An Alternative to Capitalism's Production Mode

Introduction:

Capitalism is the name of the system that saw us born and lead for few centuries in the world. Capitalist’s mode of production in Marxist theory. Whatever you call it, this does not alter its characteristics. This mode of production is characterized by the notion of private ownership, a monopoly over the means of production, exploitation of productive force, alienation from work and pays the same, called salary. I won’t explain here the meaning of its component because it is not the intention of the essay, since that information is readily available and we’d be diverting from the subject’s matter.

As simple note, all pillars are interrelated and are guarantors of the operation of the other and together, forming a sort of password vault, which is a necessary condition the proper functioning of all its parts to maintain the proper system. Like any another production mode, capitalism does not escape to the process of dialectics, in which one the system evolves to its average fuel burning is vital, productive force, it means, men in their productive stage.

Historical Context:

Before capitalism, at least the men had access to means of production in which worked the land, which operated in exchange for use of it, which hardly enough for subsistence. In this period when capitalism is slowly beginning to appear in what is known as the primitive accumulation of capital, between the XVI and XVIII. Once that was achieved on a basis which was settled by imposing progressively changing the way of life known to there and changing the design of the world. This is when men from outside the economic development that was gesture perplexed admire the new impositions that are beginning to weigh on the company. Not only that the farm grows even larger, but also are deprived of land, means of production which had its times of habitat, and living in the same place where they worked alongside his family. From now on start to receive payment for services rendered to the detriment of the enjoyment they were accustomed. This process involves a change to the naked eye only in habits, but really masks the situation of helplessness and insecurity with which the worker and his family must deal with from now on.

The land is to peasant what flour to bread, while one determinate the existence of the other. This nascent capitalism began to grow quickly and spread rapidly. It should be mentioned and take into account that which is not born phoenix from the ashes, but on the contrary finds support in a process that provided the basis material. To know, the “discovering” of the new world, America. Not that the discovery would mean vital to the process of gestation of capitalism, but yes what they find in the new world.

America will lead Europe to a beautiful and valuable gift, precious stones and workmanship available and cheap. It should be noted that in Europe at that time reigned precious metals as a measure of change, as the Commercialism and Physiocracy were the economic paradigm of the moment. That is where lies the importance of discovery in the new continent. Equivalent to find an island full of dollars today. Not only is this gift but it is what becomes the basis of material that made the nascent capitalism belly, becoming the accumulation mentioned as a prelude to capitalism.

But no mistake, Europe found anything in America that was left to drift, but on the contrary, was possession of the peoples who inhabited this continent. Despite this, Europeans did not hesitate a moment as pigs go hungry for what there was of interest. Subjugated to all people that lived there and destroyed all what interfered to their plans.

Destroyed the environment and exterminated most of the population, while the remaining part of it was enslaved and used as cheap labor to exploit minerals and upload their ships to get the loot for his land, the old world. The best hunter he escapes the hare, and Europe did not escape the rule, because it was such great the metal that was imported that brought a deep crisis, which is known as “revolution of prices”, and resulting consequences chaotic as precipitous devaluation of the currency, lower purchasing power, unemployment and a change in the diet of the society. While prices rose in that period, was only nominally as the purchasing power tended to decrease significantly, so point that almost any merchandise purchase cost about four times else.

The cereals were the mean that spread the economic crisis over, since they were the products most suffered the "price revolution". This situation led to the need to begin to have larger areas of land for agriculture at the expense of livestock. But it also had its side effects, as fewer cows means less fertilizer, which has a direct impact on soil fertility. Those who received a permanent usufruct were most affected by rising prices as it saw as growing your money worth less in market prices.

As for landlords, the situation was different because if the agriculture becoming more center stage and the prices of goods produced their land, thus land values also increase. In this particular situation as landowners welcomed the opportunity to fully dispose of land without relying on anyone else and pay a wage predetermined by the service, thus losing any relationship of dependency with the servant and do what it pleases unhindered as limiting. It is then, as I noted, the time when the worker is deprived of land, half of its production, its habitat, its certainty. Remember that the labor and land were an indivisible unit, a it rotates once the worker loses all kinds of security and social protection. Nothing governs the relations of dependence that policies are carried forward by a rising middle class to which the workers, under penalty should be adjusted jobless. Many workers are fleeing the city in search of a better quality of life and greater likelihood of employment, transforming many of them in crafts and manufacturing, which in hindsight, at least some of them end up as part of the rising bourgeoisie.

I

.Is posible eliminate the Capitalism?

Having defined our object of study and circumscribed in its historical context and development of training, I will develop the theme that relates to this test:

A method of production involves a number of parameters, which define and circumscribe. The same can not be viewed separately as they do not represent anything concrete things rather than isolated, but on the contrary they must be addressed together, since they are configured in this way giving concrete shape to the object, in this case, the mode of production. A mode of production is conceived as a structure, which means that it builds upon and through concrete pillars, these are the aforementioned parameters. In turn, the entire structure is manifested as a body, which is a necessary condition the smooth functioning of all the parties to it can be sustained. If any or several of its parts (parameters) are corrupted, it automatically falls into the same structure that was weakened and finally disappears.

It is clear that when a structure becomes obsolete and disappears, you do not leave a vacuum, but on the contrary it appears that another substitute, which in turn has been brewing within the will disappear. It is impossible for can live two or more structures at the same time as some of its parameters are presented as antagonistic to the other, making one definitely is imposed, which in some cases may constitute the reason for a decline, being replaced by that led to such a fate.

Assuming these assumptions we can deduce that there is any structure that is immune to disappear or to impose other. And it is the cornerstone of this test, demonstrating that it is possible to replace a structure on the other, without departing from the variation in which these principles are based. All that man is made to your satisfaction. This happens on any scale, which means that companies and countries pursue the same purpose.

II

The Anarchism as mean to change

I was never sympathetic to the political parties, but in order to move
within the parameters capitalists must accept them, something what
I resist, but I can not deny.
The two sides of the political coin, namely, right-wing to left-wing,
are born in Capitalism times, which means that even
Left-wing has characteristics from Capitalism, a detail that is not difficult to discover if compare parties from both sides, left and
right wing, and realize they have so much in common, which is
antagonistic to any kind of philosophy of the opposition and even the
dialectic.
All this made me look with respect and affection to Anarchism
as true philosophy of the opposition. It is true that
Anarchism was also born within the incubator of capitalist, but
is configured in a way a little more original and autonomous, and
professing something that neither the left nor the right wing do, that is the decentralization, a point which is the cornerstone of capitalism, the centralization, and even socialism and communism also support, but in a democratic and natural way, but not
ensures guarantees against despotism. Left-wing like me a lot but is presented as the ‘gray’ against the ‘black’ Capitalism (or right-wing), when in fact what is needed is a whole new palette of colors, and I believe anarchism could reach be.

I hold the above because, in my opinion, is not the problem of what hands should administer and distribute the profits within society, but the centralization as a concept, centralizing the social means of production, (centralization – the Achilles heel of capitalism). The right-wing argues that the bourgeoisie must do so, while the left-wing that worker should do, what I believe still the two sides of the same coin when we really need another currency, which in their dialectical struggle against Capitalism remove it and place a new system.
Anarchism does not notice whether the centralization of the means of production must be, in the hands bourgeois or workers, but
who rejects the centralization, and it is this innovative and crucial! Once state apparatus has been decentralized, people may be recruited in a socialist way, but not before breaking the block
centralizer.
So anarchism seems to be the bridge of transition and bound
mesh to weaken and kill Capitalism.