Questions on left communism.

The ICC particularly are against National-Liberation through their
understanding of decadence theory.

What is decadence theory?

Is this theory a left communist one or a theory that the ICC holds alone?

Not thats its messed up, to me it makes sense why capitalism is no longer progressive.

Does this mean that in the past, left communists viewed capitalism as progressive (in the era after the transition from feudalism) and the ability of capitalism to advance the relations of humans even further than had been done prior to capitalism?

At what time in history do left communists consider the moment when capitalism no longer held a progressive dynamic and became regressive?

Also, does the communist left consider that capitalism is decadent on a global basis or does this theory simply apply to the industrialised and advanced capitalist countries (USA, Europe, East Asia etc...)?

Given that the communist left rejects all notions of national liberation and supports the class struggle of workers against all forms of bourgeois and petty bourgeois power struggles and political struggles, what would the position of left communists be on a national liberation struggle that takes place in a country where the working class is either very weak or even non-existent (Nepal, Western Sahara and many African countries would apply here)?

Do left communists support the theory that a country can go from feudalism to socialism and thus skip the capitalist phase altogether?

Related to the question above, do left communists support the theory that in a country where there exists a large peasant base, that the working class can form a joint alliance for revolution with the peasantry, to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, but under the political control and rule of the working class alone, the peasantry simply being junior partners in such a dictatorship?

What is there left communist theory of imperialism?

Does it differ from the Marxist-Leninist view of imperialism or pretty much the same as Lenin's?

I apologise for the questions, I know only a bit about left communism, but of the Luxemburgist and council communist school of thought, not the Bordigist or ICC or ICP school of thought of left communism.

What is decadence theory?

Is this theory a left communist one or a theory that the ICC holds alone?

Here is a link to the ICC's pamphlet on it: http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/decadence

I think it is true to say that decadence theory is a Marxist concept. The Third International held a decadence theory. That does not mean that the ICC interpretation is the same as theirs.

Does this mean that in the past, left communists viewed capitalism as progressive (in the era after the transition from feudalism) and the ability of capitalism to advance the relations of humans even further than had been done prior to capitalism?

Yes, as has already been pointed out this is a common Marxist concept.

At what time in history do left communists consider the moment when capitalism no longer held a progressive dynamic and became regressive?

They consider that the First World War showed that capitalism was decadent, so it happened at some point before 1914.

Also, does the communist left consider that capitalism is decadent on a global basis or does this theory simply apply to the industrialised and advanced capitalist countries (USA, Europe, East Asia etc...)?

It is a globalised phenomenon.

Given that the communist left rejects all notions of national liberation and supports the class struggle of workers against all forms of bourgeois and petty bourgeois power struggles and political struggles, what would the position of left communists be on a national liberation struggle that takes place in a country where the working class is either very weak or even non-existent (Nepal, Western Sahara and many African countries would apply here)?

Rejection, we don't see that the working class has any interest in those struggles.

Do left communists support the theory that a country can go from feudalism to socialism and thus skip the capitalist phase altogether?

Capitalism is a world system and exists everywhere.

Related to the question above, do left communists support the theory that in a country where there exists a large peasant base, that the working class can form a joint alliance for revolution with the peasantry, to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, but under the political control and rule of the working class alone, the peasantry simply being junior partners in such a dictatorship?

No

What is there left communist theory of imperialism?

Does it differ from the Marxist-Leninist view of imperialism or pretty much the same as Lenin's?

It differs from Lenin's and is much more closely related to Luxembourg's.

I apologise for the questions, I know only a bit about left communism, but of the Luxemburgist and council communist school of thought, not the Bordigist or ICC or ICP school of thought of left communism.

No need to apologise. Some of my answers are a bit brisk, but that is because I wanted to answer before going to work.

Devrim

[FONT=Arial Narrow]Devrim is spot on about the Third International and decadence: [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial Narrow]“II – The period of the decadence of capitalism. After analysing the world economic situation, the Third Congress has noted with the greatest precision that capitalism, having completed its mission of developing the productive forces, has fallen into the most implacable contradiction with the needs not only of present historical evolution, but also with the most elementary requirements of human existence. This fundamental contradiction is both particularly reflected in the last imperialist war, and was further deepened by the war, which shook the whole system of production and circulation to its foundations. Capitalism has outlived itself, and has entered the phase where the destructive action of its unleashed forces ruins and paralyses the creative economic conquests already achieved by the proletariat in the chains of capitalist slavery (...) Capitalism today is going through nothing less than its death agony”. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial Narrow]From: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/11....html#_ftnref5[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial Narrow]But I suppose the real question is, do you still think that capitalism has something to offer humanity?[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial Narrow]FC! Morven[/FONT]

What is decadence theory? Is this theory a left communist one or a theory that the ICC holds alone?

The conception of the ascendence and decadence of past modes of production is at the heart of historical materialism: its not a particular invention of the communist left or the ICC,

"The theory of decadence is simply the concretisation of historical materialism in the analysis of the evolution of modes of production. It is thus the indispensable framework for understanding the historical period we are living in. Knowing whether society is still progressing, or whether it has had its day historically, is decisive for grasping what is at stake on the political and socio-economic levels, and acting accordingly. As with all past societies, the ascendant phase of capitalism expressed the historically necessary character of the relations of production it embodies, that is, their vital role in the expansion of society’s productive forces. The phase of decadence, by contrast, expresses the transformation of these relations into a growing barrier to this same development."
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/118_decadence_i.html

Does this mean that in the past, left communists viewed capitalism as progressive (in the era after the transition from feudalism) and the ability of capitalism to advance the relations of humans even further than had been done prior to capitalism?

Yes. Wouldn't you agree?

At what time in history do left communists consider the moment when capitalism no longer held a progressive dynamic and became regressive?

As other posters have said, the First World War marked capitalism's definitive entry into its decadent phase, although the conditions were developing towards the end of the 1800s.

Also, does the communist left consider that capitalism is decadent on a global basis or does this theory simply apply to the industrialised and advanced capitalist countries (USA, Europe, East Asia etc...)?

Yes, the former, on a global basis. Capitalism is a global system and capitalist social relations are dominant globally.

Given that the communist left rejects all notions of national liberation and supports the class struggle of workers against all forms of bourgeois and petty bourgeois power struggles and political struggles, what would the position of left communists be on a national liberation struggle that takes place in a country where the working class is either very weak or even non-existent (Nepal, Western Sahara and many African countries would apply here)?

Leading on from the previous answer, national liberation struggles in ascendency were to a certain extent free from outside influence. In the epoch of capitalism's decadence 'national liberation' wars take place in the context of rivalries between the great powers who have used the smaller powers - and factions within them - as proxies against their rivals. In the epoch of imperialism wars of national liberation in the 'classic sense' cease to exist. Does this make sense?

Do left communists support the theory that a country can go from feudalism to socialism and thus skip the capitalist phase altogether?

No. Feudalism doesn't exist anywhere anymore.

Related to the question above, do left communists support the theory that in a country where there exists a large peasant base, that the working class can form a joint alliance for revolution with the peasantry, to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, but under the political control and rule of the working class alone, the peasantry simply being junior partners in such a dictatorship?

What is the peasantry? Much of it has been proletarianised.

What is there left communist theory of imperialism? Does it differ from the Marxist-Leninist view of imperialism or pretty much the same as Lenin's?

You may find answers in this article: 'What is Imperialsim?'
"imperialism is the policy of a country that tries to conserve or to spread its political, economic and military domination over other countries and territories. As such it refers to numerous moments in human history (from the old Assyrian, Roman, Ottoman empires or the conquests of Alexander the Great up to today). Only in capitalism does the term take on a very particular sense. As Rosa Luxemburg wrote, “…the urge of capitalism to expand suddenly forms a vital element, the most outstanding feature of modern development; indeed expansion has accompanied the entire history of capitalism and in its present, final, imperialist phase, it has adopted such an unbridled character that it puts the whole civilisation of mankind in question” (Anti-Critique)."
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/29...is-imperialism

I apologise for the questions, I know only a bit about left communism, but of the Luxemburgist and council communist school of thought, not the Bordigist or ICC or ICP school of thought of left communism.

No worries. What do you think of the answers given on this thread so far?

Beltov,
for the ICC.

I think the theory on decadence is accurate. However, I don't think it is "indispensable" for holding genuine communist positions. I think you can be an internationalist and against parliamentarism without holding a very sophisticated take on decadence.

I think the theory on decadence is accurate. However, I don't think it is "indispensable" for holding genuine communist positions. I think you can be an internationalist and against parliamentarism without holding a very sophisticated take on decadence.

I agree, but then I don't think that it is necessary to be a Marxist to hold internationalist positions. Anarchists can hold them too.

Devrim

me neither.