. is the superstructure

So what I'm saying is has capitalist ideology gone beyond being the dominant ideology to becoming the only ideology, the only alternative for people.

Or, rather than "alternative", the only "option".

My own take is that "capitalism", as defined above, is indeed perceived as the only option available to individual economic actors, but that this perception is very much rooted in an ongoing system of informal indoctrination (through education, by example, through media representation etc) that presents people with little choice but to participate in a society based around consumption (the ideological component).
There are, of course, alternatives, but by their very nature these tend to be based on a conscious refusal to participate in "mainstream" society, and therefore don't suit the needs and desires of many people.
It's possible (though not probable unless governance becomes something that has far more to do with the representation of "the people" than it currently is) that society might shift toward a welfare-centred "mixed economy" comprising command and controlled market elements, but this is unlikely given the short timetable capital has available to secure it's perquisites before various elements of it's mechanisms (raw materials resources etc) become depleted. Capital won't let itself be removed from the centres of power.
Whether capitalism could survive in a post-resource scarcity world is another question.

 

[soulman]

Is this the equivalent of asking a Roman if slavery is the only way, or a serf that feudalism is? etc etc and so forth. Clearly preposterous in a historical context, no?

Well of course society has and does undergo massive changes. So maybe we shouldn't bother addressing the question. Capitalism will sow the seeds of it's own destruction as history will show.

 

[JHE]

... socialist ideas are not that visible. There is not major platform for them.

Yup

160 years after the Communist Manifesto...
More than 90 years after the October Revolution...
After a century during a large part of which a large chunk of humanity (a third?) lived in ostensibly socialist societies...

In Britain, after the ILP, the CPGB, a mass Labour movement, the years of Bevanism, the years of Bennism... after the 'long march through the institutions' (especially the higher educational institutions) etc

After all this, and at a time when communications have never been quicker or easier, "socialist ideas are not that visible" and are without a "major platform"!

 

[soulman]

Or, rather than "alternative", the only "option".

Yes option rather than alternative.

My own take is that "capitalism", as defined above, is indeed perceived as the only option available to individual economic actors, but that this perception is very much rooted in an ongoing system of informal indoctrination (through education, by example, through media representation etc) that presents people with little choice but to participate in a society based around consumption (the ideological component).

Right this gets to the nub of my question. Capitalist ideology is now so engrained within people through indoctrination that other options can't be perceived.

There are, of course, alternatives, but by their very nature these tend to be based on a conscious refusal to participate in "mainstream" society, and therefore don't suit the needs and desires of many people.
It's possible (though not probable unless governance becomes something that has far more to do with the representation of "the people" than it currently is) that society might shift toward a welfare-centred "mixed economy" comprising command and controlled market elements, but this is unlikely given the short timetable capital has available to secure it's perquisites before various elements of it's mechanisms (raw materials resources etc) become depleted. Capital won't let itself be removed from the centres of power.
Whether capitalism could survive in a post-resource scarcity world is another question.

Interestingly this comes down again to the idea that capitalism has sowed the seeds of its own destruction, by depleting the raw materials needed. If this turns out to be the case haven't the capitalists also scuppered any future form of industrial based socialism.

 

[Andy the Don]

We live in a mixed economy, massive intervention from the state. Capitalism only exists in a partial form - and this has been the case for a long time.

This isn't the Victorian era you know!

A mixed economy is the best of both. The long term, five plus years, of a socialist economy. Together with the innovation & dynamism of the capitalist economy. What we currently have is the public sector existing for the benefit of the private sector. Governments passing legislation allowing the private to use the public sector to generate profits for the benefit of their shareholders. Who in the current financial environment are very likely to be non UK tax domiciled. The controlled economy without giving its people a chance to create private wealth through their own innovation & risk results in the "they pretend to pay me I pretend to work" - quote form a state worker in Cuba, economy that lead to the destruction of the communist states. Apart from those that took to worse from both systems, the political control of an authoritarian socialists state together with the turbo capitalism of the western economies.

 

[dylanredefined]

I believe (and am trying to work towards) a feminist vegan anarchist future.

Hey, I can dream

A nightmare I'd be prepared to kill and die to avoid, nothing personal

Its hard to see socialism offering anything to people who have jobs and a reasonable standard of living .

 

[DotCommunist]

A nightmare I'd be prepared to kill and die to avoid, nothing personal

Its hard to see socialism offering anything to people who have jobs and a reasonable standard of living .

'I'm allright jack'

 

[Belushi]

Its hard to see socialism offering anything to people who have jobs and a reasonable standard of living .

Theres a lot of truth in that, as long as people perceive their economic interests to be better served by capitalists socialism will remain the preserve of a small minority.

Still, who knows whats going to happen over the next couple of decades.

 

[dennisr]

Yup

160 years after the Communist Manifesto...
More than 90 years after the October Revolution...
After a century during a large part of which a large chunk of humanity (a third?) lived in ostensibly socialist societies...

In Britain, after the ILP, the CPGB, a mass Labour movement, the years of Bevanism, the years of Bennism... after the 'long march through the institutions' (especially the higher educational institutions) etc

After all this, and at a time when communications have never been quicker or easier, "socialist ideas are not that visible" and are without a "major platform"!

Yes, I can see your point, but I think you miss mine. Look at the list? what has become of those trends? Every single one of the major - what were the - mass workers parties - labour, social democrat in some countries, communist in others have come to what?

What is commonly seen as 'socialist' or presented as 'communist' is the failure of stalinist states. That was not the voices of a couple of individuals - it was a systematic ideological attack on the 'failures' of socialist ideas, and not just from the official pro-capitalist voices (the thatcher types) but within the traditional labour movements themselves. The labour and trade union leaders in the UK used to crow their own version of 'socialist' for public consumption - now they don't even bother in 'private' for the consumption of labour party members etc). Trade Union leaders see 'no alternative' - not even the long term illusions they used to hold onto - to being middle men negotiating 'deals' with employers. Socialist ideas had a platform, being discussed in those mass movements - nowadays there is no room for any discussion at all - just cheerleading.

The collapse of the stalinist states was a key point - a major ideological stepping back not just for the stalinists themselves but for socialists. We now have so-called communist parties implimenting neo-liberal cuts.

And in the rest of the world - the stalinist states provided an 'alternative' axis (if obviously equally poisoned) to the liberation movements of the under-developed world. You only have to look at the rogues who claimed to be inspired by 'socialism' at some point. look at the best of them now - say the ANC and SACP - no improvements to workers living conditions from the so-called 'liberators'. or the worst - the Burmese dictators or Mugabe

The illusions and distortions of 'stalinism' have been replaced by the illusions of the 'capitalist market'. That won't last - because it cannot provide answers and to survive has to attack living conditions but there is no point pretending that the internet or any other means of spreading ideas is of any use until those ideas reflect something of use again - as people search for ideas to back up necessary practice. Socialist ideas no more than capitalist ideas are not 'learnt' as ideas they are learnt as responses to lived conditions.

ideologies do not cause systems of production - people do not catch on to an idea and then everything changes overnight because everyone agrees the new idea is a better idea. they are as much a product of such systems (legitimising, reinforcing, evolving within what ever given limits and sometimes going beyond set limits set by economics etc)

 

[dennisr]

Theres a lot of truth in that, as long as people perceive their economic interests to be better served by capitalists socialism will remain the preserve of a small minority.

Still, who knows whats going to happen over the next couple of decades.

Yep - and also rides on wether that system can continue to provide what it promises a minority let alone a majority.

In china the hopes laid at the feet of capitalism are strong - at the same time mass inserrections in the countryside, and the beginnings of powerful independant worker's movements in the cities show the other side of the coin. Not that you will hear about any of this of here.

 

[sleaterkinney]

'I'm allright jack'

'Grow up'