Decadence

[jaycee]

i believe capitalism has been decadent on a world scale since the early 20th century, what are other peoples views on decadance becuase i know most 'marxists' disregard this central theme of marxism in regard to present day capitalism

[terry]

It is true that our so-called Western civilisation today has become increasingly decadent. The symbol of this decadence can, I believe, be seen in the increasing consumption of the alcoholic beverage known as 'port' -

http://www.infinity8design.com/images/port-wine.jpg

port has been consumed since ancient times. During the enlightenment period of european history it became identified as a symbol of both the ancien regime aristocracy and the growing bourgoisie. Under Russia's first Revolutionary government, port was outlawed, representing as it did the class enemies of Tsarist days. However, the growth of capitalist/fascist organisations in the post cold war has seen the mass production and export of port around the world. Millions of child workers in Portugal's Douro valley are forced to spend 12 hours a day making port for american hyper-corporations. Please help.

I could do with a glass of port though. Ah, port.

[dannie]

it would suprise me that the reason a lot of people drink port is because it used to be a symbol of ancin regime aristocracy and bourgoisie, at least not out here in belgium, where indeed a lot of people drink the stuff. It's cause it's got a real easy taste, a bit like martini has, unlike for example wodka

I think decadence comes from a need to portray oneself as oneself belongs to a "higher" class, or act like your class is suposed to act, with a lot of shit around the essence. Acting like you belong in a higher class may even get you there, or give you the feeling you are "better", give you the feeling you are not just poor working class, making people to think better of you.

[MysticArcher]

what are other peoples views on decadance becuase i know most 'marxists' disregard this central theme of marxism in regard to present day capitalism

I'm of two minds on the subject:

Firstly I agree, the conspicuous consumption of capitalism is kind of disturbing, seen in a lot of things; like giant land barge SUVs, trends - especially in "cool" shoes (like those white expensive Nikes or whatever, that guys try to keep clean - I mean they're shoes if they're dirty it means they're doing their job) or clothes, etc.

But, I also believe most of the time when the subject is brought up it's usally by some primitivist wacko who seems convinced that abundance is some kind of "sin"

The solution seems to be that in a communist society people who want such things have to produce them themselves since it would be difficult to convince the community to grant resources for such items, and collectives dedicated to repair should be able to refuse to repair such things (I'm thinking especially in regards to my huge SUV example)

[jaycee]

i meant decadence by the marxist definition in terms of capitalism being 'decadent' and 'reactionary' as oppossed to 'ascendent' and progressive. as marx said a mode of production becomes decadent when its social relations become 'fetters on the productive forces'

[LSD]

I don't think that modern capitalism has reached the "end of the road" yet, but we're definitely heading in that direction.

These are clearly reactionary times in the first world. No new social innovations have been made in decades and the biggest visible changes have been regressive rather than progressive.

The rising ascendency among the rulling class of "Christian Conservativism" , the very institution that the bourgeoisie fought so hard against, shows us that we are moving steadily backwards.

Indeed, it is rather significant that the most "advanced" and "current" political and economic theories around today are actually nothing more than rehashes of century old ideas. "Neo-liberalism" and "neo-conservatism", both clearly meant to seem quite "neo", are in fact nothing more than regurgitated turn of the 20th century "liberal" nonsense.

You know, the stuff that was so thoroughly debunked seventy years ago.

Capitalism seems unable to come up with anything new anymore.

At the same time, however, there are certainly changes happening. The biggest story of the 1990s was the explosion of the internet, and despite early hopes of a global ".com market", the fact is that internet purchasing is immensly below econmists' predictions.

Instead, the real innovations are happening outside of the capitalist paradigm. "Free software", "content piracy", "online communities", it's all small right now, but it's pretty much the first real massive technological shift in the last 30 years.

And the capitalists are fighting it!

Clearly, we're getting close to the end, here. But, unfortunately in Marxist terms, "close" can be a very long time. And getting there's not going to be pretty.

We're in for some "hard times". :(

[Scars]

Decadence by way of materialism and commercialism is the main way that the Capitalists keep the working classes suppressed, predominantly in the 'first world' (I hate that term). By encouraging people to measure themselves on the basis of their material worth, as opposed to been intrinsicly 'good' or benefical for society, decadence is seen as the height of social progression. This is why rich people are seen in some way 'better' than poor people, even if they have actually done nothing to earn the possessions that they have (for instance, inheirating money from family and the like).

People then become so focused on gaining material possessions that greed becomes the main focus of their life. They live in a world where the ultimate goal is to become as rich as possible- buy the big TV, live in the big house, wear the designer clothes and thus getting through to people in the 'first world' is incredibly hard because communism is inheirantly opposed to these things.

This even goes for the working classes. They don't dream of living in a just and equal world, they dream of having loads of money, a fast car, a big TV and a big house. That is the goal, they sell their labour in an effort to achive this goal.

I believe that this is part of the reason that communism is only gained popularity in the 'first world' during serious economic slumps (when achiving a decadent lifestyle is completely out of the question for the vast majority of people), while in the 'third world' (particularly in countries where decadence is still seen as bad) communism has gained huge support and continues to do so.

Capitalism is not failing, it is not collapsing, it is nowhere near the end of the road. It may be recycling ideas, for instance neo-liberalism is moving back towards and updating the classical economics of Adam Smith and co, but then again the social structures that are our eventual goal are essentially updated verions of 'Primitive Communism' (i.e. getting rid of the 'primitive' bit on the front). Humans tend to look back before they look forward.

As for this 'Christian Conservative' bullshit. This only applies to the USA (overall), the rest of the 'first world' is getting steadily more secular. In addition to this, the USA has not got particularly more conservative, nor has it got more Christian. In fact it has got both less conservative and less Christian. The only difference is Bush is more willing to openly profess his faith and admit that it influences the choices that he makes. Other presidents have made more of an attempt to maintain the fascade of American Secularism. The main problem is the USA has never suffered the massive religious wars the way Europe has, thus they don't realise just how sensible secularism is.

[LSD]

Decadence by way of materialism and commercialism is the main way that the Capitalists keep the working classes suppressed, predominantly in the 'first world' (I hate that term). By encouraging people to measure themselves on the basis of their material worth, as opposed to been intrinsicly 'good' or benefical for society, decadence is seen as the height of social progression.

I don't know in what sense you are using the word "decadent", but it is not in the Marxist historical materialist sense.

I think that you're talking about "moral" decadence, something which, of course, does not exist.

"Morality" is irrelevent in a communist discussion. People are consumeristic because they live in a class society that favours consumerism. It isn't "bad" or "good", it's just the natural consequence of capitalist society.


Capitalism is not failing, it is not collapsing, it is nowhere near the end of the road.

Well, again, "near" is a relative term, especially in social analysis. But Capitalism is clearly on the decline.

The capitalist class has not been an ascendant vibrant class in a long time.

The Bourgeoisie no longer fights superstition and regression, rather it embraces it. It is no longer a question of advancement, but rather holding on to what they have.

If Marx was right, of course, this is an inevitable stage; all class socieites must eventual advance to the point where they are no longer capable of reforming themselves, but must instead be abolished if humanity is to progress further.

I am not saying that we are at that point yet, but the signs are clearly that we are headed in that direction. It may well be centuries yet ...but I doubt it.

I would not be surprised if we see the beginning of the end of capitalism in the next 100 - 200 years.

Obviously, the sooner the better.


but then again the social structures that are our eventual goal are essentially updated verions of 'Primitive Communism' (i.e. getting rid of the 'primitive' bit on the front).

No they are not!

This is just more useless "negation of the negation" dialectical "spiral" crap.

Communism is not an "updated version" of anything.

Primitave societies were not "communist", in fact they were barely even societies. They were violently biggoted, sexist, and assuredly hierarchical.

There were "tribe leaders" and "chief hunters" and all sorts of pseudo-meritocratic and gerontocratic hierarchies, and there was certainly nothing approaching modern democracy.

There was no ownership, yes, but that's because there was nothing to own.

Communists don't want to return to primativism, we want to advance to communism. A state of society that can only exist, in a post-property environment.

Communism is not about the abolition of property, it's about the abolition of private property and that isn't a "return" to anything.


As for this 'Christian Conservative' bullshit. This only applies to the USA (overall), the rest of the 'first world' is getting steadily more secular.

That is largely because different countries progress at different rates.

The United States has advanced much quicker than most European countries, mainly due to its economic dominance and relative security.

While Europe was plunged into successive wars in the late ninetheenth and early twentieth century, the US was able to advance unscathed.

Today, that means that American capitalism is much further along than European, as evidenced both by the US' monumental global economic domination, and the state of her domestic market.

Europe, for her part, is still exiting a rather lengthy period of reform, dating back to the end of the second world war. The US ended that period around thirty years ago. Today, she is in an overt period of reaction, highlighted rather spectacularly by the rise of the Christian Conservative movement.

European countries, still in a reformist stage, are indeed growing more secular but that is thanks to the good luck of circumstances. They managed to deal with a lot of their religious fundamentalists a long time ago and their domestic bourgeoisie is still attempting to keep capitalism progressive.

That does not mean that European capitalism is not headed for the same kind of reactioanry regression as American capitalism, it just means that it will manifest in a different way.

It will not be Christian conservatism, per se, but it will definitely be Conservatism of one brand or another.

Again, if Marx was right, it's inevitable.


In addition to this, the USA has not got particularly more conservative, nor has it got more Christian. In fact it has got both less conservative and less Christian.

Utter nonsense.

The social conservative movement has never been as strong as it is now.

The United States is very actively undoing the secular reforms of the past 40 years, and an increasing percentage of the population supports it.

Do you think it is a "conincidence" that we are now hearing more and more about the "ten comandments"?

That even though prayer in school was forbidden 40 years ago, it is now suddenly an issue?

How about "intelligent design" and "creationism"? Schools have been teaching evolution exclusively for almost 50 years now. But it's only in the past decade that it's become a "hot button" issue.

"less conservative and less Christian"? Try verging on Christian fascism!


The only difference is Bush is more willing to openly profess his faith and admit that it influences the choices that he makes.

You are putting the cart way way in front of the horse here.

The question you need to ask is not how did Bush's election affect American politics, it's how did American politics affect Bush's election.

Why was George Bush, an overt, rampant, dogmatic, Christian Conservatice, elected and re-elected as President?

Why are more and more socially conservative Christians being elected to fill the Senate and House?

Why are politicians suddenly feeling so much more willing to "oppenly profess [their] faith"?

In short, if the US is truly "less conservative" then what the fuck is going on!? :o

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Wikipedia
Vladimir Lenin continued and extended the use of the word "decadence" in his theory of imperialism to refer to economic matters underlying political manifestations. According to Lenin, capitalism had reached its highest stage and could no longer provide for general development of society. He expected reduced vigor in economic activity and a growth in unhealthy economic phenomenon, because society was ripe for socialist revolution in the West. Politically, World War I proved the decadent nature of the advanced capitalist countries to Lenin, that capitalism had reached the stage where it would destroy its own prior achievements more than it would advance.

It is customary for Marxists to note signs of "decay" in late capitalism as "straws in the wind".

The rise of various superstitions -- supernatural and secular -- in the "west" is considered significant because this was characteristic of the "decline and fall" of both ancient despotism and feudalism.

The implied assumption is that a "decaying" ruling class gradually loses the capacity to make rational choices in its own class interests.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is now expected to cost U.S. imperialism trillions of dollars, for example. It has become a catastrophic blunder...and one can only wonder what will be next.

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

[Scars]

<<"Morality" is irrelevent in a communist discussion. People are consumeristic because they live in a class society that favours consumerism. It isn&#39;t "bad" or "good", it&#39;s just the natural consequence of capitalist society.>>
It isn&#39;t a moral arguement, materialism, consumerism, greed etc are all by-products of the existance of property and thus should be discouraged as one cannot give up the concept of property while retaining a materialistic attitude to life. Class perpetuates consumerism and consumerism perpetuates class and social stratification- you can&#39;t eliminate one without eliminating the other. In addition to this consumerism has essentially replaced religion as the most important tool used to suppress the working class in the &#39;first world&#39;. But then again, I don&#39;t put too much faith in the revolutionary possibilities of the majority of people living in the &#39;first world&#39;.
<<Well, again, "near" is a relative term, especially in social analysis. But Capitalism is clearly on the decline.>>
Most things are relative. Or they&#39;re guesses, educated or not.

<<The capitalist class has not been an ascendant vibrant class in a long time.>>
In America, maybe not. In the rest of the world, yes it has been. Capitalism is still spreading and developing, establishing itself in more countries and tightening its grip on the world via direct control (the country being a capitalist one) as opposed to indirect control (the pre-capitalist country being dependent on the capitalist country). India and China are edging towards developing full-blown capitalism. That&#39;s around a third of the worlds population right there. In the west the capitalist class may be slowing down, but capitalism as a whole is not declining, it is not weakening, it is spreading, reorganising and adapting to the conditions that now exist in the world.

<<The Bourgeoisie no longer fights superstition and regression, rather it embraces it. It is no longer a question of advancement, but rather holding on to what they have.>>
Once again, in America- possibly. But then again America has always been incredibly socially backward, so it&#39;s not that suprising that when the going gets tough the Puritan banner gets held up. As I&#39;ve said, people tend to look backwards before they look forward.

<<If Marx was right, of course, this is an inevitable stage; all class socieites must eventual advance to the point where they are no longer capable of reforming themselves, but must instead be abolished if humanity is to progress further.>>
And that&#39;s a fucking big &#39;if&#39;, now isn&#39;t it?

<<I am not saying that we are at that point yet, but the signs are clearly that we are headed in that direction. It may well be centuries yet ...but I doubt it.>>
I think that we&#39;re heading in that direction too, as for time periods, I think that depends more on the &#39;third world&#39; than the &#39;first&#39;. The &#39;third world&#39; are in a far better position to resist than the &#39;first world&#39; and if they succeed in doing so then capitalism could collapse completely within the next 50 years. But I doubt it.

<<I would not be surprised if we see the beginning of the end of capitalism in the next 100 - 200 years.>>
Tis nice to see people being realistic once and a while.

<<Obviously, the sooner the better.>>
I agree

<<No they are not&#33;

This is just more useless "negation of the negation" dialectical "spiral" crap.>>

I can&#39;t say I buy into dialectics all that much.

<<Communism is not an "updated version" of anything.>>
But it is heavily based on the &#39;primitive communism&#39; that was talked about my Engels and is present in some cultures scattered around the world. The abolition of property, distribution by measure of need, collectivism, worker control etc, none of these things are new. Marxist Communism provides a economic rational, whether said rational is correct or incorrect is another matter all together.

<<Primitave societies were not "communist", in fact they were barely even societies. They were violently biggoted, sexist, and assuredly hierarchical.>>
There&#39;s a difference between &#39;primitive societies&#39; and &#39;primitive communism&#39;.

<<There were "tribe leaders" and "chief hunters" and all sorts of pseudo-meritocratic and gerontocratic hierarchies, and there was certainly nothing approaching modern democracy.>>
You&#39;re not describing primitive communism, you&#39;re describing early fuedalism (before the emergance of &#39;nations&#39; and larger, more organised groups of people). Primitive communism refers to the very early hunter-gatherer groups that existed, not the tribalism that emerged after the invention of the concept of property and more importantly, the concept of &#39;owning&#39; land.

<<There was no ownership, yes, but that&#39;s because there was nothing to own.>>
Tools, clothes, housing materials (for instance tents), possibly early games or toys i.e. the necessities of life. Consumer goods do not need to exist.

<<Communists don&#39;t want to return to primativism, we want to advance to communism. A state of society that can only exist, in a post-property environment.>>
I don&#39;t want to revert to primitivism, nor am I advocating it. Primitivists should be dropped in the Brazilian rainforest, thus eradicating their flawed arguements as they starve. But personal prejudices aside, the basic social structures (or lack there of) will be similar to the earliest human groups, only on a far greater scale with more organisation.

<<Communism is not about the abolition of property, it&#39;s about the abolition of private property and that isn&#39;t a "return" to anything.>>
Yes, it is. Private property hasn&#39;t always existed, nor will it always exist.

<<That is largely because different countries progress at different rates.>>
You assume that development is the same, or even similar for difference countries.

<<The United States has advanced much quicker than most European countries, mainly due to its economic dominance and relative security.>>
The main thing was it being able to avoid major structural damage during both WWI and II.


<<Europe, for her part, is still exiting a rather lengthy period of reform, dating back to the end of the second world war. The US ended that period around thirty years ago. Today, she is in an overt period of reaction, highlighted rather spectacularly by the rise of the Christian Conservative movement.>>
What is going on in Europe is not like what was happening in America 30 years ago. The road that Europe is taking is a capitalist one, but it is not necessarily an American-Capitalist road. In fact, if anything Europe is becoming more anti-American which will lead to more conflict between Europe and America in the future.

<<European countries, still in a reformist stage, are indeed growing more secular but that is thanks to the good luck of circumstances. They managed to deal with a lot of their religious fundamentalists a long time ago and their domestic bourgeoisie is still attempting to keep capitalism progressive.>>
Because they have seen the effects that mixing the state and the church can have on countries. Putting morality and faith aside, secularism does avoid many problems, particularly when dealing with countries of other religions.

<<That does not mean that European capitalism is not headed for the same kind of reactioanry regression as American capitalism, it just means that it will manifest in a different way.>>
Exactly. Capitalism is not monolithic, united or absolute.

<<It will not be Christian conservatism, per se, but it will definitely be Conservatism of one brand or another.>>
Exactly. Christianity isn&#39;t the issue, it&#39;s just a tool that is used by the conservatives to give credibility to their claims. That&#39;s why far right movements generally attempt to link themselves to great historical figures, in order to make their movement seem more acceptable (&#39;continuing the legacy&#39; and what-not) and give them a credibility that they don&#39;t actually possess.

<<Again, if Marx was right, it&#39;s inevitable.>>

And talking about inevitabilities is dangerous.


<<The social conservative movement has never been as strong as it is now.>>
It&#39;s been stronger, for instance during the 19th century.

<<the United States is very actively undoing the secular reforms of the past 40 years, and an increasing percentage of the population supports it.>>
The US has never been particularly secular, it&#39;s just that things have never been so public before.

<<Do you think it is a "conincidence" that we are now hearing more and more about the "ten comandments"?>>
We&#39;re hearing more about them as a reaction to calls for them to be removed from courthouses etc.

<<That even though prayer in school was forbidden 40 years ago, it is now suddenly an issue?>>
The banning of prayer in schools 40 years ago was a technicality, it was simply replaced by other things and besides the oath thing (which has always mystified me) mentions God in it, yes? Most of this stuff is religiously based, they object to it because they are Christians, not because they are conservative (although the two tend to go together).

<<"less conservative and less Christian"? Try verging on Christian fascism>>
Fascism- buzzword for anything anyone on the left disagrees with. The US is not fascist, it&#39;s not Christian fascism. The US is simply becoming a classical republic, close to Sparta in fact (Western Democracy is an almost carbon copy of the Spartan system).

<<The question you need to ask is not how did Bush&#39;s election affect American politics, it&#39;s how did American politics affect Bush&#39;s election.>>
I see Bush as utterly irrelivant to this issue. Bush is an idiot, he&#39;s a mouthpiece- a retard easily controlled and duped into doing whatever he&#39;s told.

<<Why was George Bush, an overt, rampant, dogmatic, Christian Conservatice, elected and re-elected as President?>>
Fear. People want strength, power and fearlessness when they are in fear. The Bush camp provides all of the above. This has happened numerous times before- in times of war or conflict conservativism tends to win out over liberalism as the populations priorities change.

<<Why are more and more socially conservative Christians being elected to fill the Senate and House?>>
For the same reason Bush was. In addition to this the Christian Conservative are the most united and cohesive group and strength and unity are important when you&#39;re in a war, particularly when you&#39;re in a war which you are actively perpetuating.

<<Why are politicians suddenly feeling so much more willing to "oppenly profess [their] faith"?>>
For the same reason that there are always mass conversions before the big battle.

<<In short, if the US is truly "less conservative" then what the fuck is going on&#33;?>>
The US is less conservative than it was 50 years ago and I seriously doubt that it will become that conservative again. Within the Western world the US is in the middle when it comes to conservatism- the catholic countries such as Italy, Spain and Portugal are more conservative, however much of the Western world is far more liberal. Things are bad, but they could be worse. The world isn&#39;t as fucked up now as it has been.

[jaycee]

&#39;the world isn&#39;t as fucked up now as it has been&#39;...?
it depends which way you look at it becuase in some ways things have never been worse than they are now. Capitalism if not overthrown threatens to destroy all of humanity and civilisation through war, global warming, famine, ecominc crisis and the spread of desease such as Aids. Conditions for the world working class have deterirated since the 70s to a massive extent. Wages in the west have largely remained the same in real terms or decreased, the social wage is under constant attack, workers are working longer and longer hours and are loosing whatever rights they had under more and more attacks. Africa has clearly never been in such a bad situation in almost its entire history and is only going to get worse as time goes on. In Latin America poverty has rocketed since the 80&#39;s( i had some statistics, something like there are now 20 million more people live under the poverty line actually i just read that this is 20 million since 1998) and as Argentina showed this can only increase as the economy of the world feels the crisis even more. Eastern Europe since the 80&#39;s also has gone from bad to worse in most cases, in Russia poverty went from around 2% in 1987 to around 35% now, life expectancy has also dropped in Russia and alcholism, prostitution and Aids have exploded (by the way i don&#39;t tell you this in support of Stalinist state capitalism).

The ecomomy has only lasted since the crisis returned in the 70&#39;s through massive bending of the rules of capitalism and the use of state capitalism in all countries. We are seeing now the massive use of debt to keep the world economy alive, the massive use of cheap foriegn labour is also part of capitalisms survival kit. Howver under the weight of a contuing economic crisis, disaster of global warming and a growing tendency of every nation fighting for their own imperialist interests as well as the spread of nuclear weapons the prospects are very bleaque for the next century.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:09 PM
i believe capitalism has been decadent on a world scale since the early 20th century, what are other peoples views on decadance becuase i know most &#39;marxists&#39; disregard this central theme of marxism in regard to present day capitalism
Have you read the International communist current&#39;s articles on the subject?
http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/15/9/


Also, Aufheben&#39;s decadence trilogy is great&#33;
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_2_dec.html

[LSD]

But then again, I don&#39;t put too much faith in the revolutionary possibilities of the majority of people living in the &#39;first world&#39;.

Then in whom do you place your "revolutionary faith"?

Communism can only be achieved in the first world. Clearly, the contemporary proletariat is not revolutionary, but if you reject the possibility of revolutionary potential, what hope do you have for proletarian emancipation?


In America, maybe not. In the rest of the world, yes it has been.

Obviously. But that&#39;s not the issue here.

As you&#39;ve pointed out yourself, different regions progress at different rates, there are indeed ares in the world where capitalism is in a stage of progresion, or even where it has not yet ascended.

In much of the world, true capitalism would be a step up.

Not so in the first world, certainly not in America.

In the US, capitalism has begun to "run its course". It has entered a clearly reactionary period and shows no sign of reversing. It is certainly possible that it will enter yet another stage of reform, but it seems unlikely.

At this level of technological advancement and economic development, the capitalists can no longer afford to make significant concessions to the workers, nor can they allow and real progression.

Instead, they desperately hold on to what they have and actively fight progress. That is a sure sign of a decadent class.


But then again America has always been incredibly socially backward, so it&#39;s not that suprising that when the going gets tough the Puritan banner gets held up.

"Socially backwards" relative to whom?

Monarchist England under crazy old King George or Imperial France under Napoleon?

There have been times when the US has been ahead and times when it has been behind. There is no such thing as a "national character".


And that&#39;s a fucking big &#39;if&#39;, now isn&#39;t it?

Yes it is.

I&#39;m quite sure that Marx was wrong on a great deal many things, but until someone comes up with a better model, it&#39;s the best we have to work with.


There&#39;s a difference between &#39;primitive societies&#39; and &#39;primitive communism&#39;.

Namely that "primitive communism" doesn&#39;t exist.


You&#39;re not describing primitive communism, you&#39;re describing early fuedalism (before the emergance of &#39;nations&#39; and larger, more organised groups of people).

No I am not.

I am describing pre-agricultural paleolithic society; that is, before the advent of farming, urbanization, and property.

These societies were ecnomically equal because they were, for all intents and purposes, economically null.

Politically, however, they were characterized by gross discrepencies.

Women and men were not "treated equally", the strong and weak were not considered "equal", and collective decision making meant the rule of the chief.

Engels and even Marx may have written some musings on "returning to primitive communism", but it was just a doomed attempt to reconcile Hegelian "sipral" historiography with materialist progression.

Frankly, it seems like a waste of time to me.


You assume that development is the same, or even similar for difference countries.

No, I am assuming that all capitalist countries follow the basic capitalist model.

Remember, I am speaking in very broad strokes here. Namely that once a form of society becomes unable to advance further, those who bennefit from that society will attempt to prevent further development because it is inconsistent with their paradigm of domination.

We saw it happen with slave-production, we saw it happen with feudalism, and we are seeing it happen with capitalism.

An honest historical materialist analysis cannot help but conclude that eventually capitalism must reach the same point that all class societies reach.

The question, of course, is how do we recognize that point or, perhaps more importantly, how do we recognize when we are approaching that point.

As I have already outlined, I believe that many of the signs are here now.


What is going on in Europe is not like what was happening in America 30 years ago.

No, it is actually closer to what was going on in America 40 years ago, although, obviously it is not "the same".

Again, this is about the broad strokes, not about the specific minutae.

The US went through this stage of development as the dominant global economic power with several junior partners.

Europe is going through the same stage as that junior partner with a dominant global economic power to contend with.

Clearly this results in different specififc manifestations.

But the central point, that of reform leading to reaction as capitalism approaches its end, holds.

Europe is on the precipice of the final decline. Already economic "reform" is on the horizon. It is still probably decades away, but the "end of the beginning" as it were, is coming.


In fact, if anything Europe is becoming more anti-American which will lead to more conflict between Europe and America in the future.

You&#39;re missing the point.

I&#39;m not saying that Europe is following an "american model", I am saying that there is a natural model of capitalism that both America and Europe are following ...America just happens to be further along.

The anti-American feelings are merely a byproduct of this development and represent the local bourgeoie&#39;s desire for local sovereignty, something that they have achieved far more than many other nations, nations which, incidently, show far higher instances of "anti-americanism".


It&#39;s been stronger, for instance during the 19th century.

No it wasn&#39;t.

The 19th century was more conservative, but the conservative movement was relatively weak.

There were parts of the the nineteenth century of course that, as with any century, were characterized by reaction, but for the most part, the capitalist class was largely quite progressive.

Not so anymore.


The US has never been particularly secular, it&#39;s just that things have never been so public before.

And why do you suppose that is?

Again, the decisions being challanged today were mainly made decades ago.

Abortion, prayer, affirmative action, church and state, evolution, etc... these debates were all held thirty or more years ago, but are now controversial again.

The US is not as conservative today as it was in the 1950s ...but it&#39;s getting there.


The banning of prayer in schools 40 years ago was a technicality

"technicality"? :o

What on earth are you talking about?

There were mass protests in the streets over that one&#33; The south practically exploded.

The Christian right, for what it was then, called it the death of America&#33;

But it stood ...until now.


Fear. People want strength, power and fearlessness when they are in fear. The Bush camp provides all of the above. This has happened numerous times before- in times of war or conflict conservativism tends to win out over liberalism as the populations priorities change.

Except George Bush wasn&#39;t elected in a "time of war", he was elected in a time of great "peace and prosperity": 2000.

Likewise, the Republican congress did not gain its majorities after the "terrorists struck", the gained them in a time of relative security and tranquility: 1994&#33;

Frankly, your argument makes no sense.

The US has been moving to the right pretty progressively since the mid 1980s. This long predates "the war on terror".


The US is less conservative than it was 50 years ago and I seriously doubt that it will become that conservative again.

I truly hope that you&#39;re right.

But hoping and "doubts" don&#39;t make facts. And the facts aren&#39;t looking too good. :(


Within the Western world the US is in the middle when it comes to conservatism- the catholic countries such as Italy, Spain and Portugal are more conservative

That is simply not borne out by the facts.

Italy has had abortion legal for thirty years and it is a political "non-issue" today. Spain just passes a same-sex marriage law and pulled out of Iraq. All three countries you mentioned have advanced socialized health care systems&#33;

Obviously, religion still has a great deal of power in many parts of the world. But, again, the question is not where a country is, it&#39;s in what direction is it headed.

Spain and Portugal and Italy are still moving forward. They are still making progressive economic changes.

The US is no longer moving forward.

Again, it&#39;s not "over"; it may not be for centuries.

Certainly there are still "battles being fought". There is a very good chance that a small portion of the US will have legal same-sex marriage in the next few decades ...although it will be a small portion.

There is also a decent chance of some minor proletarian gains, but they will be small and they will be temporary.

The general direction that the US is heading in is down, but if basic communist theory is at all correct, it will be ultimately beneficial.

It&#39;s been said that "it&#39;s always darkest before the dawn." Well, it&#39;s about to get really damn dark.

Here&#39;s hoping for a "red dawn"&#33; :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by International Communist Current
This has in fact been the historic situation since the First World War: this war marked the end of the ascendant phase of the capitalist mode of production, a phase which began in the sixteenth century and which reached its zenith at the end of the nineteenth century. The new phase which followed was that of the decadence of capitalism. -- December 30, 2004

I stopped reading at this point...because anyone who could say something like this is clearly living on another planet.

The "ascendant phase" of the capitalist mode of production may have ended in the "west" around 1970. It has certainly not "ended" in Japan, China, etc.

To blandly re-state Lenin&#39;s discredited analysis as if it were "self-evident" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary does not inspire any confidence on my part that they might have anything of any further interest to say.

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

[gilhyle]

This is an interesting question. When Lenin described imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, was he correct ?

When Marx said that no society is overthrown until it has exhausted its potential, does that apply to capitalism now ?

How can it apply when capitalism has grown so phenomenally over the last fifty years ?

Yet I think Lenin was right (maybe for the wrong reasons, but that involves an assessment of his imperialism pamphlet).

The issue becomes dialectical at a certain point in the development of capitalism since the capacity of capitalism to accumulate and invest comes to rely (inversely) on its ability to defeat the working class strategically for whole periods.

The point about the early twentieth century is that that is the point at which a critical change happened in the pre-conditions for capitalist growth. Two things happened, periods of intense crisis and destruction became preconditions of continued growth and secondly, the development of a world capitalist economy distorted in structure (to the point of significantly lessening the potential economic benefits of a world economy) by the exercise of imperialist power became the outcome of capitalist growth.

In those senses, capitalism became decadent by 1914.

That does not mean that it became a society incapable of economic growth and development. It means it became a society in which the price of that became disproprotionate in a new way, one which means that it has ceased to be, on balance, historically progressive.

Humanity would now be better off if capitalism ceased to be the mechanism of economic development. That is the sense in which it is now decadent.

[DisIllusion]

When Lenin described imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, was he correct ?

I don&#39;t believe so, Imperialism seems to a way to keep people living within capitalist countries to keep their eyes off the real problems. Or perhaps even as a twisted way to try and solve those problems (i.e. Iraq/Oil)


When Marx said that no society is overthrown until it has exhausted its potential, does that apply to capitalism now ?

You would have to link this up with the Leninist belief of Capitalism&#39;s peak being Imperialism. Batista&#39;s regime in Cuba didn&#39;t reach it&#39;s full potential at all; if it can be called "potential".


How can it apply when capitalism has grown so phenomenally over the last fifty years ?

Capitalism has grown phenomenally partially because of Imperialism. That and the demonizing of the Soviet Union in the past fifty years and making the people believe that Capitalism is the only good and fair system in the world.


In those senses, capitalism became decadent by 1914.

Hardly, mass industrialization and integration of the assembly line and such would push Capitalism past previously believed limits of decadence.


Humanity would now be better off if capitalism ceased to be the mechanism of economic development. That is the sense in which it is now decadent.

Taking people with good talent and twisting their ideals to work only for money and not for the goodness of helping other people should never even have been an economic mechanism when coming out of Feudalism.

[jaycee]

in response to djehuti :yeah i&#39;m a sympathiser of the icc and often read their work i havn&#39;t read much of aufheben&#39;s work though.

in response to redstar: it does not fly against reality to say that capitalism reached it&#39;s zenith in 1914 even though it may at first glance sound far fetched. The point is a as gilhyle says that capitalism can still grow in its decadent period but does so in a diseased way. For example the massive period of growth from the post war boom untill around the early 70&#39;s was based on the imperialist second world war. Without this war the depression would never have ended. The world bourgeiosie after world war two had learnt from their experince of the end of the &#39;booming 20&#39;s&#39; that capitalism could no longer operate in the way it used to. This is why the economy in all countries(finding its most extreme form in the &#39;socialist&#39; countries) needed greater state control in order to function. As i have shown in my last post since the 70s conditions around the world have become progressively worse. Capitalism is threatening the survival of humanity( that seems a clear indication that it is no longer progressive in any way). With regards to the growth in China this is largely the result of the world economic crisis forcing the main industrialised countries to export their businesses to the third world to make use of the cheap labour. Therefore the apparent good health of the world economy is based on the morbid sickness of the world economy. Also the fact that even during this &#39;boom&#39; there remains something like 300 million unemployed in China shows that capitalism still can&#39;t incorperate large sections of the world into its social set up. The groth in China is also not really bringing any gains for humanity and the working class in particular. THeir growth as an imperialist power to be reconed with clearly makes the world a more dangerous place and the economic boom has not really brought many gains for the Chinese proletariat.

Overall the point is that decadance does not mean a complete stop of all economic growth but mainly it represents the period where capitalism is no longer progressive for humanity and it becomes a historic necessity for it to be overthrown.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by gilhyle+--> (gilhyle)That does not mean that it became a society incapable of economic growth and development. It means it became a society in which the price of that became disproportionate in a new way, one which means that it has ceased to be, on balance, historically progressive.[/b]

Since we have no clear way to measure "disproportionate price", this would seem to be an intractable problem.

I would opt for the "simple" solution: capitalism has "ceased to be historically progressive" when it stops growing and the old ruling classes can&#39;t think of anything to get it started again. Only when technological and economic stagnation is interrupted only by further decline can it reasonably be said that capitalism as a system has become self-evidently decadent.

Nor do I think it reasonable to imagine this, like Lenin did, on a global scale. There are still many parts of the "third world" in which a bourgeois revolution would be "historically progressive".

Nepal, for example. :)

Which is really what the Maoists there are trying to do...even though they&#39;re not conscious of that.


jaycee
As I have shown in my last post, since the 70s conditions around the world have become progressively worse.

If you were just talking about working class life in the U.S., I&#39;d have no problem agreeing with you. I&#39;ve seen it with my own eyes. :o

In countries like Japan and China, what you suggest is self-evidently false. Workers there are, by and large, enormously better off than a mere generation ago...both materially and culturally.

Of course, that doesn&#39;t mean that there is no hardship or poverty; those things "naturally" accompany capitalist development everywhere.


With regards to the growth in China this is largely the result of the world economic crisis forcing the main industrialised countries to export their businesses to the third world to make use of the cheap labour.

Yes, that&#39;s how it starts. But it doesn&#39;t necessarily have to stay that way. The Chinese ruling class (like the Japanese ruling class 40 years ago) have already decided that "high tech" is the "way to go".

And it is&#33; As long as any capitalist society can technologically innovate, I don&#39;t see any usefulness in calling it "decadent".

It just misleads people...suggesting that the "end of capitalism" is "just around the corner".

That&#39;s what Lenin sincerely believed...but he was wrong.

For what I have taken to calling the "senile" capitalist countries -- Western Europe and North America -- this may be indeed the truth. Capitalism could be "on its way out" before the end of this century.

Japan? How does 2150 sound?

China? How about 2250?

Maybe a little sooner...but not much. An inter-imperialist war between those two giants might "speed things up"...in the country that loses. That&#39;s a possibility that can never be entirely ruled out.

And think of the countries where modern capitalism is really just beginning...India, Brazil, Mexico, and a long list of others. Is there any historical materialist reason why capitalism should not flourish in those countries for at least the next two or three centuries?

Why should the rest of the world not go through the same path that we in the "west" went through? Do you imagine that our "senile" imperialism will be able to "stop them"?

The U.S. and E.U. cannot "stop Iran"...a very weak proto-capitalist country still handicapped by a medieval superstition.

And as is becoming increasingly obvious, the U.S. cannot "hold" Iraq...an even weaker country torn by ethnic, cultural and superstitious internal conflicts.

I think sometimes that we in the "old imperialist" countries are so "used" to being "top dogs" that we simply cannot imagine a world in which new imperial powers have "usurped our supremacy".

Like that neo-Hegelian dummy suggested, history has "come to an end".

No, it hasn&#39;t.


[China&#39;s] growth as an imperialist power to be reckoned with clearly makes the world a more dangerous place...

Yes, the emergence and rise of new imperial powers is indeed "dangerous"...as often as not because the old imperialist powers refuse to recognize new realities.

But "dangerous" is not synonymous with "decadent".


Overall the point is that decadence does not mean a complete stop of all economic growth but mainly it represents the period where capitalism is no longer progressive for humanity and it becomes a historic necessity for it to be overthrown.

The problem with formulating the definition in this way is that from a historical materialist point of view there is no such thing as "humanity" in the abstract.

There are particular humans who live in a particular country with a particular economic system based on a particular technology, etc.

Capitalism may be entering its decadent (terminal) phase in the "old" imperialist countries...but that says nothing useful about the rest of the planet at all.

Lenin and his few remaining disciples maintain that the world can be usefully treated as if it were "one integrated system"...making it possible to have a successful "socialist revolution" anywhere.

That&#39;s been falsified...and I see no evidence to challenge the "verdict of history" on this one.

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

[jaycee]

firstly if capitalism still exists anywhere in any major way by 2250 the world (or humanity at least) wont be there for it.

Secondly capitalism has to be seen from a global perspective and globally the seperation of the world into national states is one of the major forces holding humanity back. For example in Brazil it makes sense for the capitalists there to destroy the rainforest and for the chineses bourgeoisie to use the cheapest and most polluting fuels. But for humanity this poses a serious danger for its future survival.

Marx saw capitalism as progressive becuase the more it expanded the more it improved the conditions to make a communist world possable. THerefore you have to ask is communism becoming more or less possible; the longer capitalism lives, the answer due to global warming, war etc is that communism is becoming less possible as time goes on. The material conditions for it are increasingly being undermined by capitalist destruction (which it does in order to survive a little longer).

i also don&#39;t quite understand why you keep including japan as a country where capitalism is still growing or progressive (not that i think that it really is anywhere) becuase japan has been a major capitalist power since the early 20th century and has also been in an almost non stop recession since the 90s.

lastly if we look at the example of china compared to Britain in the 19th century at a time when there was an entire world market to expand into and take over where as now china can only expand into already capitalist countries and a world market which is already largely carved up between the major imperialist powers.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by jaycee
Firstly if capitalism still exists anywhere in any major way by 2250 the world (or humanity at least) wont be there for it.

I take it that you are one of the "end of the world" acolytes.

That&#39;s a shame. :(

If you think that capitalism is going to "destroy the world" or make humans "extinct", then what else is there to say...about anything?

Last Days -- The "End of the World" Scenarios (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083629387&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


Secondly capitalism has to be seen from a global perspective...

Why?

"Perspectives" are tools. For some purposes, a "global perspective" might be the most useful one; for other purposes, a more localized perspective might be more useful.

You cannot usefully study the stars with a microscope or bacteria with a telescope. You have to use the right tool for the job.

In this instance, only a very few places have economies that are completely dominated by foreign trade. Most countries today still have predominately national, regional, and local economies.

Therefore, what happens there is mostly a product of local economic development.

And from a historical materialist perspective, that&#39;s what really counts.


Therefore you have to ask is communism becoming more or less possible; the longer capitalism lives, the answer due to global warming, war, etc., is that communism is becoming less possible as time goes on.

So what are we doing on this board? If the probability of communism is declining with the passage of time, then we&#39;re just wasting ours.

Better to entertain ourselves "until the end", right?


I also don&#39;t quite understand why you keep including Japan as a country where capitalism is still growing or progressive (not that I think that it really is anywhere) because Japan has been a major capitalist power since the early 20th century and has also been in an almost non-stop recession since the 90s.

Japan is presently leading the world in the development of robotics.

In addition, they&#39;ve taken a series of technological advances that were actually developed in the U.S. and turned them into new means of production.

Something which U.S. capitalists were too moribund to manage to do.

I think the difference is quite striking.

It&#39;s true that the Japanese economy has been stagnant for the last fifteen years...a possible symptom of "late" capitalism.

But given their continuous and successful economic expansion in Asia, I think it&#39;s too soon to call them "decadent".

As to the academic question of exactly when Japan became a "major imperialist power", I see little to be gained from such a controversy. Some will date it from Japan&#39;s victory over Czarist Russia in 1905 and the occupation of Korea and Taiwan. Some will put it in the early 1930s with the invasion of China. And others might pick a later date.

I don&#39;t think it matters all that much.


Lastly if we look at the example of China compared to Britain in the 19th century at a time when there was an entire world market to expand into and take over whereas now China can only expand into already capitalist countries and a world market which is already largely carved up between the major imperialist powers.

The Chinese bourgeoisie appear to be focusing their efforts on Africa and Latin America...places where "western" capitalism "fears to tread". This may be due to the fact that Japan already has Asia "all tied up".

The idea that the "division of the world" is "finished" for "all time" is just a-historical.

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

[jaycee]

i thik china is agood example of why this issue has to be seen from a global perspective. Chinas economic growth is almost entirely based on foriegn investment and export business. he fact that the whole reason china gets this investment is because of its cheap labour and relatively advanced industry means that it will be incapable of developing a really strong internal market as this would require raising wages so the workers could buy back some of what they produce.

I also think you underestimate the severity of the international situation now. Global warming is only one of the many dangers facing the planet. While war has been and will continue to be a constant threat and will only become more widespread as the world economy sinks further into crisis at the same time that resources dry up. Nuclear weapons are also spreading at an alarming rate and will continue to do so as every country more and more tries to fight for its own imperialist interests.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by jaycee
I also think you underestimate the severity of the international situation now. Global warming is only one of the many dangers facing the planet. While war has been and will continue to be a constant threat and will only become more widespread as the world economy sinks further into crisis at the same time that resources dry up. Nuclear weapons are also spreading at an alarming rate and will continue to do so as every country more and more tries to fight for its own imperialist interests.

Quite possibly I do "underestimate the severity of the international situation now".

I think we&#39;ll learn to get along on a warmer planet just fine...though we might have to abandon some coastal cities like New Orleans.

I don&#39;t think we are "running out of resources"...although the temptation to contrive artificial "shortages" in order to increase profits is always present.

The limited use of nuclear weapons in localized conflicts is certainly possible...though keep in mind that the two Japanese cities bombed by the U.S. imperialists have now been completely rebuilt and are flourishing.

"First use" of nuclear weapons is now a course fraught with peril...for the first user. Any number of neighboring countries might decide that a nuclear response is imperative to get rid of those nutballs.

So it might happen...but I wouldn&#39;t bet my lunch money on it.

Your "grim scenarios" might turn out to be far more realistic than my relatively "optimistic" scenarios.

But given your pessimism, I don&#39;t understand why you are here.

Do you just want to tell us that "we&#39;re all doomed"? We&#39;ve heard it all before...and in fact can just tune in to the Christian Dummyvision Network and hear it all again.

If we are truly all "doomed", then the most rational course of action would be to indulge ourselves continuously in whatever sensual pleasures we can afford.

Why haven&#39;t you decided to do that?

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

[Scars]

Sorry for the late reply, I move around a lot and sometimes can get on the internet for very long:

<<Then in whom do you place your "revolutionary faith"?>>
Primarily the peasantry and workers of the &#39;third world&#39;, and in the first world immigrant workers and some sections of the local working class. I&#39;d like to note that I am not taking a MIM-ish line, the workers could become a revolutionary group and could overthrow capitalism in their country without there being revolutions in the &#39;third world&#39; that would rob the &#39;first world&#39; of primary resources and cause their economies to collapse, but I seriously doubt this will happen. As I&#39;ve said, 90% of workers in the &#39;first world&#39; are motivated by greed and materialism of varying degrees and thus have no interest in overthrowing capitalism.

<<Communism can only be achieved in the first world.>>
Incorrect, even Marx admitted this. Traditional communal structures that exist within much of Asia and Africa as well as parts of Latin America can be transformed into the basis of a communist society. In addition to this peasants have repeatedly proved themselves to be the most revolutionary class in the world- Russia (the revolution was only won because peasants were willing to fight the Whites in the Red Army), Spain, Yugoslavia, Albania, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Algeria, Angola, Mosambique (that&#39;s not spelt right is it?), Ethopia, Benin, Cuba, Nicaragua, Peru, Nepal, Columbia, Turkey, India and so on. I&#39;m not saying that all these revolutions were necessarily positive (Cambodia was quite the opposite in fact), or that they succeeded due to the effort of peasants alone, but in all these cases the peasantry (or sections there of) showed themselves willing to fight and die for communism. This is more than can be said for Proletariat of the &#39;first world&#39;...well...ever actually.
<<Clearly, the contemporary proletariat is not revolutionary, but if you reject the possibility of revolutionary potential, what hope do you have for proletarian emancipation?>>
I don&#39;t reject the possibility of the &#39;first world&#39; Proletariat becoming revolutionary, I just think that this will not happen without the &#39;first world&#39; being put under massive economic pressure, to the point of collapse. The only way to do this is to have the &#39;third world&#39; unite under the banner of communism against the &#39;first world&#39;

<<In much of the world, true capitalism would be a step up.>>
With the growth of industry often the living standards of rural areas (i.e. the majority of the population in the &#39;third world&#39;) does increase and often so does productivity, with the availablity of better technology- but essentially the problems stay exactly the same for the peasantry. In many cases the growth of capitalism results in a handful of people holding title to huge plots of land, which is really a step backwards. In addition the price of land increases so farmers end up in huge amounts of debt. Rural-Urban drift happens for a reason.


<<In the US, capitalism has begun to "run its course". It has entered a clearly reactionary period and shows no sign of reversing. It is certainly possible that it will enter yet another stage of reform, but it seems unlikely.>>
It may not show any signs of reversing at this very point in time, but I expect it will. Capitalism is not suicidal. If the leadership and direction starts to significantly hurt the capitalists then the leadership and direction will be changed. More over, if the capitalists see that this conservatism is waking the population from their decadence induced coma then they will stop it. I&#39;ve never really bought into determinism.

<<At this level of technological advancement and economic development, the capitalists can no longer afford to make significant concessions to the workers, nor can they allow and real progression.>>
But the workers, by enlarge, aren&#39;t calling for &#39;significant concessions&#39;. They just want higher wages so they can buy a bigger TV. This the capitalists can cope with.

<<Instead, they desperately hold on to what they have and actively fight progress. That is a sure sign of a decadent class.>>
Point taken, but will this stir up a revolutionary consciousness? I seriously doubt it.


QUOTE
But then again America has always been incredibly socially backward, so it&#39;s not that suprising that when the going gets tough the Puritan banner gets held up.


<<"Socially backwards" relative to whom?>>
Most of Western Europe, definately New Zealand.


<<There have been times when the US has been ahead and times when it has been behind. There is no such thing as a "national character".>>
However there is a national leadership that remains largely constant.

<<I&#39;m quite sure that Marx was wrong on a great deal many things, but until someone comes up with a better model, it&#39;s the best we have to work with.>>
Marx wasn&#39;t so much &#39;wrong&#39;, but much of it is out of date. The world has moved on in ways that he could not imagined and thus he couldn&#39;t form arguements relating to these new circumstances. There are many other models, many of them are no less plausable than that of Marx.

<<Namely that "primitive communism" doesn&#39;t exist.>>
Well, not anymore. I&#39;m sure it exists in some particularly isolated and primitive places in the world though.

<<These societies were ecnomically equal because they were, for all intents and purposes, economically null.>>
Maybe, but they still had to divide things up, make decisions etc. They lived an equally economically null life.

<<Politically, however, they were characterized by gross discrepencies.>>
There is little evidence either way, I would say that the existance of communal and proto-communist structures, for instance communes in Africa and even the Russian mir (which was largely wiped out by the Soviets), would point towards some sort of egalitarian tradition..

<<Engels and even Marx may have written some musings on "returning to primitive communism", but it was just a doomed attempt to reconcile Hegelian "sipral" historiography with materialist progression.>>
I have no intention of &#39;returning&#39; to anything. Communism will be new, however one cannot ignore history, nor can they free themselves from it. Besides, if somthing good exists then one should use it. The agarian communes that exist, when developed with &#39;scientific&#39; Marxism (Marxism is not scientific, for the record- it&#39;s just not utopian), could provide the basic organisation for the majority of the world and could even be developed further and modified so that it could be applied to urban situations.

<<Frankly, it seems like a waste of time to me.>>
Most of what we do is a waste of time. You&#39;re debating what is largely a moot point with a guy you&#39;ve never and will never meet who lives on the other side of the world. It&#39;s interesting never the less.

...and now I have a train to catch. I&#39;ll finish the rest when I get back (about 2 days)

[redstar2000]

Some odd stuff coming out in this thread.


Originally posted by Scars
As I&#39;ve said, 90% of workers in the &#39;first world&#39; are motivated by greed and materialism of varying degrees and thus have no interest in overthrowing capitalism.

As long as capitalism can "deliver the goods", why should they?

But it looks self-evident that capitalism is not doing that as well as it used to.

If Marx was right, that situation will worsen.


Traditional communal structures that exist within much of Asia and Africa as well as parts of Latin America can be transformed into the basis of a communist society.

Poo&#33; The normal development of domestic capitalism in those places will either destroy those formations or render them completely irrelevant.


In addition to this peasants have repeatedly proved themselves to be the most revolutionary class in the world...

Yes...on behalf of land reform.

Not in any other sense.


This is more than can be said for [the] Proletariat of the &#39;first world&#39;...well...ever actually.

The revolutionary tasks of the proletariat are far vaster than the acquisition of a patch of dirt to scratch out a miserable "living".

To overthrow 10,000 years of class society takes quite a bit more than a rifle and a willingness to die.


The only way to do this is to have the &#39;third world&#39; unite under the banner of communism against the &#39;first world&#39;

They wouldn&#39;t know communism from rheumatism. All they need to "unite" under is the banner of anti-imperialism.

That&#39;s something they can manage. Peasant societies are xenophobic anyway...especially when they perceive the foreigner as a threat to their land or as an obstacle to them getting some.


Capitalism is not suicidal.

If Marx was right, it is "suicidal". It does reach a point where it cannot reform -- and I think in western Europe and North America that point has been reached.

The "age of reform" is over.


If the leadership and direction starts to significantly hurt the capitalists then the leadership and direction will be changed. More over, if the capitalists see that this conservatism is waking the population from their decadence induced coma then they will stop it. I&#39;ve never really bought into determinism.

Well you should. If you think capitalism is a matter of "correct leadership", the capitalists themselves might agree with you.

But it ain&#39;t true.

When a social system has reached "the end of the line", all of its "leaders" are "incompetent".

That&#39;s not "bad luck", it&#39;s a reflection of objective material reality.


But the workers, by and large, aren&#39;t calling for &#39;significant concessions&#39;. They just want higher wages so they can buy a bigger TV. This the capitalists can cope with.

No, they are not "coping with it". Wages in the U.S. have been essentially stagnant since the early 1970s. That "middle class" standard-of-living now rests on couples who both have full-time jobs and a mountain of credit-card and mortgage debt.


There are many other models, many of them are no less plausible than that of Marx.

So I&#39;ve been informed...but I&#39;ve never run into one myself.


Marxism is not scientific, for the record- it&#39;s just not utopian.

What "special" definition of "science" are you using here?

It would have to be able to exclude Marxism but include biological evolution.

Not an easy task.


Besides, if something good exists then one should use it. The agrarian communes that exist...could provide the basic organisation for the majority of the world and could even be developed further and modified so that it could be applied to urban situations.

Why would anyone want to do that?

As opposed, for example, to the further "high tech" development of agriculture?

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

[red_che]

I am most certain that capitalism is really a decaying social system. The capitalist system was never more violent than it was before the start of the 20th century.

Lenin was as valid today as it was, at the start of 20th century when he wrote Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, when he said that capitalism had reached its highest stage of development when it developed into Imperialism and as such, the socialist revolution has dawned on us now.

The 8th International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations Resolutions No. 1 and 2 clearly indicates the rapid decay of Imperialism (Capitalism). I suggest everybody to read it. Here is the link of the full text of their resolutions:8th ICMLPO (http://www.icmlpo.de/)

The Communist Party of the Philippines Central Committee also made a well-rounded summary of the current global crisis of capitalism. In its 37th Aniiversary statement, the CPP Central Committee stated that "The economic competition and political rivalry among the imperialist powers are likely to intensify because in the first place the US seeks to monopolize the spoils of war. This has been exposed by the contradictions among the US, UK, France and Germany on the question of launching the war of aggression against Iraq in 2003. The super-greed of the US signals other imperialist powers to look after their own interests and to maneuver against US voracity. The ground for friendly accommodation among the imperialist powers is bound to diminish with the ever worsening crisis of the world capitalist system and as the revolutionary struggles of the people increase in number and intensity and as more countries become assertive of their national independence."

The complete text of that statement can be read at their site: PRWC (http://www.philippinerevolution.org/cgi-bin/statements/statements.pl?author=cc;date=051226;language=eng)

[Scars]

<<As long as capitalism can "deliver the goods", why should they?>>

Exactly. The workers of the &#39;first world&#39; must suffer greatly before they&#39;ll raise a finger. That&#39;s why revolutionary sentiment always gains strength during depression, as it&#39;s when the general population of the &#39;first world&#39; are suffering the most.

<<If Marx was right, that situation will worsen.>>

Here&#39;s hoping.

<<Poo&#33; The normal development of domestic capitalism in those places will either destroy those formations or render them completely irrelevant.>>

Such structures may survive, or may be modified- either way they can still be used as the basis for communism. Plus communism can be achived before capitalism completely takes hold, in fact humanity has come far closer to &#39;true&#39; communism in the &#39;third world&#39; than it ever has in the &#39;first world&#39;.

<<Yes...on behalf of land reform. Not in any other sense.>>

No, not just on &#39;land reform&#39;, however land reform is generally fairly important because the land is their life and at the same time it is the cause of most of their exploitation. Many peasants do not want to become urbanised, and thus focus on building communism primarily in rural areas (i.e. where they are) because that&#39;s what they&#39;re best suited to, urbanites do not listen to peasants because they see them as pig ignorant. Urbanites are just as pig ignorant about rural areas as peasants are about urban areas and thus it&#39;s best to let them tend to what they&#39;re best at and what they know the most about. Peasants can&#39;t do secondard or tertiary production, urbanites can&#39;t do primary production. Ideally you need all three, at bare minimum you need primary.

Besides, urbanites have rarely gone beyond demanding more money. Most criticism you can level at peasants can be levelled at urbanites too.

<<The revolutionary tasks of the proletariat are far vaster than the acquisition of a patch of dirt to scratch out a miserable "living".>>

You&#39;ve never been to any rural areas have you?

In the past the peasants have done far more than getting land. As I&#39;ve said, most left-wing revolutions of the last century were fundementally driven by peasants, or would have been impossible without peasant labour and soldiers.

<<To overthrow 10,000 years of class society takes quite a bit more than a rifle and a willingness to die.>>

However both those things are fundemental to solution.

<<They wouldn&#39;t know communism from rheumatism.>>

And people in the &#39;first world&#39; do? Most of them thing that communism involves the government owning everything, russian accents and moustaces.

<<All they need to "unite" under is the banner of anti-imperialism.>>

Because peasants are too stupid and backwards to understand marxism? In your vision, what are you going to do for primary production? Do you really thing your average urbanite can grow anything other than weed in his basement? Or can mine iron-ore? Or can fell trees? Peasants are essential to any society because primary production is essential to any society.

<<That&#39;s something they can manage. Peasant societies are xenophobic anyway>>

As are capitalist societies. In addition to this they tend to be arrogant and condencending, looking down on anything they deem to be inferior and by inferior I mean anything that does not conform to their ideals.

<<especially when they perceive the foreigner as a threat to their land or as an obstacle to them getting some.>>

Urbanites tend to be like that when the perceive some foreigner as a threat to their job, their money, their TV. Look at the constant abuse that immigrant workers get slugged with, because they are &#39;stealing&#39; peoples jobs. It&#39;s no different.

<<If Marx was right, it is "suicidal". It does reach a point where it cannot reform and I think in western Europe and North America that point has been reached.>>

It will destroy itself, yes and it will get to the point where it cannot turn back or reform- however it won&#39;t drive itself straight into the ground- it will attempt to slow the decent and maintain the status quo for as long as possible as it&#39;s in their best interest to do so.

<<The "age of reform" is over.>>

In some places, yes. In other places, no.

<<Well you should. If you think capitalism is a matter of "correct leadership", the capitalists themselves might agree with you. But it ain&#39;t true.>>

No, cthe exact course of events depends on which capitalist is at the helm. If left-capitalists controlled the global economy the self-destruction would happen slower, but it would happen. It the right-capitalists controlled the global economy the self destruction would happen faster. So ironically enough, in elections communists should vote for the most horribly right wing candidate possible.

<<When a social system has reached "the end of the line", all of its "leaders" are "incompetent>>

Impotent would be a better word. When it reaches the end of the line it will self-destruct and there will be nothing that can be done about it.

<<No, they are not "coping with it". Wages in the U.S. have been essentially stagnant since the early 1970s. That "middle class" standard-of-living now rests on couples who both have full-time jobs and a mountain of credit-card and mortgage debt.>>

The US isn&#39;t the world.

Yes, wages haven&#39;t changed much and both people have to work and so on and so forth. But all people do is moan a bit, they don&#39;t attempt to do anything to improve their situation. They sit down and watch teh shopping channel.

<<What "special" definition of "science" are you using here?>>

Falsification. In order for somthing to be a science it must be theoretically possible for it to be proved to be conclusively false. You can do that with evolution, you can&#39;t do that with Marxism.

<<Why would anyone want to do that?>>

Because communalism is vital to the new society and communes promote this, hence the name.

<<As opposed, for example, to the further "high tech" development of agriculture?>>

Because a lot of the high tech stuff is not particularly sustainable and thus not at all viable in the long term. New Zealand could theoretically support around 2 billion sheep, however sheep shit and that shit gets into water ways and shit-water is not good. Besides, as I&#39;ve said, many peasants do not want to leave rural areas and should not be forced to do so, simply because urbanites say that cities are superior and that they should all come live in cities. Marx said that there should be an end to the distinction between town and country and to me that seems to indicate a decentraliation of industry etc.

Why do you bold words in your posts? The majority of members on this board are fully literate and don&#39;t need you to bold what you deem the important bits. You&#39;re as bad as the Albanian foreign languages press.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Scars
Plus communism can be achieved before capitalism completely takes hold, in fact humanity has come far closer to &#39;true&#39; communism in the &#39;third world&#39; than it ever has in the &#39;first world&#39;.

The Paris Commune? Syndicalist Barcelona?

Just to name the two "biggies". :)

If you are suggesting here that the hypothesis that we must "wait" until capitalism "develops the whole world" for communism to be "possible" is simply wrong, I agree with you in opposing that idea.

In my opinion, communism will first be possible in the "old" (or "senile") capitalist countries...and will actually arise there in the course of this century.

On the other hand, it&#39;s difficult for me to imagine a communist society in Afghanistan or Nepal before 2500&#33;

That&#39;s how "far" they have "to go".


Many peasants do not want to become urbanised...

The empirical evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion. The "migration to the cities" has been one of the most consistent trends we&#39;ve ever observed; it may be one of those "iron laws of history".

You may well hypothesize that with the end of class society, people will no longer do that and many urban dwellers may even leave the cities.

But I think that remains to be seen.

Urban life offers more possibilities for self-development than rural life...and people like that.


Urbanites do not listen to peasants because they see them as pig ignorant.

Well, isn&#39;t that the case? What is peasant life besides one of isolation from the accumulated sum of human knowledge?

Just look at the U.S. right now. Where do most of the volunteers for American imperialism come from? Where are the most fervently superstitious to be found? Where does open racism, sexism, and homophobia still flourish?

And our peasantry are "kulaks"...rich peasants that are, to all intents and purposes, fully petty-bourgeois in the classical definition of the word. They have electricity, television, internet service, etc. and they&#39;re still pig ignorant.

Granted, some of them have managed to learn a few things about the modern world; but there are others who would stone people to death for adultery if they thought they could get away with it&#33; :o

From what I&#39;ve read, the peasantry of the "third world" are mostly illiterate, deeply superstitious, profoundly and brutally sexist, and aside from their opposition to imperialism, just reactionary as hell.

I know there is a pronounced tendency among some western "lefties" to romanticize peasant life in distant and very backward countries -- perhaps stemming from our understandable alienation from the urban class society in which we live.

But I think if any one of us ever found ourselves in a peasant environment, we&#39;d quickly realize the enormous magnitude of our error.

There&#39;s nothing "romantic" about it; it&#39;s a hellish existence.

Hobbes was right about it as an environment where life is "nasty, brutal, and short".


Most criticism you can level at peasants can be leveled at urbanites too.

I don&#39;t deny it; after all, many urbanites used to be peasants or are the sons and daughters of peasants. Peasant "consciousness" doesn&#39;t just disappear when someone "gets off the bus".

Indeed, I know from my own experience that moving from a small midwestern city to a real city like New York or San Francisco is "disorienting"...it takes some time to realize the new possibilities that have opened up.

And to clean all that old shit out from between your toes. :lol:


You&#39;ve never been to any rural areas have you?

Only visits...as brief as I could possibly make them.


As I&#39;ve said, most left-wing revolutions of the last century were fundamentally driven by peasants, or would have been impossible without peasant labour and soldiers.

But those were all bourgeois revolutions.

Historically progressive and necessary, no question about it. But not "left wing" in any communist sense of the word.


And people in the &#39;first world&#39; do?

I think there is a "pool" of knowledge about what communism could really be in western Europe.

One of the most common remarks I hear from politically unsophisticated American workers is: communism might be a good idea but human nature makes it impossible.

This is an echo of bourgeois ideology, of course. But it hints at some kind of "latent" appreciation of the concept among working people...a kind of "potential" revolutionary class consciousness that is waiting to be tapped.


Because peasants are too stupid and backwards to understand Marxism?

It&#39;s not a matter of "stupidity"...peasants are genetically just as much modern humans as we are.

But too backward to understand Marxism? Yeah, that&#39;s pretty much the case.

There&#39;s nothing in their class background to prepare them to understand the Marxist paradigm. When the old Leninist regimes tried to impose collectivization of agriculture on the peasantry, they ran into enormous opposition. In the Ukraine, the peasants preferred to starve themselves...that is, deliberately refuse to grow grain for the cities or even for themselves. Something like that may have been at least partly responsible for the great famine under Mao as well.

And what happens when the peasantry really "runs wild"? Cambodia, that&#39;s what. :o


Peasants are essential to any society because primary production is essential to any society.

It&#39;s a thorny problem, but in my view communist cities will grow or manufacture most or nearly all of their own food. The technology to grow meat "in vats" is already under development. Fruits and vegetables could be grown in enormous greenhouses built where the suburbs are now. Urbanites would "commute" to those workplaces just as they would commute to any other workplace.

Most of the "countryside" would just be allowed to "go back to nature".


In addition to this, they tend to be arrogant and condescending, looking down on anything they deem to be inferior and by inferior, I mean anything that does not conform to their ideals.

I sort of expected something like this; it&#39;s not as if I haven&#39;t heard it before.

In the "post-modern" ideological climate, we&#39;re all supposed to pretend that "every way of life" is "worthy of respect". Nothing is really "better" than anything else. Blah, blah, blah.

Well, fuck that&#33; Some ideas are more truthful than others. Some ways of life are really better than others. Some things are not worthy of our "respect" but are rather reactionary and contemptible.

If that makes me "arrogant" and "condescending", then so be it.

I&#39;d be ashamed not to be&#33;


In some places, yes. In other places, no.

I quite agree. The "age of reform" in the "senile" capitalist countries is over. On the other hand, the younger capitalisms in Latin America are just entering their "age of reform".


So ironically enough, in elections communists should vote for the most horribly right wing candidate possible.

Communists do not piss around in the muck of bourgeois electoral politics at all.


Yes, wages haven&#39;t changed much and both people have to work and so on and so forth. But all people do is moan a bit, they don&#39;t attempt to do anything to improve their situation. They sit down and watch the shopping channel.

In North America, that&#39;s largely true. In western Europe, it&#39;s not as true.

Must I remind you that because something is true at this time that it doesn&#39;t mean it will "always" be true?


Falsification. In order for something to be a science it must be theoretically possible for it to be proved to be conclusively false. You can do that with evolution, you can&#39;t do that with Marxism.

Sure you can. All you need is a sufficient span of time to make the Marxist hypothesis of proletarian revolution and communism so improbable as to be probably false.

Historical materialism has been demonstrated to be the most fruitful tool yet invented for investigating past societies and social change.

Nevertheless, if capitalism is still around and flourishing by, say, 2400...then I think the scientific conclusion would be inescapable: Marx was wrong&#33;

It could even turn out (:o) that the "evolutionary psychologists" are right and class society is "in our genes". Horrible thought, that, but we can&#39;t yet rule it out. :(

The jury is still out.


Marx said that there should be an end to the distinction between town and country and to me that seems to indicate a decentralisation of industry, etc.

He did indeed say that, but I suspect he was wrong on that one. The "huge" manufacturing plants that were characteristic of the late 19th and early 20th centuries have been rendered technologically obsolete...mainly by the invention of the electric motor.

But the trend towards urbanization continues unabated. Indeed, I&#39;ve read that we are now "on the edge" of the establishment of a world-wide urban majority...and that within a few decades, the absolute number of rural dwellers will begin to decline on the whole planet.


Why do you bold words in your posts?

I think varying type-styles make a post more attractive to the reader...even though some people don&#39;t like it. When I see a large block of "unadorned" text, I find it "off-putting".

Consider it a stylistic idiosyncrasy. :)

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

[gilhyle]

You suggest that Marx would have been wrong if capitalism survives to 2400. I think this is incorrect, except under one scenario.

Kautsky (yes Kautsky) correctly summed up the alternatives as socialism or barbarism.

What happens is a matter of the outcome of events. Capitalism was more likely to survive to 2400 after 1923 than before 1916.

Its not about predicting outcomes, its about predicting forces.

Marxism has always contained the implicit recognition that capitalism could develop in ways that would mean socialism would not happen - if the class struggle failed.

But it is only if the market mechanism can accomodate the development of the forces of production when the world is sufficiently wealthy to create a surplus of supply over demand in all economic sectors that Marx would be definitively wrong and that is virtually a contradiction in terms.

Marx&#39;s &#39;prediction&#39; of the limited temporality of the market mechanism as a form of economic organisation is really quite trivial, and trivially true, and one of the least interesting parts of his ideas. Falsificationism is just not a relevant model of Marxism as a form of thought.

[red_che]

In my opinion, communism will first be possible in the "old" (or "senile") capitalist countries...and will actually arise there in the course of this century.

If, in your opinion, communism will first be possible in the old capitalist societies because they were the first to have developed capitalism, then you&#39;re wrong.

History have shown otherwise. Civilization first started in the east (in Egypt, China, Mesopotamia) but they weren&#39;t the first capitalist societies. Greece was the first society to have developed a "democratic" society. But they weren&#39;t the first to establish a Republic in "modern" sense. The US wasn&#39;t even the first capitalist society that have developed but it is the most advanced capitalist society today&#33; Why? Law of Uneven Development.

So it goes to say that while the US is the most advanced capitalist society today, it doesn&#39;t mean it will be the first to develop a communist society. It can be anywhere else. Who knows, it might be East Timor? :)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)Civilization first started in the east (in Egypt, China, Mesopotamia) but they weren&#39;t the first capitalist societies. Greece was the first society to have developed a "democratic" society. But they weren&#39;t the first to establish a Republic in "modern" sense. The US wasn&#39;t even the first capitalist society that have developed but it is the most advanced capitalist society today&#33; Why? Law of Uneven Development.[/b]

You have the details here all messed up...nothing new about that. :lol:

But what&#39;s really bad is covering your ignorance with an alleged "law".

What&#39;s it supposed to mean? That some capitalist countries have developed "faster" than others? That capitalist countries do not all advance "at the same pace"?

Why do you need a "law" to cover such a trivial observation?

Here&#39;s why. You have to have some "scientific sounding" formula to cover the seizure of power by Leninist parties in societies that were fundamentally pre-capitalist&#33;

You know damn well that there&#39;s nothing in the Marxist paradigm that permits a pre-capitalist society to "leap over capitalism" and "into socialism" by means of a Leninist party despotism.

But you&#39;re too scared to say "Marx was wrong" and "we Leninists can repeal Marx&#39;s laws"...if you were honest, you&#39;d quit trying to cover yourself with Marx&#39;s reputation. The whole appeal of Leninism in the "west" was based on the proposition that Leninism "was modern Marxism". And you don&#39;t want to give that up.

Too bad...the scam has been exposed.


So it goes to say that while the US is the most advanced capitalist society today, it doesn&#39;t mean it will be the first to develop a communist society. It can be anywhere else. Who knows, it might be East Timor?

Yeah, right. :lol:

The U.S. may not be the "most advanced" capitalist country now, by the way. The western members of the EU are, I suspect, at least 50 years "closer" to a proletarian revolution and communism than the U.S.

Historically speaking, that&#39;s a trivial difference.

I&#39;d guess 2500 for East Timor -- so don&#39;t hold your breath. :lol:


gilhyle
Kautsky (yes Kautsky) correctly summed up the alternatives as socialism or barbarism.

This actually appears as a phrase at the end of a letter of Marx to Engels...a remark made "in passing".

But Marx made many passing remarks that he lacked the time or interest to actually develop and integrate into his own paradigm.


What happens is a matter of the outcome of events. Capitalism was more likely to survive to 2400 after 1923 than before 1916.

I don&#39;t see how this can be said. Historical materialism does not "rule out" contingency altogether...but it must be "big" to have a serious effect on the "big trends".

The material conditions for even a primitive "socialism" simply did not exist in the Europe of 1916. The German proletariat had power within its reach in the period 1918-23...and simply refused it&#33;


Marxism has always contained the implicit recognition that capitalism could develop in ways that would mean socialism would not happen - if the class struggle failed.

I can&#39;t say that I see how that would be possible...barring global catastrophe and "the common ruin of the contending classes".

"End of the world" scenarios are fashionable these days -- from "peak oil" to "runaway greenhouse effect" to "world-wide pandemic" and a whole bunch more. To some extent this may reflect a vague (and correct) perception that "things cannot go on like this".

But the erosion of faith in "things as they are" is hardly enough to protect capitalism from future proletarian challenge...IF Marx was right.

Only if capitalism survives over the next several centuries and constantly raises world living standards and technological development will it be reasonable to say that "Marx was wrong."

Until then, I see no reasonable option but to "wait and see".

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

[red_che]

But what&#39;s really bad is covering your ignorance with an alleged "law".

Do you know what that law is? Am I really covering up? Or you just don&#39;t know what "Law of Uneven Development" is? :)


What&#39;s it supposed to mean? That some capitalist countries have developed "faster" than others? That capitalist countries do not all advance "at the same pace"?

So, you don&#39;t know it at all. How can you tell then that I was just using it up as a cover? :)

As I have said, you don&#39;t know a thing about historical materialism. You&#39;re just using it but have not completely understood it. :lol:


You know damn well that there&#39;s nothing in the Marxist paradigm that permits a pre-capitalist society to "leap over capitalism" and "into socialism" by means of a Leninist party despotism.

Oh, I never said such a thing. Again, don&#39;t put words into my mouth.

The world is under a capitalist society now. How could you say that pre-capitalist society could leap over it? By the way, no society/country today can be categorized as pre-capitalist. In fact, every country now is under the power and control of the capitalists, or to be more precise the Imperialists. They may be categorized as semifeudal (a feudal society cloaked under the pangs of monopoly capitalism) but not pre-capitalist anymore since their natural development have been stopped.

It is just right to get away with capitalism now, to throw it away like you throw an old toy, and then build a socialist society. Capitalism is just an old stuff now, so to speak.


The U.S. may not be the "most advanced" capitalist country now, by the way. The western members of the EU are, I suspect, at least 50 years "closer" to a proletarian revolution and communism than the U.S....

I&#39;d guess 2500 for East Timor -- so don&#39;t hold your breath.

You can make all those predictions all year-long, if you want. You can even say that France is the closest, or England, to communism. That they can reach communism in 50 or so years. But all of that will remain just the same, a prediction. :lol:


Historically speaking, that&#39;s a trivial difference.

I don&#39;t see it as trivial, I just see it as your immaterial prediction. :lol:


You know damn well that there&#39;s nothing in the Marxist paradigm that permits a pre-capitalist society to "leap over capitalism" and "into socialism" by means of a Leninist party despotism.

And did he say categorically that every society must be capitalist? Or he just said that every society must be industrialized so they can have material conditions to establish a socialist society? Because in my understanding, capitalism isn&#39;t just simply industrialization, because if that&#39;s the case then it wouldn&#39;t make any difference with socialism.

The fact is, socialism and capitalism are both industrialization, but they differed in the relations of production. And now, since the technology for industrialization is already present, then every society can establish socialism by means of socialist construction and revolution, and then proceed towards communism when all the basis for the existence of private ownership and exploitation were removed.


But you&#39;re too scared to say "Marx was wrong" and "we Leninists can repeal Marx&#39;s laws"...if you were honest, you&#39;d quit trying to cover yourself with Marx&#39;s reputation. The whole appeal of Leninism in the "west" was based on the proposition that Leninism "was modern Marxism". And you don&#39;t want to give that up.

No, Marx was not wrong and so was Lenin. The particular situation then when Marx said that socialism must be first built in England, or Germany, or France, or wherever, was not the same as today. Because in those times, capitalism didn&#39;t develop into Imperialism yet. And the old pre-capitalist societies weren&#39;t dominated by the Imperialism. And capitalism wasn&#39;t that widespread as it is now.


Too bad...the scam has been exposed.

No, only your true character was exposed. That you aren&#39;t a a revolutionary. ;)

[jaycee]

capitalism right now can produce enough to create an abundance for the entire population of the planet, but it cannnot distribute these goods to the population. This on its own shows that capitalism is a barrier to human development on a WORLD SCALE. THis clearly is an example of the social relations becoming fetters on the productive capabilities and therefore of capitalism being decadent.

On the question of Lenin, he didn&#39;t claim that countries could &#39;jump&#39; from pre-capitalism to communism but he claimed that the Russian revolution could only be succesfull if the world revolution was succesfull.

I don&#39;t beleive that there were any bougeios revolutions during the 20th century, the examples you give such as mao&#39;s coup in china are usually simply conflicts between factions of the bougeoisie of that particular country, usually with one side being supported by one imperialist power against the other.

I will go into more detail later whenn i have more time...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Do you know what that law is? Am I really covering up? Or you just don&#39;t know what "Law of Uneven Development" is? smile.gif

Apparently you don&#39;t.

Trotsky and Lenin&#39;s spin on the "law" of uneven and combined development is not even remotely an excuse for the travesty of your post.



As I have said, you don&#39;t know a thing about historical materialism. You&#39;re just using it but have not completely understood it.

Good grief, you&#39;re way out of your league here. What puzzles me is that you think Trotsky and Lenin "applied" the law to "predict" what was already a completely trivial a subject to economic theory. It&#39;s an obscure reference that any smart communist would stay well away from.
:lol:


That they can reach communism in 50 or so years

I will give you 100 to one.

I take Visa, Mastercard, AMEX and of course cash.


I don&#39;t see it as trivial

From what I can tell, there is not much that you actually are seeing.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 19 2006, 03:02 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 19 2006, 03:02 AM)


gilhyle
Kautsky (yes Kautsky) correctly summed up the alternatives as socialism or barbarism.

This actually appears as a phrase at the end of a letter of Marx to Engels...a remark made "in passing".

......

Until then, I see no reasonable option but to "wait and see".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Not to doubt you, but to promote my education, any chance of a date for that M to E letter ?

Just something to look up, while I&#39;m &#39;waiting to see&#39;.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by jaycee+--> (jaycee)Capitalism right now can produce enough to create an abundance for the entire population of the planet, but it cannot distribute these goods to the population.[/b]

I think that&#39;s disputable...though I&#39;m not sure how the matter could be resolved.

I imagine around 1-1/2 billion people live at what we would consider a minimal acceptable level...leaving 4-1/2 billion people in the shit.

That&#39;s a "lot of ground" to make up.

The "new" capitalist economies have been doing that in various ways -- from China to Venezuela.

But there are large places where not much of anything is happening yet...rural Africa for example. African oil deposits are being developed but nothing of any consequence "trickles down" to the people living there.


I don&#39;t believe that there were any bourgeois revolutions during the 20th century, the examples you give such as Mao&#39;s coup in China are usually simply conflicts between factions of the bourgeoisie of that particular country, usually with one side being supported by one imperialist power against the other.

Well, I think you are being "unfair" to Mao on this one; it wasn&#39;t a coup, it was a civil war.

The native bourgeoisie in China hardly existed as an independent force there.

There are some people -- not saying you are one of them -- who just don&#39;t want to admit that the bourgeoisie can be "progressive" any longer...mostly, I suspect, because Lenin said so.

They really do seem to think that you could take some wretchedly miserable country and make it into a "worker&#39;s paradise" by decree.

If the Maoists win in Nepal, watch the "red" rhetoric flow like lava. :lol:

What will life actually be like there for most people? At best, maybe France in 1800 or something like that.


gilhyle
Not to doubt you, but to promote my education, any chance of a date for that M to E letter?

Well, I tried to find it in the Marxist Internet Archives...but unfortunately, only a tiny portion of the Marx-Engels correspondence has been posted. And as you probably know, their search engine is the worst on the internet...you either get 10,000 hits or nothing at all. :o

My guess: sometime after 1865. If I&#39;m not mistaken, it actually appears as a postscript. And the phrase is "humanity must choose between socialism and barbarism"...at least that&#39;s how I remember it.

The phrase has been periodically revived. Luxemburg used it in 1915. A small group of left-Trotskyists after World War II actually called their group "Socialism or Barbarism"...and went on to abandon Trotskyism altogether. And the American publisher Monthly Review Press has published a couple of books in the last few years on the same theme.

What seems to be at work here is an "apocalyptic" vision of the present situation...that is, when things look "really awful", some lefties think that it&#39;s "now or never".

I think we have to be more "cool headed" and realize that yes, capitalism always behaves horribly, but that it&#39;s never "the end of the world".

Because if it "is" the "end of the world", then there is no more to be said or done. It&#39;s a perspective that invites surrender.

And who needs that?

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

[red_che]

What seems to be at work here is an "apocalyptic" vision of the present situation...that is, when things look "really awful", some lefties think that it&#39;s "now or never".

I think we have to be more "cool headed" and realize that yes, capitalism always behaves horribly, but that it&#39;s never "the end of the world".

Because if it "is" the "end of the world", then there is no more to be said or done. It&#39;s a perspective that invites surrender.

I don&#39;t think somebody here, at least in this forum, thinks that the "end of the world" is near so something must be done "now or never".

But to delay the proletarian revolution is something more horrible than the end of the world might be... while the conditions already are overwhelming to start a revolution. Well, I guess, what&#39;s missing in the advance capitalist societies today is a genuine proletarian party. That&#39;s why until now their revolution have not yet begun.

As Lenin said, there can be no revolution without a revolutionary party. That&#39;s true with these capitalist societies in the "west" now. :(


If the Maoists win in Nepal, watch the "red" rhetoric flow like lava.

If they win, as I am sure they will, they can establish a victorious socialist society... That is if they would not deviate from Marxism and follow Kruschev&#39;s or Deng Xiaoping&#39;s path. :)

[kurt]

If they win, as I am sure they will, they can establish a victorious socialist society... That is if they would not deviate from Marxism and follow Kruschev&#39;s or Deng Xiaoping&#39;s path.
Just like Vietnam, China and Russia did, right? I&#39;ll be remembering this quote.

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:15 PM

If they win, as I am sure they will, they can establish a victorious socialist society... That is if they would not deviate from Marxism and follow Kruschev&#39;s or Deng Xiaoping&#39;s path.
Just like Vietnam, China and Russia did, right? I&#39;ll be remembering this quote.
Yeah, if they won&#39;t follow Kruchev and his gang of revisionists.

[Scars]

<<The Paris Commune? Syndicalist Barcelona?>>
The Paris Commune was as much the result of Prussian military success as it was of worker discontent and revolution. In addition it lasted less than a month and even if it had arisen at a time when there wasn&#39;t a large occupying army in France it&#39;s doubtful it would have lasted that much longer. The Commune lacked mass support, it lacked a cohesive ideological base, it was unorganised and made several very stupid moves in its short life (not seizing the money from the bank, for instance). I admire the Commune greatly, but have few illusions about it.
Barcelona was another triumph, however firstly it was anarcho-syndicalist, as much influenced by Kroptokin and Sorel as Marx. Secondly it emerged in one of the most industrialised areas of an otherwise backwards, agriculture-heavy country. Spain was easily the most backwards country in Western Europe and was more akin to the &#39;third world&#39; than the industrialised &#39;first world&#39;.

<<If you are suggesting here that the hypothesis that we must "wait" until capitalism "develops the whole world" for communism to be "possible" is simply wrong, I agree with you in opposing that idea.>>
Good. Orthodox Marxists tend to depress me.

<<In my opinion, communism will first be possible in the "old" (or "senile") capitalist countries...and will actually arise there in the course of this century.>>
Possibly, but without the squeeze being put on them by way of &#39;third word&#39; revolutions I doubt that this will happen. However predicting the next 94 years is not the most accurate science.

<<On the other hand, it&#39;s difficult for me to imagine a communist society in Afghanistan or Nepal before 2500&#33;>>

We shall see, no?

<<The empirical evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion. The "migration to the cities" has been one of the most consistent trends we&#39;ve ever observed; it may be one of those "iron laws of history".>>
No. The transition of a country from a fuedal to a capitalist or proto-capitalist economy has 2 effects that relates to this. Firstly agriculture becomes less labour intensive, thus less people are necessary in order for production to take place to an acceptable level and there is a great demand for labour in cities, where early (often crude) industry is starting to emerge- this is labour intensive. Thus the people who can no longer support themselves in the countryside and who are faced with starvation may well be forced to seek work elsewhere and the cities are where that work is. From then on it takes 3, maybe 4 generations for a family to break all links with the land.
They leave because starvation is the alternative, they do not leave because they want to. Of course this isn&#39;t universal, some people will decide that they wish to go to the cities. But at the same time some urbanites become rural dwellers.

<<Well, isn&#39;t that the case? What is peasant life besides one of isolation from the accumulated sum of human knowledge?>>
Cities have the potential to be havens of education, learning and advancement- however in my experience their inhabitance is just lazier, greedier and more materialistic than their rural counterparts- not less ignorant.

<<Just look at the U.S. right now. Where do most of the volunteers for American imperialism come from?>>
The lower classes, many of which join the army because it&#39;s the best (and sometimes only) job available.
<<Where are the most fervently superstitious to be found? Where does open racism, sexism, and homophobia still flourish?>>
From my, admittedly limited, first hand experience of the US and its population I&#39;d say that could go for most of the US.

<<And our peasantry are "kulaks"...rich peasants that are, to all intents and purposes, fully petty-bourgeois in the classical definition of the word. They have electricity, television, internet service, etc. and they&#39;re still pig ignorant.>>
The majority of them are not kulaks, as they do not employ anyone, thus they are not exploiting anyone. In addition to this often they will not own the land, they bank will own the land, they will hold the deeds. A person I know recently borrowed &#036;2 million (around &#036;1.5 million US) in order to buy a sheep farm and convert it to dairy (loans for agriculture work differently here, so he actually can borrow &#036;2 million). He&#39;ll spend about the next 40-50 years working there, using the money he earns to pay off the interest on the loan and when he retires he&#39;ll sell the farm and hope it hasn&#39;t lost value, or else he&#39;s pretty screwed. I would not define him as petty-bourgeoise.
Electricty, television and the internet? Many do not have the internet, as the necessary phonelines are often not present in the middle of nowhere, but I don&#39;t see the point. Many people have all those things and are just as, if not more ignorant. Particularly in America where the fact that other countries exist in this world has not really hit home yet.

<<Granted, some of them have managed to learn a few things about the modern world; but there are others who would stone people to death for adultery if they thought they could get away with it&#33;>>
That&#39;s to do with religion, not geographic location. Go drive past a baptist church on Sunday morning, you&#39;ll find 500 people in the pro-stoning camp.

<<From what I&#39;ve read, the peasantry of the "third world" are mostly illiterate, deeply superstitious, profoundly and brutally sexist, and aside from their opposition to imperialism, just reactionary as hell.>>
There are somthing like 3 billion peasants in the world, it&#39;s hard to make grand generalisations about them. However- illiterate, yes, incredibly. This is because they&#39;re ignored by pretty much everyone, no one thinks that it&#39;s necessary for the peasantry to be educated in any way and honestly, it isn&#39;t necessary. Giving peasants an education is dangerous, it&#39;s easier to keep them ignorant. Superstitious? To varying extents, however no more so than most of the world, particularly going by your standards. Sexist? To varing extents, but once again- this isn&#39;t that different to the rest of the world. The difference is, the peasanst are willing to stand up and fight- the workers of the &#39;first world&#39; get pissed while watching football.

<<I know there is a pronounced tendency among some western "lefties" to romanticize peasant life in distant and very backward countries -- perhaps stemming from our understandable alienation from the urban class society in which we live.>>
The difference being I have had extensive contact with rural people (about half my family in fact), have spent time in rural areas and live in a semi-rural area. I do not have any illusions about the base peasant. They are uneducated, they are ignorant, they are backward, they are sexist and they are superstitious. However all of this can be said about the much glorified workers of the &#39;first world&#39;. The peasants have repeatedly proved that if they are given education, if they are taught about Marxism etc, they will rise up against their exploiters.

<<But I think if any one of us ever found ourselves in a peasant environment, we&#39;d quickly realize the enormous magnitude of our error.>>
In the &#39;first world&#39; the closest thing to &#39;traditional&#39; peasants are the unskilled landless workers, employed by other farmers. Generally called &#39;farm hands&#39; (if they work all year round) or people who are employed only part of the year (fruit pickers etc). I have spent time with said people. As for &#39;traditional&#39; peasants, I have read various anthropological studies of peasants and villiages as well as looking at what peasants have managed to achive in the past and I believe that they are a far more revolutionary class than the industrial proletariat (at this point in time).

<<There&#39;s nothing "romantic" about it; it&#39;s a hellish existence.>>
Life is extremely hard by urbanite standards in any rural setting. My great uncle is a small land owner (farms by himself with no labour, has minimal capital and has a fairly small holding. He actually owns it though, the bank doesn&#39;t) works 4am-9pm in the high season, 5am-6pm in the low 7 days a week. If he was an urbanite working in a factory this would be illegal (119 hours a week). Howver things would be worse if he did not own his own land, instead having most of the money earned go to a neglectful landlord.

<<It&#39;s a thorny problem, but in my view communist cities will grow or manufacture most or nearly all of their own food. The technology to grow meat "in vats" is already under development. Fruits and vegetables could be grown in enormous greenhouses built where the suburbs are now. Urbanites would "commute" to those workplaces just as they would commute to any other workplace.>>
In order for a large city, say New York, to grow enough food and enough variety of food plus to have space for all the animals required (not just for meat, but for milk, cheese, cream, yoghurt etc) at teh highest density possible (which is bad as it causes soil degregation) you&#39;d be using so much land that you&#39;d have a rural hinterland- you just wouldn&#39;t call it a rural hinterland. In addition to this there are reasons why agriculture is done how it is, most counter proposals put forward from the left are put forward by urbanites utterly ignorant of how agriculture works. For instance, dairy products are important- we need calcium and dairy products are the best way to get it. Plus think how much of our cooking involves atleast some dairy products- most of it. Now, in order to produce the amount of milk needed to feed a large city in the way you&#39;re talking about you&#39;re going to need to have a productive dairy industry in the surrounding, which means that you&#39;ll be wanting the ideal conditions for dairy production i.e. flat, fertile land and lots there of, a moderate climate and light, but year round, rainfall. If I remember correctly, Las Vegas is in the middle of a desert- how exactly do you propose that you&#39;ll produce millions of litres of milk every day? And don&#39;t start with the &#39;we&#39;ll do it indoors&#33;&#39; thing. Cows need grass. They particularly need grass when you&#39;re trying to get good milk from them. You cannot do it indoors with the whole grainfed thing, indoor grain feeding is the reason that American produced meat is horrible (in the US marbled meat is a delicacy. Everywhere else it&#39;s considered bad meat).

<<In the "post-modern" ideological climate, we&#39;re all supposed to pretend that "every way of life" is "worthy of respect". Nothing is really "better" than anything else. Blah, blah, blah.>>
No, I am fundementally opposed to post modernism. However every city, every &#39;first world&#39; country, every factory, every shop- every urbanite is utterly dependent on the labour of peasants, farmers, miner and other rural folk. One should not bite the hand that feeds.

<<In North America, that&#39;s largely true. In western Europe, it&#39;s not as true.>>
Not as true, but true never the less. I will admit that I do have Francophile tendencies and I think that within a bourgeois context the unionist movement etc in France is very good. But they squander this power, instead of holding a general strike where millions don&#39;t turn up for work in order to get some real results they hold a general strike to get some more money, or to stop them losing it.

<<Sure you can. All you need is a sufficient span of time to make the Marxist hypothesis of proletarian revolution and communism so improbable as to be probably false.>>
That&#39;s not falsifying it, that&#39;s it not happening. You haven&#39;t PROVED it to be incorrect, in fact what you&#39;re saying is that it is largely improbable to the extent that it is probably false. You haven&#39;t proved it to be false, because you can&#39;t, you&#39;ve just said that if it doesn&#39;t work out by a certain date then chances are it ain&#39;t gonna work out at all, which is true.
Marxism is not a science.

<<But the trend towards urbanization continues unabated. Indeed, I&#39;ve read that we are now "on the edge" of the establishment of a world-wide urban majority...and that within a few decades, the absolute number of rural dwellers will begin to decline on the whole planet.>>
That has nothing to do with a desire to become urbanised, it has to do with a desire not to starve. As you&#39;ve said, I imagine that under communism many people may well return to rural areas- or even choose to go live in rural communities. We shall see.

[Morven]

Hello,

This is my first serious post on a forum like this one so please excuse any lack of ‘posting etiquette’. Please also excuse the rather long post. It is an attempt to stimulate discussion rather than stifle it.

Anyway, excuses out of the way, I thought Jaycee’s original post, although short asked a rather fundamental question: “I believe capitalism has been decadent on a world scale since the early 20th century, what are other peoples views on decadence because I know most &#39;marxists&#39; disregard this central theme of marxism in regard to present day capitalism”. Unfortunately, his initial question seems to have disappeared from many of the replies. Therefore, to try and re focus the discussion………

For the ICC, of which I am a member, an understanding of the theory of decadence is central to all of our political positions. Rather than being a moral question, which has been suggested by some posters here, decadence is a product of the workers movement and in particular the movement’s ability to understand the fundamental changes that occurred to the capitalist system at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Changes, which caused capitalism, a vital and dynamic force throughout much of the Nineteenth Century, to become a decadent social system, to use a phrase of Marx’s, it became a fetter on development. Marx noted that one of his key contributions to the workers movement was “to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production” (Marx to J. Weydemeyer, March 5th, 1852, Collected Works, vol.39, p.62-5 cited in: The theory of decadence lies at the heart of historical materialism: from Marx to the communist left IR 118). These phases, ascendancy and decadence, lie at the heart of marxism and historical materialism.

Capitalism like all the other modes of production that preceded it (slavery, the Asiatic mode of production and feudalism) had a period of ascendancy during which the means of production were developed. Capitalism played a “vital role in the expansion of societies productive forces” (The theory of decadence lies at the heart of historical materialism: from Marx to the communist left IR 118). The ‘old world’ was replaced by the new. This expansion saw unprecedented growth in productivity and giant leaps forward in the areas of science and technology undreamt of previously, and led importantly to the bringing together of the entire globe, with few undiscovered areas of the world at the end of the Nineteenth Century. The “long Nineteenth Century [was] a period of almost uninterrupted moral, intellectual and material progress” (The theory of decadence lies at the heart of historical materialism: from Marx to the communist left IR 118), which unfortunately for the working class, given the blood drenched years of the 20th century, couldn’t last.

The ‘success’ of capitalism in the Nineteenth Century led many socialists to believe that the revolution was no longer necessary. The revisionist wing, its most notable member being Bernstein of the German Social Democratic Party, argued that there was “the possibility of a gradual and peaceful transformation of capitalism into socialism” (ICC, The Decadence of Capitalism). But those on the left wing of the Second International, for example, the Bolsheviks, Rosa Luxemburg & the Dutch Tribune Group, fought against this opportunism aware that the ‘real’ struggle was for the destruction of capitalism. The “clearest statement of this defence was Luxemburg’s, Social Reform or Revolution (1898) which, while recognising that capitalism was still ascending by means of ‘brusque expansionist thrusts’ (i.e. imperialism), insisted that the system would inevitability undergo a saturation of the world market impelling a ‘crisis of senility’ and producing an immediate need for the revolutionary conquest of power by the proletariat” (ICC, The Decadence of Capitalism).

In 1913 Luxemburg published her book, The Accumulation of Capital, “which attempted to analyse the real economic roots of [capitalism’s] historic crisis” (ICC, The Decadence of Capitalism). She based her work “on Marx’s own insistence that the very nature of the wage labour relationship made it impossible for capitalism to realise all the surplus value it extracted within its own social boundaries, Luxemburg concluded that capitalism’s historic decline [i.e. its decadence] must commence at the point where there is an exhaustion of the extra capitalist markets in relation to the amount of surplus value generated by global capitalist production” (ICC, The Decadence of Capitalism). Essentially, “at the point at which it dominated the globe, capitalism plunged into a permanent crisis of over production” (ICC, The Decadence of Capitalism).

This point came in the early years of the Twentieth Century with the first imperialist war signalling, definitively, the onset of capitalism’s decadence. A new epoch had begun, one of war and revolution where the working class were faced with a stark choice between, as Rosa Luxemburg (and others, it seems) so famously stated, socialism or barbarism. The ‘boom’ years of capitalism’s ascendancy were over. Reforms were no longer possible. Capitalism was no longer in any way a progressive force; it had fulfilled its historic role&#33; As the Communist International (CI) stated “capitalism having completed its mission of developing the productive forces, has fallen into the most implacable contradiction with the needs not only of the present historical evolution but also with the most elementary requirements of human existence” (cited in: The theory of decadence lies at the heart of historical materialism: from Marx to the communist left IR 118). To repeat what was stated earlier, capitalism had become a ‘fetter’ on development in all areas of social life. It now acted as a barrier to the development of productive forces “and a threat to the very survival of humanity” (The theory of decadence lies at the heart of historical materialism: from Marx to the communist left IR 118) as a never-ending series of imperialist wars was launched.

Even this brief explanation of the theory of decadence shows how, with the onset of capitalism’s decadence in 1914 the conditions of the class struggle fundamentally changed. With decadent capitalism dominating the globe the proletariat internationally, regardless of the level of individual national development, were faced with the same choice and the same struggle: socialism or barbarism. Class lines were now drawn between the old revisionists of the Second International and the internationalist left fractions that were, on one hand, struggling against these ‘recruiting sergeants’ for the bourgeoisie, while on the other, calling on the working class to ‘turn the imperialist war into a civil war’. It was these currents (with the Bolsheviks at the forefront) that understood the importance of the historic period and the need to break with the ‘gradual road to socialism’ and the old forms of reformist struggle (parliament, the unions, etc) so favoured by social democracy and fight for the world revolution. With the founding of the CI in 1919 there was now an international rallying point for those organisations explicitly calling for the destruction of capitalism and the seizure of state power by the proletariat.

However, by the third congress in 1921 the CI had begun to degenerate with concessions being made to the old tactics of struggle and to revolutionary principles (support for national liberation movements, parliament, the unions, etc), which reflected the failure of the revolutionary wave (1917 – 1923) and the degeneration of the Russian revolution. These compromised positions continue to be defended today by a variety of groups (Maoists, Stalinists & Trotskyists) who constitute the left wing of the bourgeoisie. Today’s groups of the communist left (e.g. ICC & IBRP) have their origins in those left fractions which split from the degenerating CI in order to continue to defend the communist programme, in particular the Dutch, German and Italian lefts.

So, any thoughts?

For communism&#33;

Morven

NB: All the cited articles are available on the ICC&#39;s website.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Morven
This point came in the early years of the Twentieth Century with the first imperialist war signaling, definitively, the onset of capitalism’s decadence. A new epoch had begun, one of war and revolution where the working class were faced with a stark choice between, as Rosa Luxemburg (and others, it seems) so famously stated, socialism or barbarism. The ‘boom’ years of capitalism’s ascendancy were over. Reforms were no longer possible. -- emphasis added.

This is historically wrong.

It was after World War I that "the age of reform" began...and lasted for decades in all of the "old" capitalist countries.

One can argue the details about "when" it ended in a particular country; but I think the evidence now shows that it has ended in all of the "old" capitalist countries and, indeed, all the "great reforms" are being dismantled as a decaying social order can no longer afford them.

By contrast, the "age of reform" is beginning in the "maturing" capitalist countries in Latin America...that&#39;s what the "rise of the (bourgeois) left" really means in those places.

I think that to a considerable extent, Luxemburg, Hilferding, Lenin, et.al., thought that Europe was "the whole world". Clearly they completely missed the enormous booms that characterized capitalism in North America (both 1920-29 and 1940-70).

Inspite of the great depression of the 1930s and two incredibly destructive world wars, the 20th century was nevertheless western capitalism&#39;s "golden age"...a period of development in the means of production that makes even the complete sum of the 19th century look trivial.

It is only within the last few decades that "old" capitalism has faltered; while "new capitalism" (in Japan, China, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.) goes from triumph to triumph...and while even newer capitalisms are making their appearance (Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Mexico, India, etc.).

What this suggests to me is that Marx&#39;s idea that the "old" capitalist countries would be first to experience proletarian revolution will be confirmed.

Why? Because it is in those particular countries that capitalism is decaying to the point in which it is becoming a fetter on the further development of the means of production.

What are the basic requirements for proletarian revolution?

1. A very high degree of technological development.

2. A very culturally developed and sophisticated proletariat.

3. A chronic stagnation in the further development of technology.

4. Consequent falling standards-of-living of the proletariat.

5. Practical impossibility of significant reforms.

6. A major (or "terminal") economic crisis, an unsuccessful imperialist war, or both.

There are countries where those conditions are clearly "on history&#39;s agenda" and many other countries where those conditions lie in the distant and even very distant future.

May I respectfully suggest that the ICC needs a "software update". :)

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

[gilhyle]

My thanks to Redstar for trying to find the quote. I appreciate the effort - your comment revives a vague memory I had that Marx or Engels had used the phrase.

The point of emphasising that Kautsky had used it was to refer to the fact that awareness in the classical Marxist tradition that capitalism had or was reaching an epochal turning point into decadence - even in the Second International - did not (contrary to Lukacsian myth) lead to a belief in the inevitability of socialism.

The sense that capitalism had reached its highest stage had a programatic rather than an apocalyptic character in the Marxism tradition, in the sense that it led to the questioning of the &#39;build the movement&#39; strategy promoted by Max and Engels since the 1870s.

The perception of an epochal change within capitalism at that point justified what would otherwise have been adventurist seizures of power by the Russian bolsheviks to trigger a process which, for the first time, was historically desirable.

The very difficult programmatic question, which the continued recognition of the decadent nature of capitalism overall raises, is whether, within the epoch of the highest stage of capitalism there might be periods where it is no longer (for that period) appropriate to support programs focused on lighting fires of international revolution.

The justification for that would be that, while capitalism may be epochally degenerate, it is nevertheless capable of very substantial, fitfull, periods of localised or even global economic growth (however undesirable the structure of that economic growth) such that the revolutinary programme may become quixotic for significant periods, although epochally justified. More prosaically: revolution is objectively desirable from the point of view of the species as a whole, but the workng class forces to push it forward simply cannot for whole periods, be mobilised because of the structure and nature of capitalism.

[Morven]

Hello,

In response to what’s been written (again apologies for the length of the post):

Unsurprisingly, given what I previously wrote, I (and the ICC) would disagree. To re state what I said, rather than signalling an ‘age of reform’ the First World War heralded the onset of capitalisms decadence, which has twice plunged humanity into a barbaric cycle of crisis, world war, reconstruction and new crisis. The conditions, which had allowed capitalism to expand in the Nineteenth Century, had begun to disappear, to quote from our pamphlet, Unions against the working class:

“The economic and social life of each nation was more and more thrown into disorder. To cope with rivalries developing over the competition of commodities on the world market, as well as military competition, the whole economy had to be stretched to its maximum limits in order to lower the costs of production and release the necessary resources to develop armies and a military apparatus of the most modern type. The margin of manoeuvre which had once been available to the national capitals and which had allowed the proletariat room to lead a struggle for reforms within bourgeois society shrank rapidly. The pitiless war, which the capitalist nations embarked upon, led naturally enough to an internal war waged by capital against any amelioration in the living conditions of the producing class. The economic and military efficiency of each national capital vis-à-vis other national capitals depended as never before on the capacity of each to extract the maximum surplus value from its exploited class. No national capital could grant concessions to its proletariat without falling behind on the international arena”.

State capitalism, was another consequence of this process of degeneration. In periods of decadence, whether in the 15th century or in the 20th century, the state, faced with “the exacerbation of the system’s contradictions” (ICC, Platform & Manifesto), is forced to take responsibility for the ‘security’ of the existing society in order to defend the existing mode of production. The state “thus tends to strengthen itself to the point of incorporating within its own structures the whole of social life” (ICC, Platform & Manifesto). This has become the general tendency within decadent capitalism. Now faced with sharp imperialist competition national capital cannot expand in the same unfettered way it did during the period of capitalism’s ascendancy. Therefore, each national capital must organise itself as efficiently as possible in order to compete, economically and militarily, with its imperialist rivals, and to deal internally with ‘national’ problems thrown up by the social contradictions of decadence. The state is the only force capable of achieving this task.

Only the state can take charge of the economy, develop military forces and, through “an increasingly heavy repressive and bureaucratic apparatus, reinforce the internal cohesion of a society threatened with collapse through the growing decomposition of its economic foundations” (ICC, Platform & Manifesto). However, it is important to state that although never fully realised, state control of the economy does not indicate the disappearance of the law of value and competition, which are “fundamental expressions of the capitalist economy” (ICC, Platform & Manifesto). Any ‘rationalisation’ is merely an expression of capitalism’s decadence.

This general tendency towards state capitalism manifests itself in every country and has taken place gradually, like in the more developed countries where there is been a ‘joining up’ of private and public capital (e.g. in most of Europe), and in “sudden leaps in the form of massive and total nationalisations” (ICC, Platform & Manifesto) in nations where private capitalism is at its weakest. Although a general tendency, state capitalism makes a more rapid, and has a more obvious, appearance during those periods (e.g. war) in which capitalism’s decadence is at its most brutal, particularly in those nations which are weaker economically. Effectively, “the state [whether ‘totalitarian or democratic’] has become under decadent capitalism, a monstrous, cold, impersonal machine which has devoured the very substance of civil society” (ICC, Platform & Manifesto).

The ‘reforms’ you allude to in your post, the NHS in Britain, welfare systems throughout Europe, etc., are the result of this general tendency towards state capitalism. The introduction of the NHS for example “was not a product of a stubborn struggle by the working class but the conscious decision of the government of National Unity in World War Two” (The NHS is not a Reform for Workers to Defend WR 217). Rather than having the interests of workers in mind it ensured that they were ‘fit for service’ and was a major part of the move towards state capitalist control of all aspects of life in Britain. It is of course not immune to capitalism’s crisis and hence suffers from constant financial crisis. Workers who fight to defend the NHS find themselves defending the very state, which attacks them.

As capitalism’s crisis has deepened over the last 35 years the state can no longer afford these ‘great reforms’. This is a true in the ‘new’ countries on the periphery of capitalism (e.g. Japan has been in a deep economic crisis for 15 years) as it is in the ‘old’ heartlands of capitalism. As the state, internationally, strengthens itself to defend its own interests, workers whether in Britain, China, Venezuela or wherever are forced to answer the same question: what future does capitalism offer us?

Anyway, I have already written far too much and not even begun to answer some of the other fundamental points that have been raised, like:

“One can argue the details about "when" it ended in a particular country; but I think the evidence now shows that it has ended in all of the "old" capitalist countries and, indeed, all the "great reforms" are being dismantled as a decaying social order can no longer afford them”

“What this suggests to me is that Marx&#39;s idea that the "old" capitalist countries would be first to experience proletarian revolution will be confirmed”.

Perhaps I, or someone else, will be able to respond to them in the near future?

For communism&#33;

Morven

NB: Once again, the cited texts are available on the ICC&#39;s website

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Morven
State capitalism was another consequence of this process of degeneration. In periods of decadence, whether in the 15th century or in the 20th century, the state, faced with “the exacerbation of the system’s contradictions” (ICC, Platform & Manifesto), is forced to take responsibility for the ‘security’ of the existing society in order to defend the existing mode of production. The state “thus tends to strengthen itself to the point of incorporating within its own structures the whole of social life”

This is a plausible hypothesis...but again faces empirical difficulties.

The capitalist state apparatus today is indeed bloated beyond recognition of a 19th century robber baron.

But the trend in the "old" capitalist countries is, of course, privatization.

Even in the area of its most vital concern -- military security -- the U.S. has privatized its entire logistics. The ammunition that an American mercenary uses in Iraq was not only manufactured by a private corporation, it was delivered to him by a private corporation...most likely Halliburton.

The uniform he wears was probably made by prison labor contracted out to a private corporation. Indeed, it&#39;s increasingly possible that the prison itself is privately owned.

One could say, of course, that the capitalist state apparatus is "administering" all of this...because private capital is no longer "up to the task".

And there&#39;s probably quite a bit of truth to that.

But I don&#39;t think that&#39;s much help in coming to grip with the concept of "decadence". If the idea is to be useful, it must tell us in which countries has capitalism reached "the end of the line" or at least might be approaching that.

A "sweeping" declaration that "global capitalism has become decadent" doesn&#39;t tell us anything useful...it&#39;s like saying "the earth will be slightly warmer next year". Which parts of the earth? How much warmer? Will there be parts that get colder?

In the U.S., capitalism is stagnating. In China, capitalism is booming. Are both "decadent"?


As capitalism’s crisis has deepened over the last 35 years the state can no longer afford these ‘great reforms’. This is true in the ‘new’ countries on the periphery of capitalism (e.g. Japan has been in a deep economic crisis for 15 years) as it is in the ‘old’ heartlands of capitalism.

Well, I am not an "expert" on the situation in Japan...but it does seem that Japan continues to advance the development of the means of production. This suggests to me that an "age of reform" ought to be possible in Japan.

Clearly, the rise of the bourgeois "left" in Latin America suggests the beginning of an "age of reform" in those countries.

How much substantive rise in proletarian living standards will actually materialize from those reforms is speculative at this point. Venezuela can, I think, easily afford to be a Latin American "Sweden"...Brazil may find such matters more difficult to manage.


Anyway, I have already written far too much and not even begun to answer some of the other fundamental points that have been raised...

It&#39;s probably better to post "in your own words" than to quote extensively from formal manifestos. That would allow you to respond more explicitly to the posts of others -- whereas manifestos, by necessity, are extremely general.

As a general rule, we don&#39;t mind long posts on this board...if they are interesting responses to the points raised by others.

And, of course, you are always free to start a thread on a subject of interest to you and write as much as you think appropriate. We much prefer the individual thoughts of the members here to the formal statements of particular groups.

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

[red_che]

But the trend in the "old" capitalist countries is, of course, privatization.

Even in the area of its most vital concern -- military security -- the U.S. has privatized its entire logistics. The ammunition that an American mercenary uses in Iraq was not only manufactured by a private corporation, it was delivered to him by a private corporation...most likely Halliburton.

The uniform he wears was probably made by prison labor contracted out to a private corporation. Indeed, it&#39;s increasingly possible that the prison itself is privately owned.

But of course, such wouldn&#39;t be possible without state apparatus working in favor of those private corporations.


Well, I am not an "expert" on the situation in Japan...but it does seem that Japan continues to advance the development of the means of production. This suggests to me that an "age of reform" ought to be possible in Japan.

Clearly, the rise of the bourgeois "left" in Latin America suggests the beginning of an "age of reform" in those countries.

How much substantive rise in proletarian living standards will actually materialize from those reforms is speculative at this point. Venezuela can, I think, easily afford to be a Latin American "Sweden"...Brazil may find such matters more difficult to manage.

But the point is that capitalism, in general and on a global scale, is decaying. It had reached that point that no more significant development is happening. What the Imperialist countries, or in your term "old" capitalist countires, were doing were simply intensifying the contradictions within the capitalist system, that is, among themselves.

What you call as the "new" and "rising" capitalist countries, such as China, were not really booming. They only serve to intensify more the ever deepening capitalist crisis.

Those "new, emerging capitalist societies" were not actually capitalist in the complete sense of capitalist development. Looking back into capitalism as it arose, industrialization has flourished and these industries (basic and heavy) were owned by the local/ethnic bourgeoisie. While in these "new emerging capitalist countries," industries, especially the heavy industries, were transnationally/multinationally owned. These industries (means of production) were owned by a corporation tracing its root from one or more Imperialist country. The Imperialist countries were investing their "surplus" capital in those countries.

That is not a capitalist development.

That is, in fact, an intensification of Imperialist domination not just over their market but even on their means of production to accumulate more capital and gain more control over those countries.

Not just in Latin American countries do this kind of "development" occur. It is the same in Korea, Taiwan, etc. Even China gained from these investments of surplus capital from the US.

Maybe that is your notion of an "age of reform."

But in reality, it was a mere step done by an Imperialist country to sustain its existence and prevent, even a little longer, its decay.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
But the point is that capitalism, in general and on a global scale, is decaying.

Even if true, that&#39;s a meaningless statement. As I said before, that&#39;s like saying "the world is getting warmer". It doesn&#39;t tell us anything useful.

And I&#39;m not even sure that it is true...though it may be true.

Capitalism is a "many-headed" monster...and accordingly difficult to "sum up".

We are told that the "world economy" continues to grow...but we have no way to validate the numbers given to us by "the authorities". The only thing we really know is what we can see around us...how&#39;s the economy doing where you live?

The daily newspapers in the U.S. speak of large layoffs, corporate bankruptcies, steeply rising energy costs, a real estate "boom", a "falling rate" in personal savings, and so on. Yet they nevertheless claim that the U.S. economy is "continuing to grow" and "unemployment" is "declining".

I don&#39;t see how all of those things could be simultaneously "true".

I know what living in the U.S. "feels like"...and "prosperous" or "expanding" are not words that spring to mind.

Capitalism here "feels decadent".

From what I have read, this does not seem to be the case in Asia or Latin America. Not only do their economies continue to grow at a rapid pace, but they continue to advance the development of the means of production.

The Chinese are actually starting work on a nuclear fusion plant&#33;

Need I elaborate on the implications of that if their efforts are successful?


But in reality, it was a mere step done by an Imperialist country to sustain its existence and prevent, even a little longer, its decay.

When a corporation from one of the "old" capitalist countries invests in one of the "new" capitalist countries, I agree with you that that is not capitalist development in the "classical" sense.

But what I think is happening is that these "new" capitalist countries are evolving their own "advanced" bourgeoisie...who are quite capable and quite determined to "take matters" into their own hands.

A western corporation, for example, that wants to take advantage of "cheap Chinese labor" to offset its own declining profit margins is welcomed. But there&#39;s a catch...the western corporation must hand over to the Chinese its advanced technology so that Chinese capitalists can build their own plants and compete with the western capitalist -- and not just in China but globally&#33;

Chinese capitalism "booms" while western capitalism has only dug its own grave a little deeper. :lol:

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

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 12:20 PM

3. A chronic stagnation in the further development of technology.


Could you elaborate a bit futher on this particular bit?

Because as far as I can tell, the old capitalist countries are the ones pushing the latest technology.

[JC1]

From what I have read, this does not seem to be the case in Asia or Latin America. Not only do their economies continue to grow at a rapid pace, but they continue to advance the development of the means of production.

The means of production in these country&#39;s indeed are expanding.

However, none of these country&#39;s are accumulating capital. Indeed, the only income generated from these ventures that stay&#39;s in the country are wage&#39;s. And the reason that these enterprises are funded by imperialist Capital is precisly becuase wages.


But what I think is happening is that these "new" capitalist countries are evolving their own "advanced" bourgeoisie...who are quite capable and quite determined to "take matters" into their own hands.

How could these country&#39;s develop there own bourgoise, when there means of production are owned by forign capitalist&#39;s ?&#33;?

This statement just dosen&#39;t stand up to the fact&#39;s. China for example, owns a mere 4 of the world&#39;s 1000 bank&#39;s. And all of these are sudsiduary&#39;s of forign owned banks &#33;

How can a country be "booming new capitalist state" when it has no finance capital ?


But there&#39;s a catch...the western corporation must hand over to the Chinese its advanced technology so that Chinese capitalists can build their own plants and compete with the western capitalist -- and not just in China but globally&#33;

Why would a capitalist hand over technology to a competitor ? Youre statement makes no sense.

[red_che]

From what I have read, this does not seem to be the case in Asia or Latin America. Not only do their economies continue to grow at a rapid pace, but they continue to advance the development of the means of production.

The "advancement" in their means of production that you were talking here is not an advancement in the natural sense. It is the recycled means of production or the surplus capital being invested in them by the Imperialist countries. The outdated technology from the Imperialist countries were transferred to these "new capitalist" countries while the Imperialist countries themselves continue to develop new technologies. Who benefits most from these "advances" were not the local bourgeoisie but the Monopoly Capitalists who invested their "surplus" capital, including finance capital. These Monopoly Capitalists accumulates more capital out of it, thus prolonging a bit their existence.


But what I think is happening is that these "new" capitalist countries are evolving their own "advanced" bourgeoisie...who are quite capable and quite determined to "take matters" into their own hands.

Well, in reality, it is not happening and it cannot happen in the future, either. The fact is, the local bourgeoisie of these countries cannot take matters into their own hands simply because the Imperialists control their means of production and their government. :(


A western corporation, for example, that wants to take advantage of "cheap Chinese labor" to offset its own declining profit margins is welcomed. But there&#39;s a catch...the western corporation must hand over to the Chinese its advanced technology so that Chinese capitalists can build their own plants and compete with the western capitalist -- and not just in China but globally&#33;

Western capitalists were not dumb to hand over their technology to their soon-to-be competitor. It would be like they&#39;re "getting a stone to be poked at their own heads," as the saying goes. :lol:

Assuming that this is true, what will happen is that an old, outdated technology will be left on them while a new and more advanced technology shall have been developed by the Imperialist countries before such transfer of technology occurs.

That, my friend, is what&#39;s happening globally. :)


Chinese capitalism "booms" while western capitalism has only dug its own grave a little deeper.

Chinese capitalism only recycles the old capitalism, and they shall be dragged also when capitalism will be overthrown. :)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by JKP+--> (JKP)Because as far as I can tell, the old capitalist countries are the ones pushing the latest technology.[/b]

The scientific "infrastructure" of the "old" capitalist countries is still superior...and still capable of innovating new technologies. But the application of these new technologies to the means of production is increasingly located in the "new" capitalist countries.

Bright kids from Asia or Latin America still come to western universities to study science and technology. But instead of staying in those western countries (like they used to do) they go home...because the opportunities are better.

Western capitalists actually encourage this process. When they build a plant in China, they don&#39;t just "copy" the old plant that they closed in the U.S. or the U.K., they build a new "state of the art" plant with the most modern technology they can obtain...which in turn is copied by Chinese capitalists.


JC1
How can a country be [a] "booming new capitalist state" when it has no finance capital?

If you go back at look at the U.S. from say 1850-1900, you&#39;ll see that the role of finance capital was relatively small.

Moreover, a great deal of the necessary capital investment actually originated in Europe...where American railroad bonds were extremely popular.

Much was made in the years immediately before World War I of the "power" of "finance capital" over "industrial capital"...this was one of the rationales of the "new and final stage of capitalism" hypothesis.

In my opinion, it was much fuss over nothing. The influence of finance capital and industrial capital waxes and wanes...probably depending on technological innovation. Sometimes the banks "rule" and sometimes industrial capital is so profitable that it reduces the banks to spectators.

I think it would be difficult now to even clearly separate the two; industrial corporations routinely buy and sell financial products to "hedge" their position in both market share and currency variations. If I&#39;m not mistaken, the currently most profitable division of the General Motors Corporation is GMAC...the division that handles consumer auto loans.


Why would a capitalist hand over technology to a competitor?

Because that&#39;s the price of doing business in China at all. When Boeing Corporation wanted to build jets in China, for example, the Chinese said sure...but you have to hand over the technology to us. Otherwise, we&#39;ll just build our planes ourselves.

Boeing had no choice but to agree.

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

[red_che]

When Boeing Corporation wanted to build jets in China, for example, the Chinese said sure...but you have to hand over the technology to us. Otherwise, we&#39;ll just build our planes ourselves.

Yeah, but who controls that industry? Was it China?

And who controls the capital (financial and the machines)? Was it China?

I don&#39;t think so. The Imperialists control those things. They only pay the Chinese workers because their wages were a lot cheaper than the American workers.

So, who will gain from this? The American capitalists, the Monopoly Capitalists.

And was there a "boom" with this kind of trade? None.

[Morven]

Hello,

Taking on board the Moderator&#39;s stern words :) another response to some of what’s been written:

Redstar wrote: "a sweeping" declaration that "global capitalism has become decadent" doesn&#39;t tell us anything useful...”

Although I disagree with the term ‘sweeping’, doesn’t? Basically, recognising, in continuity with the workers movement, that capitalism is decadent at least gives us a starting point, a framework, grounded in the marxist method, that enables us to begin to think about its development in the 20th Century. It allows us to move from the general to the specific. I hate to bang on about it, especially as some of the other posters on the thread (e.g. Red Che) seem to share this perspective, but this is a fundamental acquisition of the workers movement&#33; Anyway, didn’t Rosa Luxemburg write somewhere that being a revolutionary meant having to repeat the same thing over and over again? (If anyone knows which text this phrase appears in I would like to know, I have forgotten where I saw it originally).

Redstar wrote: “If the idea is to be useful, it must tell us in which countries has capitalism reached "the end of the line" or at least might be approaching that”.

Again, I don’t think a phrase like the ‘end of the line’ really ‘does it’.

Capitalism is a global system (obvious perhaps, given Marx’s comments in the Communist Manifesto: “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere”. But some may disagree, some may even think that feudalism still exists in a meaningful way&#33;). Therefore if you accept that it is decadent then Chinese capitalism is a decadent as American capitalism and so on.

But when left communists talk about decadence they don’t, can’t, deny that there has been, and still will be, growth. The onset of decadence didn’t signal a halt in development, it started a process of decay, which continues today. So, to answer one of your questions, how could there be an economic boom between 1945 – 1970 if capitalism is decadent?

Well, as I said in an earlier post, decadence has twice plunged humanity into a barbaric cycle of crisis, world war, reconstruction and new crisis. The American ‘booms’ (i.e. growth) you referred to in one of your posts, for example, are largely a consequence of the periods of reconstruction following the two imperialist wars (although other factors played a role). If we look at European ‘capitalism’ for example, its ‘golden age’ following the Second World War certainly wouldn’t have been possible given the levels of destruction without the intervention of the Americans and the Marshall Plan. Elsewhere as capitalism’s crisis deepens all sorts of measures have been used to prop it up ranging from the use of massive levels of debt to artificially create the markets which capitalism requires (e.g. in Japan for example) through to state intervention (i.e. state capitalism). Essentially, and this is massively simplifying it, the growth that has occurred in capitalism’s decadence has either been slow, cyclical or artificial.

Neither do we deny there were at the beginning of the 20th Century, and still are at the beginning of the 21st, extra-capitalist markets. But how does decadent capitalism exploit these markets when it is still struggling to integrate whole continents (e.g. Africa)?

As for ‘technology’, “the scientific "infrastructure" of the "old" capitalist countries [may] still [be] superior...and still capable of innovating new technologies”, but these new technologies, however innovative, can’t solve capitalism’s inherent contradictions. Recently the dot com ‘revolution’ was hailed as being as important as the ‘railway age’, well the majority of these companies quickly ran out of steam and capitalism’s crisis continues to deepen.

What makes the theory of decadence ‘useful’, as I stated above, is that it provides a framework to help us understand these questions (e.g. the role played by state capitalism, the reconstruction periods, the existence of extra-capitalist markets, the role played by arms production, and so on). Without it we are left with the ‘mess’ of ‘immediatist explanations’ regularly offered up by the different factions of the bourgeoisie.

Capitalism, I’m sure you would agree, won’t simply stop or ‘reach the end of the line’ but what it may do, through its pursuit of profit, is destroy the very basis of human life, the planet which we live on before the working class is able to realise its historic task. Therefore the deepening of its crisis, the reality that it is rotting on its feet, makes the need to destroy capitalism more pressing than ever but to do this we need to understand it, the theory of decadence helps us do that.

Redstar wrote: Capitalism is a "many-headed" monster...and accordingly difficult to "sum up".

I agree but as revolutionaries trying to offer a perspective for the future we have to try and ‘sum it up’ don’t we?

For example, we also have to try and ‘sum up’ what the consequences were for the workers movement of the onset of capitalism’s decadence? As I mentioned in my first post decadence had a serious impact on how workers responded to a number of questions like, the unions, national liberation, communist organisation and so on, but this really is for another thread (if in the meantime anyone is interested in this you could look at the ICC’s Platform, which is available at: http://en.internationalism.org/platform).

For communism&#33;

Morven

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Morven
Recently the dot com ‘revolution’ was hailed as being as important as the ‘railway age’, well the majority of these companies quickly ran out of steam and capitalism’s crisis continues to deepen.

There&#39;s another parallel with the "railway age". In the 1880s and 1890s, there was a massive "shake-out" of railroads in the U.S....during which many collapsed and were bought out by a few big outfits.

This is normal under capitalism.


Capitalism, I’m sure you would agree, won’t simply stop or ‘reach the end of the line’ but what it may do, through its pursuit of profit, is destroy the very basis of human life, the planet which we live on before the working class is able to realise its historic task.

If that&#39;s the practical consequence of the "decadence" hypothesis, then it&#39;s not much help.

Telling people to overthrow capitalism "or human life will come to an end" just sounds wacko&#33;

Granted that in a really decadent capitalist country, "end of the world" superstitions enjoy a modest revival...supposedly some 7% of the American population expect to "see" the "Rapture". :lol:

I don&#39;t think that sort of thing has any significant appeal in the "new" capitalist countries where capitalism seems to have a "bright future".

I do expect capitalism to come to "the end of the line" in western Europe and North America before the end of this century...but that won&#39;t mean "the end of the capitalist epoch".

Any more than 1789 meant "the end of feudalism".


Anyway, didn’t Rosa Luxemburg write somewhere that being a revolutionary meant having to repeat the same thing over and over again?

I know the feeling. :)

But there&#39;s a danger lurking in that sentiment. If you just "repeat the formula", you may miss something new and unexpected.

Marxist theory cannot be treated as an exhibit in a large glass museum case...kept safe from "contamination". The various versions of Leninism do that...which is why everything they say sounds so "old-fashioned". In the Trotskyist "universe", the clock stopped in 1940. In the Maoist "universe", it stopped in 1976. :(

The dead oppress the living.

I think we should emulate the approach of Marx and Engels and attempt to look critically at modern phenomena the way they did in their own lifetimes.

That doesn&#39;t mean passively "buying in" to the "flavor of the month" in bourgeois ideology. But it does mean paying attention to how the world has changed and is changing.

Just "saying the same thing over and over again" is unlikely to prove useful in the long run.

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

[beltov]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 26 2006, 03:39 PM--> (redstar2000 &#064; Jan 26 2006, 03:39 PM)

"Morven"
Anyway, didn’t Rosa Luxemburg write somewhere that being a revolutionary meant having to repeat the same thing over and over again?
But there&#39;s a danger lurking in that sentiment. If you just "repeat the formula", you may miss something new and unexpected. Marxist theory cannot be treated as an exhibit in a large glass museum case...kept safe from "contamination"... I think we should emulate the approach of Marx and Engels and attempt to look critically at modern phenomena the way they did in their own lifetimes. That doesn&#39;t mean passively "buying in" to the "flavor of the month" in bourgeois ideology. But it does mean paying attention to how the world has changed and is changing.
[/b]
I&#39;d agree with this sentiment: Marxism is not a dead dogma. It is a living dynamic world view. Indeed, it is the only basis on which the past, present and future of humanity can be truly comprehended and shaped. At the core of Marxism is historical materialism which gives us a method for approaching reality, and by using it all of the great Marxists were able to &#39;pay attention to how the world was changing&#39; and thus adapt their analysis and positions accordingly:
- After the Paris Commune Marx and Engels changed the views they expressed in the Communist Manifesto on the working class being able to use the capitalist state.

- After the Mass Strike in Russia 1905 Rosa Luxemburg was able to see how the soviet form of revolutionary organisation had eclipsed that of the trade unions.

- After the onset of the First World War and the betrayals of Social Democracy the left of the Second International saw the need to press forward the struggle against opportunism and centrism and fight for the formation of a new International.

- And the Third International itself - in particular during the first two Congresses (1919 & 1921) - was very clear in its understanding that the world war had opened up a new phase in capitalism&#39;s history. To quote the Theses on Comintern Tactics from the Fourth Congress


2. The Period of Capitalist Decline.
On the basis of its assessment of the world economic situation the Third Congress was able to declare with complete certainty that capitalism had fulfilled its mission of developing the productive forces and had reached a stage of irreconcilable contradiction with the requirements not only of modern historical development, but also of the most elementary conditions of human existence. This fundamental contradiction was reflected in the recent imperialist war, and further sharpened by the great damage the war inflicted on the conditions of production and distribution. Obsolete capitalism has reached the stage where the destruction that results from its unbridled power is crippling and ruining the economic achievements that have been built up by the proletariat, despite the fetters of capitalist slavery.

What capitalism is passing through today is nothing other than its death throes. The collapse of capitalism is inevitable.
http://www.marxists.org/history/internatio...ess/tactics.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/tactics.htm)

Does Redstar2000 reject this analysis made by the Communist International in 1922?

So yes, look at how history has developed and what the future holds - but with a method , with a clear framework: historical materialism. It is this method of understanding which shows that modes of production go through phases of rise and fall, of progress and reaction, of ascendancy and decadence: not this or that particular country.

The question of the &#39;Chinese boom&#39; shows what can happens if you don&#39;t approach reality with a materialist method. If you think China is a booming economy then you really have &#39;bought in&#39; to the lies of the bourgeoisie. The &#39;boom&#39; in China is in fact a fantastic expression of the crisis of capitalism taken globally, because it is flooding the already saturated world market with products and exacerbating the economic crisis. And the &#39;boom&#39; is being paid for by the working class through massive attacks on its working and living conditions: mass unemployment, poverty, famine and environmental destruction. If this is &#39;progress&#39; then what does reaction look like?&#33; See this article for how China is more of a capitalist mirage than an economic miracle:
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/278_china.htm

The ICC has written several series of articles on the question of the decadence of capitalism, which have been collected here:
http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/270

Beltov.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comintern+--> (Comintern)On the basis of its assessment of the world economic situation the Third Congress was able to declare with complete certainty that capitalism had fulfilled its mission of developing the productive forces and had reached a stage of irreconcilable contradiction with the requirements not only of modern historical development, but also of the most elementary conditions of human existence.[/b]

Yeah, I think they missed really badly on that one.

It "looked that way" in the aftermath of World War I...I&#39;ll grant you that.

But it completely missed the enormous technological development of the means of production that took place throughout the remainder of the 20th century.

It missed the decline of countries like England, France, and Germany and the rise of the U.S. and (monopoly state capitalist) Russia.

It missed the "computer revolution" completely.


Originally posted by [email protected]
It is this method of understanding which shows that modes of production go through phases of rise and fall, of progress and reaction, of ascendancy and decadence: not this or that particular country.

Well, there&#39;s a sense in which that is true...but new modes of production do happen to arise or decline in specific countries in specific historical periods.

If it were the case that every country&#39;s economy was completely dominated by foreign trade and investment, then a "global approach" would be suitable. If capitalism lasts long enough, this could happen.

But it certainly hasn&#39;t happened yet. We know this because if it were true, then wages would be approximately the same everywhere.

The whole world would be economically "on the same page".

I personally don&#39;t expect capitalism to last long enough for that to happen.


If you think China is a booming economy then you really have &#39;bought in&#39; to the lies of the bourgeoisie. The &#39;boom&#39; in China is in fact a fantastic expression of the crisis of capitalism taken globally, because it is flooding the already saturated world market with products and exacerbating the economic crisis. And the &#39;boom&#39; is being paid for by the working class through massive attacks on its working and living conditions: mass unemployment, poverty, famine and environmental destruction.

The article that you link to suggests that the current Chinese "boom" is somehow "different" from 19th century "booms" in the "old" capitalist countries.

But, frankly, it looks very much the same to me.

Overproduction? Happened all the time. Environmental destruction? Commonplace. Air pollution? London used to actually be called "the Smoke". Immiseration of the proletariat? So universal in 19th century capitalism that Marx thought it was a "built-in trend". Bank failures? Routine.

Will China have a "great depression"? I don&#39;t see how it could possibly be avoided...they&#39;ll probably have several. The U.S. had a whole bunch in the second half of the 19th century. So did the other new capitalist countries of that era.

To take a slightly different example, consider the "deflationary" trend in the Japanese economy over the last 15 years or so. The U.S. had a trend like that from 1870 to 1880...and still went on developing the means of production.

What strikes me about China and the other "new" capitalist countries is the building...the new factories, the new railroads, the new power systems, the new office buildings, etc.

This is what a confident young bourgeoisie does. While the infrastructure of the "old" capitalist countries deteriorate, China&#39;s is modernized. I&#39;ve even read that they&#39;re planning a "new city" (realistically, a town of about 75,000) that will be entirely solar powered.

Not to mention building a working nuclear fusion plant. (&#33;)

Can you imagine the truly decadent capitalist countries doing anything on that scale?

Well, France, I think, is working on a model fusion plant that could, in principle, be "scaled up".

But if the Chinese can "show the world how it&#39;s done", imagine the consequences.

I certainly share your skepticism about the hype surrounding different "models" of capitalism...probably a product of the desire to show that capitalism "does have a future". But I think most of this hype originates in the "old" capitalist countries where it&#39;s starting to look like capitalism doesn&#39;t "have a future".

Capitalists in China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, Brazil, etc. don&#39;t have to "hype themselves"...their landscapes speak for them.

To be sure, there&#39;s no reason to think that their "hour in the sun" will last any longer than that of the "old" capitalist countries. If we posit that capitalism becomes decadent in a particular country after two or three centuries (at most&#33;), then the China of 2206 or 2306 will be just as moribund as American capitalism is now. And it could happen even faster.

In the course of another discussion, I came across this interesting remark by Engels made back in 1848.


Engels
So just fight bravely on, most gracious masters of capital&#33; We need you for the present; here and there we even need you as rulers. You have to clear the vestiges of the Middle Ages and of absolute monarchy out of our path; you have to annihilate patriarchalism; you have to carry out centralisation; you have to convert the more or less propertyless classes into genuine proletarians, into recruits for us; by your factories and your commercial relationships you must create for us the basis of the material means which the proletariat needs for the attainment of freedom. In recompense whereof you shall be allowed to rule for a short time. You shall be allowed to dictate your laws, to bask in the rays of the majesty you have created, to spread your banquets in the halls of kings, and to take the beautiful princess to wife — but do not forget that

“The hangman stands at the door&#33;" (a line from Heine).

We may, if we are fortunate, see the hangman show up where we live before the end of this century.

But a "new" capitalist cannot even imagine such a thing. He thinks capitalism is "immortal". :lol:

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

[red_che]

Well, there&#39;s a sense in which that is true...but new modes of production do happen to arise or decline in specific countries in specific historical periods.

If it were the case that every country&#39;s economy was completely dominated by foreign trade and investment, then a "global approach" would be suitable. If capitalism lasts long enough, this could happen.

Historically, the epoch of capitalism is on a decline. It reached the point of ever-deepening and unresolving crisis. This must be viewed not only in a certain country at a certain point. It must be viewed epochally and globally.

As beltov stated, the societies and historical stages go through phases of rise and fall. Now capitalism, as a definite system and stage of historical development, is on its phase of decline. And it is during this period that workers must organize themselves and deal that final blow in order to finally end the epoch of capitalism and start the epoch of socialism.


But it certainly hasn&#39;t happened yet. We know this because if it were true, then wages would be approximately the same everywhere.

That wouldn&#39;t happen in reality. Because the international division of labor under capitalism have put a barrier to prevent such a thing.


The article that you link to suggests that the current Chinese "boom" is somehow "different" from 19th century "booms" in the "old" capitalist countries.

But, frankly, it looks very much the same to me.

Overproduction? Happened all the time. Environmental destruction? Commonplace. Air pollution? London used to actually be called "the Smoke". Immiseration of the proletariat? So universal in 19th century capitalism that Marx thought it was a "built-in trend". Bank failures? Routine.

Will China have a "great depression"? I don&#39;t see how it could possibly be avoided...they&#39;ll probably have several. The U.S. had a whole bunch in the second half of the 19th century. So did the other new capitalist countries of that era.

To take a slightly different example, consider the "deflationary" trend in the Japanese economy over the last 15 years or so. The U.S. had a trend like that from 1870 to 1880...and still went on developing the means of production.

What strikes me about China and the other "new" capitalist countries is the building...the new factories, the new railroads, the new power systems, the new office buildings, etc.

This is what a confident young bourgeoisie does. While the infrastructure of the "old" capitalist countries deteriorate, China&#39;s is modernized. I&#39;ve even read that they&#39;re planning a "new city" (realistically, a town of about 75,000) that will be entirely solar powered.

Not to mention building a working nuclear fusion plant. (&#33;)

Can you imagine the truly decadent capitalist countries doing anything on that scale?

Well, France, I think, is working on a model fusion plant that could, in principle, be "scaled up".

But if the Chinese can "show the world how it&#39;s done", imagine the consequences.

I certainly share your skepticism about the hype surrounding different "models" of capitalism...probably a product of the desire to show that capitalism "does have a future". But I think most of this hype originates in the "old" capitalist countries where it&#39;s starting to look like capitalism doesn&#39;t "have a future".

Capitalists in China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, Brazil, etc. don&#39;t have to "hype themselves"...their landscapes speak for them.

To be sure, there&#39;s no reason to think that their "hour in the sun" will last any longer than that of the "old" capitalist countries. If we posit that capitalism becomes decadent in a particular country after two or three centuries (at most&#33;), then the China of 2206 or 2306 will be just as moribund as American capitalism is now. And it could happen even faster.

You are obviously overwhelmed by the outside appearance of capitalism. And you obviously get caught by the lavish bourgeois propaganda. These advances are not the measure of capitalist development as a whole. Even at its very last day, capitalism would continue to develop new technologies. It is just its character, capitalist accumulation means developing new technologies for faster accumulation of profit and capital.

But we must look into the relations of production. Was it going along the same way as the means of production is going? No. In fact it is lagging behind. Everytime new technology is developed, more and more workers are laid-off of their work, more and more workers are thrown into poverty and misery. More and more workers are oppressed and exploited. And everytime that general crisis of capitalism bursts, it is ever more destruvtive, more violent.

In the past, during the elementary stage of capitalism, there is always a "boom" after every crisis. That is, the condition of liveing goes back the same way before the crisis. But now, the condition of living sinks deeper as every crisis comes and goes unresolved. This characterizes the decadent stage of capitalism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
Even at its very last day, capitalism would continue to develop new technologies.

That ain&#39;t what Marx said.

Doesn&#39;t mean Marx couldn&#39;t have been wrong and you are right.

But I&#39;m inclined to go with Marx on this one. As long as an "epoch" of production continues to advance the means of production, it "ain&#39;t dead yet".

It may well be "dying" in certain areas. Feudalism was dying in 18th and 19th century western Europe...but still growing (at least in substance) in eastern Europe and Latin America.


Every time new technology is developed, more and more workers are laid-off of their work, more and more workers are thrown into poverty and misery.

That does seem to be the effect in the "old" capitalist countries. In the "new" capitalist countries, the standards-of-living are rising.

They are still below what we would consider a "tolerable minimum"...but they&#39;re getting there.


And every time that [a] general crisis of capitalism bursts, it is ever more destructive, more violent.

Well, we only have two examples in our "sample" so far...that is, two "world wars".

But note that the "Asian melt-down" did not result in a regional war between rival "new" capitalist countries.

The logic of historical materialism does suggest that regional wars in Asia or Latin America are probable as capitalism matures there.

How "destructive" and "violent" they will be remains to be seen.


But now, the condition of living sinks deeper as every crisis comes and goes unresolved.

I do not know what you can possibly be basing this assertion on...except observation of life in the "old" capitalist countries.

Yes, here every "recession" is not followed by any significant improvement in the life of ordinary people. Things stagnate or even get worse.

That does not seem to be happening at all in the "new" capitalist countries.

Of course, we are not "there" and it&#39;s quite possible that if we were, my opinions might change. As it is, we must perforce rely on what people say who are or have been there and what they say they saw.

I&#39;ve read articles written by western journalists about Beijing and Shanghai...and they are "shocked and awed" by the rapidly changing landscape of those cities. There&#39;s nothing like that going on in the "west". And, from what I&#39;ve read, stuff like that is going on all over China...even in its "backward western" provinces.

However realistic the concept of decadence looks in the "old" capitalist countries, it simply sounds metaphysical when applied to the "new" capitalist countries.

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

[red_che]

As long as an "epoch" of production continues to advance the means of production, it "ain&#39;t dead yet".

Quite tricky and very misleading.

Production continues to advance while societies emerge and die. New means of production are always developed in a society even as its old system is dying. And it could be more developed when a new society emerges.


That does seem to be the effect in the "old" capitalist countries. In the "new" capitalist countries, the standards-of-living are rising.

Ridiculous. The workers may have a new look. They may have wore new uniforms, work on a "high-tech" factory, and get money. But, is this consistent with the standards of living in their place? Hell, no. In fact, more than three billion people, or half of the world&#39;s population today, live on a meager USD2 a day. How can half of the world&#39;s population be able to have a decent living with such amount? Considering that almost everyday prices of basic commodities go up. While the three riches peole in the world have a combined wealth of more than USD200 Billion. Is that what you say "the standards of living are rising"?


I do not know what you can possibly be basing this assertion on...except observation of life in the "old" capitalist countries.

Yes, here every "recession" is not followed by any significant improvement in the life of ordinary people. Things stagnate or even get worse.

That does not seem to be happening at all in the "new" capitalist countries.

Haha... Look around you. And be critical. Don&#39;t just assume.


Of course, we are not "there" and it&#39;s quite possible that if we were, my opinions might change. As it is, we must perforce rely on what people say who are or have been there and what they say they saw.

So, you don&#39;t really know. You only rely on what was said to you. But it would depend on who is looking at it. If the bourgeoisie were to be asked they would say the same thing as what you just have said above. But if you would ask the ordinary workers, they would say otherwise. So, which of the two would you believe?

But as for me, I was there. And I know their conditions. In fact, the standards of living in the US is even higher. And they are nowhere close to getting at the same level as the US&#39;.


I&#39;ve read articles written by western journalists about Beijing and Shanghai...and they are "shocked and awed" by the rapidly changing landscape of those cities. There&#39;s nothing like that going on in the "west". And, from what I&#39;ve read, stuff like that is going on all over China...even in its "backward western" provinces.

See? You are only basing your "assumptions" from bourgeois sources, after all.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
In fact, more than three billion people, or half of the world&#39;s population today, live on a meager USD2 a day.

Capitalism evidently has "lots of room" to develop, then.

Do you imagine that people living in destitution are capable of even imagining communism...much less doing it?

Or, like a good Maoist, are these the people that will hail you as a "Great Leader" when you impose a new despotism on them "for their own good"?

Well, you might be right...they might well hail you as "the red sun in their hearts". :lol:

Desperate people do desperate things. :o

But I wouldn&#39;t feel too smug if I were you. As we&#39;ve already seen, Maoist "socialism" becomes modern capitalism.

Enjoy your brief "moment in the sun"...if it&#39;s not already passed. :D

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

[gilhyle]

As an aside, Redstar&#39;s determination to see this question in black and white terms reflects his discomfort with dialectical forms of thinking in which ideas that are contrary are placed within a more complex broader conception.

On the main point, the role of the concept of decadence, as the quote from the Third International correctly reflected, was as a central tool of the analysis which diagnosed the need to bring to an end the 2nd International movement-building programme. THat had been based on the analysis that Capitalism continued to have growth potential and that the socialist movement needed to concentrate on building, waiting for the opportune period. By diagnosing capitalism as decadent, the THird International justified moving away from that.

Decadence was always an international concept, even in Luxembourgs and Bukharin&#39;s flawed conceptions - both emphasised it as applying to capitalsm as an international economy rather than a national economy. To propose that the concept of decadence is ineffective unless it applies to national economies is to desire a black and white world, and it is to demand a simplicity that the world will not provide. The linkages between seizures of state power by workers movements will not flow directly from economic fundamentals (that would be reductionist), they will flow from the tactical accidents occuring in varying political contexts.

Restars insistence on this, looks to me like it demands a reductionist conception of the seizure of state power (such seizures being something quite distinct from &#39;revolution&#39; or &#39;the overthrow of capitalism&#39;). Such a reductionist conception of the moment of seizure is not what Marxism aspires to. Trotskys History of the Russian Revolution is excellant in balancing the role of conceptions of accident and determinism etc in the conceptualisation of political seizures.

The leninist conception of revolution generally involves a concept of tactical seizures of state power within national economies within which (taken in isolation) capitalism would not be considered decadent - but which are justified because a nationalist concept of decadence would be wrong.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by gilhyle
As an aside, Redstar&#39;s determination to see this question in black and white terms reflects his discomfort with dialectical forms of thinking in which ideas that are contrary are placed within a more complex broader conception.

Yes, I am quite "uncomfortable" with any form of "thinking" that allows people to talk out of both sides of their mouth...saying whatever may be convenient for them without regard to its truth-content.

A satirical song from the early 1940s...

They call it
that good old party line;
And for them that
adheres to it, it&#39;s fine.
It&#39;s not very static,
it&#39;s extremely acrobatic,
read the Worker,
and get the Party Line.


By diagnosing capitalism as decadent, the Third International justified moving away from [movement-building].

Not really. The Comintern moved away from building one kind of party to building another kind of party...which, over time, actually decayed back into a 2nd International-type party.

The word "movement" is really entirely out of place in this discussion...as, of course, is the word "revolutionary".

The Comintern borrowed its strategy and tactics from social democracy and added a dash of "red pepper"...which made it taste better for a decade or two...but that was it.

As is almost always the case: being determines consciousness.

What you politically do determines, over time, what you become.

Imitate the strategy and tactics of social democracy and you will become a social democrat.


Decadence was always an international concept, even in Luxemburg&#39;s and Bukharin&#39;s flawed conceptions - both emphasised it as applying to capitalism as an international economy rather than a national economy.

Ok...it just doesn&#39;t tell us anything useful then.


To propose that the concept of decadence is ineffective unless it applies to national economies is to desire a black and white world, and it is to demand a simplicity that the world will not provide.

No one would attempt to argue that social reality is not enormously complex. But any concept that fails to make that complexity easier to understand is simply of no use.

At the beginning of each hurricane season, the Tropical Storm Center issues a "forecast"...telling us how many storms they expect and how many of them will be "really big". Presumably they do this simply because it&#39;s expected of them...the forecasts say nothing about when, where, or how strong any particular hurricane is going to be.

It&#39;s essentially a meaningless verbal exercise...like saying capitalism is "decadent".


The linkages between seizures of state power by workers&#39; movements will not flow directly from economic fundamentals (that would be reductionist), they will flow from the tactical accidents occurring in varying political contexts.

It&#39;s very fashionable these days to sneer at reductionism...for reasons that entirely escape me.

Reducing complex phenomena to smaller and smaller pieces until we actually understand what is taking place has been an extraordinarily useful scientific tool; Marx himself uses it often in the pages of Das Kapital.

To posit that proletarian revolutions "will not flow directly from economic fundamentals" but will instead result from "tactical accidents" is likewise not very helpful.

Even if that were true, what could we possibly do about it? How could such an "understanding" ever have an impact on our practice?


The Leninist conception of revolution generally involves a concept of tactical seizures of state power within national economies within which (taken in isolation) capitalism would not be considered decadent - but which are justified because a nationalist concept of decadence would be wrong.

With a predictable -- if "reductionist" -- outcome...the emergence of modern capitalism.

If Leninists "seize power" where capitalism is not decadent, then all they&#39;ll end up doing, at best, is clearing the way for modern capitalism.

That&#39;s been demonstrated.

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

[gilhyle]

Redstar

Without going into the detail of the programme of the Third International, it should be obvous that the programe was very different from the programme of the Second International and you need only read the kind of texts quoted earlier by others to see that the concept of decadence plays a crucial role in mediatng the articlation of that difference.

You slip inappropriately between different issues when you point out, instead of responding to the point made, that as the degenerated third international evolved it actually built a competitor movement to social democracy - that is an entirely distinct point. It is true, but it has no purchase on my point. I was discussing whether the concept of decadence had useful role in Marxist theory - that role being to facilitate the theorisation of programmatic differences in different epochs of capitalism - and to avoid my point you filled in with a remark about the historical outcome of the THird International.

I also distinguished as clearly as my feeble abilities allowed in my comment between &#39;proletarian revolution&#39; which is a long drawn out process at the center of which is a seizure of state power and &#39;seizure of state power&#39; which is an almost singular event or at most a micro processs. It is a common - one might say Blanqui-ist - error to conflate the two. Notwithstanding that I distinguished between the two (in order to identify the level of analysis at which the reference to economic trends has explanatory force), you once again conflated them so as to appear to answer me - without doing so.

With all due respect, if you continue with such excessively one-sided, merely analytic methods of thinking (and you seem quite committed to the approach), I cannot see that you can ever recognise the role of the concept of decadence in Marxism. And if there can be no recognition of the legitimacy of its role, there can be no going on to tackle what is problematic in the concept of decadence within Marxism, which is what is really interesting as the decadence of capitalism unfolds and repeatedly defeats its revolutionary sociaist opponents who, consequently, require the capacity - little seen in the various marxist sects - to think with originality about programmatic issues

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by gilhyle
With all due respect, if you continue with such excessively one-sided, merely analytic methods of thinking (and you seem quite committed to the approach), I cannot see that you can ever recognise the role of the concept of decadence in Marxism.

I cheerfully reciprocate that respect...I think your posts are often of a very high quality and well worth serious attention.

But you haven&#39;t really given me anything to "work with" on this subject.

I can recognize phenomena that would seem to merit the descriptive term "decadent" in the "old" capitalist countries.

Otherwise, I&#39;m entirely at a loss as to what concretely could be meant by the term...or what would be gained by using the "concept" in a general way.

Why don&#39;t you tell me what conclusions you derive from this concept?

It can&#39;t possibly mean that we could reasonably expect a proletarian revolution at "any time" in "any place".

That simply makes no sense.

As to hypothetical "programmatic" variations...well, I&#39;m not greatly impressed by programmes myself. By necessity, they are extremely verbose documents that attempt to "sum up" the whole world...meaning so general that one can hardly use them at all for any practical purpose.

Hypothetically, I suppose a very large team of experienced scholars could use the tools of historical materialism to "sum up the whole world" at a given point...but it would be massive. A "hard copy" might require a small fork-lift just to move it. :o

I suspect that the idea that we "must" have a "programme" is misconceived.

We do need tactical and strategic ideas that may (or may not) assist in the building of a revolutionary movement. And those ideas must be built on a historical materialist understanding of "how the world works".

But I&#39;m skeptical that "more than that" is really possible; I don&#39;t even think we have the "tools" to do that at this point.

If it seems to you that I have "evaded" your points, I ask you accept the possibility that I simply did not understand them. :P

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

[red_che]

Capitalism evidently has "lots of room" to develop, then.

You mean to say you are hoping that someday all the people would become capitalists? You keep that illusion that these three bilion people must have a good life first before capitalism would die? You are more and more becoming metaphysical and idealistic and placing your hopes at the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Poor you. :(

You are talking of a revolution but then you don&#39;t want it to happen. What kind of thought is that? :lol:



Do you imagine that people living in destitution are capable of even imagining communism...much less doing it?

Or, like a good Maoist, are these the people that will hail you as a "Great Leader" when you impose a new despotism on them "for their own good"?

Well, you might be right...they might well hail you as "the red sun in their hearts".

Desperate people do desperate things.

But I wouldn&#39;t feel too smug if I were you. As we&#39;ve already seen, Maoist "socialism" becomes modern capitalism.

Enjoy your brief "moment in the sun"...if it&#39;s not already passed.

This kind of response isn&#39;t an argument. This is a mere side-comment meant to evade my point. Which I think you cannot argue against but just so ashamed to admit it.


I suspect that the idea that we "must" have a "programme" is misconceived.

We do need tactical and strategic ideas that may (or may not) assist in the building of a revolutionary movement. And those ideas must be built on a historical materialist understanding of "how the world works".

But I&#39;m skeptical that "more than that" is really possible; I don&#39;t even think we have the "tools" to do that at this point.

If it seems to you that I have "evaded" your points, I ask you accept the possibility that I simply did not understand them.


But you are only making vague statements that which aren&#39;t actually built on the understanding of historical materialism.

You can&#39;t even clearly show how, for example in the US, the workers can be able to seize power from the bourgeoisie aside from saying that revolution is inevitable. But as to why and how, you are vague... and arrogant.

[Fidelbrand]

Maoist "socialism" becomes modern capitalism.

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

Does it apply to Maoist China only?
(Not sure what you really meant there. Because USSR also turned collapsed for cappietilism at the end of the day).

[jaycee]

conclusions to be derived from an understanding of capitalism as decadent:

1. all factions of the bourgeoisie are now equally reactionary, the progressive bourgeoisie of the 19thh century no longer exists. THis means not participating in the democratic circus, never supporting either side against another in inter imperialist wars and and end to reformist programmes.

2. trade unions have now become tools of the bourgeois state and workers must break away from them.

3. national liberation also becomes impossible

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)You mean to say you are hoping that someday all the people would become capitalists? You keep that illusion that these three billion people must have a good life first before capitalism would die?[/b]

Historical materialism is not a matter of "hopes"...yours or mine or anyone else&#39;s.

Those people will not "become capitalists"...but they will live in capitalist societies until those societies do indeed develop to the point where they have "a good life" -- by comparison, of course, to how they live now.


You can&#39;t even clearly show how, for example in the US, the workers can be able to seize power from the bourgeoisie aside from saying that revolution is inevitable.

That&#39;s because I don&#39;t know how it will happen...I can&#39;t see 50-100 years into the future.

Neither can you...or anyone else.

Maoism is, in fact, outstandingly useless for such a task...we don&#39;t even have a significant peasantry, remember?


Originally posted by [email protected]
Does it apply to Maoist China only?

Well, the only places that Maoism can win are places that are reasonably "like China" as it was before 1949.

So if the Maoists won in the Philippines, for example, I would expect the emergence of modern capitalism there after 50 years or so of economic development.

Russia, in a way, was a kind of "advanced China"...which would make Lenin a "proto-Maoist" in a historical materialist sense.

So if a "classical" Leninist revolution ever took place then, yes, I think it would also develop the conditions for the emergence of modern capitalism. It&#39;s speculative to wonder just what countries that might be possible in now...but I would nominate Turkey as a distinct possibility.


jaycee
1. all factions of the bourgeoisie are now equally reactionary, the progressive bourgeoisie of the 19th century no longer exists. This means not participating in the democratic circus, never supporting either side against another in inter imperialist wars and an end to reformist programmes.

If you are speaking here of the "old" capitalist countries, then I am in complete agreement with you. :)

But I do not think those conclusions hold for the "new" capitalist countries.

That doesn&#39;t mean, of course, that communists should "support" the new bourgeoisie. What the "left" actually does in the "new" capitalist countries is support pro-working class reforms.

In fact, they often organize a mass working-class party to do that.

Along with putting enormous amounts of energy into organizing trade unions.

From a historical materialist standpoint, there&#39;s nothing else for them to do.


2. trade unions have now become tools of the bourgeois state and workers must break away from them.

In the "old" capitalist countries, that&#39;s actually happening&#33;

Just the opposite is happening in the "new" capitalist countries.


3. national liberation also becomes impossible.

I&#39;m skeptical on this one. It is certainly more difficult to break the imperialist stranglehold on the economy of a particular neo-colony now than it was, say, 50 years ago.

But "impossible" is putting it too strongly. As the "new" capitalist countries develop their own technological expertise, they are no longer as "dependent" on the "old" imperialist countries as they used to be.

They can begin to become "players" in the global marketplace instead of wretched dependencies.

That&#39;s something else that seems to be actually happening.

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

[jaycee]

the point is that as the 20th century shows national liberation now days means siding with one imperialism against another, this was especially clear during the cold war.

[red_che]

Historical materialism is not a matter of "hopes"...yours or mine or anyone else&#39;s.

Yeah, but you were the one&#39;s hoping. :lol:


Those people will not "become capitalists"...but they will live in capitalist societies until those societies do indeed develop to the point where they have "a good life" -- by comparison, of course, to how they live now.

Compared with feudalism, yes they have a better life now. But what we have been trying to debate here is that if capitalism is already decadent. And I say, based on my arguments and the data and facts I have already presented in this thread, capitalism is decadent.


That&#39;s because I don&#39;t know how it will happen...I can&#39;t see 50-100 years into the future.

Neither can you...or anyone else.

Maoism is, in fact, outstandingly useless for such a task...we don&#39;t even have a significant peasantry, remember?

Maoism, either, can&#39;t see the future. But it can make a hypothesis out of the present situation. Marx also did a hypothesis. And he clearly explained scientifically how capitalism would die and how communism can be established. He was 200 years late than us when he lived, but he was able to make a know what it should be in the future, communism.


As the "new" capitalist countries develop their own technological expertise, they are no longer as "dependent" on the "old" imperialist countries as they used to be.

In the real world of today, they were not able to. These "new" capitalist countries you were refering here, except Japan, weren&#39;t actually independent from the Imperialist countries. They were, in fact, more and more dependent on the Imperialists. Their technologies were nothing but cheap photocopy and extension (surplus) of the Imperialists&#39;.


They can begin to become "players" in the global marketplace instead of wretched dependencies.

There you go again, redstar. You can&#39;t help but always assume of something that is not happening, or going to happen. These "new" capitalists were not becoming players, they were mere extensions of Imperialist capital. They do not own their technologies. They are increasingly tied to the Imperialist globalization and domination over the world market.


That&#39;s something else that seems to be actually happening.

Only in your assumptions and metaphysical calculations. :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:06 PM
the point is that as the 20th century shows national liberation now days means siding with one imperialism against another, this was especially clear during the cold war.
Again, "siding" is putting the matter too strongly.

What "national liberation" seems to mean now is navigating between the "old" imperialist countries -- and some of the "new" ones -- in such a way as to maximize autonomy and minimize exclusive dependence.

In fact, that&#39;s kind of one way in which modern imperialism is new...imperialists both "old" and "new" realize that exclusive possession of a neo-colony or emerging capitalist economy is no longer practical.

Only the U.S. still tries for "exclusivity"...with increasing lack of success as well as a monstrous "overhead" in the costs of conquest and occupation.

Consider how Venezuela courts China as a rival to the U.S. -- the implication being that all of Venezuela&#39;s oil production will be diverted to China unless the U.S. "behaves itself".

This may be how "national liberation" will work out in practice in this century.

We&#39;ll see.

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

[JC1]

Those people will not "become capitalists"...but they will live in capitalist societies until those societies do indeed develop to the point where they have "a good life" -- by comparison, of course, to how they live now.

Well, actually the standard of living is going down in most of these "emerging capitalist states". The Chinese rate of Infant death per thousand is higher today than under the pre-1975 regime.

China has not even had a successful agricultural modernization program. Condition&#39;s in the countryside are actually less modern then they were 30 year&#39;s ago&#33; How could such a state, a state with a mere quarter of its population living in its cities, be described as an "rising imperialist force" ?&#33;?


So if the Maoists won in the Philippines, for example, I would expect the emergence of modern capitalism there after 50 years or so of economic development.


According to the 2000 census, the Filipino urban population is at least 48.05%. Large portion&#39;s of the remaining rural population are engaged in wage labour to subsidize there farms. There are also large rural population&#39;s living in villages that, while still living in the countryside, are completely proletarian.

The social relation&#39;s in that country can only be described as "mainly Capitalist" even though there is little domestic capital. The emergence of Leninism, indeed the most backward form of Leninism, Maoism, is confirmation of the usefulness of Leninism in Capitalist country&#39;s.


If you are speaking here of the "old" capitalist countries, then I am in complete agreement with you.

But I do not think those conclusions hold for the "new" capitalist countries.

You have yet to demonstrate that any of these "new" power&#39;s even have domestic capital &#33; How could a comprador bourgeoisie grant reforms to workers &#33;?&#33;


I&#39;m skeptical on this one. It is certainly more difficult to break the imperialist stranglehold on the economy of a particular neo-colony now than it was, say, 50 years ago.

But "impossible" is putting it too strongly. As the "new" capitalist countries develop their own technological expertise, they are no longer as "dependent" on the "old" imperialist countries as they used to be.

They can begin to become "players" in the global marketplace instead of wretched dependencies.

That&#39;s something else that seems to be actually happening.


How can any of these country develop domestic "expertise" ? all of there "intellectual capital" continues to run to the "old capitalist states". Look at all the Filipino nurses and Indian doctor&#39;s in America.

If we look at where most of the innovation is coming from, it continues to be the old imperialist country&#39;s like Japan, the US and Western Europe.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by JC1
How could such a state, a state with a mere quarter of its population living in its cities, be described as an "rising imperialist force" ?&#33;?

Because they&#39;re "out there" seeking investment opportunities. They&#39;re going to mine nickel in Cuba, refine oil in Venezuela, and they&#39;re looking for more oil in Africa.


The social relations in that country can only be described as "mainly capitalist" even though there is little domestic capital.

It remains a neo-colony of the U.S. and therefore its "capitalist social relations" don&#39;t really have any political reflection except a Maoist "people&#39;s war".

If the Maoists won, they would impose a period of "primitive capital accumulation" on the Philippines and develop it into a modern capitalist country.


The emergence of Leninism, indeed the most backward form of Leninism, Maoism, is confirmation of the usefulness of Leninism in capitalist countries.

If you believe that, then why not try for the "virgin birth"? :lol:


You have yet to demonstrate that any of these "new" powers even have domestic capital&#33;

They obviously do...if you wish to go research the details, be my guest.

Oh, I know, like Severian is always nagging me to "write a book" analyzing the economy of every country in the world "in detail".

Be then as skeptical as you like. Eventually the reality of the new capitalist countries will hammer you in the face.


How can any of these countries develop domestic "expertise"? All of their "intellectual capital" continues to run to the "old capitalist states".

No, that&#39;s not really true anymore. A large number still go to university in the "old" capitalist countries, particularly to study science and engineering...but then they go home.

The opportunities are greater in a rising capitalist economy than a stagnant one.


If we look at where most of the innovation is coming from, it continues to be the old imperialist countries like Japan, the US and Western Europe.

I consider Japan to be "the oldest of the new" capitalist countries rather than "new" the way China is new...and certainly far "younger" than the capitalisms of western Europe or North America.

Some technological innovation does continue to originate in the "old" capitalist countries...but those innovations are actually implemented increasingly in the "new" capitalist countries.

Those are the places that are really developing the means of production.

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

[JC1]

Because they&#39;re "out there" seeking investment opportunities. They&#39;re going to mine nickel in Cuba, refine oil in Venezuela, and they&#39;re looking for more oil in Africa.


Buying oil from a state monopoly or buying nickel from a state monopoly is hardly seeking "investment opportunities".


It remains a neo-colony of the U.S. and therefore its "capitalist social relations" don&#39;t really have any political reflection except a Maoist "people&#39;s war".

Fine. It&#39;s a neo-colony.

But by admiting that, you have shot youreself in the leg. If the US could develop the Filipino economy and at the same time keep it a neo-colony, how are the Chinese or the Indians any diffrent ?

See, there not any diffrent. Becuase what happened in the Filipines is is exactly what&#39;s happening now in China.


They obviously do...if you wish to go research the details, be my guest.

Oh, I know, like Severian is always nagging me to "write a book" analyzing the economy of every country in the world "in detail".

Be then as skeptical as you like. Eventually the reality of the new capitalist countries will hammer you in the face.


Stop the metaphysic&#39;s.

Put up some empirical evidence or Shut up.

China cant be imperialist. It dosent export capital, it buy&#39;s resources, but it dosent export capital.

I already demonstrated that with the bank fact. Im not asking for a book, im asking for some fact&#39;s, not word play. Thats the way it is if you make a positive accertion.

You would say the same thing to a god sucka, me think&#39;s.


No, that&#39;s not really true anymore. A large number still go to university in the "old" capitalist countries, particularly to study science and engineering...but then they go home.

I realy doubt that. What I have seen is nurse&#39;s and doctor&#39;s for example, leaving under-developed and even small imperialist states (like Canada) to go the US.

If you would like to refute that with empirical evidence, then by all means, go ahead.

I know you won&#39;t. Diging up hard numbers is "hard work" ... but its what real materialists do.


consider Japan to be "the oldest of the new" capitalist countries rather than "new" the way China is new...and certainly far "younger" than the capitalisms of western Europe or North America.


Japan has been an imperial power since the begining of the imperialist epoch. Just cuz there "yeller" don&#39;t mean there under-developed.


Some technological innovation does continue to originate in the "old" capitalist countries...but those innovations are actually implemented increasingly in the "new" capitalist countries.


What the hell does this mean ? If make a machine that makes garmets twice as fact in NYC and it is installed in a Nike sweatshop in China ... it dosent say jack shit about the Chinese.


Those are the places that are really developing the means of production.

No ... there not.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by JC1
Digging up hard numbers is "hard work" ... but it&#39;s what real materialists do.

Possibly...if they&#39;re young, energetic, or writing a master&#39;s thesis. I&#39;m not prepared to spend the time and energy digging up numbers for you...numbers that would be of dubious authenticity in any event.

After all, what numbers are you relying on? The ones that appear in Hilferding&#39;s Finance Capital or Lenin&#39;s Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism?

I could, after all, challenge you with equal legitimacy to "update" those "holy books" with modern numbers...want to take off a couple of years and do that?

Yeah, I thought not.


Japan has been an imperial power since the beginning of the imperialist epoch.

No it hasn&#39;t. The earliest possible date that makes any sense would be at the time of the Manchurian occupation -- say 1933 or thereabouts.

Japan as a "world class" economic power dates from the 1960s.


If make a machine that makes garments twice as fast in NYC and it is installed in a Nike sweatshop in China ... it doesn&#39;t say jack shit about the Chinese.

The sweatshop is not owned by Nike but by Chinese capitalists; Nike just buys the product for re-sale in the "west". Moreover, the Chinese can easily "reverse-engineer" the machine and build similar or even improved machines on their own.

To paraphrase your comment: "just cuz they&#39;re &#39;yeller&#39; don&#39;t mean they&#39;re stupid."


Because what happened in the Filipines is exactly what&#39;s happening now in China.

Speaking of stupidity. Every observer has commented on how much China resembles the Philippines&#33; :lol:

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

[JC1]

Listen buddy, I took the time to reply to everything you wrote. You could give me the same courtesy.


Possibly...if they&#39;re young, energetic, or writing a master&#39;s thesis. I&#39;m not prepared to spend the time and energy digging up numbers for you...numbers that would be of dubious authenticity in any event.


Once again; I&#39;m not asking for a master&#39;s thesis or anything of that gravity. I&#39;m saying if you have time for 10,689 post&#39;s on an internet message board, you have enough time to run a few google search&#39;s.


After all, what numbers are you relying on?

Pretty much the vast array of information availible to anyone willing to make a few keystrokes on there google searchbar.


No it hasn&#39;t. The earliest possible date that makes any sense would be at the time of the Manchurian occupation -- say 1933 or thereabouts.

Actualy, Japan had occupied Korea early on, as well as parts of Russia.

But Imperial status is not defiened soley on a country&#39;s millitary exploit&#39;s. Afterall, Germany had few colony&#39;s and was a great imperialist force early on. And the turk&#39;s had vast millitary succses, but they were not an imperial state.

The criterion is on wether or not a state export&#39;s capital.


The sweatshop is not owned by Nike but by Chinese capitalists; Nike just buys the product for re-sale in the "west".

This is blatantly false.


Speaking of stupidity. Every observer has commented on how much China resembles the Philippines&#33;

And look at the Filipines now. They dont export Capital. Indeed, there economy is proped up 8 million expatriot&#39;s sending money back home.

[red_che]

redstar, I&#39;m waiting for your response to my previous post. :)

In the meantime, let me answer some of the ridiculous matters you posted here.


What "national liberation" seems to mean now is navigating between the "old" imperialist countries -- and some of the "new" ones -- in such a way as to maximize autonomy and minimize exclusive dependence.

National Liberation Movements, like in the Philippines, were not to develop capitalist society. While its tactical objective is to seize political power and impose some democratic (bourgeois) reforms, its startegic goal is socialist construction. There will be no capitalist transition between their present society and the future socialist society. Every Filipino revolutionary know that. :)


It remains a neo-colony of the U.S. and therefore its "capitalist social relations" don&#39;t really have any political reflection except a Maoist "people&#39;s war".

If the Maoists won, they would impose a period of "primitive capital accumulation" on the Philippines and develop it into a modern capitalist country.

That&#39;s just your assumptions. At present, a clear program for socialist construction has been drafted. In fact, in most parts where the CPP has established red organs of political power, some socialist constructions were already undertaken.

JC1:

Let me make some corrections on your posts.

In the Philippines, the worker-population consists of only 15% of the Philippine population. Most of this worker-population is in the service sertor, not in the manufacturing sector. The rest of the Philippine population consist of 75% peasants, 8% petty-bourgeoisie, less than 1% national bourgeoisie and less than 2% bourgeois-compradors. The Philippines is a semi-feudal country, not "mainly capitalist". There are certain capitalist relations due to the dominance of Monopoly Capital, but entirely, the Philippines is an agrarian economy.

While there is a 48% urban population, these consist largely of unemployed, urban-poor settlers, or were oftenly called squatters. Most of them do not have regular jobs. In fact, this figure is still being contested. Does living in the cities make one already a worker? And does this number already reflect a capitalist economy?

As to the CPP, that is not. The primary consideration to conclude a capitalist economy is the mode of production. The Philippines still has backward production as compared with the capitalist economies and the main production is still agricultural production.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
redstar, I&#39;m waiting for your response to my previous post.

You didn&#39;t say anything new; you just repeated your previous assertions.

As you did here...


National Liberation Movements, like in the Philippines, were not to develop capitalist society. While its tactical objective is to seize political power and impose some democratic (bourgeois) reforms, its strategic goal is socialist construction. There will be no capitalist transition between their present society and the future socialist society. Every Filipino revolutionary knows that.

No, they believe that...as do you.

Belief is not the same as knowledge.

You (and some others here) believe that capitalism is "decadent" on a global scale and that "socialism" -- as some sort of "transition" to communism -- can happen "anywhere".

The only "socialism" that&#39;s possible in neo-colonies is state monopoly capitalism and it will be a transition...to modern capitalism.

That&#39;s what has happened and I see nothing in the metaphysical musings of "global decadence" to keep it from happening again.

You guys just don&#39;t like Marx&#39;s analysis.

Ok. Fine.

Go right ahead and "build socialism" wherever you please...and then watch what happens to it.

It&#39;s in the "old" capitalist countries that the real possibilities for proletarian revolution and communism will emerge first.

Any other hypothesis requires rejection of the historical materialist paradigm.

Which, for you guys, is probably just a formality anyway.

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

[Red Powers]

JC 1 writes:


The criterion is on wether or not a state export&#39;s capital.

How much of the national debt of the United States is held by the Chinese? Doesn&#39;t buying the bonds of a foreign government count as export of capital?

[JC1]

How much of the national debt of the United States is held by the Chinese? Doesn&#39;t buying the bonds of a foreign government count as export of capital?

The Chinese having a large debt from the US mainly benifit&#39;s the US. Read the book "Super Imperialism" by a guy named M. Hudson.

Also, I&#39;m not sure about chinese owned bond&#39;s. I dont have any number&#39;s about that.


In the Philippines, the worker-population consists of only 15% of the Philippine population. Most of this worker-population is in the service sertor, not in the manufacturing sector. The rest of the Philippine population consist of 75% peasants, 8% petty-bourgeoisie, less than 1% national bourgeoisie and less than 2% bourgeois-compradors. The Philippines is a semi-feudal country, not "mainly capitalist". There are certain capitalist relations due to the dominance of Monopoly Capital, but entirely, the Philippines is an agrarian economy.

Where the hell did you get these number&#39;s.

[QUOTE]No, they believe that...as do you.QUOTE]

Ok, so where in that post have you responded to the empirical evidence brought up here ?

You haven&#39;t brought up any hard evidence to back up youre thesis. You just countinue to make asserctions. Put up evidence, or shut up.

[beltov]

Hi,

For those of you who want to know more about the ICC&#39;s theory of decadence the pamphlet The Decadence of Capitalism is now available free on-line here:
http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/decadence

We&#39;ve also collected several series of related articles together here:
http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/270

There are some points that need to be taken up, such as the different nature of economic crises under the ascendent and decadent epochs of capitalism, but these will have to wait until the morning&#33;

Beltov.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by JC1+--> (JC1)You haven&#39;t brought up any hard evidence to back up your thesis. You just continue to make assertions. Put up evidence, or shut up.[/b]

Try just reading the news.


BBC
Centrica shares soar on bid story

Shares in British Gas&#39;s owner Centrica have jumped 11% after a report Russia&#39;s Gazprom was about to bid.

The report came from a senior official of the state-owned gas producer, quoted on Russian news agency Interfax.

Gazprom is the world&#39;s biggest gas producer, and its chairman Alexander Medvedev - a close adviser to President Putin - told the BBC it recently aspired to become one of the world&#39;s largest energy companies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/business/4674526.stm

Didn&#39;t you say something about exporting capital? :lol:

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

[JC1]

Try just reading the news.

OK, just bear with me for 5 minutes.

If some makes a positive ascertion, it is up to them to provide the evidence. Im not the one asserting that "Imperialism as we know it is over".


Didn&#39;t you say something about exporting capital?

I never disputed the Imperial status of Russia.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by JC1+Feb 3 2006, 01:23 AM--> (JC1 @ Feb 3 2006, 01:23 AM)
Didn&#39;t you say something about exporting capital?

I never disputed the Imperial status of Russia. [/b]

It was China right?

Here....


Originally posted by BBC News+--> (BBC News)Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing is sweeping through Africa on a concerted charm offensive - signing economic deals, raising Beijing&#39;s diplomatic profile and highlighting along the way China&#39;s newly trumpeted policy of strategic partnership with Africa.[/b]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4619956.stm

Plus....


BBC [email protected]
CNOOC, one of China&#39;s largest state-run oil and gas producers, has agreed to buy a stake in a Nigerian offshore oil and gas field for &#036;2.3bn (£1.3bn).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4594058.stm

And....


BBC News
Mongolia has agreed to develop its coal fields with China, as its neighbour looks to feed a booming economy and rapacious appetite for energy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4484196.stm

[red_che]

Where the hell did you get these number&#39;s.

From the Communist Party of the Philippines.


It&#39;s in the "old" capitalist countries that the real possibilities for proletarian revolution and communism will emerge first.

This assertion of yours is partly true. Depending on the general conditions and strength of the proletarian movements in each country can a proleterian revolution be successful.

So far, in the Western Europe and America, there are still no such strong proletarian movements. Most of the workers are involved either in social democratic and revisionist "workers parties" or are strong advocates of globalization.

While in the third world contries, the proletarian movements, along with their strong alliances with the peasant class, are the most ardent revolutionaries so far. Sorry to say this, but this is true.

Depending on what would happen, when these third world countries would be liberated from the yoke of Imperialist neo-colonialism, conditions in the advance countries would certainly change. And when that happens, these social democrats and revisionist left-wing "workers&#39; parties" would eventually disintegrate and genuine revolutionary workers&#39; parties would then emerge and the flow of the proletarian movement and proletarian revolutions can&#39;t be stopped.


Any other hypothesis requires rejection of the historical materialist paradigm.

That, or you will soon be exposed to your nuances. :lol:

[gilhyle]

Redstar writes that "The only "socialism" that&#39;s possible in neo-colonies is state monopoly capitalism and it will be a transition...to modern capitalis". This would be true, but for the prospect of internationalism - i.e. that a revolution in an imperialised country can be part of a process which leads to revolution in imperialist countries. THe wealth which becomes available from revolutions in imperialist countries then allows the imperialised country to develop in a socialist direction.

Revolutions in imperialist countries are - theoretically - possible because of the decadence of capitalism. That is the point of the concept of decadence.

WHere the difficulty arises in all this is if an imperialised country moves towards a seizure by a communist party of state power during a period within the epoch of capitalism&#39;s decline when revolutions in imperialist countries are - hopefully temporarily - unlikely. In those situations, notwithstanding the decadent character of the epoch, the imperialised country faces grim prospects of autarkic isolation or transition to modern capitalism as REdstar outlines.

Thus, although Redstar proceeds by counterposing his perspective to the recognition of the decadence of capitalism in a way that is not helpful, his perspective contains an important insight - namely the extremely negative prospects for any imperialised country in which communists seize power at this time, this time being a period within the decadence of capitalism wihin which the imperialist countries are politically stable because of the success of globalization in neutralising the trade union movement in the imperialist countries.

THe error for communists is to think that recognising the global decadence of capitalism implies a clear rationale, at all subsequent times, to seize state power whenever the opportunity arises - because uneven and combined development will mean that such a seizure can always (supposedly) be used to push forward the socialist cause on a world scale. Unfortunately, that is not unequivocally true.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by gilhyle
Redstar writes that "The only "socialism" that&#39;s possible in neo-colonies is state monopoly capitalism and it will be a transition...to modern capitalism". This would be true, but for the prospect of internationalism - i.e. that a revolution in an imperialised country can be part of a process which leads to revolution in imperialist countries. The wealth which becomes available from revolutions in imperialist countries then allows the imperialised country to develop in a socialist direction.

Yes, this is what Lenin thought "would happen"...not only with Russia and a German revolution but he thought it would be typical of the whole post-World War I world.

But let&#39;s speculate a little about this "option".

The people in a "neo-colony", even its most "advanced" elements, are likely to have a very different perspective than the people in the ex-imperialist country.

The former will be, presumably, "socialists"...while the latter will be communists.

There will be a rather glaring contradiction in what those respective peoples will want to do.

The former will want to establish state monopoly capitalism to economically develop their country; while the latter will be uninterested in states or countries altogether.

What wealth would a communist society be willing to transfer to a state monopoly capitalist nation?

Sure, there&#39;s the obvious transfer of the wealth located in the ex-neo-colony from the dispossessed corporations in the ex-imperialist country.

And since information is no longer "intellectual property" in a communist society, anyone there would be free to send useful technical knowledge to anyone in the former neo-colony without charge or hindrance.

Western Maoists have suggested that the former imperialist countries should pay reparations to their former colonies and neo-colonies...indeed, going so far as to hint at "putting off communism" until so much wealth has been transferred to the ex-colonial countries that they have been developed "up to the level" of the ex-imperialist countries.

Sort of Communism for nobody until there&#39;s communism for everybody&#33; :blink:

Naturally it would require a ferocious despotism in the ex-imperialist countries to "pull that off"...but that sort of thing wouldn&#39;t bother a Maoist. :lol:

I personally think the best assistance that a new communist society could give to its former colonies/neo-colonies would be ideological.

Offer them textbooks written from a historical materialist viewpoint...ones that would subvert all the pre-capitalist and reactionary cultural artifacts of the ex-neo-colony.

That would do more to "speed up" their readiness for communism than anything else I can think of.

They can&#39;t "do communism" until they develop the material foundations; but they might be able to do it sooner if, in the meantime, all their reactionary prejudices have been discredited.

After all, that&#39;s what had to happen before communism became a practical possibility in the old imperialist country. :D

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

[Red Powers]

Red Powers
How much of the national debt of the United States is held by the Chinese? Doesn&#39;t buying the bonds of a foreign government count as export of capital?


JC-1
The Chinese having a large debt from the US mainly benifit&#39;s the US. Read the book "Super Imperialism" by a guy named M. Hudson.

Also, I&#39;m not sure about chinese owned bond&#39;s. I dont have any number&#39;s about that.

I may be wrong but I think that buying Treasury bonds is how the Chinese (or any government) aquires US debt.

The benefit to the US has to do with the ability to cut taxes for the wealthy and still spend for wars. The benefit to the Chinese is a return on their capital.

The Chinese are exporting capital to the US.

[red_che]

Yes, this is what Lenin thought "would happen"...not only with Russia and a German revolution but he thought it would be typical of the whole post-World War I world.

But let&#39;s speculate a little about this "option".

The people in a "neo-colony", even its most "advanced" elements, are likely to have a very different perspective than the people in the ex-imperialist country.

The former will be, presumably, "socialists"...while the latter will be communists.

There will be a rather glaring contradiction in what those respective peoples will want to do.

The former will want to establish state monopoly capitalism to economically develop their country; while the latter will be uninterested in states or countries altogether.

This statement doesn&#39;t make any sense. And the rest of it are purely products of mental masturbations that are unsatisfactory. :lol:

The neo-colonies will never put up state monopoly capitalism. What they will establish is a socialist state. However, in the first few years after seizure of power, there will be some sort of bourgeois democratic reforms plainly to remove the remnants of feudalism and industrialize the economy. After that, a socialist construction would be done.

As experienced in Russia (pre-Kruschov) and China (pre-Deng), they aimed at modernising their economy and industrializing the countrysides. Thereafter, came socialist construction in which a planned economy was set up and the means of production were socialized. And the state, at first, will be a democratic coalition government which at its core is the dictatorship of the proletariat through the communist party.

That is what the neo-colonies and semifeudal economies would do right after the victory of their revolutions.

While in the capitalist countries, after the revolution, they will immediately socialize production and exchange. And the state will not be dismantled immediately so as to countersuppress bourgeois reactions. Class divisions are still present and will be for a considerable period after the victory of the revolution. In that case, the state will outrightly be the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
The neo-colonies will never put up state monopoly capitalism. What they will establish is a socialist state.

A "socialist state" is state monopoly capitalism.

It&#39;s "capitalism without capitalists" (temporarily).

Then the leading circles of the party become capitalists.

The problem here is that you think Khrushchev and Deng were "accidents of history" or "just plain bad luck".

You cannot grasp that they (or people like them) were inevitable.


While in the capitalist countries, after the revolution, they will immediately socialize production and exchange. And the state will not be dismantled immediately so as to countersuppress bourgeois reactions. Class divisions are still present and will be for a considerable period after the victory of the revolution. In that case, the state will outrightly be the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Once again you demonstrate your fidelity to Leninist tradition.

We should call you "Lenin&#39;s bulldog" as a tribute to your tenacious grip on all the old formulas.

What I assert is that the formula is obsolete.

It was invented during a period in which the proletariat was weak and the bourgeoisie was strong.

Proletarian revolution in the "old" capitalist countries will take place at a time when the bourgeoisie is but a "shadow" of its old self...irrational, demoralized, and disorganized. It will simply not be capable of any significant counter-revolutionary activity.

Consequently, a centralized state apparatus will be unnecessary.

You don&#39;t use a tank to swat flies.

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

[Led Zeppelin]

A "socialist state" is state monopoly capitalism.

It&#39;s "capitalism without capitalists" (temporarily).


The above, once again, proves that RS simply doesn&#39;t understand basic Marxism.

"capitalism without capitalists" you say&#33;? Is this serious&#33;? How can any decent Marxist read this and not laugh?

With the sentence; "capitalism without capitalists" RS completely disregards materialism, completely disregards basic Marxism, and replaces it with his own "practical" theory. But is his theory truly "practical", or is it merely intellectual laziness?

The latter is the case here, RS&#39; theory isn&#39;t based on materialism, "capitalism without capitalists" is impossible, there has to be a class of expropriators in a society, i.e., a bourgeois class. Trotskyists solve this problem by claiming that the bureaucracy was the bourgeois class, I have to agree with the Trotskyists in this case, the party elite, the bureaucracy, basically took over the function of the bourgeoisie, and became a expropriating class.

That is an analysis based on materialism, that is the correct Marxist analysis, RS utterly fails in performing even this simple task.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;Leninism
How can any decent Marxist read this and not laugh?

It&#39;s called reading with comprehension...something that most people can do with a little effort.

When a Leninist party comes to power, it expropriates the old capitalist class...and the old functions of that class are taken over by the party using a new state apparatus.

There are no individual capitalists...but the system still functions in the same ways that it did when there were capitalists.

The party bureaucracy then evolves into a new capitalist class...which then formally restores capitalism.

Most of the people here don&#39;t seem to have much of a problem in grasping this: if your social role is to do the things that the old capitalists did, then it follows that you will develop capitalist consciousness and, if you have the chance, actually become a capitalist&#33;

Being determines consciousness, remember?

Consequently, it is entirely reasonable to sum up "socialism" as state monopoly capitalism -- a system that operates just like capitalism but temporarily has no individual capitalists per se.

Clear?

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

[red_che]

A "socialist state" is state monopoly capitalism.

It&#39;s "capitalism without capitalists" (temporarily).

Then the leading circles of the party become capitalists.

I suggest you do not invent something which is not real. :angry:

Your assertions here were just plainly hallucinations. Without basis.

This stems from your lack of dialectic analysis of the situations which leads to your metaphysical and idealistic assumptions. :P



The problem here is that you think Khrushchev and Deng were "accidents of history" or "just plain bad luck".

You cannot grasp that they (or people like them) were inevitable.

I do not think of them as accidents of history. Yes, it&#39;s true, they were inevitable. They are inevitable only because it manifests how class contradiction exist even during the period of socialist revolutionary transformation of society to communism. It shows that even right after the victory of the revolution, there still exist class contradiction because the bourgeoisie would still fight out for them to regain power. This only shows that the socialist transformation of society would be as long as an epoch of history.


What I assert is that the formula is obsolete.

What I assert, on the contrary is that your idea is obsolete even if it was not yet done. In the first place, your ideas weren&#39;t even put into practice. Only in your imaginations were they real.


Proletarian revolution in the "old" capitalist countries will take place at a time when the bourgeoisie is but a "shadow" of its old self...irrational, demoralized, and disorganized. It will simply not be capable of any significant counter-revolutionary activity.

This could only happen when the proletariat is highly organized. If they are politically, ideologically and organizationally prepared to fight against the bourgeoisie. And this, if the proletariat have already established their socialist society. Unless, socialism wasn&#39;t still in place, the bourgeoisie would still continue to rule. As is the case today, when even if the capitalist system is already rotten to the core, there are still no major proletarian force, on a global scale, that could challenge their rule.

But when the proletariat&#39;s consciousness are already high and they are a mighty organized army ready to fight out the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie can&#39;t have anything to defend themselves.