How does capitalism end?

 We know the answer Marx gave:

1. capital becomes concentrated in the hands of a small number of people;
2. advances in technology, and the drive for profit, leads capitalists to shove ever more of the proletariat into unfulfilling jobs or outright unemployment, and consequently "immiserated";
3. at the same time, advances in technology lead to extraordinary surpluses of material produce;
4. at a certain point (the "extraordinary surpluses" play a very big role in determining the timing), the global proletariat spontaneously and universally intuits that any change whatsoever in political structures would leave them better off ("things can only get better", © N.Kinnock 1992), and this popular mood indeed results in a "revolutionary" end to the (capitalist) political edifice.

Several aspects of this don't meet basic plausibility tests - in particular, why the resulting new political "settlement" would be at all, err, comfortable for anyone, i.e. whether the universal proletarian intuition is in fact correct - but as a sci-fi narrative it stacks up as well as most. 

Well, here's another answer to the 'end of capitalism' question, and it claims rather better scientific credentials than poor old Marx, limited as he was to what he gathered from 1848 Germany, Engels' take on England, and what he could find in the Reading Room at the BM.   They both do claim to have made something scientific out of history.  And, like Marx's version, this narrative reckons to have taken into account various earlier "revolutions" or upheavals - except it claims a vastly greater database.  My precis:

1. some sort of seismic upheaval (think Black Death / massive technological breakthrough) results in a "money-pump" effect: a heretofore middling sector of the community that has been outside the ruling elite suddenly gets very rich, and/or very "qualified" (e.g. they can now all read, or all get university degrees) ;
2. said nouveau riche are now "credentialled" to join the ruling elite - at least, that's how they see it.  But the existing elite doesn't consider there are any vacancies, thank you very much.  So there's "overproduction of elite", an Elite Surplus;
3. the ES, a capable and confident bunch, are pretty pissed off about their being kept away from what they see as their entitlement to get hands on the levers of power, so they work to seize them by Other Means;
4. for this purpose they naturally light upon two strategies, potentially complementary: (a) take over an existing political party; (b) enlist (by way of cannon fodder) the immiserated lower classes, of which there will always be plenty in almost any regime, though their degree of restiveness will clearly vary from time to time;
5. this may sometimes result in a fairly painless transfer of power, but on other occasions will result in something much bloodier. 

Where does this come from?  It's an erudite bloke of Russian extraction called Peter Turchin, who's peddling a new book.  A good interview here, by the redoubtable Aaron Bastani.  

Worth pondering.  I recall discussions we've had here following the 2011 riots, along the lines of: the stroppy British mob has no political leadership - but wait for an officer-class to emerge from the ranks of disaffected, over-educated graduates who can't find the kind of work or wealth they feel they are entitled to.  The Turchin thesis seems to fit this nicely - rather better than Marx's, anyhow.  

Personally, I can take Turchin's as a compelling narrative approach to all manner of historical upheavals, with some genuine explanatory value: BUT without definitive predictive capability.  The difference is, unlike Marx, this guy doesn't seem to be claiming any - which speaks well for him.  (Even better, he's also a big fan of constructive competition.)  Marx, along with most economic forecasters, is all too easily ridiculed for his forecasting failure.  The real reason for laughing at Marx, however, is his claim to have come up with a new Science.

What do the rest of the capitalists here think?  Does Turchin define our imminent demise?  

ND

How could Labour or anyone opt out of UNITE?

One of the interesting parts of Ed Milliband's speech last week was the very relaxed attitude of the Unions to his claims of being keen on changing their relationship.

We know why of course, it is because they know who pulls the strings in reality and whilst it made for good telly and bluster to put a stop to endless criticism, over the summer and winter the ideas will be quietly droppped and nothing will happen. Which is why they are so keen to be seen to be supportive today.

In reality, Labour cannot survive without Union funding and the left wing of the party cannot dominate its policy agenda without Union block votes.

The UNITE union is also well capable of playing a duplicitous game. We have seen from the likes of Guido how carefully and cynically they have managed their campaign to elect 'UNITE' MP's. it is a very impressive thing too, can you imagine if we had Barclays MP's for example of British Airways MP's in the numbers of 30 or 40? (Which reminds me, a ludicrous number of MP's are ex-lawyers and barristers, so perhaps this plus lobbying/political research is the real counter balance to UNITE MP's).

However, as demonstration of how underhand UNITE can be, I have looked here at their application form. Nowhere does it explicitly mention either the support for the Labour party nor offer any way to get out of paying it. Except in Northern Ireland, where I guess they would have trouble finding a party to give their money to, as Labour does not stand in Northern Ireland!

UNITE are led by cynical, communist leaders who have no interests at heart except their own. I can't see any change coming soon, whatever the Leader of the Opposition says on the Grandstand.