Another shithole for humanity — and all a consequence of capitalism and associated barbarisms
by Will, 3 July 2008
This time Equatorial Guinea — it could be any nation state on the periphery of capitalist accumulation and shit like that.
1. In the wake of the most recent scientific and technical revolution in capitalist production the degree of capital-intensity (Marx’s “organic composition of capital”) has become so great as to limit the very ability of capital to absorb labour-power and overall productive capacity except in a constantly diminishing ratio.
2. Capitalism becomes unable to exploit “the total global mass of productively exploited labour, as a result of the permanently rising level of the productive forces.
3. Hence this total global mass of productively exploited labour declines absolutely for the first time in the history of capitalism.
4. Capital is fast approaching its absolute limit. The system is unable to deliver a new phase of growth.
5. The deepening global crisis of capital accumulation and capitalist reproduction shifts the social burden of the crisis onto the once ‘newly industrialising’ economies.
6. Unlike in the past, capital is unable to expand the basis of accumulation as a whole - and so exploit the situation it to its advantage.
7. Such enormously enhanced productivity leads not only to a classic crisis of over-production in which existing world markets are unable to absorb the increased flow of commodities, but to a general crisis of social reproduction in which the labour power of millions, if not billions of newly proletarianized residents of the South and East becomes superfluous to the economic needs of capital. Kurz: “Human beings are cut off from the the capitalist conditions placed on the satisfaction of their needs.”
8. “Postcatatrophic” societies arise “that are bound to the global circulation of money by only the thinnest of threads.” Efforts to initiate a rapid process of “primitive accumulation” of capital, whether made under the banners of Soviet-style socialism or third worldist national liberation–the revolutionary drive to what Kurz terms a “recuperative modernization”–could not but ultimately come to grief, since “the level attained by the enormous stocks of capital in the West, a level presupposed if any further growth is to result, is no longer attainable–within the existing commodity logic–in other regions of the world
9. “Such constant increases in productivity, increases that exceed the bounds of comprehension of commodity production, cannot but react with catastrophic force on any recuperative processes of primitive accumulation.”
10. Ripped from their traditional village or tribal social-economies and herded into the new, gargantuan urban slums of the third world–where they were to have become the new, global proletariat–an enormous mass, literally billions of human beings find themselves “monetary subjects, but without money.”
11. The resulting collapse of the postcolonial political and economic institutions that had arisen in the course of the now abandoned strategies of capitalist modernization leads to civil and ethnic wars and their accompanying “Ersatz” ideologies of religious and tribal fundamentalisms and virulent neo- and sub-nationalisms. That is, the very same historical dialectic that, in its initial stages, had produced the modern nation state as a centre for the accumulation of capital and for the erection and administration of a generalized system of commodity exchange, having reached its terminal crisis, now works in turn to undermine and destroy the nation state at its weakest points.
In the chain of capital, those at the periphery are those most susceptible to derangement. Witness capital working out its end game.




Thursday 3 July 2008 at 11:19
Interesting article if you can wade through through the academic bullshit:
“The “end,” or suspension, of a nation-centered temporality clearly has its spatial equivalent in the perpetual displacement of “dissemiNation, etc.”
WTF is a sentence like that supposed to mean?
And IIRC Trotsky made much the same points far more comprehensibly back in 1905.
‘Combined and uneven development’ anyone?