He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society... The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association.
I was reading a couple of the articles on decadence.
MH's does a good job of differentiating its quantiative aspects, slowed growth etc., and qualitative aspects, of war and bureaucracy etc..
I wondered if anything more could be added to MH's article.
Is the qualitative aspect acting to isolate workers? i.e. preventing the association of labourers, which would inevtiably lead to revolution when combined with quantitative decadence -- the pauperisation of workers relative to technological progress?
I'm not saying that making that clear would convince the skeptic of "decadence", but it does suggest that whatever the moral virtues of capitalism priori to decadence, its concrete effects were more limited. Workers just are a lot more isolated since 1914 IMHO.