3.

Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations, and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose, certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle. 3. Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and

utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations, and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose, certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle. 3. Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies

capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations, and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose, certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle. 3. Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations, and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose, certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle. 3. Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations, and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose,

certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle. 3. Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations,

and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose, certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle. 3. Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or

stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations, and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose, certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle. 3. Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations, and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose, certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle. 3. Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all

kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations, and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose, certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle.

3. Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations, and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose, certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle. 3. Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and

utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations, and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose, certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle.

3. Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations, and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose, certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle. 3. Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and

utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations, and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose, certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle.

3. Lessons and Implications for Social Change

Both in the 1890s and 1980s, the reversal of long economic downturns were brought about as a result of, among other reasons, huge transfers of income from labor to capital. In the 1930s, by contrast, workers and other popular forces achieved employment and income security as a result of a sustained pressure from "below." The contrast between these two entirely different types of restructuring strategies shows how resourceful the business and government leaders can be in employing all kinds of instruments of class struggle--at times, even diametrically-opposed instruments--in order to restore capitalist profitability, accumulation, and expansion.

What are the implications of this for the future of capitalism? Does it mean that the reign of capitalism has thus become permanent, and that we have reached "the end of history"?

Not necessarily. It simply means that the capitalist system is much more resilient than many of its radical opponents--especially proponents of the so-called theory of "automatic collapse"--imagine; and that the course of the apparently automatic alternation of periods of economic expansion and contraction is dialectically intertwined with that of social developments and class struggle. It signifies capitalisms ability to restructure the conditions for profitability and reproduction as long as the costly consequences of such restructuring policies in terms of job losses, economic insecurity, and environmental degradation are tolerated. More specifically, as long as the working class keeps producing according the desires and designs of the capitalist system, the reign of capital will continue. No other social class or stratum, no matter how militant or numerous, has the unique or strategic position and capability to bring the capitalist production to a standstill--and the capitalist system to an end. Only the working class can play such a role. When the workers will gain the necessary consciousness and determination to actually appropriate and utilize the existing technology for a better organization and management of the world economy in the interests of the majority of world citizens no one can tell. One things is certain, however: to play such a role, the working class needs entirely new visions and new politics. The new labor politics will need to (a) go beyond trade unionism, (b) go beyond national borders, (c) build independent labor organizations, and (d) operate through coalitions and alliances with non-labor grassroots opposition groups.

Many people would view these ideas and projections as unrealistic. What they probably mean by this is that these proposals cannot be realized under the present socio-economic and political structure. And they are right. But, as this social structure is reorganized, many of the currently "impossible" alternatives will become possible. There is definitely no dearth of material resources for this purpose, certainly not in the US and other industrialized countries. What is lacking is the political will and/or capacity to reorient the societys priorities and reallocate its resources. The realizability of these proposals (and the fate of capitalism), ultimately, comes down to the relationship of social forces and the balance of class struggle.