The different understandings of decadence

[Palingenisis]

Are there any differences between the Left-Communist and Marxist Leninist understanding of decadence?

Are there differences between Marxist-Leninists and Left-Communists themselves over how decadence should be understood?

[el_chavista]

Decadence of what? The decadence of capitalism or the decadence of the revolutionary movement, for instance.

[Palingenisis]

Decadence of what? The decadence of capitalism or the decadence of the revolutionary movement, for instance.


Decadence of capitalism.

[zimmerwald1915]

Are there any differences between the Left-Communist and Marxist Leninist understanding of decadence?

Are there differences between Marxist-Leninists and Left-Communists themselves over how decadence should be understood?
Can't speak for the M-Ls, but there is no one Left-Communist understanding of decadence. Off the top of my head, I know the ICT, the ICC, the Bordigists, and Internationalist Perspectives all have different understandings of decadence, even though all say they're basing their positions on the Manifesto of the Comintern and other similar texts.

[Devrim]

I missed this before. Unlike Zimmer, I think that we can talk about a general left communist position on decadence. I think that the key thing for all left communists is that it means that there are no longer any progressive factions of the bourgeoisie and reflects on our politics accordingly.

I don't know much about the Maoist concept, but obviously it is very different.

Devrim

[mikelepore]

The idea of decadence is based on the assumption that social systems are organic processes. Social systems are born, experience infancy, reach maturity, and then die. The Roman state is a good example of the life cycle of a social system.

In the case of capitalism, it is being continuously mended artificially to prevent it from dying, but some parts of it are decaying even while the system stands. The system generates new problems faster than anyone could even begin to treat them.

The increase in the number of businesses that don't produce any durable goods, but profit by purely saprophytic processes like financial gambling, foreclosures, lawsuits, fixing computer viruses, selling get-rich-quick programs, etc., is a sign of decay.

Cutting investment in the society's future, like making education more unaffordable, is a sign of decay.

There is increased momentum in the downward spiral of business. When workers are laid off, they buy fewer goods, which makes industry lay off more workers, which causes people to buy still fewer goods.

The government tries to jumpstart the economy by giving the population contradictory advice: "To stimulate manufacturing, try to buy more goods" and "since you buried in debt, try to buy fewer goods."

These are signs, not only of the fact that the system isn't that the best possible system that we could conceive of, but the fact that the system is chronically malfunction and rotting internally.

[zimmerwald1915]

I missed this before. Unlike Zimmer, I think that we can talk about a general left communist position on decadence. I think that the key thing for all left communists is that it means that there are no longer any progressive factions of the bourgeoisie and reflects on our politics accordingly.
You're talking about simply recognizing the fact of decadence. I was talking about identifying the process by which capitalism has become decadent: for example, whether the inability to realize and accumulate capital or the depth to which the rate of profit has fallen are responsible for the decadence of capitalism. Or both, or some third factor, or all three. Or four. And to what degree.

[Devrim]

You're talking about simply recognizing the fact of decadence. I was talking about identifying the process by which capitalism has become decadent: for example, whether the inability to realize and accumulate capital or the depth to which the rate of profit has fallen are responsible for the decadence of capitalism. Or both, or some third factor, or all three. Or four. And to what degree.

Yes sorry, you are right. The ICC and the ICT for example both hold to very different economic theories. I don't think that there is an important enough difference for there to be two organisations though.

Devrim

[zimmerwald1915]

Yes sorry, you are right. The ICC and the ICT for example both hold to very different economic theories. I don't think that there is an important enough difference for there to be two organisations though.

Devrim
I don't disagree. Then again, the disagreement over the economic explanation of decadence was probably not the reason for the eventual outcome of the International Conferences.