Decomposition

Apologies if this has already posted - have been having difficulties posting!

Am trying to get my head around the ICC's concept of "decomposition" and have been reading their "Understanding the decomposition of capitalism". I'm happy seeing that the "germs" of decomposition are inherent throughout decadent capitalism, but am not convinced that this means there needs to be a) a definitive period that can be characterised as "decomposed"or b) that we are currently in that period.

Specific queries are as follows:

1) It is claimed that we have moved away from organised to anarchic barbarism, with unstable alliances and international gangsterism. I'd agree that obviously we have moved from the Cold War pattern of alliances but would state that rather than having unstable alliances, we've got relatively stable, albeit informal, alliances.

2) It's stated that "the historical resurgence of the proletariat in 1968" has prevented the move into generalised war. I'd query as to why the proletariat could not stop war in 1914 and 1939 but has managed to do it during the last three decades? Especially given that the same paragraph accepts that the proletariat has not managed to move beyond defensive struggles to an "offensive combat" against capital.

3) Destruction was linked previously to a third world war, but is now, in decomposition, linked to a wider variety of causes (e.g. the environment, gradual destruction of social relationships). Even if it is agreed that this has been happening I struggle to see how there can be an objective view that these have reached such a limit that we are now in the final phase of capitalism.

I'd agree that the contradictions of capitalism are increasing under decadence and that capital increasingly struggles to overcome its contradictions. However, I'm also surprised that beyond a brief reference to the "slow erosion of the productive forces, progressive collapse of the productive infrastructure" there is none of the economic considerations I'd expect to be used to show that capitalism is in its final phase. Then again, I'm happy to admit that perhaps this is the focus of other articles I haven't yet seen.

Anyway, if anyone from the ICC or anyone else can help with this it would be most appreciated!

Hi Marion
Good question!
A bit busy at the moment but I will try to get back to you soon on this.

Hi Marion, good to actually meet you yesterday (at the Edinburgh Class Struggle Day of Study - we will write about this soon. We thought it was a very good meeting, but what were your impressions?).
I am not going to try to answer all your points in one go but here are a few elements:
on the working class and war, we have written at length about the concept of the historic course in the workers' movement: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/10..._struggle.html. But briefly on the differences between the past world wars and the period since 1968, we would argue that the bourgeoisie learned its lesson from the first world war, which was not prevented but was ended by the struggles of the working class, struggles which threatened the very foundations of the capitalist system. On the other hand, the working class was unable either to prevent the next war or transform it into revolution because it had been profoundly defeated - and even then the ruling class took a lot of trouble to complete this defeat prior to 1939 and also took preventative measures against the possibility of revolution at the end of the war (for example, its reaction against the Italian strikes in 1943 and the terror bombing of Germany). In our view the ruling class has not forgotten these lessons and would not again try to mobilise an undefeated global working class into war. In our view the big waves of struggle in the period 1968-89, and their slow revival in the past few years, confirm that the working class is still undefeated.
For us the phase of 'decomposition' - or whatever you want to call it - is at one level an expression of the fact that the economic crisis has continued to deepen, but it is directly an expression of economic factors. It results from the fact that neither of the two major classes has been able to 'solve' the crisis in its own manner, allowing the contradictions of the system to become increasingly acute and to pose the threat of 'the mutual ruin of the contending classes ' - ie of undermining the very bases for a higher mode of production through the process you describe (tearing apart of the social fabric, increasingly chaotic and destructive local or regional wars, ecological disasters). Capitalism, for us, is not an unending cycle and it seems to us that revolutionaries have to seriously admit that this is a real danger: even without world war, we could be engulfed in mounting barbarism.
We are not putting a time line on these developments but it is hard to see how capitalism's situation can improve, on the contrary. The system entered into decadence almost a century ago; and although the system has lasted far longer than any of the revolutionaries who initially recognised this could have foreseen, the dangers posed by the very survival of the system have greatly increased. Thus we feel that it is no exaggeration to argue that this is the last stage of the system's decline.

Thus we feel that it is no exaggeration to argue that this is the last stage of the system's decline.

So decomposition is the latest version of the ICC's "catastrophism"? You have constantly argued that capitalism has just about had it (indeed RI wrote in 1967, before the ICC was even formed that it was on its last legs). The problem is that the ICC has had to maintain this idea for nearly 4 decades. This stretches its credibility and so it has had to come up with short term novelties to cover for the failure of its perspectives. But in contradiction (at least to me) with this, your final comment quoted above has "no time limit"as you state earlier. If that is the case then why not stick to the idea that capitalism is simply decadent (a term which describes the changed nature of capitalism since c.1900 as it can only exist via imperialism and state intervention in the market) since this too has no time limit?

Thanks very much for posting the article – it certainly explains the concept and has answered some of my queries. I haven't had a hugely detailed examination of the article yet (as may be clear!) and there's a lot in the article I agree with, but I'd still question some of the evidence for decomposition.

Firstly, there is said to be a move into a new scenario where the “the bases of the new society may be sapped without world war or thus without the necessity to mobilise the proletariat for war” namely through local or regional conflicts, ecological catastrophes or “social collapse”. I guess I'm not convinced that there are signs that regional/local conflicts or “social collapse” (tbh, I'm not sure exactly what this refers to and where it fits in with the argument) are particularly more prevalent or likely to be catastrophic now than in the rest of decadent capitalism.

The article also states that “it is impossible to see what ideological themes could be used to justify war between the main imperialist powers today - all of them espouse the same democratic ideology, and none can point the finger at an evil empire which represents the number one threat to this way of life”. 10 years after the article was written its now easy to see recent examples of ideological justifications for war (“weapons of mass destruction” etc) but finding ideological themes to justify war was never impossible, whether that be “freedom”, the domino theory, spurious notions of “Russian communism” or the always-there-possibility of a “threat to our way of life”. It seems very possible to argue that war will not happen in the near future between main imperialist powers due to a number of reasons, but I don't see how a lack of ideological themes would be one of them.

I'd argue that the discussion about blocs is similarly dated. While at the time the article was written military blocs had broken down I think it is now possible to see that there is a clear informal system of power relations and it is possible to hypothesise the rise of China and the increasing contradictions in capitalism as leading to more explicit military blocs. I think, though, that this is a relatively minor point.

Mainly, however, I'm not convinced that there is the “social stalemate” that is claimed. I think the period claimed for decomposition is more easily characterised as one where the working class has found it very difficult to defend its position, with living standards and conditions taking a large hit.
The power of the working class is stated as being due largely to its “combativity” (of which it has “enormous reserves” despite ideological attacks of the bourgeoisie) which should not be confused with a class consciousness (which had taken “blows” over the previous decade to the article being written). This is probably my lack of understanding of the relevant concepts, but I find it hard to believe that the proletariat has sufficient strength to create a stalemate and postpone the move to barbarism without something more than these enormous (??) reserves of combativity?

Finally, even if the analysis is correct (and I'd state again that there is much in the article that I'd definitely agree with) I'd question why any of the analysis suggests that we are in the “last stage of the system's decline” rather than a period of attacks from capital that can be fought against and take new forms. Too much to me seems either issues that could categorise the rest of decadent capitalism (regional wars, social collapse, gangsterisation) or ones that are probably temporary at best (blocs).

Anyway, would be interested to hear any of your views, however quick!

Hi Marion

I'm posting below a reply from another comrade (arnie), who's having difficulties with his account at the moment.

We should apologise for leaving it so long to reply to you but the issues you raise are important and it's only been until recently that we've had the opportunity to examine them in the depth they deserve. Undoubtedly, many other issues arising will remain and we'd encourage you to continue raising them!

[FONT=Calibri]

[FONT=Calibri]Rather than seeking to answer all of them in this post I will concentrate on what is the central question: is this really the last stage of the systems decline? This is also linked to the question of whether the local/regional conflicts and social collapse are any more catastrophic than at any other time during decadence. You are right to highlight these as central questions because how you answer them determines how you view the concept of decomposition and decadence as a whole.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Not only in decadence but also during the ascendency, capitalism has spread war, disease, chaos and social dislocation across the world: as Luxemburg said: capitalism emerged dripping blood and go. In decadence, capitalism’s existence through destruction not only engulfed the other non-capitalist social formations which it destroyed in order to spread world-wide, but capitalism has only managed to survive through the destruction of its own social forms. Two world wars and numerous regional and local wars have not served to create the world market but to re-divide it. Countless millions have been sacrificed on the altar of the mere desperate survival of the system. So why do we say that decomposition marks the final phase of this process rather than the continuation of this.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Basically we do not see capitalism as having any way out of the present situation. The economic crisis continues on its relentless acceleration. Over the course of the last 40 years, the crisis has lead to massive de-industrialisation in the main countries of capitalism; reduced the world’s 2nd biggest economy (Japan) to stagnation; wracked Latin America, Africa and Asia; and has now struck again at the very heart of capitalism. How is capitalism going to overcome this situation? World War Two opened up a period of growth after the world wide depression of the 30s, but this ‘growth’ was dependent upon the state’s action in the economy, the massive needs of the imperialism and the war economy and the ability to tear open the former colonial markets. These golden years of capitalism were not so glowing for those slaughtered in the numerous wars, or lived in terror of nuclear destruction. How could capitalism do that again? Thus economic crisis will continue to worsen.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]This process of economic decay can only accelerate social decay as millions are thrown out of work across the planet, and the economic infrastructure of capitalism (transport, health, education, etc.) is sacrificed in the name of defending the national economic interest! This process is taking on extreme forms in countries such as Somalia, the Congo where the economic and social infrastructures have been destroyed, and there is no hope of them being able to regain stability. This permanent destabilisation of societies is now threatening Pakistan as it is torn apart by imperialist tensions with India, its machinations in Afghanistan and the inability to offer any political stability.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]It is this lack of perspective that is so characteristic of decomposition. During the Cold War, the bourgeoisie of either bloc was able to offer some form of perspective even if it was only the need to defend oneself against the enemy. This threat of the enemy also held these blocs together, imposed some form of discipline. The wars that took place were kept within some form of constraint because each side wanted to gain hold of the dispute country. Without that discipline wars today have only lead to deepening chaos. The Congo is the most sinister example, a country that has been divided up between regional and local war lords, any form of centralised political control disintegrated, infrastructure ruined and millions slaughtered. It is a black hole of chaos at the heart of Africa constantly threatening to suck in its neighbours. Also in Iraq, the world’s greatest super power was not able to impose any real order and left, whilst Afghanistan goes on and on.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]The inability of the US to impose its will is another factor to the situation. In this situation, the imperialist ambitions of every nation, big or small, are let loose. Each imperialist power increasingly sees no need to bow to its stronger “allies”. This is very different to the Cold War. While weaker countries still had their individual imperialist ambitions, they were forced to subordinate their aims to those of their respective bloc leaders or risk losing their “protections” and becoming prey to the rival bloc. Now such a structure of imperialist power no longer holds sway, the world super power looks increasingly unable to impose its will and thus everyone tries to impose theirs. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]For us this acceleration of the economic ruin, social collapse and imperialist barbarity can only undermine the only force that is able to impose an alternative: the proletariat.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]At present the ruling class does not have a free hand to impose the level of attacks they want to, even in secondary countries such as Tunisia and Egypt. However, while the proletariat imposes some constraints on capital’s efforts to pursue these objectives, the working class is not yet able to directly pose an alternative to capitalism. The concrete manifestations of this are the present upheavals in the Middle East. Tunisia began as a movement amongst the working class and spread across the country but the proletariat has been unable to bring this movement under its full control through workers mass meetings, etc. and thus the movement reached a point where either the class had to do this or the movement would be open to the bourgeoisie taking control. The bourgeoisie achieved this by removing Ben Ali and turning the whole movement into a pro-democracy movement.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]In Egypt, the presence of the working class in this movement beyond individuals being on the street is not felt, though there are clearly issues of poverty, unemployment etc. This means that this movement, whilst threatening the ruling clique has not real alternative apart from another clique which itself will be weak. The major powers real fear concerning the instability in Egypt is an expression of the chaos of decomposition. They know that no one else will be able to impose control over the situation if the present clique cannot. This instability, without any real prospect of stability even in bourgeois terms, is characteristic of decomposition.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]The reality is, without a strong proletarian movement offering an alternative, the growing social discontent (whilst being able to bring down government) will not be able to impose any stability as the different fractions of the bourgeoisie fight it out to gain control. A prolonged period of such destabilisation will not strengthen but weaken the proletariat. We have already seen this beginning to happen in Pakistan where the class is increasingly left helpless faced with growing social chaos.[/FONT]

[/FONT]

Comrade

I think it was Marx who said the capital emerges dripping blood and gore from every pore (Capital Vol 1 according to my moth-eaten notes)

Rosa or Marx it is a very good and striking image.

Which was my point. Pity Rosa Luxemburg did not quote a bit more of Capital in the Accumulation of Capital!

Leaving aside the question of Luxemburg's theory of accumulation for the moment, does anyone have any thoughts on the topic of decomposition, either Marion's or ours?

[FONT=Calibri]"It is this lack of perspective that is so characteristic of decomposition." This quote sums up why the ICC need a theory of decomposition. Your perspectives until c. 1990 were that proletarian revolution was on the agenda of history but the collapse of teh USSR, the patent retreat of the working class [/FONT]have all made the earlier perspectives obsolete. As you had pronounded that something had to be settled (either war or revolution) a long time back and when nothing happened in either regard then decomposition is the solution. No point any more trying to make sense of the world (other than to proclaim that everything fits into decompositon and chaos). And of course you can make everything in the declining part of the cycle of accumulation fit the picture. In fact given the chaotic nature of capitalist production and distribution throughhout its history you can find evidence for it all through capitalism's history if you want to. The whole thing goes wrong on the premise that decadence means that capitalism will collapse any time soon. This is serious difference we have with you (and there is a connection to the Accumulation of Capital which we have made many times in the past) since it accounts for other differences too. But then this gets us into the question of method and how we think that you rarely formulate issues in what we would consider marxist and materialist terms. I suppose I am saying that debating "decomposition" with you is the wrong issue and just enters into the special world of the ICC.

The post below is by Baboon, who unfortunately is not able to access this forum for some unresolved technical reasons.

Hiya Marion, just a few thoughts on decomposition, etc., from a sympathiser of the ICC. I haven’t been able to post on revleft since last November despite appeals to moderators, e-mails and changing my address and passwords. So I’m going in a bit large.

I don’t see the “stable, informal” imperialist alliances that you talk about anywhere in the world. There was an idea from some revolutionary elements that with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, the EU would come forward as a coherent economic and political bloc capable of facing up to the USA. The reality has been more like five dogs fighting in a sack. Of course there are some mutual agreements but, with the disintegration of the cement that held the western bloc together, i.e., the nuclear threat of Russia, centrifugal tendencies prevail – and not just in Europe. Even in the two-bloc system there were tensions, dirty dealings and disagreements within both blocs, such is the nature of imperialism. But all these tendencies have been sharpened with the collapse of bloc discipline. Now there’s one Godfather, one world cop and even its’ “closest” allies, while needing it in many areas, scheme against it or openly compete against it on the imperialist stage. The collapse of the eastern bloc, itself an expression of the decomposition of the system, provoked not the “peace” foreseen by the bourgeoisie but massacres and war undertaken by America to impose its discipline, to demonstrate its power to “friend” and foe alike – actions that have only served to exacerbate instability and provoke more widespread bloodshed. The US led wars in the Balkans and Iraq in the early 90s and nothing has been settled by them; all the rivalries between Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, America remain in the Balkans and simmer away and, for example, the US is reduced to backing a local leader from the Albanian mafia who traffics in heroin and human organs (he’s humanitarian though – his thugs kill the donors first).
The war in Iraq is not settled with death and misery every day for the population and 50,000 US and other troops remaining along with the same number of mercenaries (the latter becoming an increasing factor of imperialism). Afghanistan goes from chaos to irrationality and back again reverberating out across its British-delineated borders causing further chaos and instability. The Soviet Union’s collapse itself created an imperialist fault line going from the Caucasus and now meeting up with the chaos coming out of Afghanistan. Ernie makes the point about the Congo where even the official figures talk of five million dead since Bush Senior declared “peace and prosperity”. Tensions involving a number of countries and interests are exploding around the Yellow Sea and both the US and China are locked in a very expensive and totally irrational arms race. And while nuclear weapons spread and potentially spread outside of the control of the major powers we’ve seen the massacres of hundreds of thousands in Rwanda using basic iron tools – and this was a war involving the major powers’ spread of chaos that continues to rumble on. So I don’t see any evidence of any sort of “stability” but on the contrary see centrifugal and dangerous tendencies developing in imperialism everywhere. Afghanistan is one clear example with all its ridiculous and murderous “alliances” and its descent into a nightmare abyss for its population while trillions of dollars have been spent and continue to be spent on this unwinnable war. Pakistan is another case in point: here we see that the contingent alliance for the so-called “war on terror” is between two countries, the USA and Pakistan, that are virtually at war with each other – and that’s leaving to one side the proxy war going on between the two nuclear powers of Pakistan and India. It is quite possible; likely even, that the current expressions of revolt in the Middle East will only reinforce these centrifugal and increasing unstable tendencies of imperialism. I don’t agree with your position that the tendency is towards “stable” alliances; far from it. I only see the decomposition of imperialism and imperialism as a further factor in decomposition.

On what you say about ideological themes in relation to the mobilisation for war: I believe that there is a lack of them. In nearly twenty years of working in industry and meeting many, many workers from labourers to chemists, I did not meet one that supported the Iraq War. Similarly, a recent local TV station toured the garrison town of Plymouth and could not find a single person that supported the Afghan war (the purpose of their piece was to show public support for it). There has been no mass mobilisation for war on an ideological basis in any of the major capitalist countries, the only exception being the US after 9.11. Even the democratic theme is falling into contempt. This of course hasn’t stopped the bourgeoisie of every country from being involved in war and shows the danger of numerous “small” and “professional” wars spreading more and more. For a major war, involving great numbers of the population of the industrial heartlands there would have to be a significant defeat of the working class and then the bourgeoisie could come up with some ideological poison to maintain its grip. But this is nowhere near happening.

Corruption is also part of the decomposition of capitalism – in fact corruption is another word to describe decomposition when applied to a dying body. Corruption and graft has always been a factor of capitalism but not the levels and depths that we are seeing developing today where it and the gangsterism that accompanies it is becoming a “normal” way of functioning. In the 1930s, American mobster Meyer Lanskey (who was to later assist the American bourgeoisie in the pacification of the New York docks and the invasion of Italy) struck on the bright idea of using the Bahamas as a tax haven for money laundering purposes. Today, the offshore system that traces its origins to the 1930s mafia, sees half of all world trade pass through it.

Another clear example to me of capitalist decomposition is its threat to the planet – or rather its threat to human life on the planet. Like the economy, there’s no definitive formula that says “we are now into irreversible decline” at this or that point. Again, the whole of capitalism, indeed, the whole of civilisation, has been one long ecological disaster after the other. But there comes a point when this becomes critical and certainly becomes a factor in general decline and danger there from. This could be mocked as “catastrophism” as many elements do, but capitalism is a method of production for profit and if it doesn’t profit the anarchic and short term capitalist relations of production then the world can go to hell in a handcart. The bourgeoisie cannot do anything about the destruction of this planet but pursue it in its thirst for profits. Even when there are “natural” disasters then these are exacerbated by capitalist relations of production and while trillions are spent on militarism and war those suffering disaster are left to rot – Pakistan and Haiti being the latest examples.

It’s true that for over 40 years now that the proletariat has been engaged in a stand-off with the bourgeoisie over the question of socialism or barbarism. It’s also true that during this time the ICC and other revolutionary groups have overestimated the struggle of the class . And it’s also true that the bourgeoisie has continued to attack the working class year in and year out. But that’s the condition of the working class and will remain its condition until it takes on the bourgeoisie with all its might. I think that this 40 odd year stand-off, where neither class has really had the upper hand to play out its “solution” is testimony to the combativity and innate strength of the working class and gives us hope for the future.

Finally, if one starts off from a revolutionary perspective then capitalism has to be a system in decline – one would presume so or going on about revolution would be just utopian bleating. Decomposition is just another word for decline at a particular stage and, as Alf says above if you don’t like the word use another. But any organic body declining decomposes. It’s not just decomposition because it’s similar with other areas; endless gut-wrenching economic arguments and fixations on words to manufacture differences in order to maintain its own “identity”, its own brand. And sadly, so it goes on.

Baboon writes

It’s true that for over 40 years now that the proletariat has been engaged in a stand-off with the bourgeoisie over the question of socialism or barbarism. It’s also true that during this time the ICC and other revolutionary groups have overestimated the struggle of the class . And it’s also true that the bourgeoisie has continued to attack the working class year in and year out. But that’s the condition of the working class and will remain its condition until it takes on the bourgeoisie with all its might. I think that this 40 odd year stand-off, where neither class has really had the upper hand to play out its “solution” is testimony to the combativity and innate strength of the working class and gives us hope for the future."

But the first truth to recognise is that we as a class have been in retreat for 40 years. The ICC came into the world proclaiming the counter-revolution was over so they refused to recognise this. Decomposition is the nearest they can get to admitting it (world history as a score draw). A capitalism in crisis can conjure up all sorts of barbaric and obscene atrocities but if you have managed to avoid an idealist perspective you don't need a theory of decomposition to explain them.

As you had pronounded that something had to be settled (either war or revolution) a long time back and when nothing happened in either regard then decomposition is the solution. No point any more trying to make sense of the world (other than to proclaim that everything fits into decompositon and chaos).

This is a straw-man argument. Nowhere do we say there is no point in trying to make sense of the world. Yes, we do say there is a growing tendency towards dislocation and instability in all arenas of capitalism today - one wonders how we can look at Africa or South Asia (particularly Pakistan) and not acknowledge this. But we've also set out concrete reasons for how and why this state of affairs has come about.

And of course you can make everything in the declining part of the cycle of accumulation fit the picture. In fact given the chaotic nature of capitalist production and distribution throughhout its history you can find evidence for it all through capitalism's history if you want to. The whole thing goes wrong on the premise that decadence means that capitalism will collapse any time soon. This is serious difference we have with you (and there is a connection to the Accumulation of Capital which we have made many times in the past) since it accounts for other differences too.

We certainly acknowledge there have been tendencies towards decomposition in all periods of decadence. And, yes, there are no doubt similar symptoms to be found all through capitalism's history and beyond. What is significant is that these tendencies have now become the dominant trend in the world today. For example, while there are still efforts to form new military alliances and blocs, these seem unable to achieve the stability of the other blocs that have dominated capitalism since WW1. We think this is a significant change that needs explanation.

Your comment to Baboon that "a capitalism in crisis can conjure up all sorts of barbaric and obscene atrocities" is, of course, true. But this doesn't explain why these atrocities take the form that they do. Why did the crisis in the 30s lead to world war, fought between relatively stable blocs on the same basis as the previous world war? Why did the return of crisis in the 60s not lead to a new world war? Why do we live in a world without clear, stable blocs today when the economic contradictions are clearly as strong as ever? These are not trivial questions and demand an attempt to explain them theoretically, which is what we've attempted to do.

As for the question of accumulation, I don't defend Rosa's theory; my personal position is actually far closer to that of Grossman. While certain economic theories can have consequences for our analysis of capital, the theory of decomposition is predominantly based on a analysis of wider social phenomena in our epoch so I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at here.

But then this gets us into the question of method and how we think that you rarely formulate issues in what we would consider marxist and materialist terms. I suppose I am saying that debating "decomposition" with you is the wrong issue and just enters into the special world of the ICC.

You don't agree with our analysis of decomposition and that isn't a problem as far as it goes. The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that our theory is an effort to understand very real phenomena manifesting in modern capitalism. It seems you have three possible logical responses:

- these phenomena don't exist (I don't think you'd agree with this!)
- these phenomena exist but are nothing new (partially true, but what is significant is the ir scale - quantity transformed into quality and all that)
- our explanation for these phenomena is wrong (in which case, can you advance an alternative theory?)

Just seen this reply but don't have time to reply to it just now the only thing I would say right now is that you quote enough of what I have already said to answer the questions you pose.

Samyasa
The problem is much wider than decomposition. The ICC (and the GCF before it) have always had a tendency to erect special theories based on limited phenomena but not on a material analysis of where capitalims actuall is. I don't know how old you are but I have had the misfortune to witness all the ICC's twists and turns over the last 35 years. the ICC was born on the premsie that the counter-revolutionwas over and that the path to proletarian revolution lay open. We in the CWO shared this until 1976 but our comrades in Battaglia Comunista never bought it. They argued (as we now accept) that what was new was that the third cycle of capitalist accumulation had come toi an end. All the naalyses we made have been based onthe twist and turns of capital as it tried to get out of the shift in value realtions which took place in the early 70s. Hyperinfaltion, technological innovation (the deployment of the microproocessor) the shift of manufacturing from the trad capitalist countries, speculation and even the US wars in the ME are all responses to this lack of profitability for capital.

The ICC though starts from a different point and a diffierent method. For them the key is the subjective factor - the fact that the workers have shaken off the counter-revolution. In its earliest days the ICC maintianed that all revolutioanries had to do was to expose the "mystifciations" of capitalism as these were the barriers to workers seeing what was really going on. Thus thye warned the working class of the dangers of the left in opposition, the machiavellianism of the boiurgeoisie etc. In the 1980s they were so convinced that the working class was on the rise that thye talked of them as "the years of truth". When we reached the end of the eyars of truth but neither capital nor labour had won the perspective had collapsed. The way was then open for a new "theory". Enter decomposition and chaos which is more an explanantion why the ICC 's pespectives failed rather than a real analysis of the stage of the crisis. I think my previous post already answered the questions you posed at the end and this one outlines the alternative we have always had. One further point about teh dificulty of a new alliance system growing up - this is not new in capitalist history (see the period 1870 - 1907) when there were so many confliictng intersts that the famous allliance system that led to World War One was only completed just before that war.

Finally is the theory of decomposition binding on al memerbs (i.e. have you a congress resolution on this)? I know you had split which led to the IFICC over this issue but did they leave because the theory was binding? If it is it is a tragedy.

The ICC though starts from a different point and a diffierent method. For them the key is the subjective factor - the fact that the workers have shaken off the counter-revolution. In its earliest days the ICC maintianed that all revolutioanries had to do was to expose the "mystifciations" of capitalism as these were the barriers to workers seeing what was really going on.

I was still in nappies in the early days of the ICC but as far as I can see they've always acknowledge that the return of the crisis in the late 60s was the trigger for the development of the class struggle which enabled the class to throw off the shackles of the counter-revolution. That said, we don't have a mechanical view of consciousness in that the crisis inevitably causes this, but that's not the same as what you seem to be saying we say.

They argued (as we now accept) that what was new was that the third cycle of capitalist accumulation had come toi an end. All the naalyses we made have been based onthe twist and turns of capital as it tried to get out of the shift in value realtions which took place in the early 70s. Hyperinfaltion, technological innovation (the deployment of the microproocessor) the shift of manufacturing from the trad capitalist countries, speculation and even the US wars in the ME are all responses to this lack of profitability for capital.

There have only been three cycles of accumulation in the history of capitalism to the end of the 60s? I'm not sure I'm reading this right ... is this what you meant??

As for the rest of your points about hyperinflation, etc. I'd generally agree with the possible exception of the point about war. While I certainly wouldn't say there are no direct economic motives behind the war drive, I think the interplay of these factors with political and ideological processes is far more complex than perhaps is often acknowledged. Am I remembering right that you attributed the wars in the MidEast to an attempt to maintain dollar hegemony in the face of Iraq switching to Euros? Or is that a mischaracterisation?

Thus thye warned the working class of the dangers of the left in opposition, the machiavellianism of the boiurgeoisie etc. In the 1980s they were so convinced that the working class was on the rise that thye talked of them as "the years of truth". When we reached the end of the eyars of truth but neither capital nor labour had won the perspective had collapsed. The way was then open for a new "theory". Enter decomposition and chaos which is more an explanantion why the ICC 's pespectives failed rather than a real analysis of the stage of the crisis.

It's widely acknowledged that the theory of decomposition was the result of our (belated) acknowledgement that the 80s was characterised by a social stalemate between the classes, rather than a decisive turn towards war or revolution as we had first envisaged. They were still "years of truth" in the sense that the collapse of the soviet union demonstrated the frightening consequences of that stalemate. You, on the other hand, seem to think the working class was defeated in the 80s (is that right?). If so, why did we not see a war between the two blocs, the return of mass conscription, full war economy, etc?

One further point about teh dificulty of a new alliance system growing up - this is not new in capitalist history (see the period 1870 - 1907) when there were so many confliictng intersts that the famous allliance system that led to World War One was only completed just before that war.

Very true, but it's a new phenomenon for capitalist decadence. I've always considered the formation of blocs and the tendency for world wars to be a defining characteristic of decadence. Perhaps I'm wrong. In any case, why is it the blocs appeared in 1914 - 1989 and not in 1870 or now?

I was still in nappies in the early days of the ICC but as far as I can see they've always acknowledge that the return of the crisis in the late 60s was the trigger for the development of the class struggle which enabled the class to throw off the shackles of the counter-revolution.

Samyasa

That is the key difference as a starting premise. You say the class has thrown off the shackles of the counter-revolution but we don't think anything changed in the wider working class (although the first really militant struggles of the class did give birth to new revolutionary elements - as well as revived Trotskyism!). We are still living under the shadow of the Stalinist counter-revolution. The consequences that flow from this are as I outlined in the previous post. The working class suffered a defeat in the 1980s (it seems obvious to me but again you will interpret this in ICC chiliastic terms as a terminal historical defeat - it lost
an important battle inthe class war but the war goes on) and we have asked ourselves why there was no major imperialist war (certainly not becuase the class is so conscious and combative that it is holding war back as in ICC mythology). Our conclusionis that we have been faced with a unique situation - the collapse of an imperialist bloc without war is unprecedented in history and given that this third cycle of accumulation (of capitalist decadence I should have explained) is in its final stages we don't rule out the war option yet. What we are seeing is the attentuation of this crisis in ways not previously seen (which is why it has lasted decades). The bursting of the speculative bubble has led to a new problem for capitalism (which will likely see it taking us down the road to barbarism) IF the world working class rolls over and takes more of the same.

Sorry if this schematic but am a bit pressed currently

Thanks for the reply, I think I'm getting a clearer understanding of your position.

That is the key difference as a starting premise. You say the class has thrown off the shackles of the counter-revolution but we don't think anything changed in the wider working class (although the first really militant struggles of the class did give birth to new revolutionary elements - as well as revived Trotskyism!). We are still living under the shadow of the Stalinist counter-revolution. The consequences that flow from this are as I outlined in the previous post. The working class suffered a defeat in the 1980s (it seems obvious to me but again you will interpret this in ICC chiliastic terms as a terminal historical defeat - it lost an important battle in the class war but the war goes on)

I think part of this argument hinges on what we mean by counter-revolution. I've always understood it as a period when the working class has been crushed, completely unable to put forward its own perspective and those struggles that it launches are either isolated or quickly recuperated for the bourgeoisie's purposes.

While this certainly characterises the 30s - 60s, I'm not sure the same could be said of the 60s onwards. Naturally, this doesn't preclude advances and retreats but even if you take a completely negative attitude to the 80s, I don't think we could say there was a decisive defeat.

we have asked ourselves why there was no major imperialist war (certainly not becuase the class is so conscious and combative that it is holding war back as in ICC mythology). Our conclusionis that we have been faced with a unique situation - the collapse of an imperialist bloc without war is unprecedented in history and given that this third cycle of accumulation (of capitalist decadence I should have explained) is in its final stages we don't rule out the war option yet. What we are seeing is the attentuation of this crisis in ways not previously seen (which is why it has lasted decades). The bursting of the speculative bubble has led to a new problem for capitalism (which will likely see it taking us down the road to barbarism) IF the world working class rolls over and takes more of the same.

There are several problems I see with this analysis. We agree there has been a serious decline in capitalism's economic situation since the 60s. We also agree (I think!) that this pushes capitalism towards war in a general sense. You go slightly further than us in making a concrete link between war and crisis (you didn't correct my point about Gulf Wars and dollar hegemony, so I assume I got that right, but do say so if I'm wrong!) when you say that the "US wars in the ME are all responses to this lack of profitability for capital".

What seems obvious is that all the various tactics employed to raise the rate of profit have still failed to turn the situation around. The 70s and early 80s were catastrophic economically and there were blocs in place, armed to the teeth and with certain factions in the ruling class itching to fight a war (some US generals wanted to launch a first strike against the USSR I seem to recall and there were several near misses) and yet they didn't.

In fact, there was a general retreat from a tendency to globalised war in that early period - the US's "Vietnam Syndrome" showed the extreme reluctance of the masses to accept mass conscription for their state's imperialist adventures. I think we only need to consider the reaction if Britain or the US for example had attempted to bring in conscription for their latest trips to Iraq and Afghanistan. There are clearly good military reasons for such an attempt, given the complaints of overstretch by the armed forces (it doesn't require a world war by any means to make conscription a useful tool, as Viet Nam showed) and yet no serious attempt to do this has been made.

All these factors, at least to me, indicate that there is a definite drive to war and yet somehow this tendency is being blocked. The crisis (however attenuated) has (in your theoretical vision) already directly triggered some quite serious wars and yet this hasn't escalated in the way we might otherwise expect. What's blocking it? Why is it so inconceivable that the working class, whatever its immediate level of activity, worries the ruling class enough to avoid provoking it except when absolutely necessary? I think this was certainly the case in the 80s.

On the other hand, it's also self-evident that the working class has been unable to push forward its struggle. Already in the mid-80s, in spite of some very powerful struggles, there were also signs of serious obstacles to the further development of the struggle and there were some quite significant defeats. The collapse of the Eastern bloc triggered the most important of these because it attacked at the level of consciousness and ideology which was the very weakest aspect of the development of the struggle.

However, the collapse of the Eastern bloc also had massive repercussions at the level of the drive to war. I stand by the ICC's analysis of the collapse of the blocs and "every man for himself" and until recently I think these have been far more significant in preventing a full-on escalation of military conflict (of which we have already seen many, in any case) than any direct, immediate influence from the working class. But the class has still been lurking in the background and the bourgeoisie has been unable to enroll it completely behind its various national objectives. And today, of course, we do seem to be in a period where the working class is once again making an attempt to reassert itself, even if this attempt is still dominated by weakness and confusion.

Anyway, I hope you don't feel I've "gone ICC on you" too much, but I do think this discussion has been useful ... for me anyway.

Samyasa I am sincerely glad you have found this useful. The difference seems now to be boiling down to your perception of the working class' capacity to struggle. You reject my version of where the class is today (mostly on the back foot without its ideological shoes on). You give me instead the usual ICC formula that the class "has not been able to push forward its struggles". My answer is that this is a euphemism. We have taken a hammering. It is no accident that the communist left (which I joined because I took it to be the highest expression of the revolutionary cosnciousness of the class) is pathetically small today - it reflects the general lack of revolutionary consciousness in the global working class. We will know when this situation is turning when new elements enter the CL and the existing organisations sink real and deep roots in the wider working class. This is why we should not exaggerate the weight of counter-revolutionary ideology weighing down on the class since at the present level of struggle it is a small factor. It will only become more serious when the class as a whole is moving in its own interests. "Decomposition" seems to me like an ill-thought out idealist metaphor to avoid facing up to this situation.

I think that one reason why I'm attracted to the ICC is their idea that the present period is characterised by Decomposition which means that the social bonds which bind society together is under tremendous strain and in many cases are leading to a situation where barbarism can emerge if there is no succesfull communist revolution led by the working class. For me this perspective explains why workers find it difficult to develop to develop a truly independent perspective and why workers remain trapped in accepting capitalist mystifications.

Red Flag, I think the present period is characterised by a massive attack on the living standards of the working class. Teeside, Glasgow, Cairo - the attack is the same; the only difference is that in poorer countries workers are already being pushed closer to starvation. The learn more about the ICC's theory of Decomposition
read their press, visit their website, or try to attend one of their public meetings.

Totally agree with Rowntree that the present period is characterised by attacks upon the working class. In light of these attacks the response at least by British workers is totally inadequate. While the demo on the 26th March was amazing it is still characterised by being led by the TUC and all actions seem to be premised by an acceptence that if not sanctioned by the various unions then there is no strike action. In light of this why is the consciousness of workers still trailing behind objective conditions? It's this lack of perspective of workers which decomposition seems to answer.

Red Flag
Glad you are back in touch. We can all agree about the attacks on the working class. On the demo on March 26 we made a hit (in our terms) with a minority by having one of the few papers which had a headline which clearly stated that to fight the cuts you have to fight capitalism. (Many older people walked out of the demo to buy it or take it asking us "how?".) But we have to remember that the cuts are still working their way through the class. The TUC demo was before the end of the financial year and many of the cuts did not come until then.

In the year ahead the situation will develop. Our comrades report that the DWP frontline desk people have been ordered to get 3 people off benefits every week to meet their "target", that they must not tell people what benefits they are entitled to and that the incapacity evaluations are being farmed out to a private firm (which gets its revenue from denying benefit to the disabled - see the New Poor Law article on the leftcom.org website).

The consciousness of workers is not trailing behind objective conditions - the objective conditions are just beginning to change for most of us. "Decomposition" does not enter into it unless you thought the revolution was just around the corner in 1975 or are someone trying to explain why they have been disappointed ever since then.

Hi Jock Agree with most of what you say regarding the current level of class consciousness and that consciousness is not trailing behind the objective conditions. However the problem is touched on in the first part of your reply and that the obstacle is not only the betrayels of trade unions but also the lack of an communist perspective from the most militant sections of the class. This lack of perspective is what decomposition focuses on as being a result of the failure of workers to actively challenge capitalism during the post secondworld war period. Of course the danger with this perspective is that it can encourage a sense of pessimism within the revolutionary minority.

Red Star

The answer does not lie in "decomposition". The answer lies inthe hsitoric defeat of the working class inthe 1920s/ The ICC argued that 1968 was "the end of the counter-revolution". For ten minutes I believed them but in fact the counter-revolution will only end when the working class shakes off the shackles of that defeat (when we go beyond the question of the Stalinist counter-revolution = communism). The reason the Paris centre of the ICC dreamed up decomposition was that it had to explain why the perspective of the counter-revolution being over (and the historic course being towards communism) was now (c. 1990) a mistake. Actually the present situation of crisis and (limited) class response is making me more optimisitic that the class is preparing the germs of the next revolutionary "incubus" but this is only a sense from recent global events. I think we are looking at reality in the same way and that is important.

I think decomposition is real.

I think the destruction of imperialist superpowers and the rise of diffuse imperialist blocklets is perhaps the objective side of the issue. For example, although Negri's Empire is a crock of academic wank the fact that many people were receptive to the idea of a center less Empire does say something about the nature of the world economy.

Decomposition can be traced along culture too. The rise of nihilistic trends among the youth, hard drug addiction (heroin, meth, crack), the destruction of the leftist racket and its supercession by sheer criminality (the rise of drug cartels as the defacto enemies of the state in some areas, rather than the left which used to take that role as an agent of soviet/chinese imperialism). The rise of global civil wars in exchange of classical total war. The idea of "Decomposition" is not only an ICC one, it has been expressed in numerous ways by other outlets, for example, the idea of a Generation X and postmodernity.

I think this epoch is different and I think we are facing a sort of despair that is qualitatively different than in past historical epochs.

While I do think that there is an objective reality and that is based on the depth of the capitalist crisis globally which gives rise to decomposition i am concerned that decomposition can give rise to feelings of despair in the revolutionary milieu as seen through maldoror contribution. I do think that the present crisis is qualatatively different to previous economic crisis and can give rise to feelings of rage which can be counterproductive and can stifle the development of class struggle. What needs to happen is that marxist militants encourage the beleif in class solidarity that can encompass the globe. We need to assist in the development of struggles which will inevitably come into conflict with the union beaucracies and Labour Party beaucracies. Work towards the general strike.

Hi

Baboon has asked me to post this message for him because at the moment he is not able to log onto RevLeft for some reason

"If a body is dying it decomposes – there’s no way to avoid it. I agree with the above on the reality of decomposition and, further, with the resulting concept of the stand-off between the two classes. The ICT also agree with decomposition: some of their articles, particularly from the IBRP show a clear analysis of decomposition and could fit quite easily in any ICC position on the question. But the ICT, who defines itself in relation to its opposition to the ICC, can’t admit to any agreement here and instead has to bring torturous and fifth and sixth rate “differences” to the fore in order to maintain their own chapel. It’s the same for the Machiavellianism of the bourgeoisie, which, as I remember, has been well detailed by the IBRP – but again it can’t be seen to agree and must put up all its arguments about words and secondary issue woven into an anti-ICC analysis that is really well past its sell by date.
As has been said earlier, overestimation of the class struggle has affected both organisations at times and this is not unnatural given the tendency for revolutionaries to support the class struggle. But the “overestimating” ICC never went so far as to call for “Revolution Now” in Poland at the heights of class struggle in 1980. That was never on the cards.
I agree with Mal above about the question of imperialism and think that the present period can be further defined as the decomposition of imperialism. There was a certain, misshapen rationale to a world split up into two blocs but now centrifugal tendencies prevail threatening further instability. I think that the question of drugs is tightly linked to imperialism given that the three areas of the globe attracting the most military “assets” (mainly of US imperialism) are the three biggest heroin producing areas.
As said in the post above, the deepening of the economic crisis is the major factor and was the major factor behind the social uprisings throughout the Middle East and the Maghreb. But, as we’ve seen, these themselves can exacerbate imperialist tensions from the “outside” but even from the interior of a capitalist state further instability can be a factor of social revolt. We’ve seen what has happened in Libya and the consequences of Syria breaking up would be enormous."