The Theory of Decadance of Capitalism

[Entrails Konfetti]

So I added the ICCs website to my favourites, and they have quite a few articles on Decadance, and I don't know where to begin on the articles.

Anyone have any theories on decadance different from the ICCs,what should I know before reading about this theory, and I understand decadance comes in stages-- is there a basic outline on decadanc?.

From what it seems to me, the theory plays a crucial role for the line of the ICC, it seems to be what alot of their theory is based off-- Leo always says the imperialist expansion is apart of the decadance of imperialism, followed by " but I will not go too far in that theory here". Well, Leo or Devrim, if you're reading this please expand on the subject!

[Hit The North]

I have a mate who, though neither a Marxist or anarchist, argues that Western Capitalism in its shift towards services and consumerism has created a decadent civilization which is destined to be superseded by religious fundamentalism in the Middle East and aggressive manufacturing capital in the Far East.

By 'decadent' I think he means purely pleasure seeking.

[More Fire for the People]

Objective decadence is crockery fatalism. Decadence: The Theory of Decline or the Decline of Theory? (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_2_dec.html)

[bezdomni]

decadence theory is western bourgeois decadence!

[Leo]

EL KABLAMO;


So I added the ICCs website to my favourites, and they have quite a few articles on Decadance, and I don't know where to begin on the articles.

Anyone have any theories on decadance different from the ICCs,what should I know before reading about this theory, and I understand decadance comes in stages-- is there a basic outline on decadanc?.

From what it seems to me, the theory plays a crucial role for the line of the ICC, it seems to be what alot of their theory is based off-- Leo always says the imperialist expansion is apart of the decadance of imperialism, followed by " but I will not go too far in that theory here". Well, Leo or Devrim, if you're reading this please expand on the subject!

Well, there seem to be three lines about the issue of decadence of capitalism among the left-communist groups. There is the line of Bordigists, "neo-Bordigist" and modernists intellectuals, Aufheben and Groupe Communiste Internationaliste (which is hardly left communist anymore but anyway) which rejects decadence; this line is commonly called Invariance, after the Bordigist theory on the invariance of Marxism. There is the line of the IBRP and Formento Obrero Revolucionario (which doesn't exist anymore) which is saying that there is no permanent economical decadence, only social decadence (on principally moral terms) and economical crises which occasionally shows itself. Then there is the line of the ICC and several other newly formed groups in parts of the world in which there hasn't been a living left communist tradition which say capitalism is decadent. What I will try to do now will be explaining the theory of decadence, in FAQ style. If this isn't enough, you can also check the ICC Platform (http://en.internationalism.org/platform). Of course, you can also write to the ICC as well, they won't try to recruit you so you don't have to worry about that, they are a very principled organization and they are very interested in and open to discussion.

What does decadence mean in the historical sense?

In the simples terms, the decadent period of a mode of production is when the mode of production has became a growing fetter on the productive forces. Decadence of modes of production is one of the key aspects in explaining what made the modes of production change in history; as decadence of slavery made it possible for feudalism to replace it and decadence of feudalism made it possible for the capitalist mode of production to replace it. Every mode of production has an ascendant and decadent phrase.

What does decadence of capitalism specifically mean?

According to the historical materialist method, a mode of production can only be replaced when it is decadent. In The Class Struggles in France, Marx says: "Given this general prosperity, wherein the productive forces of bourgeois society arc developing as luxuriantly as it is possible for them to do within bourgeois relationships, a real revolution is out of the question. Such a revolution is possible only in periods when both of these factors — the modern forces of production and the bourgeois forms of production — come into opposition with each other." What the fact that capitalism is decadent, the fact that the capitalist mode of production has became a growing fetter on the present productive forces means is that world communist revolution and the establishment of the communist mode of production is an actual and material possibility.

Does this mean that communism was not possible in the ascendant period of capitalism? What about the Paris Commune?

Yes, this does mean that communism was not possible in the ascendant period of capitalism. Paris Commune, the first proletarian revolution, was an expression of the proletariat's desire to have communism, an expression of the potential and of course an expression of class interests but still there wasn't an international revolutionary wave as there was after the World War 1; in fact even in France, the revolutionary wave wasn't even close to the situation after the World War 1.

Why did capitalism became decadent?

Simply because of the "conquest of the globe by capital", because capitalism had reached the physical limits of it's expansion. The economic model of the ascendancy period of capitalism depended on expanding to new markets; when capitalism had expanded on the whole world, when the capitalist markets united in the world market, the old economical model became problematic. This showed itself in the loss of value: what was produced wasn't sold enough as it is impossible for capital to expand on new markets, there was underconsumption. Then this pushed different capitalist powers in the search of new markets, which did not really exist anymore, at least on the sufficient level. This situation created a war, an imperialist war which was expected to end very shortly but which lasted very long and which opened a new epoch in history: the epoch of imperialism.

What does imperialism has to do with decadent capitalism?

Imperialism is the mentality of the political apparatus of the world bourgeoisie during the decadence of capitalism. It is not a phenomenon limited to bigger imperialist powers but all bourgeois factions, big or small. Every bourgeois faction has imperialist ambitions which it is pursuing. Imperialism is the "solution" the bourgeois ends up with whenever it is faced with problems. Imperialism is specifically an aspect of decadent capitalism: it is impossible to have imperialism without decadent capitalism as it is also impossible to have decadent capitalism without imperialism.

Where does the line "old mode of production becoming a growing fetter on the productive forces" come in and what does this have to do with communist revolution?

The war strategy at the peak of ascendant capitalism was primarily losing as little as possible. Much less soldiers died in wars during this period of capitalism for most cases, although of course there were some particularly bloody cases, they were no match when compared to the World War 1 and the massive destruction it brought. The capitalist mode of production had pushed the world into a massive war which caused a massive destruction to the productive forces, both laborers and all that was burnt, bombed and so forth: the result was an unbelievable waste of human lives and means of production. This was what made such a huge revolutionary response, such a huge international revolutionary wave materially possible. The alternative was simple: an imperialist war or communist revolution, in Rosa Luxemburg's words: "socialism or barbarism".

But wasn't the World War 1 only one historical example?

No; after World War 1 came an incredibly deep economical crisis, then came another imperialist war which created a much much more massive destruction of productive forces resulting in a much bigger waste of human lives, a much bigger waste of means of production. And following the World War 2, world hasn't seen peace; with different, endless local wars going on. Imperialist mentality of the bourgeoisie has dragged humanity into more wars, more destruction.

Then why weren't there revolutions immediately after every imperialist war?

Because the fact that capitalism is decadent doesn't automatically mean that there will be revolutions; it means that revolutions can happen. However there are many other factors: social, political, tactical, ideological and so forth. After all it is the working class who is going to abolish capitalism; decadence only means that it is possible for the working class to do this, that the working class has the historical reasons to do it.

What is decomposition?

Decomposition is the current phase of decadent capitalism which begun as a result of the impossibility of the world-wide imperialist war following the World War 2 because of the revival of class struggle following the reconstruction period and end of the counter-revolutionary period as a result of those struggles. The loss of control in unemployment, social security and similar systems starting to harm the capitalist economy, ongoing wars and destruction without reconstruction, damage done on natural resources prove that there are only two options for humanity: either sinking into barbarism, or the communist world revolution.

What political implications does accepting the theory of decadence has?

Opposition to national-liberation (and supporting factions of the bourgeoisie), state-capitalism, trade-unions, parliamentarianism: basically all the principle positions of left communism. Without decadence, it is impossible the explain why national-liberation, state-capitalism, trade-unions, parliamentarianism are opposed from a Marxist position.

What does opposing national-liberation has to do with the theory of decadence?

As it is well known, Marx had supported some national-liberation movements like the national liberation of Poland and Ireland for example while opposing others such as the national liberation of Czechs and the national liberation of the colonies in South America by Simon Bolivar's movement. It was not a "moral" support but support given to a faction of the bourgeoisie which was more progressive. Similarly, during 1850ies Marx had called for Germany invading Russia, which was considered to be the bastion of reaction at that time. In the 20th century, something had changed - capitalism had became decadent, what is commonly called the epoch of world imperialism and communist revolutions had started. Had Marx's position been correct in when Germany and Russia were actually fighting during the World War 1, all who we regard as betrayers of internationalism today would be completely Marxist, and all who we salute as defenders of internationalism would be completely un-Marxist. The difference was imperialism: in decadent capitalism, no faction of the bourgeoisie was progressive anymore as they were all parts of world imperialism, and the support given to any faction was support given to world imperialism. The only progressive thing in decadent capitalism is proletarian revolution. For the specific case of national liberation, first of all in the 20th century, every national liberation movement was allied with different major imperialist powers and they pursued their own imperialist ambitions as well, it was perfectly clear that they were parts of world imperialism. Secondly, with communism as a material possibility now, specific national liberation wars brought nothing but more destruction, more deaths to the working class and they pushed the working class away from their historical interests: establishing communism.

What does opposing state-capitalism has to do with the theory of decadence?

Because we can't understand state-capitalism without understanding decadence. In all periods of decadence, confronted with the deepening of the system’s contradictions, the state had to take responsibility for the the preservation of the dominant relations of production. In capitalism, this specifically happened with state-capitalism. Thus state took economical, political and ideological tasks in order to preserve the existing system. In all countries, we saw different manifestations of this tendency towards state-capitalism, obviously in different formations, from Kemalist Turkey, Stalinist Russia, Hoover-Roosvelt's America, Keynesianism, Nazi Germany, Gandhi's India, Mussolini's Italy, Nasser's Egypt, Peron's Argentina, Tito's Yugoslavia, Mao's China, Qaddafi's Libya, pro-Soviet states in Africa, all the bureaucracies everywhere and bureaucratic managers even in corporations are only a few are examples of this tendency. The tendency towards state-capitalism is essentially oriented towards keeping the capitalist system alive and going. Even in the process of privatization, if we look at it from a wider perspective, we see that privatization is a part of a cycle in which an enterprise which had been nationalized because it was not profiting anymore has been made profitable again and it is being sold because of this.

What does opposing trade-unions has to do with the theory of decadence?

In the ascendant period of capitalism, trade-unions, with the role of fighting for economical gains were organs of the working class. However, with decadence of capitalism first of all permanent economical reforms and gains were not possible anymore because of the establishment of the crisis of underconsumption in the world capitalist market because capitalism can't expand anymore, inflation became a major and permanent economical factor. Now, the struggles of the proletariat only resulted in less losses rather than gains. Second issue was the rise of union bureaucracies and their integration into the bourgeoisie and more importantly, with state-capitalism, the integration of the trade unions into the state. Now trade-unions were officially organs of the bourgeoisie as they were a part of the bourgeois state and whoever became bureaucrats were not different than upper-level state-bureaucrats, with bourgeois class interests. Thirdly, accordingly to the second reason, the unions do divided workers into different sectional groups, and pulled their class interests as a whole behind social democratic slogans and in a period where world communist revolution was a material possibility, this meant the unions acting against the working class.

What does opposing parliamentarianism has to do with the theory of decadence?

Parliaments of the 19th century were obviously quite different from the parliaments of the 20th century. In the 19th century, as Marx defended, making reforms by parliamentary means, using the parliaments as a platform for more radical propaganda, and most importantly they were more or less independent. With decadent capitalism, firstly parliaments lost the the ability to make reforms because first of all as explained above permanent reforms were not possible but more importantly, parliaments had became simply a meaningless circus which had no real power over the state bureaucracy. At best they were part of the state bureaucracy. Lastly, with communism as a material alternative, parliaments begun to serve as an obstacle in front of the proletariat, diverting the revolutionary goals of the proletariat with "democratic" illusions.

As all left communist positions are explained by decadence of capitalism, can it be said that it is necessary to have a theory of decadence to be a left communist?

No, because it is possible to have all those positions out of examining the world which we live in today because they have to do with real issues without accepting the theory of decadence, but it is not possible to explain why one has left communist positions from the Marxist (that is, obviously, the historical-materialist, not the Marx-worshiping) perspective. Theory of decadence basically put the political positions of left communism into a historical perspective and theoretical basis, in that sense it really is "burning the bridges behind".



I can't believe I just wrote all of that...

[Leo]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+--> (Hopscotch Anthill)Objective decadence is crockery fatalism. Decadence: The Theory of Decline or the Decline of Theory?[/b]

I had read Aufheben on decadence and I actually took some notes on the introduction part which sums up their arguements so I will post those notes now. Basically, I don't think they really understand most aspects of the theory of decadence and more importantly their criticism is based on the parts they misunderstand.

I will start with a line in the first paragraph:


Originally posted by Aufheben+--> (Aufheben)In our view this theory of capitalist decline or of the decadence of capitalism hinders the project of abolishing that system[/b]

Which stroke me as shockingly sectarian. I accept the theory of decadence but I would never say that other left communists who don't accept it "hinders the project of abolishing that system". This attitude seems to be a typical aspect of those who defend Invariance, this tendency is specifically manifested in Bordigists.

Anyway they continue:


Originally posted by Aufheben
If the subjective movement for revolutionary change seems lacking, the severity of the present world crisis offers itself as evidence that the objective conditions will bring about a change in the prospects for revolution.

This has nothing to do with decadence. Aufheben seems to have developed an understanding that decadence means the capitalism will collapse naturally so that the working class won’t have to make a revolution. The truth can’t be further away from this understanding.


Originally posted by Aufheben
In the theory of decline a number of issues are intertwined – crisis

Crisis obviously deepens in decadence, but the crisis itself is not limited to decadence.


Originally posted by Aufheben
automatic breakdown

This has nothing to do with decadence. It is close to the Trotskyist perspective which says that capitalism is ascendant until there is a crisis to stop all production, but again this has got nothing to do with the theory of decadence.


Originally posted by Aufheben
the periodising of capitalism into ascendant and decadent phases

That’s historical materialism 101, it is not limited to capitalism, it also has to do with explaining the transitions from other modes of production.


Originally posted by Aufheben
For some left-communists politics is virtually reduced to propagandising the masses with the message of capital's decadence

I think who they mean here is the ICC which is wrong, the ICC uses the theory of decadence to theoretically support their political positions.


Originally posted by Aufheben
Statification is seen as evidence of decay because it shows the objective socialisation of the economy snarling at the bit of capitalist appropriation; it is seen as capitalism in the age of its decline desperately trying to maintain itself by socialistic methods.

Seeing statification as socialization has got nothing to do with decadence, according to the theory of decadence, statification is a capitalist process as well.


Originally posted by Aufheben
Now with a move towards privatisation of nationalised concerns in the west, and the privatisation of the ruling class itself in the East, the idea that there is an inevitable movement towards socialism - an idea which has been so dominant on the left for the last 100 years - now stands undermined and the notion that history is on our side no longer seems plausible.

Aufheben here completely ignores the role of nationalization / privatization in the capitalism in the 20th century and thus it rejects the existence of state-capitalism. The role of the state is not “changing” the form of property in reality. It is in fact a very common practice of the state to nationalize private enterprises which are not making profit, make them profitable again and privatize them again.


Originally posted by Aufheben
Abandonment of the idea that the historical development of the productive forces is a progress towards socialism and communism has resulted in three main drifts in thought

Left communists who defend decadence do not abandon the idea that historical development of the productive forces is a progress towards socialism and communism. Quite the contrary, they refer to decadence as an epoch of social revolution as one in which the old relations of production become a growing fetter on the productive forces, as Marx defines it the growing gulf between the grim reality of capitalism in decadence and the enormous potential locked up in the productive forces it has set in motion. If Aufheben thinks that the development of productive forces is still going on at full speed then they are simply mistaking growth with development but more importantly: now I am wondering what Aufheben is suggesting in relationship to this progress towards socialism in the development of productive forces now: are they defending that we should keep supporting stuff like national liberation, trade unions, reformism and reforms, elections etc. as all the other leftists are doing which were what was considered as political stuff which were progressive; which could result in the development of productive forces or are they saying that “well, the productive forces are developing alright, but see, we don’t really like national liberation, unions, elections, reformism etc so we will reject them” or are they alternatively say that national liberation, unions, elections, reformism etc were never “progressive” and were not developing the productive forces and Marx was bourgeois for defending them when he was alive.


Originally posted by Aufheben
The maintenance of an anti-capitalist perspective but identification of the problem as 'progress' or 'civilisation'

This has got nothing to do with the theory of decadence.


Originally posted by Aufheben
This is exemplified in the approach of a group like the International Communist Current (ICC) for whom capitalist crisis has become chronic, 'all the great moments of proletarian struggle have been provoked by capitalist crises'

I wonder what Aufheben thinks about why workers are pushed into struggling if not because of material conditions.


Originally posted by Aufheben
The model is one of the objective reality of capitalist decadence, arising from its own dynamic, which makes world communist revolution necessary and possible, with the job of revolutionaries being to take this analysis to the class who will be objectively predisposed to receiving the message due to their experience of the crisis.

It is not that simple. The role of communist militants in their interventions within the class is to defend the class line. Decadence explains expressions like “national liberation is against our class interests”, “unions are against our class interests”, “parlimentarianism is against or class interests” and so forth.


[email protected]
So far no luck!

:rolleyes: And Aufheben is leading a mass-party... I think this is a very arrogant and sectarian approach.


Aufheben
Despite their antipathy to other parts of the 'left wing of capital's' program, it is the general statements by Trotskyists about the decadence of capital that the left commies find themselves in agreement with

Obviously not as Trotskyists still think that capitalism is ascendant as productions didn’t stop overnight.

As I said, I don't think Aufheben really knows what they are talking about on decadence.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Can you give an example about how the present mode of production is a growing fetter on the modern productive forces?

Also, how does the increase of service sector jobs relate to decadance? If at all.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 21, 2007 11:39 pm
Can you give an example about how the present mode of production is a growing fetter on the modern productive forces?

Also, how does the increase of service sector jobs relate to decadance? If at all.
Services are soft and female.

A worker digging a mine or working on a factory wheel is masculine. :P

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Serpent+June 21, 2007 11:48 pm--> (Serpent @ June 21, 2007 11:48 pm)
EL [email protected] 21, 2007 11:39 pm
Can you give an example about how the present mode of production is a growing fetter on the modern productive forces?

Also, how does the increase of service sector jobs relate to decadance? If at all.
Services are soft and female.

A worker digging a mine or working on a factory wheel is masculine. :P [/b]
Were not talking about Cabaret, chocolate, and Eliza Manelli!

Yet everyone thinks that.

[Leo]

Can you give an example about how the present mode of production is a growing fetter on the modern productive forces?


Also, how does the increase of service sector jobs relate to decadance? If at all.

Well, I think you might have given the example yourself :)

The example I gave in the first post was the destruction during wars, in the sense of a massive destruction of the productive forces, an unbelievable waste of human potential. However service sector jobs are probably a better example for the most part as an incredible waste of human potential: for the most part we are talking about jobs that are there for people to have jobs. Specific examples: think of the shop assistants, cashiers, bartenders, waiters, security guards, policemen etc. Simply from the most economical perspective aren't there much more productive things those workers can do? Don't they have a much bigger human potential that is locked up? And even this can't prevent the massive unemployment rates which are completely out of control. Other examples: military expenses, state expanses, all bureaucratic jobs. All this is the expression of this: the massive growth on all non-productive sectors. All the tanks and planes and weapons and so forth which is only used to destroy and rots in a hangar until then. "Public" expenses of the state, all this dependency on the reproduction of oil-products such as asphalt, tyres, cars, buses... To sum up, we are talking about a system which has %30 of the world population is unemployed and more or less 30% of it working on non-productive sectors. This situation is a product of the capitalist mode of production. Think of what is possible with the current stance of the productive forces and think of how capital is locking up this enormous potential.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You raise interesting occupational examples. ;)

I'll up you with one of my own: my own accounting pursuits. :D

See, we all know that, without the complicated income tax rules, we wouldn't have tax accountants, right?

However, deep down in accounting theory itself, did you know that accounting information accounts for only 5% (yes, that low) of all movements in share price???

So, if quarterly earnings for Company X are released tomorrow, in regards to investor reaction afterwards, only 5% of that reaction is linked to the financial statements.

Then there's all that crap regarding "efficient securities markets" (here I'm referring to a specific finance theory, not the "market forces are efficient" mantra of the economic PCers):(

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 22, 2007 12:49 am
However service sector jobs are probably a better example for the most part as an incredible waste of human potential: for the most part we are talking about jobs that are there for people to have jobs.
Not to mention, that the purpose of these jobs is to circulate money at a faster pace instead of producing any commoditie extracted from the earth and altered to extract profit from. It's weird. They don't seem to produce wealth but circulate money, thereby consolidating money in a greater time period with the illusion of the creation of wealth.


Specific examples: think of the shop assistants, cashiers, bartenders, waiters, security guards, policemen etc. Simply from the most economical perspective aren't there much more productive things those workers can do?
Those workers you listed with the execption of the police and security, are becomming more and more part-time wage earners. Its interesting to note that they don't have a history or tradition of organizing-- not even in trade unions. Because they are unskilled, if they cause a raucaus-- goodbye! They'll hire someone else in flash, who will probably only stay for 8 months at best!


And even this can't prevent the massive unemployment rates which are completely out of control.
Yeah, it does seem to be like a bandaid on a gash that needs stitches-- if it's bleeding put more bandaids on it! Build more Starbucks, Super-Wal-Marts, and resturant chains!
The worker will work at Wal-Mart, then be unemployed, then work at Starbucks, then be unemployed, then work at a resturant, unemployed, and who knows get their job back at Wal-Mart! And some Marxists say the reserve army of the unemployed only exists in Africa. I've seen fellow workers get their old jobs back after working somewhere else and then unemployed for a while. Sure they're not necessarily part of the industrial reserve army, but there is a reserve army none-the less.


All the tanks and planes and weapons and so forth which is only used to destroy and rots in a hangar until then.
;) I wonder if the arms manufacturers are subsidized like the farmers who grow too much corn-- although it is paid for, it is to rot in silos. And as we all know if it weren't for these subsidies there would be no farmers-- no farmers, no raw materials-- no raw materials, no basis for the production of commodities-- no production, no services. Hell, some farmers are paid to not grow corn.
Subsidies keep capitalism going, but like you said it is a fetter-- it hinders expansion.


"Public" expenses of the state, all this dependency on the reproduction of oil-products such as asphalt, tyres, cars, buses....
I hear that one, there energy crisis. Either theres an eminent shortage, or the dependency on forgeign oil is factor that keeps us going war, because every country wants that market to itself.


Think of what is possible with the current stance of the productive forces and think of how capital is locking up this enormous potential.
I may sound a bit of a conspiracy-nut here, but it almost seems that the bourgeosie is scared of the proletariat organizing, that they send the bulk of the producing jobs overseas, and instate policies preventing workers organizing. In place of production jobs they expand the service sector where most work part-time, are unskilled, and the specific jobs have no history of workers organizing.

[Alf]

Just to support Leo's efforts. I agree with virtually everything he's written here. One small point: I think that it is more correct to define the crisis as one of overproduction rather than underconsumption, even though the two mutually condition each other. Capitalism is the first system in history whose crisis takes the specific form of overproduction: “In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production”, as Marx put it in the Communist Manifesto. The text goes on to say: “Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them”.

Here in a nutshell is the concept of decadence. Marx was mistaken in seeing that there was no more room for expansion for world capital – he revised this view in his balance sheet of the 1848 revolutions, but the underlying method was not altered by this. Capitalism still had a vast area of the globe to conquer in 1848; it was still far from creating a whole world in its own image, to borrow from the Manifesto again. Marx plunged into the study of "all that economic shit" in the wake of these revolutions precisely to discover the limits of capitalist development. The aim of works like Grundrisse and Capital is not limited to establishing that the bourgeois system is a system of exploitation, no less than ancient slavery or feudalism. It also seeks to demonstrate, through a study of the specific contradictions of capitalism, that it too is a historically transient mode of production that will at a certain point have to be transcended for humanity to advance. In the economic writings of that period, Marx confirms that the wage labour/capital relation contains the inherent tendency towards the crisis of overproduction. This contradiction points both to the inevitability of capitalism's decline but also the potential for the development of the productive forces on a new basis, in which production no longer dominates the producers but is the foundation for the all-round development of the creative powers of the individual.

It is a while since I read Aufheben’s ‘critique’ of decadence, and I will be returning to it, but I agree with Leo’s comments. I think there is something profoundly dishonest in their text. They present ‘decadence’ as though it was something invented by the Second International, and thus a product of the tendencies towards ‘automatic’, mechanistic visions of the transition from capitalism to socialism which did to some extent develop during that period. But the essentials of the ‘theory of decadence’ are, as Leo points out, no more than Marx’s materialist theory of history, as he makes abundantly clear in his Preface to the Critique of Political Economy:

“At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure”.

Aufheben want to have their Marx and eat him too, so they present ‘decadence’ as an invention of the Kautsky, or Trotsky, and falsely claim that it is a theory of an automatic transition from capitalism to socialism in which the revolutionary subject has virtually no role to play. But, again, the Manifesto, on its first page, undermines any idea of an automatic transition between one society and another:

“Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes”.

Although Marx is talking about past societies here, he is also unveiling the alternative that will sooner or later confront capitalist society: the alternative between socialism (“the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large”) and barbarism (“the mutual ruin of the contending classes”). Left to its ‘automatic’ processes capitalism will lead to barbarism but it certainly won’t lead to communism without the conscious intervention of the revolutionary working class.

[Leo]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+--> (EL KABLAMO)Those workers you listed with the execption of the police and security, are becomming more and more part-time wage earners. Its interesting to note that they don't have a history or tradition of organizing-- not even in trade unions. Because they are unskilled, if they cause a raucaus-- goodbye! They'll hire someone else in flash, who will probably only stay for 8 months at best!
[/b]

Most of the actually functioning trade-unions either have their roots in the 19th century workers' movement and have been integrated into the bourgeois state or they have been directly created by the state as a part of the tendency towards state-capitalism. The service sector grew massively during decadence. I am not sure if new service sector trade-unions will be created if the militancy of the service sector workers increase, but it doesn't seem very likely because for the state to create service sector trade unions, a united struggle of the service sector workers would be necessary, yet because the service sector workers are seperated from each other so much, if they are militant enough to have a united struggle among each other, they would also be militant and conscious enough to have a united struggle with the workers from other sectors as they are isolated from industrial workers and even unemployed workers who they, partially are as you said as much as they are isolated from other service workers, and this unity of workers from different sectors, workplaces and so forth is what the unions fear the most. If militant and conscious enough, the service sector workers, precisely because their massiveness and isolation is a product of the decadence of capitalism, might play a very important role in the revolutionary struggle.


The worker will work at Wal-Mart, then be unemployed, then work at Starbucks, then be unemployed, then work at a resturant, unemployed, and who knows get their job back at Wal-Mart! And some Marxists say the reserve army of the unemployed only exists in Africa.

I wonder when such 'Marxists' are going to start saying things such as "ducks can fly".


Sure they're not necessarily part of the industrial reserve army, but there is a reserve army none-the less.

Of course.


I hear that one, there energy crisis. Either theres an eminent shortage, or the dependency on forgeign oil is factor that keeps us going war, because every country wants that market to itself.

The control over oil has became much more important than oil itself - what caused the war in Iraq for example was not the profits of some oil companies in the basic economical sense but it had to do with imperialist ambitions about controlling oil, being able to control where oil goes and being able to put forward the threat of not sending oil to a specific place, if necessary. Controlling oil is a means of gaining advantage against all other imperialist powers, big or small.


I may sound a bit of a conspiracy-nut here, but it almost seems that the bourgeosie is scared of the proletariat organizing, that they send the bulk of the producing jobs overseas, and instate policies preventing workers organizing.

Well, industrial production too is still big in the west- around 20% of the world's labor power works at the industry where in the European Union, the percentage of industrial workers is around 30%, in USA and Canada, around 20%. However the bulk of the producing jobs is overseas and I think that the reason about this is not because the bourgeoisie is scared of proletarian organizing in the West but because the labor in the so-called "third world" is cheaper for now. Even China, for example, has factories in Africa where the labor power there is even cheaper than in China! Yet this cheap labor situation in the overseas can't go on forever as the working class is not going to stand it forever and there has been significant struggles recently in countries like Bangladesh (http://en.internationalism.org/ci/2006/workers-revolt-in-bangladesh), Egypt (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/304/egypt-germs-of-mass-strike), Brazil (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/305/brazil-air-traffic-struggle) and Peru (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/305/miners-strike-peru), I also read about a massive strike in South Africa (https://www.osac.gov/Reports/report.cfm?contentID=69446) and again a very big strike of 10,000 very militant women workers' in China who clashed with the police (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1162785). Of course we have seen very significant struggles in the west as well, the workers' struggles at Airbus in France and Germany (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/303/airbus), the movement against the CPE in France (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/294_cpe), the transport workers' strike in America (http://en.internationalism.org/inter/111_transit.htm) and so forth.


Alf
One small point: I think that it is more correct to define the crisis as one of overproduction rather than underconsumption, even though the two mutually condition each other. Capitalism is the first system in history whose crisis takes the specific form of overproduction: “In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production”, as Marx put it in the Communist Manifesto. The text goes on to say: “Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them”.

I always tended to use underconsumption and overproduction as if they were more or less the same thing, however to think of it is the underconsumption caused by overproduction is only one kind of an underconsumption. Merely underconsumption caused from something else, for example low wages, does not mean the same thing. I looked up a little bit to this topic and found this quote from the second volume of Capital, saying: "When commodities are unsalable, it means simply that there are no purchasers, or consumers, for them. When people attempt to give this redundancy an appearance of some deeper meaning by saying that the working class does not receive enough of its own product and that the evil would be dispelled immediately it received a greater share,i.e., if its wages were increased, all one can say is that crises are invariably preceded by periods in which wages in general rise and the working class receives a relatively greater share of the annual product intended for consumption. From the standpoint of these valiant upholders of 'plain common sense,' such periods should prevent the coming of crises." Thus I do agree that overproduction is a better expression of the issue as it is the original cause of the crisis.


Marx plunged into the study of "all that economic shit" in the wake of these revolutions

I suddenly remembered your comment on State and Revolution and the new book about Communism. Ah good times :)

[gilhyle]

You asked if there were alternative views.

My view is different from that articulated here to date (and is something of a nuance on/critique of the Trotskyist view).

Not as developed as Leo's view, but simply

1. From the 1880s imperialism developed, which meant that the key capitalist nation states reached the limit of their potential to develop capitalism on the basis of refining the domestic division of labour - even supported by imperialist trading.

2. THis reached crisis with WW1 from which time it has always been POSSIBLE that the international interaction of the key capitlaist powers would lead to distortions in capitalist economic development such that it ceased to be historically progressive.

3. In the face of such distortions it becomes legitimate (as the Third International did) to move from the programme of building a mass workers movement to the programme of escalating struggle to seize state powier.

4. This pheonomenon happens periodically and regionally within international capitalist economy.

5. The transtion to the appropriateness of the revolutionary program of the Third International is neither universal nor permanent. Imperialist capital is capable periodically and regionally of displaying features that mean - on balance - that it is still generating significant prosperity. To this extent, the revolutionary programme is not always and everywhere completely appropriate.

6 . However, taken as a totality, capitalism is in an imperialist epoch which means it always tends to revert to distorted development and the revolutionary programme tends to be becoming appropriate.

7. Consequently, unlike Leo, I believe that the work of trade unions, national liberation struggles etc always needs to be viewed concretely to asses its political significance.

(BTW Leo - brilliant post, even if I dont agree).

[Dr Mindbender]

Do you think the ICC is nihilist or do you think they have some master plan to save themselves they arent letting the rest of us know about just before the planet is too fucked to live here? :blink:
Maybe theyre secretly building a big rocket to go to Mars or something.

[Leo]

Gilhyle, I will try to reply to your post as soon as possible.

Ulster Socialist, your post has got nothing to do with what is being discussed here.

[Entrails Konfetti]

So, basically what backs the decadance theory of capitalism, is that the living standard of capitalism crumbles when the markets can't expand, over-produce, and clash with eachother?

But can't the market always create new commodities, and with the commodities create new needs? For example there is always a new software program, And if you don't buy it, and all the major companies use it, you will be behind, and so you need to buy it.
Or is the production of new commodities under the boundaries of the present markets just a temporary solution to a deep problem?

[Alf]

Capitalism will always try to create new markets and squeeze what it can from existing ones but it's got to find buyers who can pay. Because of the nature of capitalist social relations, capitalism cannot realise all the surplus value it creates within the wage labour relationship, and thus has to constantly "extend the outlying fields of production". A critical point in the history of capitalism was reached when it became a global economy around the beginning of the 20th century, which meant that it could no longer continue its seemingly endless 'external' expansion. Henceforward, capitalism could not continue accumulation without plunging mankind into a spiral of catastrophes.

[Leo]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+--> (EL KABLAMO)But can't the market always create new commodities, and with the commodities create new needs? For example there is always a new software program, And if you don't buy it, and all the major companies use it, you will be behind, and so you need to buy it. Or is the production of new commodities under the boundaries of the present markets just a temporary solution to a deep problem?[/b]

It is not even a solution at all, I think. Of course new commodities can be created and of course those will create new needs, but it has been never said that decadence meant a complete halt in production and in creation of new commodities. The problem is not that there isn't enough needs - it is that there are too much "needs" created, creating new commodities is overproducing more commodities. Obviously, however, capitalism does and will continue to produce new commodities.


Gilhyle
From the 1880s imperialism developed, which meant that the key capitalist nation states reached the limit of their potential to develop capitalism on the basis of refining the domestic division of labour - even supported by imperialist trading.

I think you see imperialism as a phenomenon limited to "key capitalist nation states", is that correct?

[Entrails Konfetti]

I still don't understand how you can say capitalism is decaying just because from time to time it overproduces, violently classes with other markets, and requires the states intervention.
Can these factors just account that these are just part of the nature of capitalism?

[Leo]

I still don't understand how you can say capitalism is decaying just because from time to time it overproduces, violently classes with other markets, and requires the states intervention. Can these factors just account that these are just part of the nature of capitalism?

There was occasional overproduction during the ascendancy. As for decadence; I don't think that capitalism overproduces from time to time: in terms of world capital, capitalism always overproduces today. This is because capitalism, being a system dependent on expansion, reached the physical limits of it's expansion. A better explanation of this process is in the ICC Platform:


Originally posted by ICC Platform
The decadence of capitalism is the product of the development of the internal contradictions inherent in the relations of capitalist production which can be summarised in the following way. Although commodities have existed in nearly all societies, the capitalist economy is the first to be fundamentally based on the production of commodities. Thus the existence of an ever-increasing market is one of the essential conditions for the development of capitalism. In particular, the realisation of the surplus value which comes from the exploitation of the working class is indispensable for the accumulation of capital which is the essential motor-force of the system. Contrary to what the idolaters of capital claim, capitalist production does not create automatically and at will the markets necessary for its growth. Capitalism developed in a non-capitalist world, and it was in this world that it found the outlets for its development. But by generalising its relations of production across the whole planet and by unifying the world market, capitalism reached a point where the outlets which allowed it to grow so powerfully in the nineteenth century became saturated. Moreover, the growing difficulty encountered by capital in finding a market for the realisation of surplus value accentuates the fall in the rate of profit, which results from the constant widening of the ratio between the value of the means of production and the value of the labour power which sets them in motion. From being a mere tendency, the fall in the rate of profit has become more and more concrete; this has become an added fetter on the process of capitalist accumulation and thus on the operation of the entire system.

http://en.internationalism.org/node/608

The massiveness of wars and destruction is the vital factor about wars. Wars obviously did exist before, for a long time, but never like this: the reasons have changed and the amount of destruction changed.

As for the state, it is not just political interventions but the permanent economical role it takes in order to carry the existing system.

All those express significant changes which didn't exist like this during capitalism's ascendancy.

Another expression would be the massiveness of class struggle in this period as the world proletarian revolution is a material possibility now and decadent capitalism creates the reasons that will make the world revolution possible. There obviously was class struggle before, but it wasn't like this.

The vital point is the current mode of production being a growing fetter on the productive forces - this is what decadence means. In other words, it means that capitalism is unable to solve the problems faced by the working class and the humanity also, and only a proletarian revolution can solve those problems. Only a proletarian revolution can make technology serve the entire humanity, only the proletarian revolution can actually wipe out diseases like cancer and aids, only the proletarian revolution can actually end wars and destruction. It is a material necessity for the development of humanity and this makes it a real possibility.

A personal note on the issue of decadence: We have been born into decadent capitalism, we have not seen the transition from ascendancy to decadence. What it is now had always been just capitalism to us, this was the world as we knew it. We had not seen the ascendant period of capitalism. This is why we don't really see much that is "new" to us when we look at the basic traits of decadent capitalism. For the revolutionaries in 1914, decadence of capitalism was undeniable: they all experienced the transition. Now, however, because this is the world current generations have been born into, some left communists are able to reject it much more easily. For left communists; theory of decadence is more of a theoretical and historical explanation of the left communist political positions and the world as we know it - otherwise we already know about decadent capitalism, we see it, live in it and oppose it at every breath we take.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:40 am
7. Consequently, unlike Leo, I believe that the work of trade unions, national liberation struggles etc always needs to be viewed concretely to asses its political significance.

(BTW Leo - brilliant post, even if I dont agree).
Count me as being in between the two of you, discarding the trade unions in developed countries (even ones trying to "globalize" to save their arses), having a so-so-to-slightly-negative opinion on trade unions in developing countries (Nigeria, China, etc.) because of their organization on the lines of trade, and having a slightly more positive opinion on national-liberation struggles (especially since I count South American integration as the final step of "national liberation" from American imperialism).

[black magick hustla]

So, according to decadence, capitalism is completely reactionary, regardless of what part of the world we are speaking right?

According to the ICC, capitalism became decadent after WWI, because it has colonized all the world, and therefore, because of its inability to really expand, it is now actually destroying the world. Now I understand why many left communists completely reject trade unions and national liberation struggle.

However still, the mode of production of capitalism is not equally developed in all nations. And in much of the third world, the commodity is not really the central aspect of one's life. Still, in many african and asian nations, people grow their own food for self-subsistence. Only in the urban centers of such nations, is the commodity the main economic unit.

Second, a union can be anything from a huge bureacratic monster to a group of workers that struggle for better conditions in the workplace. Do you then, reject workers that unite for better conditions? What about unions that unite workers on industry, rather than trade, like the IWW?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Marmot, Leo and the ICC specifically pointed at the TRADE unions. And awhile back, while I did say "no labour unions" (I think in the "Luxemburg on unions" thread), I obviously meant TRADE unions.

Besides, factory committees and other workplace committees are more radical forms of workers' "unions." ;)

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by from ICC platform
Moreover, the growing difficulty encountered by capital in finding a market for the realisation of surplus value accentuates the fall in the rate of profit, which results from the constant widening of the ratio between the value of the means of production and the value of the labour power which sets them in motion.
Emphasis mine.

Can you give an example, that statement seems a bit unclear to me.
Are you describing how the capitalists try to build more factories, resturant chains, and walmarts, but not enough people buy the products of the new additions, so the rate of profit falls?

[Alf]

It's just a quick way of describing the mechanism behind the tendency for the rate of profit to fall: in Marx's view, 'extra' (surplus) value is only added to a commodity by human labour power, so the more unequal the ratio between the machinery and human labour used to produce a commodity, the less surplus value (i.e profit, or rather potential profit, since that value has to be realised on the market) is embodied in the commodity. And yet competition forces the capitalists to invest more and more in machines that can do the job of human beings.

Capitalism tends to compensate for this fall in the rate of profit by raising the rate of exploitation and by increasing the mass of commodities, and thus the mass of profit, but the latter solution only works if it can find new markets for this ever growing mass of commodities. Thus a blockage at the level of capital's capacity to expand into new markets (a permanent problem since the early 20th century) would tend to exacerbate the problem of the falling rate of profit.

Hope that is clear

[redcannon]

Ok, so I really liked this article, but it left me with a question.

so WW1 was the first imperialist war? Why was it so much more destructive than previous wars? In school they taught us it was mroe destructive because they had better weapons and larger armies, but we all know what a great source of information the public school system is...

anyway, what was the real cause of WW1? also, has every war since then been an imperialist war? I mean it would make sense, I'm just a little unclear.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:38 am
It's just a quick way of describing the mechanism behind the tendency for the rate of profit to fall: in Marx's view, 'extra' (surplus) value is only added to a commodity by human labour power, so the more unequal the ratio between the machinery and human labour used to produce a commodity, the less surplus value (i.e profit, or rather potential profit, since that value has to be realised on the market) is embodied in the commodity. And yet competition forces the capitalists to invest more and more in machines that can do the job of human beings.

Capitalism tends to compensate for this fall in the rate of profit by raising the rate of exploitation and by increasing the mass of commodities, and thus the mass of profit, but the latter solution only works if it can find new markets for this ever growing mass of commodities. Thus a blockage at the level of capital's capacity to expand into new markets (a permanent problem since the early 20th century) would tend to exacerbate the problem of the falling rate of profit.

Hope that is clear
So you're saying more investments from profits today are spent replacing and updating constant capital than they have been in the past, but can't the capitalist account for the ever going expansion of constant capital by arbitarily adding more value to the product? I know we believe that the capitalist takes their profits by stealing from the fruits of the workers' labour, but the capitalist excuses themself by saying they get their fruit because they have a unique talent and set the business up (though we know there is no real determinant of what the capitalists talent is worth, nor is there no real determinant for the workers hourly wages besides the capitalists excuse of supply and demand-- which they don't even go by for themselves; not to mention, supply and demand don't measure up to the static or predicted figures the capitalist supposes them to be) so can't they say the new 25 cents per unit is theirs and only theirs?

(Sorry, I think I found the answer myself here)
The products would become less desirable to buy, they'd only become more desirable from that state if the capitalist kept declining their additions, and so the only way they can profit is by pumping out more commoditties. This is a growing fetter because the more technology advances: the more constant capital has to update: the less the capitalists can profit; unless by pumping out more commoditties which have trouble finding new markets.

right :D ?

[Alf]

redcannon asked:

"anyway, what was the real cause of WW1? also, has every war since then been an imperialist war? I mean it would make sense, I'm just a little unclear".

The ruling class entered world war one thinking it would be over by Christmas - ie just another short war involving well-trained armies. They were simply not prepared for the level of destruction, the extent and the barbarity that descended on Europe. The second world war however was even more barbaric, really global in scope and the majority of its victims were civilians. This isn't just a technological question, it's an expression of the social relations of capital now being totally at variance with the needs of humanity. And yes, all war since world war one have been imperialist.

At the geo-strategic level, the first world war expressed the fact that the world had been divided up by the imperialist powers and from then on there could only be an increasingly violent redivision of markets, strategic zones and spheres of influence. The economic dimension of this was the dramatic blockage to the system's ability to expand into new areas for the realisation of surplus value, precipitating a permanent crisis. But the immediate causes behind the war are to be found more at the geo-strategic level because the economic crisis had not yet fully manifested itself. That happened in 1929....

El kablamo...er, i think so!

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Hammer+June 28, 2007 01:24 am--> (Hammer @ June 28, 2007 01:24 am) ^^^ Marmot, Leo and the ICC specifically pointed at the TRADE unions. And awhile back, while I did say "no labour unions" (I think in the "Luxemburg on unions" thread), I obviously meant TRADE unions.

Besides, factory committees and other workplace committees are more radical forms of workers' "unions." ;) [/b]
No they didn't. I think you have misunderstood us here:

Originally posted by ICC Basic [email protected]
With the decadence of capitalism, the unions everywhere have been transformed into organs of capitalist order within the proletariat. The various forms of union organisation, whether ‘official’ or ‘rank and file’, serve only to discipline the working class and sabotage its struggles.

EKS Basic Positions
The rejection of Trade Unionism:
Just like parliament, unions also organize the workers as a part of capital. Moreover because of their position in the heart of the working class, they constitute the first obstacle to the proletariat's struggle. When the working class seems to be passive, and its struggle in the face of capital is not clear, radicalized or generalized, the unions organize the working class as variable capital, and as wage slaves, as well as generalize the illusion that there are both honorable and just ways to live in this way. Not only are the unions incapable of undertaking revolutionary action but also they are incapable of defending worker's basic living conditions in the here and now. This is the main reason that the unions use bourgeois, pacifist, chauvinist, and statist tactics. When the working class movement radicalizes, and develops, the unions put democratic, and revolutionary slogans forward, and in this way try to manipulate the movement as if the interests of the working class is not emancipation from wage labor itself, but in continuing it in different forms. The methods of base unionism and self management are used in different places, and situations resulting in no more than the workers own voluntary acceptance of the domination of capital. In reality the only thing that the unions do is to divide workers into different sectional groups, and pull their class interests as a whole behind social democratic slogans.

Devrim

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 25, 2007 12:56 am
So, basically what backs the decadance theory of capitalism, is that the living standard of capitalism crumbles when the markets can't expand, over-produce, and clash with eachother?

But can't the market always create new commodities, and with the commodities create new needs? For example there is always a new software program, And if you don't buy it, and all the major companies use it, you will be behind, and so you need to buy it.
Or is the production of new commodities under the boundaries of the present markets just a temporary solution to a deep problem?
I think this is the key question. We need a theory of imperialism which can explain the continued occurence of growth on a massive scale. Take two recent examples of growth levels which equal anything which occured in the industrial revolution: Ireland 1995-2005 and China over a similar period.

The first arose out of the interplay of the major imperialist blocks (Europe and America) and, essentially, reflected a large movement of American Capital into Europe to compete in European markets and avoid restraints on trade which would otherwise have lessened their competitiveness. A lot more could be said about this, but the basic point is simple : it is possible to have significant lcoalised economic growth arising from the interplay of competition between the major imperialist powers. This compettition, which led to WW1, is now primarily commercial rather than military but the competition between imperialisms remains a fundamental feature of decadent capitalism.

Secondly, the growth of China. This reflects something even more fundamental and relates to a question I was asked. Is Imperialism a single world economic system (as Bukharin for example teneded to talk about, if I recall correctly) or is it something confined to the imperialist countries. Its been pointed out on this thread that there are parts of the world where commodity production is not generalised and people still grow their own food.

Generally, we can not say either that capitalism is confined to the imperialist powers or that it is a single integrated, homogenous world economy. there are two causes of that - the most fundamental cause is the conflicts between the develoment of the economies in the different regions of the world and the importing of capitalist social relations as imperialist powers exploit less developed parts of the world. The history of each imperialised country must be written in terms of the interaction of these two sets of forces.

A less fundamemtal but very important cause of the fault lines within the imperialist world economy was 1917. This led through events we dont need to rehearse to a significant periodic isolation of significant parts of the globe from potential domination by imperialism. That had two consequences. Firstly, imerperialsm got its shit together as to how to exploit those parts of the world and secondly, the isolation facilitated a significant development of social relations in those parts of thw world. The net effect in Chinas case was that a)imperialism was well placed by the time china became available to invest in it without the explicit inter imperialist rivalry which had previously characterised intervention in China and secondly China itself had meanwhile developed the social relations to organise - however precariously - the process of iinvestment.

The net effect of all this is that capitalism only now develops in Chhina and does so without many of the constraints that characteristically apply within the epoch, but with some features that arise only because China is developing capitalism within an imperialist world. Thus the second point : there are still very significant parts of the world not fully integrated into the capitalist economy which can go through periods of capitalist formation.

Both oobservations, however, lead to the same conclusion - episodic growth on a potentially massive level but with features that exist only because on a world scale the capitalist economy has moved into its decadent phase. thus we see a sick man appear healthy, but we know better.

[Alf]

I agree that it is important to explain the growth of China within the framework of decadence, beause it is being used as 'proof' that capitalism is still a force for progress. It's important to understand
- that the industrialisatiion of China is a direct product of the de-industrialisation of the older capitalist countries, in other words, an expression of the world economic
crisis
- that it is taking place on an incredibly fragile basis: the more developed countries are investing in China not, primarily, to open up a new market for their own production (as was generally the case in the ascendant period) but to obtain a short term profit from the incredibly low wage levels and safety standards; and the bulk of what is produced is then exported back to the older countries in the form of consumer goods which are then only absorbed thanks to the incredible levels of debt that fuels the so-called 'consumer boom'. The danger of China 'overheating' and precipitating an open and global crisis of overproduction is thus increasing all the time
- that the development of China is a sign of sickness, not of health. It is not a developmenmt which is laying the basis for a higher form of society but threatening to destroy its very foundations. This is particularly clear at the ecological level. Humanity does not need the frenzied industrialisation of China; whereas, for all its horrors, the development of capitalism in the 19th century was laying the foundations of the future socialist revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:48 am
I agree that it is important to explain the growth of China within the framework of decadence, beause it is being used as 'proof' that capitalism is still a force for progress. It's important to understand
- that the industrialisatiion of China is a direct product of the de-industrialisation of the older capitalist countries, in other words, an expression of the world economic crisis
Quite correct. I've now come to the conclusion that it is those countries with a sufficiently large manufacturing base ("secondary industry") that export capital, as China is actually doing now (trade deficits).


- that it is taking place on an incredibly fragile basis: the more developed countries are investing in China not, primarily, to open up a new market for their own production (as was generally the case in the ascendant period) but to obtain a short term profit from the incredibly low wage levels and safety standards; and the bulk of what is produced is then exported back to the older countries in the form of consumer goods which are then only absorbed thanks to the incredible levels of debt that fuels the so-called 'consumer boom'. The danger of China 'overheating' and precipitating an open and global crisis of overproduction is thus increasing all the time

Didn't this happen in Japan, though?

On the other hand, the emphasis in China is manufacturing, whereas the Japanese emphasis shifted from manufacturing to high tech.


- that the development of China is a sign of sickness, not of health. It is not a development which is laying the basis for a higher form of society but threatening to destroy its very foundations. This is particularly clear at the ecological level. Humanity does not need the frenzied industrialisation of China; whereas, for all its horrors, the development of capitalism in the 19th century was laying the foundations of the future socialist revolution.

Indeed - and because of capitalism, nobody's willing to "give" ecologically friendlier tech to developing countries.

[PRC-UTE]

There was a very long and fruitful discussion on this about a year or so back. I did a search for it and came up with an error message, but I printed it out at the time so I'll find it and produce the link.

[gilhyle]

I dont think we can say that the industrialization of China is a zero sum game, just transferring production capacity from the imperialist countries. That is not true for three reasons. Firstly, the development of the domestic Chinese market and secondly the fact that production is being constituted in CHina on a significantly improved basis to what it replaces. Thirdly, if it was simply a transfer, the intensity of competition between China and imperialist countries wiould be much greater than it is, since the deindustrialization of imperialist countries would parrallel in speed the development of China.

The environmental question I agree with - the environemntal impact of what is happening in China will be tremendous.


But on balance I dont see what is happening in China as an expression of crisis. I accept that things are not as they appear. But to say that capitalism is in crisis is to say black is white. Its too much.

What I have been trying to get at in my posts is the idea that a form of production that is, on a world scale, decadent can - nevertheless - enter upon periods of tremendous growth and prosperity, particularly in certain regions.....and where this is the case it should influence the program of revolutionaries.

[Lurch]

First post, so forgive any technical (and political!!) gaffes.
Agree that the question of China needs to be further explored. Also put into some sort of context:

When we're talking of Decadence, we're talking about an entire epoch, one which has already lasted around 100 years. It has a history.

If it is 'in general' the 'epoch of wars and revolutions' this doesn't mean we can expect to see either at any old moment (although, to be fair, war has been a fairly constant theme!).

And while this epoch expresses an historic crisis of capitalism, that also doesn't mean that open expressions of economic crisis are apparent if you don't know how to look for them.

For example, it's clear that capital recorded tremendous growth rates between 1948-1968. Did that mean, historically speaking, it was not a social system in decline, one whose inner contradictions would inevitably emerge sooner or later? And what was this temporary 'growth' based on, if not the unprecedented destruction of WW2?

And was it the same sort of growth as in capital's previous (ascendent) period? No: it was financed by massive debt (including the Marshall Plan) a debt which grows to ever-more frightening proportions to this day.

Did it avoid clashes between rival imperialisms scrambling for a share of the world market. resources and stregic positions? Certainly not: as many people were slaughtered - an estimated 50 million - during this period in the clashes between the USA and USSR, and between their 'proxy' powers at a local level, as died during WW2 (The Korean War, the Middle East Wars, Vietnam, the Horn of Africa; central Africa, etc, etc).

Even in a period of 'recovery' - a recovery based not only on the previous destruction but, as always, on the ferocious exploitation of the working class - capitalism remains, historically speaking, a system whose relations of production act as a growing fetter on the means of production.

That recovery began to fade towards the end of the 1960s as war-ruined countries like France, Britain, Japan, Germany and, even to an extent, Russia, regained productivity and flooded the world market with commodities. This was marked by a series of financial and political upheavals: Britain's disengagement from the Gold Standard in 67; unemployment creeping past half a million in France by 1968 (May 68 and 9 million workers on strike didn't come out of no-where); austerity measures; the culling of entire industries, and cut-backs in the social wage (health, education, etc).

30 years on, it would, IMO, be a mistake to see vibrant 'growth' rates in this or that country as a sign of global capital's health.

I agree that we, that revolutionaries, should aim to be precise in our apreciation of exactly where we are in this process: the concept of decadence has never implied a total halt to economic growth. However, we shouldn't mistake frenzied speculation - the result of capital's increasing difficulty of 'making an honest living' on a saturated world market - for signs of health.

Regarding China: well we have been here before: first it was the German economic miracle; then Japan (whose economy has stagnated these past 12 or so years); then the 'Asian Tigers'....

Already, 'captains of industry' are complaining that labour costs in China are too high!! (See The Times financial pages of June 23 - 'China boom under threat by loss of cheap labour'): apparently Vietnam and Indonesia are viewed as better bets.

Personally, I wouldn't under-estimate the link between jobs lost elsewhere in the world and the precarious development currently being witnessed in China, though here again more empirical research remains to be done. Neither would I ignore China's growing attempt to extend its imperialist appetites (in Africa, for example). And, if capital's social relations are not a growing fetter on what is produced and how, just why has it taken so many decades to see the level of industrialisation that we are currently witnessing today in China, an industrialisation based on mountains of debt?

Think I'd better end it there for now. Apologies if I've got all the conventions wrong. Will try to return to the subject in a couple of days.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 03:28 pm


30 years on, it would, IMO, be a mistake to see vibrant 'growth' rates in this or that country as a sign of global capital's health.


I agree with this. But this key issue is that if one' thinks that the period of the decadence of capitalism is an homogenous world wide phenomenon, or if one sees the complexity of the process as so secondary as to be irrelevant to the working class, then one will arrive quickly at the programmatic conclusion that the working class must a) avoid all minimum and transitional programmes and b) that the only way forward is in the seizure of power on a world scale.''We seem to me to have comrades on this board attracted to that conclusion.

To my mind, that conclusion is not correct. On the contrary, the episodic nature of the potential periods of growth and regions of differentiated wealth are such that the objective interests of whole generations of workers can lie elsewhere than in the maximal programe of immanent revolution. I dont see the left facing up to this issue ever in the last seventy years.

I have little doubt about the quality of the Chinese industrial revolution. Talk to anyone in the rag trade about the quality of the material comng out of China; its unequalled, not merely because of the cheap labor but also because of the high tech production processes.

Debt I dont see as a big short term problem. Yes there is obviously an unsustainable boom going on on the Shanghai stock exchange. Yes the Chinese financial sector has some serious fault-lines because of the mixture of commercial banking and state guided banking. Yes the Chinese currency is artificially undervalued as a matter of state policy. But none of this is fundamental, merely conjunctural. It will cause a crash and then things will move on.

[Alf]

gilhyle wrote:

"But this key issue is that if one' thinks that the period of the decadence of capitalism is an homogenous world wide phenomenon, or if one sees the complexity of the process as so secondary as to be irrelevant to the working class, then one will arrive quickly at the programmatic conclusion that the working class must a) avoid all minimum and transitional programmes and b) that the only way forward is in the seizure of power on a world scale.''We seem to me to have comrades on this board attracted to that conclusion.

To my mind, that conclusion is not correct. On the contrary, the episodic nature of the potential periods of growth and regions of differentiated wealth are such that the objective interests of whole generations of workers can lie elsewhere than in the maximal programe of immanent revolution. I dont see the left facing up to this issue ever in the last seventy years".


You are right, we have arrived at that programmatic conclusion. There are no more national tasks for the proletariat.

Capitalism is obsolete. It means that it has accomplished its historical mission; and that mission was to become a global system.

Looked at from a slightly different angle: capitalism's permanent crisis is precipitated precisely at the point that it establishes a world economy and can less and less expand externally. And it did this to all intents and purposes even at a point in which only about 30% of the world's population was engaged in wage labour, i.e at the beginning of the 20th century.

This is the profound meaning of Lenin's April theses in 1917: not a 'Russian' revolution, but the spark for the world proletarian revolution.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 09:56 pm
You are right, we have arrived at that programmatic conclusion. There are no more national tasks for the proletariat.

Capitalism is obsolete. It means that it has accomplished its historical mission; and that mission was to become a global system.

Looked at from a slightly different angle: capitalism's permanent crisis is precipitated precisely at the point that it establishes a world economy and can less and less expand externally. And it did this to all intents and purposes even at a point in which only about 30% of the world's population was engaged in wage labour, i.e at the beginning of the 20th century.


Yeah, well the problem with this is set out in my earlier posts.

Its not credible to say simply that a 'world economy' that didnt then exist in the majority of the world pushed the whole world into a terminal conflict of the forces and relations. Its not credible just to claim that an economy with growth rates of 10%+ per annum is in permanent crisis. Its not credible to say that an economic formation that can rebuild Europe from chaos is without potential. Its not credible to say that an economic formation that can deliver prosperity to many millions on a higher scale than their parents has nothing to offer the working class.

I believe, as I said, that capitalism has entered its decadence. But I dont think that is a simple thing. It is complex and requires a nuanced understanding of decadence from us - which I have tried. owever inadequately, to outline.

[Going away for a week to a place without computers, so I cant continue this...but its an important discussion. Happy to come back to it.]

[Lurch]

It’s not credible to say simply that a 'world economy' that didn’t then exist in the majority of the world pushed the whole world into a terminal conflict of the forces and relations.

I don’t think that this was said: what was mentioned (by Alf) was the fact that when capitalism entered into decadence, only 30 per cent of the world’s population was engaged in wage labour. It’s not at all the same thing. Even at this point, the competition among capitalism’s major powers for new markets, raw materials and strategic positions plunged the planet into the mass carnage of World War One.

Revolutionaries at the time (ie Lenin, Luxembourg) recognised that from that moment, all capitalism’s ‘development’ could offer the working class and humanity in general was barbarism. The misery and mass unemployment that followed the ‘crash’ of 1929 and the even greater carnage and destruction of generations of human labour in World War Two amply confirmed this.

The fact that the working class in Russia was just a small proportion of the overall population didn’t prevent it from generalising its struggles across the country, from smashing the bourgeois state, and from instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Its not credible just to claim that an economy with growth rates of 10%+ per annum is in permanent crisis.

The world economy is by no means growing at 10%+. The United Nations says:

“World economic growth slowed noticeably in 2005 from the strong expansion in 2004. The world economy is expected to continue to grow at this more moderate pace of about 3 per cent during 2006.1 This rate of growth is, nonetheless, the same as the average of the past decade. The United States economy remains the main engine of global economic growth, but the dynamic growth of China, India and a few other large developing economies is becoming increasingly important.

"Economic growth slowed down in most of the developed economies during 2005, with no recovery expected in 2006. Growth will moderate further to 3.1 per cent in the United States of America, while lacklustre performance will still prevail in Europe, with growth reaching a meagre 2.1 per cent in 2006. The recovery in Japan is expected to continue, albeit at a very modest pace of around 2 per cent. (World Economic Situation and Prospects 2006) http://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wesp2006...006_english.pdf (http://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wesp2006files/es_2006_english.pdf)


When you take into account the enormous amount of waste production in capitalism, arms production, advertising, packaging, etc, even these ‘moderate’ figures for growth don’t look too impressive at all. Somewhat fettered, in fact.

And strangely enough, this is a ‘growth’ without jobs: The UN again

“The employment situation worldwide remains unsatisfactory. The slowdown in growth partly explains this. More importantly, though, employment creation is falling short of the increment in labour supply in the majority of countries. Consequently, in a large number of countries, unemployment rates are still notably higher than the levels prior to the global downturn of 2000-2001. Despite strong growth performance, many developing countries continue to face high levels of structural unemployment and underemployment which limit the impact of growth on poverty reduction.” (my emphasis)

And, of course, the ‘growth’ that has been achieved has been at the expense of those proletarians ‘lucky’ enough to have been employed: in other words, through pitiless rates of exploitation.


Its not credible to say that an economic formation that can rebuild Europe from chaos is without potential.

So an ‘economic formation’ that plunges humanity into the biggest economic depression ever known, followed by the most horrendous destruction of another world war has ‘potential’ as far as the working class is concerned? Potential for further crises, more exploitation and countless, ceaseless wars without end from one end of the planet to another: that has been the ‘potential’ realised by capital these past 50 years, and if the proletariat doesn’t intervene, the worst is yet to come.


Its not credible to say that an economic formation that can deliver prosperity to many millions on a higher scale than their parents has nothing to offer the working class.

My parents were able to buy their own home. My children can’t. My parents thought they could count on pensions. My children can’t. My parents tended to be healed when they went into hospitals. My children face infections worse than the illnesses they suffer from – and increasingly if they want treatment they have to pay for it – and this despite advances in medicine. My parents thought unemployment would be a thing of the past. My children live with its threat. My parents used to tell me to eat my dinner and be grateful, because two thirds of the world was starving. They still are. My parents thought World War Two was to be the last war in their lifetime. My children have grown up in a period where constant war, capitalism in the form of a giant war economy, is the norm: they don’t know anything different, as Leo points out earlier.

Whichever way you look at it – and we haven’t spoken of rising inflation, growing debt at the heart of the world economy (the US current account deficit has passed $800 million) or the evident inability of capital to deal with an ecological crisis to which it has generously contributed – the least one can say is that it is ‘not credible’ for the proletariat to place any faith whatsoever in a future under capital.

[gilhyle]

Certainly the whole world may be growing at only around 3%, but that is not very important - and never has been. The issue is whether there are regions of the world experiencing significant, transformative, economic growth whichturns the prospects of people living in those areas upsidedown.....and there are - very big regions.

You refer to your parents. Sure things have changed in the imperialist heartlands of Europe and North America. Asset price inflation is a serious isssue in those places, but this is a reflection of the regional, rather than global fetters on captialist development.

As to desease and cure, lets recall the rising life expectancy since your parents time, notwithstanding the many injustices in the health system.

Lenin & Co. recognised the imperialist crisis around them true, but Lenin´s characterisation combined two different things - the epochal sense in which imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, i.e. it cannot be surpassed, and the periodic sense (allowing that the imperialist epoch can be divided into periods) in which the crisis of capitalism was THEN best surpassed by a transition to workers power on a world scale - despite the fact that much of the world had yet experienced little capitalist development.

THat epochal sense of decadence remains true. The periodic sense of crisis has not always and every where remained equally true - but it is the periodic crisis which justifies the revolutionary programme of the Third International, not the fact that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.

Many of Lenin´s contemporaries confused these two. His own writings, technically, did not confuse the two but did little to highlight the difference. That is OK, after all he was in the midst of a struggle for power and such distinctions were of only technical importance at the time. He rightly left it to history to make the distinction between the epoch of imperialism and its periodic crises - after all he was trying to ensure it would have only one period in which case the distinction would have been, happily, redundant !

That did not work out and the distinction is now important. Indeed, if we refuse to make it, we as Marxists, end up either in revisionism or in absurd claims about continuing, unending crisis of capitalism. By the kind of unreasonable standards now being applied by some Marxists, the industrial revolution was a crisis of captialism !

We need to be able to say A) the sense in which imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, b) the times and places at which it really does descend into crisis (and that also need to be differentiated from both trade and financial cycle downturns) and c) the times and places when it is not in crisis and the Marxist programme needs to be appropriately adjusted.