Communism volume 1. Not a nice idea but a material necessity.

  1. Bilan
    Bilan
    I've almost finished reading this book by the ICC, and have a few initial comments I wanted to make on it, and will add more (if there are more to add) when I finish the book.
    The first criticism I'd make is in relation to how much of the book is written, and perhaps, this is because I misinterpreted the object of the book. The book reads like a brief overview of the development of Marx's thought, and it's relationship to the development of capitalism in his period, rather than a firm establishment of the material basis for communism. Though, certainly, it uses an extensive amount of Marx's writings to demonstrate this material basis, but it does little itself to elaborate on these. Though, I think this criticism stems from my own misunderstanding of the goal of the text.

    The second criticism I want to make is in relation to decadence. Decadence is frequently mentioned through out the book, and how we're in a period of decadent capitalism, but again, its elaboration on this topic, one which is of fundamental importance, is very limited except for one small section which deals with the clash between the Luxemburg school and the Mattick school on the question. But even this section is very limited in its explanation.
    I am certainly no expert on the decadence of capitalism, and I'm still learning about it, but even this failed to shed much light on the topic (Which is contrary to most other texts written by the ICC - for example, the essay on the current global finacial crisis in IR 136).
    The problem with the way Decadence is adressed in Communism Vol. 1 is that it's hardly elaborated on, and where it is, no where enough to be able to get even the most elementary understanding of the decadence of capitalism.

    I should ask here if the topic of Decadence is going to be addressed more fully in volume 2 or 3 (Of which I hear are not printed?).

    Generally, my criticisms of the handling of decadence and the way the book is written are interrelated, in that, the way the book was written made it harder to fit a more detailed explanation of decadence. There is little space for indepth elaboration on alot of issues that it attempts to address.

    The book in itself is not terrible - it has an extensive amount of interesting material for those new to communism (and I will be passing it onto learners at my university), but I just wanted to give some initial thoughts.
  2. Alf
    Alf
    well, the original aim of the series/book, begun in 1991, was to respond to the campaigns about the death of communism and affirm the fundamentals of Marx's view of communism against the whole Stalinist lie. It was originally only going to be four or five articles, but it grew into an exploration of how the communist programme has evolved through the experience of the working class and the work of its communist minorities. The aim was not to elaborate on decadence - this has been the subject of other series in the International Review, including the one presently being written - though obviously the concept is essential to understanding the material basis for communism. The second series, which was published in the Review and summarised here; http://en.internationalism.org/ir/125-communism, http://en.internationalism.org/ir/126_communism carries on this work through the first revolutionary wave and its defeat, while the third volume is currently at the stage of examining how the Italian left around Bilan in the 30s tried to draw the lessons of the Russian revolution and its relvance to future period of transition. The eventual aim would be to arrive at where we are now but it has not been that easy to keep the series going given other demands.
  3. Bilan
    Bilan
    Ah, okay, thank you very much.
    I wasn't making an attack on it, just merely expressing my thoughts on it.

    Also, on the elaboration of decadence, the only reason I brought it up was because it was frequently mentioned in the text, but not really explained. Hence for someone new to communism, it would be a bit confusing, I presume.

    But thank you for the response none the less.
  4. Devrim
    Devrim
    I think that it is fair play to talk about decadence without elaborating in a book. I would presume that people who read our books probably have a bit of an idea about our politics. If it were a leaflet, and it just mentioned decadence I would agree with you.

    Devrim
  5. Bilan
    Bilan
    I think then, that this stems from my own misunderstanding on the intentions of the book, and who it was supposed to be reaching.