Decadence:

[Djehuti]

Decadence:
The Theory of Decline
or the Decline of Theory?


Hi. I have now read Aufheben's entire Decadence-trilogy, though I read it in swedish through www.riff-raff.se - It is a great article series, and I think that you should read it through, at least the first part. Very interesting!


Edit: Sorry about the Headline, It should not just be "Decadence:".
-----------

The notion that capitalism must inevitably decline and, by implication, that history is on our side, has been a dominant idea that has shaped much marxist and revolutionary thought, particularly that of Trotskyists and left communists. In the wake of the collapse of the Eastern Bloc it has become more important than ever to challenge such notions of capitalist decline and decadence. In the first part of our critique we examine the development of the various theories of capitalist decline that emerged out of the collapse of the Second International up until the end of the Second World War.

Part one:
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_2_dec.html

We are subjects faced with the objective reality of capitalism. Capitalism appears as a world out of control - the denial of control over our lives. But it is also a world in crisis. How do we relate to this crisis?

-----------

In the second instalment of this, our radical soap-opera of theoretical controversy, we critically examine three important revolutionary currents that went beyond the objectivism of orthodox Marxism - Socialism or Barberism, the Situationist International, and the Italian autonomist current, as well as attempts to reassert the orthodox line.

Part two:
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_3_dec2.html

-----------

In this, the long-waited concluding part to our odyssey through the history of theories of capitalist decline, we interrogate the account offered by the Radical Chains group. Despite their attempts to beyond a classical Marxist theory of decline by supplementing it with autonomism, they still end up with an objectivist theory. All attempts to periodize capitalism into objective progressive and decadent phases seek capital's doom not in proletarian self-activity but in the forms capitalist socialization. Such theories are therefore themselves doomed to fail the struggle of the proletariat.

Part three:
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_4_dec3.html

[redstar2000]

Correct me if I misunderstand, but Aufheben seems to argue that capitalism goes through periods of expansion followed by stagnation -- or "crisis" -- and that any one of those crises could be the "final crisis"...depending on the self-activity of the proletariat.

It follows that there will never be an objectively "final crisis"...one in which the proletariat is summoned to "take up its historic tasks" like it or not!

I don't know if Aufheben is right or wrong...but there is "a worm in this apple".

The Leninist argument has always been that "revolutionary opportunities" arise periodically in the normal course of capitalism -- but if there is no good Leninist leadership, those opportunities are "missed".

If, as Aufheben seems to think, "any crisis" could be the "final crisis", then that would serve to at least indirectly reinforce the Leninist conceit.

In Leninist eyes, of course, the "self-activity of the proletariat" primarily or even exclusively consists of following Leninist leadership...so they wouldn't have much of a problem appropriating Aufheben.

Granted that the arguments in favor of a "final crisis" have problems of their own -- mainly in the realm of empirical justification -- I'm nevertheless inclined to favor this path of investigation because it removes entirely any "need" for Leninist "leadership" altogether.

Still, I could be wrong and Aufheben could be right. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif