Peak capitalism?

"Does Capitalism Have a Future?" is a relatively short book, featuring an article by World-System theorist Immanuel Wallerstein and a few of his (well-disposed) critics. Wallerstein argues that capitalism will inevitably collapse. He bases his prediction on a Marxist-inspired deterministic theory about "Kondratiev waves" and "hegemonic cycles". Old Marx would call it "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall". The hegemonic cycles sound more Spenglerite. While his theory is interesting, Wallerstein (who is presumably an old sixties radical) places too much emphasis on the world-changing role of the 68 student radicals and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Does he really believe that a bunch of college students were the movers and shakers behind recent world history? He is less sure about what will replace capitalism, though. A left-liberal utopia, fascism, or what?

His critic Michael Mann argues for a non-deterministic perspective, where political decision-making (or its dismal failure) plays the crucial role. For that reason, nobody can say whether or not capitalism will fail. If the decision-makers put their acts together, capitalism might actually survive, perhaps in a more state-interventionist form. Ironically, he implicitly believes that Wallerstein's theory is Euro-centric. Neither the Great Depression, nor the recent finance crisis, were truly global, and nor are the "hegemonic cycles". In my opinion, Mann misses the forest for all the trees. *Why* did decision-makers frequently screw up? What is the material basis of their failures to stop crises and depressions? If massive state intervention is the only thing that can save capitalism, doesn't that point to a fundamental instability of the system?

The most curious article in the collection is authored by Randall Collins, who claims that capitalism will collapse by super-automation and the dramatic over-development of information technology, which will destroy the employment opportunities of the middle classes. Perhaps, but it's difficult to take this scenario seriously as a fundamental reason for capitalist collapse, since the energy crisis will make complete automation impossible.

Collins' article points to a serious problem with the entire collection. All contributors are seemingly oblivious to peak oil, and all except Craig Calhoun treat the environmental crisis as just another possible constraint on the system. Only Calhoun makes it central. It's also interesting to note that they all talk about climate change rather than peak oil. While both scenarios entail less use of fossil fuels, there is a crucial difference. In the climate change scenario, we "voluntarily" stop using fossil fuels, thereby (perhaps) saving the day. In the peak oil scenario, we are forced to stop using oil whether we like it or not, with all the consequences this entails. Thus, the emphasis on climate change is a typical conceit, since it gives us the illusion of actually being in charge of the situation...

Does capitalism have a future? Of course not, since nothing last forever. However, it's demise is probably predetermined by other reasons than the ones mostly discussed in this book.