The Contradiction of Aging Under the Capitalist Regime

Author: Flora C.

Reaching old age in our times is an achievement of our species and the result of the scientific and technological advances of our era; however, it is a heterogeneous form of aging, in which those who have the least age under the worst conditions. The poor live longer than before (though still far less than the bourgeoisie), but with a very low quality of life, thereby accentuating class differences at the end of life.

The proletariat’s access to this conquest of humanity has been, in part, the product of the struggle for labor rights—such as the eight-hour working day—wrested from this system through blood and revolution. It is known, for example, that working more than 55 hours a week is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Likewise, state intervention in the management of national, permanent public health was initiated by the USSR after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Even so, this system has not been able to guarantee successful aging for impoverished classes, nor does it seem to be part of its plans.

Thus, we can observe that in 1950 global life expectancy reached 46.5 years, while today it averages 73.5 years for both sexes, with a mean of 76.2 years for women and 70.9 years for men. We also see the stark difference between wealthy micro-states such as Monaco—which has the highest life expectancy in the world, exceeding 86 years—and several African countries whose projections fall below 60 years. The socioeconomic determinants of aging are evident: an increasing number of studies show that exposure to poverty, inequality, malnutrition, poor access to basic services, education, and healthcare from early ages and throughout the life course will define an individual’s survival and the quality of their aging.

The demographic transition—in which societies move from high birth and death rates to low ones, meaning that over time there are more older adults than children—brings various problems to today’s capitalist economic system. In France, for example, the state has increased the retirement age because the pension system faces sustainability issues and requires older adults to keep producing, while the population protests because retirement benefits are part of the victories won against capitalism.

France, like many European countries, faces this new challenge: more retirees and fewer working-age people contributing to a pension system that is “solidary,” meaning today’s pensions are paid with the funds contributed by today’s workers. This makes evident the crisis of capitalism, which is no longer able to sustain the supposed “welfare state,” not even in developed countries.

On the other hand, low birth rates—which can be explained, among other reasons, by labor instability and low wages, as well as high housing costs and weak support networks or state-provided care services—limit families’ ability to have children, as they wait for a “better moment” that often never arrives. This is a clear consequence of the current economic system. Capitalism does not automatically guarantee the sustainability of a solidary system, because it depends on demographic, labor, and fiscal factors.

With demographic change, there are fewer contributors and more retirees, given that capitalism does not prioritize social reproduction but rather economic productivity. Moreover, the precarization of labor—through informality, unemployment, temporary or unstable jobs—and the automation that replaces human labor, results in fewer contributions to the pension system. In addition to the fact that fewer young people are contributing at all, not everyone manages to make uninterrupted contributions over decades. Capitalism also prioritizes reducing taxes on companies and investors to attract capital, thereby limiting the public resources available for pensions.

Currently, reaching retirement age in backward countries like Peru implies a drastic reduction in income. An average worker may receive a minimum monthly pension of S/ 400 (US$119) if they have contributed for 15 to 19 years, and a maximum of S/ 893 (US$265), not counting those who do not receive any pension at all. This increases inequality in aging, since the poor not only age in worse health conditions but also face greater expenses and impoverishment because of this—benefiting only the transnational pharmaceutical industry.

The partial solution offered by the system to this problem is to increase the contribution age, placing the burden on workers rather than on capital. What we need is a structural transformation of the economic system that can change, from the root, all the problems described. Only under world socialism will we be able to achieve a productive, healthy, and dignified old age for all workers.