well written analysis overall. a few comments though:
No, the capitalists can’t consume the surplus product. This has been considered and it has been proved not to work (eg by Luxemburg). The reason is, that capitalists are in competition with each other and are thus forced to invest in constant capital (machines etc) expanding circulation and making the problem worse. Capitalists who only consume the surplus are outcompeted and cease to be capitalists.
Yes, i agree with this. Capitalists typically don’t actually spend money on consumption themselves so they don’t increase consumption. Relying on capitalists’ consumption alone does not work at all.
One real way that this contradiction is (temporarily) dealt with, is to expand to markets who are not yet fully under the capitalist mode of production (colonialism/imperialism). […] There aren’t many white spots left on the globe though so this “solution” is starting to run into problems.
You are seriously underestimating how important the concept of settlements in outer space / other planets is to capitalists precisely for this reason. Capitalism is well aware that it has to continuously expand just to stay alive itself. And that is why outer space will be settled, whether it appears profitable at first glance or not. The state will literally just throw money in the form of subsidies at the problem until it happens. Much better than throwing money at the military, because it causes less public outrage, so it is politically “cheaper” because it costs you fewer votes. Consider that war is not profitable at first glance either, because it doesn’t create stuff, only destroys stuff. So it is not economically cheap but rather expensive and pointless; and yet we can already observe today that it still happens just to keep capitalism alive as a whole. You have even written this in your own comment! So it is not absurd to assume that the state will be willing to throw the same amount of money on outer space settlements just to keep capitalism running as a whole.
Thank you. It’s not like I completely thought of it myself. I mostly got it from David Harveys lectures/podcast. Yes, maybe I am underestimating it. It could be a better way to sink value than war, so it might happen. But there’s no consumer market in space. No one to sell to who’s not already part of capitalist circulation like India was during the industrialization. There’s no one in space who can buy the surplus product. War has the double benefit of destroying value (like space projects) and opening up markets on top of it (for selling surplus and for unequal exchange). Space exploration is also very capital intensive and has low actual human labor involved. Since all profit comes from human labor, it would drive down profit rates further. For example, robots successfully mining asteroids would make one single company rich for a time and lower profits for many companies, as prices drop.
Historically, funding for space related ventures has mostly been an offshoot of funding for war, with lots of dual use technologies. I don’t really see that relationship reversing soon. It’s not just rockets. For example, intelligence agencies have discarded several surplus telescopes for spy satellites with capabilities that surpass Hubble. They have more advanced ones in operation.
When you open a bakery, who do you sell the bread to? To the people in the city. That’s how you make money.
When you build rockets that can reach Mars, who do you sell to? And for what reason would anybody buy that product?
I believe this is where religion comes in. Ironically, religion (despite its very antique air about it) can aid capitalism to create a narrative around “human destiny is to reach for the stars” and “that was god’s plan for us all along” to nourish public sentiment towards spaceflight. This in turn creates a movement that is independent from short-term return-on-investments. Space settlements don’t have to return value as long as you can convince the public that you’re fulfilling the human destiny to spread throughout the cosmos that way.
well written analysis overall. a few comments though:
Yes, i agree with this. Capitalists typically don’t actually spend money on consumption themselves so they don’t increase consumption. Relying on capitalists’ consumption alone does not work at all.
You are seriously underestimating how important the concept of settlements in outer space / other planets is to capitalists precisely for this reason. Capitalism is well aware that it has to continuously expand just to stay alive itself. And that is why outer space will be settled, whether it appears profitable at first glance or not. The state will literally just throw money in the form of subsidies at the problem until it happens. Much better than throwing money at the military, because it causes less public outrage, so it is politically “cheaper” because it costs you fewer votes. Consider that war is not profitable at first glance either, because it doesn’t create stuff, only destroys stuff. So it is not economically cheap but rather expensive and pointless; and yet we can already observe today that it still happens just to keep capitalism alive as a whole. You have even written this in your own comment! So it is not absurd to assume that the state will be willing to throw the same amount of money on outer space settlements just to keep capitalism running as a whole.
Thank you. It’s not like I completely thought of it myself. I mostly got it from David Harveys lectures/podcast. Yes, maybe I am underestimating it. It could be a better way to sink value than war, so it might happen. But there’s no consumer market in space. No one to sell to who’s not already part of capitalist circulation like India was during the industrialization. There’s no one in space who can buy the surplus product. War has the double benefit of destroying value (like space projects) and opening up markets on top of it (for selling surplus and for unequal exchange). Space exploration is also very capital intensive and has low actual human labor involved. Since all profit comes from human labor, it would drive down profit rates further. For example, robots successfully mining asteroids would make one single company rich for a time and lower profits for many companies, as prices drop.
Historically, funding for space related ventures has mostly been an offshoot of funding for war, with lots of dual use technologies. I don’t really see that relationship reversing soon. It’s not just rockets. For example, intelligence agencies have discarded several surplus telescopes for spy satellites with capabilities that surpass Hubble. They have more advanced ones in operation.
The economics of space settlements are tricky.
When you open a bakery, who do you sell the bread to? To the people in the city. That’s how you make money.
When you build rockets that can reach Mars, who do you sell to? And for what reason would anybody buy that product?
I believe this is where religion comes in. Ironically, religion (despite its very antique air about it) can aid capitalism to create a narrative around “human destiny is to reach for the stars” and “that was god’s plan for us all along” to nourish public sentiment towards spaceflight. This in turn creates a movement that is independent from short-term return-on-investments. Space settlements don’t have to return value as long as you can convince the public that you’re fulfilling the human destiny to spread throughout the cosmos that way.