Yes, we can’t “undevelop” Capitalism to a point of no regulation just like we can’t go back to feudalism. Modes of Production are historical stages of development alongside the progression of technology, they aren’t “ideas” people adopt because they sound nice.
He published that between 1867 and 1894 yet despite trying all the ideas in all the different permutations no one has been successful yet, over a hundred and thirty years later.
Maybe it’s time it admit it’s a flawed experiment and try something different?
What do you mean “no one has been successful?” Every AES state has had myriad successes, the dissolution of the USSR had less to do with Socialism and more to do with separation from the global economy. Either way, though, Capital is an analysis of Capitalism, not Socialism, and very clearly explains the mechanical issues with Capitalism in the long term and how it develops, which is why I brought it up.
Partially, yes, but the focus is on Capitalism itself, hence the header “a Critique of Political Economy.” It explains quite well how Capitalism functions and why it cannot last.
You compared it to an archaic system that has been tried as proof that it couldn’t be tried.
Yes, we can’t “undevelop” Capitalism to a point of no regulation just like we can’t go back to feudalism. Modes of Production are historical stages of development alongside the progression of technology, they aren’t “ideas” people adopt because they sound nice.
That’s just a thinly veiled use of the Wookie defence in trying to explain your position.
If you’re confused by something, you can feel free to ask for further elaboration, though I can’t just recite Capital in Lemmy comments.
He published that between 1867 and 1894 yet despite trying all the ideas in all the different permutations no one has been successful yet, over a hundred and thirty years later.
Maybe it’s time it admit it’s a flawed experiment and try something different?
What do you mean “no one has been successful?” Every AES state has had myriad successes, the dissolution of the USSR had less to do with Socialism and more to do with separation from the global economy. Either way, though, Capital is an analysis of Capitalism, not Socialism, and very clearly explains the mechanical issues with Capitalism in the long term and how it develops, which is why I brought it up.
Capital is an analysis of capitalism and how it will segue into socialism.
Partially, yes, but the focus is on Capitalism itself, hence the header “a Critique of Political Economy.” It explains quite well how Capitalism functions and why it cannot last.
Volume One was published 131 years ago?