Not in the usual form..Integration of the two systems became impossible in the 1990s..Capitalism has several contradictions..Capitalism could not solve the contradictions..Another economic system, managed to describe the methods and methods, and answered the question ..How to solve the antagonism..Alas!.Capitalism rejected these attempts..
Capitalism has outlived its usefulness, it can only exist if production is constantly expanded and increased, otherwise there will be a crisis. Our round ball will not expand anywhere, so we see constant crises.
This social facility was built with money received from the market activity of the agricultural enterprise CJSC “Lenin State Farm” under the leadership of Pavel Grudinin. A vivid example of how capitalism can get along with socialist economic principles.
It has. Although historically-not for long. The peak of development of the capitalist SEF has already passed, it is fading, and then it is disintegrating. What will happen in the future? M. B. socialism, at least the first experiments in this area were, on the whole, successful.
But capitalism will die for a long time yet, and it will not give up easily. We can assume attempts to establish a neo-slave society, ideocracy, and man-made technical regression.
One way or another, we will hardly see the decline of capitalism. He is still strong and almost fresh.
Capitalism is not like the future – it is the whole history of people with the beginning of barter and even the exchange of services. Communism never even existed, and Soviet socialism was not at all different from medieval feudalism, only there, instead of food stamps, they gave rations from the feudal lord's caches and in the same way-from what was, and not as under capitalism: save money and buy what you want, and not what is.
To begin with, the definition of capitalism has been deliberately distorted for political purposes.
In a general sense, capitalism is an economic system based on the accumulation of capital and the subsequent receipt of surplus value in excess of the initial capital. Capital is a set of financial and material assets used to create surplus value.
For example, the primitive economy was not capitalist, because in the” production chain ” of primitive people there was no phase of capital accumulation. If they learned to accumulate surplus products and earn income from them, they would move to capitalism. But they spent all their surpluses on their own consumption.
Subsequent socio-economic systems-slavery and feudalism – already partially used elements of capitalism. For example, serfs, selling the surplus left after paying the rent to the feudal lord and their own consumption, bought tools and working cattle-means of production. However, full-fledged capitalist relations under feudalism could not spread due to the fact that the main means of production under feudalism is land – an irreproducible means of production. Due to the limited land resources, the accumulation of initial capital for the feudal lord was very difficult – as a rule, the land was already divided. And the feudal lords themselves did not participate in the turnover of capital at all – they only collected dues and spent them on personal needs,” deadening ” capital.
But already within the framework of feudalism, the first capitalists appeared. They were artisans and merchants. The activity of artisans and merchants under feudalism was already carried out according to capitalist principles, according to the full cycle of capital turnover.
Since capitalism is based on industrial production, the rate of capital turnover under capitalism is an order of magnitude higher than under feudalism. In fact, capitalism and industrial production created each other by mutually stimulating development.
It follows that socialism is not inherently different from capitalism, since it is also based on the circulation of capital.
The fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism lies in the prohibition of private ownership of the means of production. Capital accumulation under socialism is carried out not by a private individual, but by a political organization called the state, which also receives income. Thus, socialism is a form of capitalism characterized by the maximum degree of concentration of capital, i.e., the maximum degree of monopolism.
Once upon a time, ancient Greek philosophers formulated such a rule: only those who own slaves can be considered a free person. In a broader sense, this rule can be formulated as follows: only those who own the means of production can be considered a free person. If a person does not own the means of production, then he has no economic freedom and is partially or completely dependent on other people.
Economic freedom under socialism is enjoyed by an extremely limited number of people-representatives of the upper echelons of socialist society. This gives the top of society the opportunity to redistribute the resources of society in those areas that it considers a priority. However, such a system imposes the most stringent requirements on the competence of representatives of this elite. Under conditions of unlimited power, the top of a socialist society degenerates within a few generations, then the socialist system is destroyed and a return to traditional capitalism occurs.
Thus, traditional capitalism is the most stable form of capitalism.
What can lead to the destruction of capitalism?
One model of a non-capitalist society is the ant colony model, or the communist model. This is a system in which the individual has no personal freedoms and his interests are completely subordinated to the interests of the colony. Such a system can be built through total control over individuals. However, this model has the same drawback as capitalism – the degeneration of the top in conditions of unlimited power.
Another model of a non – capitalist society is that of unlimited resources. We currently have several types of unlimited resources available to us. For example, this is air, the consumption of which is free and unlimited. Another unlimited resource is sunlight. It is obvious that if energy becomes an unlimited (free or extremely cheap) resource, this will lead to a fundamental change in the economic system. In conditions of unlimited resources, everyone will have the opportunity to be a capitalist, that is, to ensure their existence at the expense of income from the exploitation of the means of production. That is, everyone will be able to own the means of production and all people will have unlimited economic freedom. This means eliminating the economic dependence of one person on another, which is characteristic of other socio-economic systems (slavery, feudalism, capitalism and communism).
Thus, sustainable non-capitalist relations can be built only by radically reducing the cost of the means of production, primarily by obtaining cheap energy in unlimited quantities, accessible to all. This is a scientific and technical problem that cannot be solved by social methods.
Capitalism is a natural historical technology developed as a result of a historical process; communism-socialism is an ideological artificial technology built on pre-defined principles. You can walk on your feet, or you can walk on your hands-life will show you what is more productive.
As soon as the scientific and technological development of the World reaches a certain level, capitalism will be transformed into socialism in a completely painless way, not at all as it was when feudalism turned into capitalism. This is Dialectic! Russia did not hurry up much and could not stand it surrounded by enemies, unfortunately, the real leaders ended.
We are living in an amazing time when it will be possible to observe the widespread collapse of capitalism. We are already watching.
1 world economy – China. There is socialism, the first stage of communism, transitional and developing.
2 In the whole capitalist world, there are rats, just like that-rats, everyone and everything is ratty. Economies are collapsing, but so far this is not very noticeable, the lump has not grown.
Under capitalism, everyone is for himself, which is contrary to statehood.
If the morale of society is low under capitalism, various kinds of lobbies and collusions of corporations are possible, which automatically leads to a lack of competition and, as a result, to corporate mergers and monopolism. At the same time, such a structure is simply not viable, because it claims to be a state. The state will destroy such a structure.
With high morals, capitalism simply has no place, because their own morals simply will not allow them to profit from the misfortune of others.
All this we can observe at the current moment of time on the entire planet.
And it has already been scientifically described. And practically confirmed. Capitalism takes on the features of its opposite, antagonist – socialism. The classics called it rotting. Mimics it, thereby outliving itself. Until it is somehow blown up. The level of development of the productive forces constrained by it. Is social and economic progress incomprehensible to you? Not Marxists.
The foundation of the future home of Humanity-Marxism-was built by Marx. The walls of this house were built by Lenin and continued by the followers of Leninism. These walls continue to be built and strengthened today. True, it is still far from a solid roof.
“A person is able to think, feel, desire and work on his own. But in his physical, mental, and emotional existence, he is so dependent on society that outside of society it is impossible to think about him or understand him. It is” society ” that provides man with food, clothing, housing, tools, language, forms of thought, and most of its content. His life was made possible by the hard work and achievements of many millions in the past and present, which are hidden behind this little word “society”.
If you thought this was a quote from Marx or Engels, you're wrong. These are the reflections of the brilliant physicist Albert Einstein on socialism and capitalism. Short essay ” Why socialism?” it was written by him at the request of Paul Susie (a well-known American political economist, author of the theory of monopoly capitalism) for the first issue of the Monthly Review (May 1949), in which the founder of modern physics concluded: “Socialism is better than capitalism”
“Why Socialism? “[1] is an article by Albert Einstein, published in May 1949 in the first issue of the Monthly Review. The article is devoted to criticism of the capitalist system, justifies the need to develop socialist principles of social development and suggests solutions to the problems of a planned economy[2].
“I am convinced that there is only one way to get rid of these terrible evils, and that is by creating a SOCIALIST economy with a corresponding education system that would be aimed at achieving SOCIAL goals…
In addition to developing their natural abilities, education would aim to develop their sense of responsibility for others, rather than the current glorification of success in our society.”
It is unlikely that Einstein read Marx, but he draws similar conclusions :
Private capital tends to concentrate in the hands of a few. This is partly due to competition among capitalists, and partly because technological development and the deepening division of labor contribute to the formation of ever-larger production units at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these processes is a capitalist oligarchy, whose monstrous power a democratically organized society cannot effectively limit.
Interestingly, more than seventy years ago, the physicist accurately described the political system that we see now in modern Russia :
This is because members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, and they are somehow influenced and mostly financed by private capitalists, who thus in practice stand between the electorate and the legislative sphere. As a result, people's representatives do not really sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged segments of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (the press, radio, education). Thus, it is extremely difficult, and in most cases almost impossible, for an individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and use his or her political rights wisely.
And these words accurately describe our “Unified State exam” education:
Unlimited competition leads to monstrous waste of labor and to the crippling of the social consciousness of the individual that I have already mentioned. I consider this disfigurement of the individual to be the greatest evil of capitalism. Our entire education system suffers from this evil. Our students are taught to be competitive; in preparation for their careers, they are taught to worship success in acquisition.
And, as a scientist, he sees progress in the development of humanity as a whole in socialism:
“I am convinced that there is only one way to get rid of these terrible evils, and that is by creating a socialist economy with a corresponding education system that would be aimed at achieving SOCIAL goals…
In addition to developing their natural abilities, education would aim to develop their sense of responsibility for others, rather than the current glorification of success in our society.”
Man is both a solitary and a social being. As a lonely being, he tries to protect his existence and the existence of those closest to him, satisfy his desires and develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks the recognition and love of other people, wants to share their pleasures, comfort them in grief, and improve their living conditions… Its position in capitalist society is such that the egoistic instincts inherent in it are constantly emphasized, while the social instincts, which are weaker in nature, are increasingly degraded. All human beings, whatever their place in society, suffer from this process of degradation. Unconscious prisoners of their egoism, they feel a sense of danger, feel alone, deprived of the naive, simple joys of life. The real source of this evil, in my opinion, is the economic anarchy of capitalist society…
A person can find meaning in life, no matter how short and dangerous it may be, only by devoting himself to society…
Albert Einstein.
I am EXTREMELY tired of the incessant chatter of deniers of socialism and communism in the Internet space. Moreover, none of them even risks recalling the success of SOCIALISM in the PRC, which is being built and continues to strengthen in a booming economy based on the creative development of Lenin's ideas about NEP in relation to the specifics of the PRC. And NONE of them mentions that Stalin's work in this direction, which was forced to interrupt the NEP due to the need for urgent industrialization of the USSR in pre-war conditions and began to revive it in the late 40s and early 50s, was not continued only because of his death and the subsequent arrest and death of his associate in this matter Beria.
The lines of the leadership of the CCP Mao Zedong and the CPSU Khrushchev, since that time, diverged.
Recalling the mistakes of the CPSU, starting with Khrushchev, no one who criticizes the shortcomings of the USSR economy even bothers to analyze in DETAIL the PURPOSEFUL activities aimed at destroying the economy of the USSR, the SA and the Navy by the “great combine harvester” Gorbachev, who received a salary from the enthusiastic West in the form of a Nobel Peace Prize, and his accomplice, the “chief architect” of perestroika-the ideologist of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU Alexander Yakovlev.
Gorbachev also “thought up” to teach Deng Xiaoping about economics and democracy, mentioning the events in Tiananmen Square during a visit to China.
The man who tries to refute Marx and Lenin is already an IDIOT.
But the one who also starts to refute Einstein is an IDIOT not even in the square, but in the n-th power !
No, capitalism, if it is not replaced by the next socio-economic formation, with strict control of resources, centralized health care, education, efficient modern production and management technologies, and advanced scientific development, will simply destroy humanity.
And for what is it necessary to think independently? Marxism-Leninism has long given an answer to this question … (and if someone wants to invent their “multiplication tables” to the best of their knowledge and abilities, then take the flag in your hands and…)
Capitalism can have a future, but only within the service of government, research and social programs, period. All other activities of capitalism are a struggle with other capitalists for a monopoly position and an attempt to seize the power of the state, which is what we have today.
No, it doesn't, as far back as 100 years ago, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin proved why. The fact that the capitalists managed to destroy the first socialist state, on the scale of History, does not mean anything. All sorts of hybridization and socialization (so-called Capitalism with a human face) will not help. The future belongs to Socialism and Communism. Of course, it will not be Communism in the form that Marx and Lenin have, perhaps it will be some kind of system with elements of NEP, etc.
But it is clear that capitalism has no prospects – the enlargement of capital, the robbery of the population, all for profit-will constantly lead to worse crises.
Either humanity will eventually collapse, or it will get rid of Capitalism, just as it got rid of slavery and feudalism in its time.
The future of capitalism is socialism with its planned economy based on an accurate account of the real possibilities of the productive forces of society and a comparison of these possibilities with the real needs of society.
The creation of digital technology and modern means of electronic communication makes it possible to solve this problem.
In the long run, probably not. Capitalism / fascism / socialism are variations of the industrial type of economy with conveyor production at the head. The world seems to be moving towards individual production, when factories will replace additive technologies. Perhaps this will happen by the end of this century.
A question about last year's snow. Capitalism has already ended, the transition period is now underway, and the construction of a new system is beginning. That's why the industrial revolution, the intellectual revolution, and the social revolution began. Even in Russia, the transition to a real social republic is beginning.
And more. The economy is a relationship between people. Waiting for capitalism to “rot” is somehow childish. You won't wait. Socialism must be built. It should be more effective than capitalism. Then he will win. Can we prove to capitalism that socialism is better, more efficient, more progressive, and more humane? We can, but we need to change ourselves. We can be honest about our work, not produce sausage you don't know what it's made of, don't waste our time, treat veterans with respect, take care to leave offspring to whom we can pass on our business. In a word, to include all heavy artillery in the fight. You need to work, and not swear and not envy.
Capitalism is an extremely efficient structure for converting resources into goods and services. But at the same time, resources (in the form of raw materials, money, etc.) must come from outside (a non-capitalist structure), and goods and services must also come from outside. One problem is that being part of a capitalist structure is much more profitable than being part of a non-capitalist one, and a massive flow of people into capitalism begins (this process ended in the 19th century), and then suddenly it turns out that there are no more resources – everything has become a commodity, and capitalism cannot exist on the products of its own vital activity. Statesmen, having thought through their brains (who had how many), came up with a ginial idea in their opinion – to divide global capitalism into a certain number of conditionally autonomous economies, thus allowing certain economic associations to survive at the expense of political “cannibalism”-obtaining the missing resources from the collapsing segments of the once unified world capitalism. So the “animal grin of capitalism” appeared – this system, of course, was quite toothy before, but after such a “reform”, the scale of predation became really monstrous, and with each iteration everything only gets worse.
Does such a system have a future? Unfortunately, yes. That's just for most of the prospects are very sad.
Capitalism died in the 19th century, they say. And it gave birth to imperialism in its place. Imperialism developed further and developed into socialism – the highest form of imperialism, in which there is only one monopoly in the state, which is the state itself. Then the owners of the earth thought that socialism with its advantages, especially in the run-up to computerization, could devour all other countries and eventually degrade, retreated a step, destroying the USSR. I think so…
I think �capitalism �in our �country �specifically �very �very different from �capitalism �in other countries . There � is �good � � social �program and people �see �that � their �awaits in their old age. �For �what they �to work, to take �credit �home �and training �children , for example. �Capitalism �there �important � �interest � plain � working man � remain in place � where he �was born and � to work �same � to �was �able to acquire �products that � produces � �all �the �capitalism . �After all, the main �profit �is �from � sale �casual � need �man � �every day goods � and �services.�
In our �same �country � �capitalism �does not matter at all whether � live �people who �work �now �and whether they have children. The population has no purchasing power at all . �Barely �have enough food , �a �of �young �not �want �kids � because �that �will not be able �to maintain them. Where � taken �profit �our �capitalism �and �how long he'll last �without �people who �or �go � where �better , or �die? How can there be a future without people? Машины Cars?
The future has any structure of society that has a past. In our time, there are all previous forms of relations, even if they are prohibited by law.
Slavery exists. Feudal relations exist. Tribal people, too. And not only that, it's me in large strokes.
They are simply inserted into each other, like matryoshka dolls.
That is why even in a super-duper socialist country, feudalism can suddenly win out. Or suddenly kill all the Communists (in our opinion! TV showed a semi-documentary film of an island king with him in the title role).
What is the main mistake of Marxism – in terms of historical materialism-in what? Namely, that the productive forces supposedly determine the relations of production. Marx was tormented to the death by the question, why then do so much effort. It seems to have answered, but my conscience was tormented (this is my interpretation, yes).
Whereas in history-ALWAYS! – the exact opposite has happened.
At first, relationships changed.
And not because there was an opportunity or a change in spiritual values, but because of the increased danger of the previous ones. To the level of deadly.
Thus, the Neolithic revolution was the result of increasingly frequent looting and violence (which, however, were not considered such, and not only were they not controlled by anyone, but there were no “legal” grounds for such control). Yes, in the modern sense, robbery was impossible – since there was no private property. Yes, violence is a relative thing (especially when the “aliens” are dressed in unclear clothes and do not cut words)…
But still. Forces to protect your (?) territories, women, etc. began to leave too much. I had to negotiate. And we agreed. Fortunately, there was already such an opportunity.�Word.
Those who did not understand any of them were soon not listed among the living.
And so there were civilizations.
Tellingly, the “production forces” did not grow at the same time. Conversely. Eating has become worse. Live less. This is confirmed by modern research.
We broke away from nature, the stump is clear.
The real wars finally began (because now there was something to fight for).
Well, let's not talk about sad things.
Since then, the concept of private property has changed little. However, on a planetary scale, this concept does not have any positive meaning. And every capitalist – or rather, every owner (even if it is the people! or a country, a state) that exploits (in the simplest, “good” sense) the resources of this planet, extracting them out of control-is a thief.
He's stealing from us. Including at home, yes. He steals from Humanity. He steals from the Earth.
Such capitalism should have no future.
However, no specific person will reach the “planetary scale” until they master the previous experience of humanity, as the great you-know-who said.:)
How he will master this experience is another question. Maybe at school. Or even in kindergarten. I don't really believe it, though.
Maybe in jail. In the army. In a special settlement or ecological village.
It may be displaced to a recreational area (such as Hong Kong).
I only know that capitalism will have to be present somewhere.
Not in the usual form..Integration of the two systems became impossible in the 1990s..Capitalism has several contradictions..Capitalism could not solve the contradictions..Another economic system, managed to describe the methods and methods, and answered the question ..How to solve the antagonism..Alas!.Capitalism rejected these attempts..
Capitalism has outlived its usefulness, it can only exist if production is constantly expanded and increased, otherwise there will be a crisis. Our round ball will not expand anywhere, so we see constant crises.
This social facility was built with money received from the market activity of the agricultural enterprise CJSC “Lenin State Farm” under the leadership of Pavel Grudinin. A vivid example of how capitalism can get along with socialist economic principles.
It has. Although historically-not for long. The peak of development of the capitalist SEF has already passed, it is fading, and then it is disintegrating. What will happen in the future? M. B. socialism, at least the first experiments in this area were, on the whole, successful.
But capitalism will die for a long time yet, and it will not give up easily. We can assume attempts to establish a neo-slave society, ideocracy, and man-made technical regression.
One way or another, we will hardly see the decline of capitalism. He is still strong and almost fresh.
Capitalism is not like the future – it is the whole history of people with the beginning of barter and even the exchange of services. Communism never even existed, and Soviet socialism was not at all different from medieval feudalism, only there, instead of food stamps, they gave rations from the feudal lord's caches and in the same way-from what was, and not as under capitalism: save money and buy what you want, and not what is.
To begin with, the definition of capitalism has been deliberately distorted for political purposes.
In a general sense, capitalism is an economic system based on the accumulation of capital and the subsequent receipt of surplus value in excess of the initial capital. Capital is a set of financial and material assets used to create surplus value.
For example, the primitive economy was not capitalist, because in the” production chain ” of primitive people there was no phase of capital accumulation. If they learned to accumulate surplus products and earn income from them, they would move to capitalism. But they spent all their surpluses on their own consumption.
Subsequent socio-economic systems-slavery and feudalism – already partially used elements of capitalism. For example, serfs, selling the surplus left after paying the rent to the feudal lord and their own consumption, bought tools and working cattle-means of production. However, full-fledged capitalist relations under feudalism could not spread due to the fact that the main means of production under feudalism is land – an irreproducible means of production. Due to the limited land resources, the accumulation of initial capital for the feudal lord was very difficult – as a rule, the land was already divided. And the feudal lords themselves did not participate in the turnover of capital at all – they only collected dues and spent them on personal needs,” deadening ” capital.
But already within the framework of feudalism, the first capitalists appeared. They were artisans and merchants. The activity of artisans and merchants under feudalism was already carried out according to capitalist principles, according to the full cycle of capital turnover.
Since capitalism is based on industrial production, the rate of capital turnover under capitalism is an order of magnitude higher than under feudalism. In fact, capitalism and industrial production created each other by mutually stimulating development.
It follows that socialism is not inherently different from capitalism, since it is also based on the circulation of capital.
The fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism lies in the prohibition of private ownership of the means of production. Capital accumulation under socialism is carried out not by a private individual, but by a political organization called the state, which also receives income. Thus, socialism is a form of capitalism characterized by the maximum degree of concentration of capital, i.e., the maximum degree of monopolism.
Once upon a time, ancient Greek philosophers formulated such a rule: only those who own slaves can be considered a free person. In a broader sense, this rule can be formulated as follows: only those who own the means of production can be considered a free person. If a person does not own the means of production, then he has no economic freedom and is partially or completely dependent on other people.
Economic freedom under socialism is enjoyed by an extremely limited number of people-representatives of the upper echelons of socialist society. This gives the top of society the opportunity to redistribute the resources of society in those areas that it considers a priority. However, such a system imposes the most stringent requirements on the competence of representatives of this elite. Under conditions of unlimited power, the top of a socialist society degenerates within a few generations, then the socialist system is destroyed and a return to traditional capitalism occurs.
Thus, traditional capitalism is the most stable form of capitalism.
What can lead to the destruction of capitalism?
One model of a non-capitalist society is the ant colony model, or the communist model. This is a system in which the individual has no personal freedoms and his interests are completely subordinated to the interests of the colony. Such a system can be built through total control over individuals. However, this model has the same drawback as capitalism – the degeneration of the top in conditions of unlimited power.
Another model of a non – capitalist society is that of unlimited resources. We currently have several types of unlimited resources available to us. For example, this is air, the consumption of which is free and unlimited. Another unlimited resource is sunlight. It is obvious that if energy becomes an unlimited (free or extremely cheap) resource, this will lead to a fundamental change in the economic system. In conditions of unlimited resources, everyone will have the opportunity to be a capitalist, that is, to ensure their existence at the expense of income from the exploitation of the means of production. That is, everyone will be able to own the means of production and all people will have unlimited economic freedom. This means eliminating the economic dependence of one person on another, which is characteristic of other socio-economic systems (slavery, feudalism, capitalism and communism).
Thus, sustainable non-capitalist relations can be built only by radically reducing the cost of the means of production, primarily by obtaining cheap energy in unlimited quantities, accessible to all. This is a scientific and technical problem that cannot be solved by social methods.
Capitalism is a natural historical technology developed as a result of a historical process; communism-socialism is an ideological artificial technology built on pre-defined principles. You can walk on your feet, or you can walk on your hands-life will show you what is more productive.
As soon as the scientific and technological development of the World reaches a certain level, capitalism will be transformed into socialism in a completely painless way, not at all as it was when feudalism turned into capitalism. This is Dialectic! Russia did not hurry up much and could not stand it surrounded by enemies, unfortunately, the real leaders ended.
Doesn't have.
We are living in an amazing time when it will be possible to observe the widespread collapse of capitalism. We are already watching.
1 world economy – China. There is socialism, the first stage of communism, transitional and developing.
2 In the whole capitalist world, there are rats, just like that-rats, everyone and everything is ratty. Economies are collapsing, but so far this is not very noticeable, the lump has not grown.
Good day to you!
Capitalism has no future.
Under capitalism, everyone is for himself, which is contrary to statehood.
If the morale of society is low under capitalism, various kinds of lobbies and collusions of corporations are possible, which automatically leads to a lack of competition and, as a result, to corporate mergers and monopolism. At the same time, such a structure is simply not viable, because it claims to be a state. The state will destroy such a structure.
With high morals, capitalism simply has no place, because their own morals simply will not allow them to profit from the misfortune of others.
All this we can observe at the current moment of time on the entire planet.
And it has already been scientifically described. And practically confirmed. Capitalism takes on the features of its opposite, antagonist – socialism. The classics called it rotting. Mimics it, thereby outliving itself. Until it is somehow blown up. The level of development of the productive forces constrained by it. Is social and economic progress incomprehensible to you? Not Marxists.
The foundation of the future home of Humanity-Marxism-was built by Marx. The walls of this house were built by Lenin and continued by the followers of Leninism. These walls continue to be built and strengthened today. True, it is still far from a solid roof.
“A person is able to think, feel, desire and work on his own. But in his physical, mental, and emotional existence, he is so dependent on society that outside of society it is impossible to think about him or understand him. It is” society ” that provides man with food, clothing, housing, tools, language, forms of thought, and most of its content. His life was made possible by the hard work and achievements of many millions in the past and present, which are hidden behind this little word “society”.
If you thought this was a quote from Marx or Engels, you're wrong. These are the reflections of the brilliant physicist Albert Einstein on socialism and capitalism. Short essay ” Why socialism?” it was written by him at the request of Paul Susie (a well-known American political economist, author of the theory of monopoly capitalism) for the first issue of the Monthly Review (May 1949), in which the founder of modern physics concluded: “Socialism is better than capitalism”
“Why Socialism? “[1] is an article by Albert Einstein, published in May 1949 in the first issue of the Monthly Review. The article is devoted to criticism of the capitalist system, justifies the need to develop socialist principles of social development and suggests solutions to the problems of a planned economy[2].
“I am convinced that there is only one way to get rid of these terrible evils, and that is by creating a SOCIALIST economy with a corresponding education system that would be aimed at achieving SOCIAL goals…
In addition to developing their natural abilities, education would aim to develop their sense of responsibility for others, rather than the current glorification of success in our society.”
It is unlikely that Einstein read Marx, but he draws similar conclusions :
Private capital tends to concentrate in the hands of a few. This is partly due to competition among capitalists, and partly because technological development and the deepening division of labor contribute to the formation of ever-larger production units at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these processes is a capitalist oligarchy, whose monstrous power a democratically organized society cannot effectively limit.
Interestingly, more than seventy years ago, the physicist accurately described the political system that we see now in modern Russia :
This is because members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, and they are somehow influenced and mostly financed by private capitalists, who thus in practice stand between the electorate and the legislative sphere. As a result, people's representatives do not really sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged segments of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (the press, radio, education). Thus, it is extremely difficult, and in most cases almost impossible, for an individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and use his or her political rights wisely.
And these words accurately describe our “Unified State exam” education:
Unlimited competition leads to monstrous waste of labor and to the crippling of the social consciousness of the individual that I have already mentioned. I consider this disfigurement of the individual to be the greatest evil of capitalism. Our entire education system suffers from this evil. Our students are taught to be competitive; in preparation for their careers, they are taught to worship success in acquisition.
And, as a scientist, he sees progress in the development of humanity as a whole in socialism:
“I am convinced that there is only one way to get rid of these terrible evils, and that is by creating a socialist economy with a corresponding education system that would be aimed at achieving SOCIAL goals…
In addition to developing their natural abilities, education would aim to develop their sense of responsibility for others, rather than the current glorification of success in our society.”
Man is both a solitary and a social being. As a lonely being, he tries to protect his existence and the existence of those closest to him, satisfy his desires and develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks the recognition and love of other people, wants to share their pleasures, comfort them in grief, and improve their living conditions… Its position in capitalist society is such that the egoistic instincts inherent in it are constantly emphasized, while the social instincts, which are weaker in nature, are increasingly degraded. All human beings, whatever their place in society, suffer from this process of degradation. Unconscious prisoners of their egoism, they feel a sense of danger, feel alone, deprived of the naive, simple joys of life. The real source of this evil, in my opinion, is the economic anarchy of capitalist society…
A person can find meaning in life, no matter how short and dangerous it may be, only by devoting himself to society…
Albert Einstein.
I am EXTREMELY tired of the incessant chatter of deniers of socialism and communism in the Internet space. Moreover, none of them even risks recalling the success of SOCIALISM in the PRC, which is being built and continues to strengthen in a booming economy based on the creative development of Lenin's ideas about NEP in relation to the specifics of the PRC. And NONE of them mentions that Stalin's work in this direction, which was forced to interrupt the NEP due to the need for urgent industrialization of the USSR in pre-war conditions and began to revive it in the late 40s and early 50s, was not continued only because of his death and the subsequent arrest and death of his associate in this matter Beria.
The lines of the leadership of the CCP Mao Zedong and the CPSU Khrushchev, since that time, diverged.
Recalling the mistakes of the CPSU, starting with Khrushchev, no one who criticizes the shortcomings of the USSR economy even bothers to analyze in DETAIL the PURPOSEFUL activities aimed at destroying the economy of the USSR, the SA and the Navy by the “great combine harvester” Gorbachev, who received a salary from the enthusiastic West in the form of a Nobel Peace Prize, and his accomplice, the “chief architect” of perestroika-the ideologist of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU Alexander Yakovlev.
Gorbachev also “thought up” to teach Deng Xiaoping about economics and democracy, mentioning the events in Tiananmen Square during a visit to China.
The man who tries to refute Marx and Lenin is already an IDIOT.
But the one who also starts to refute Einstein is an IDIOT not even in the square, but in the n-th power !
YES, I know the answer to this question, I am sure that capitalism is being replaced and a NEW SOCIALISM will inevitably and inevitably come.
idiots indiscriminately destroying socialism and the USSR, there were thoughts about the people and
justice, not how Yeltsin, Gaidar ,Chubais and the whole gang acted:”Stifle communism and communists at any cost and plunder
Russia without a backward glance and conscience . I am sure the people will give a fair assessment,
history will condemn this shameful stage of our lives. We must believe and fight
“FOR THE NEW SOCIALISM” because: “SOCIALISM IS INEVITABLE AS A DEMOB !”
RUSSIA FORWARD TO THE VICTORY OF SOCIALISM !!!
No, capitalism, if it is not replaced by the next socio-economic formation, with strict control of resources, centralized health care, education, efficient modern production and management technologies, and advanced scientific development, will simply destroy humanity.
And for what is it necessary to think independently? Marxism-Leninism has long given an answer to this question … (and if someone wants to invent their “multiplication tables” to the best of their knowledge and abilities, then take the flag in your hands and…)
Capitalism can have a future, but only within the service of government, research and social programs, period. All other activities of capitalism are a struggle with other capitalists for a monopoly position and an attempt to seize the power of the state, which is what we have today.
No, it doesn't, as far back as 100 years ago, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin proved why. The fact that the capitalists managed to destroy the first socialist state, on the scale of History, does not mean anything. All sorts of hybridization and socialization (so-called Capitalism with a human face) will not help. The future belongs to Socialism and Communism. Of course, it will not be Communism in the form that Marx and Lenin have, perhaps it will be some kind of system with elements of NEP, etc.
But it is clear that capitalism has no prospects – the enlargement of capital, the robbery of the population, all for profit-will constantly lead to worse crises.
Either humanity will eventually collapse, or it will get rid of Capitalism, just as it got rid of slavery and feudalism in its time.
The future of capitalism is socialism with its planned economy based on an accurate account of the real possibilities of the productive forces of society and a comparison of these possibilities with the real needs of society.
The creation of digital technology and modern means of electronic communication makes it possible to solve this problem.
In the long run, probably not. Capitalism / fascism / socialism are variations of the industrial type of economy with conveyor production at the head. The world seems to be moving towards individual production, when factories will replace additive technologies. Perhaps this will happen by the end of this century.
A question about last year's snow. Capitalism has already ended, the transition period is now underway, and the construction of a new system is beginning. That's why the industrial revolution, the intellectual revolution, and the social revolution began. Even in Russia, the transition to a real social republic is beginning.
And more. The economy is a relationship between people. Waiting for capitalism to “rot” is somehow childish. You won't wait. Socialism must be built. It should be more effective than capitalism. Then he will win. Can we prove to capitalism that socialism is better, more efficient, more progressive, and more humane? We can, but we need to change ourselves. We can be honest about our work, not produce sausage you don't know what it's made of, don't waste our time, treat veterans with respect, take care to leave offspring to whom we can pass on our business. In a word, to include all heavy artillery in the fight. You need to work, and not swear and not envy.
Capitalism is an extremely efficient structure for converting resources into goods and services. But at the same time, resources (in the form of raw materials, money, etc.) must come from outside (a non-capitalist structure), and goods and services must also come from outside. One problem is that being part of a capitalist structure is much more profitable than being part of a non-capitalist one, and a massive flow of people into capitalism begins (this process ended in the 19th century), and then suddenly it turns out that there are no more resources – everything has become a commodity, and capitalism cannot exist on the products of its own vital activity. Statesmen, having thought through their brains (who had how many), came up with a ginial idea in their opinion – to divide global capitalism into a certain number of conditionally autonomous economies, thus allowing certain economic associations to survive at the expense of political “cannibalism”-obtaining the missing resources from the collapsing segments of the once unified world capitalism. So the “animal grin of capitalism” appeared – this system, of course, was quite toothy before, but after such a “reform”, the scale of predation became really monstrous, and with each iteration everything only gets worse.
Does such a system have a future? Unfortunately, yes. That's just for most of the prospects are very sad.
Capitalism died in the 19th century, they say. And it gave birth to imperialism in its place.
Imperialism developed further and developed into socialism – the highest form of imperialism, in which there is only one monopoly in the state, which is the state itself.
Then the owners of the earth thought that socialism with its advantages, especially in the run-up to computerization, could devour all other countries and eventually degrade, retreated a step, destroying the USSR. I think so…
I think �capitalism �in our �country �specifically �very �very different from �capitalism �in other countries . There � is �good � � social �program and people �see �that � their �awaits in their old age. �For �what they �to work, to take �credit �home �and training �children , for example. �Capitalism �there �important � �interest � plain � working man � remain in place � where he �was born and � to work �same � to �was �able to acquire �products that � produces � �all �the �capitalism . �After all, the main �profit �is �from � sale �casual � need �man � �every day goods � and �services.�
In our �same �country � �capitalism �does not matter at all whether � live �people who �work �now �and whether they have children. The population has no purchasing power at all . �Barely �have enough food , �a �of �young �not �want �kids � because �that �will not be able �to maintain them. Where � taken �profit �our �capitalism �and �how long he'll last �without �people who �or �go � where �better , or �die? How can there be a future without people? Машины Cars?
Yes.
The future has any structure of society that has a past. In our time, there are all previous forms of relations, even if they are prohibited by law.
Slavery exists. Feudal relations exist. Tribal people, too. And not only that, it's me in large strokes.
They are simply inserted into each other, like matryoshka dolls.
That is why even in a super-duper socialist country, feudalism can suddenly win out. Or suddenly kill all the Communists (in our opinion! TV showed a semi-documentary film of an island king with him in the title role).
What is the main mistake of Marxism – in terms of historical materialism-in what? Namely, that the productive forces supposedly determine the relations of production. Marx was tormented to the death by the question, why then do so much effort. It seems to have answered, but my conscience was tormented (this is my interpretation, yes).
Whereas in history-ALWAYS! – the exact opposite has happened.
At first, relationships changed.
And not because there was an opportunity or a change in spiritual values, but because of the increased danger of the previous ones. To the level of deadly.
Thus, the Neolithic revolution was the result of increasingly frequent looting and violence (which, however, were not considered such, and not only were they not controlled by anyone, but there were no “legal” grounds for such control). Yes, in the modern sense, robbery was impossible – since there was no private property. Yes, violence is a relative thing (especially when the “aliens” are dressed in unclear clothes and do not cut words)…
But still. Forces to protect your (?) territories, women, etc. began to leave too much. I had to negotiate. And we agreed. Fortunately, there was already such an opportunity.�Word.
Those who did not understand any of them were soon not listed among the living.
And so there were civilizations.
Tellingly, the “production forces” did not grow at the same time. Conversely. Eating has become worse. Live less. This is confirmed by modern research.
We broke away from nature, the stump is clear.
The real wars finally began (because now there was something to fight for).
Well, let's not talk about sad things.
Since then, the concept of private property has changed little. However, on a planetary scale, this concept does not have any positive meaning. And every capitalist – or rather, every owner (even if it is the people! or a country, a state) that exploits (in the simplest, “good” sense) the resources of this planet, extracting them out of control-is a thief.
He's stealing from us. Including at home, yes. He steals from Humanity. He steals from the Earth.
Such capitalism should have no future.
However, no specific person will reach the “planetary scale” until they master the previous experience of humanity, as the great you-know-who said.:)
How he will master this experience is another question. Maybe at school. Or even in kindergarten. I don't really believe it, though.
Maybe in jail. In the army. In a special settlement or ecological village.
It may be displaced to a recreational area (such as Hong Kong).
I only know that capitalism will have to be present somewhere.