ICC theses on decomposition

The ICT does not concentrate a great deal on the ICC, but one of the hallmarks of the latter, not shared by the former, is its formulation that capitalism has entered a new phase, that of decomposition, which, correct me if I am wrong, is a period of stagnation caused by a delicate balance of forces which sees the working class frustrating the bourgeoisie in its drive towards imperialist war, but as yet still not strong enough to impose its own revolutionary solution. As a result, society is rotting and the resulting ideological confusion/depression exerts a terribly negative influence on the working class.

en.internationalism.org

The ICT position questions the level of class consciousness of the working class implicit in the assumption that the working class is sufficently conscious as to frustrate the bourgeois war drive. The ICC has published materials claiming that there is already a generalised anti-capitalist class consciousness and we have argued this is not the case.

With the recent riots, the ICC statement, perhaps surprisingly, does not resort to its theses on decomposition to explain the events, but the topic comes up several times amongst comments regarding the ICT statement on the ICC website. Essentially positive comments are made regarding the ICT perspective but we are unable to give an accurate interpretation because we do not accept that the current state of capitalism has become something new, the epoch of decomposition.

I post this in the hope that it may serve to shed some light on the different perspectives thae two organisations have regarding class consciousness and the capitalist crisis.

I would also invite comments regarding the validity of the theory that we are now facing a terminal crisis of capitalism, that there is no way out for capitalism. Although this may well prove to be the case, I ask whether this is a Marxist concept, or one which is only (possibly) valid because of the relatively recent advent of nuclear weapons. Related to the question is the inevitability of communist revolution or destruction of humanity, or is there in fact a possibility of yet another round of accumulation following a harsh period of crisis which, however painful, does allow capitalism to continue, and so on indefinitely, echoing Lenin's words that there was no objective situation that capitalism could not overcome (very rough quote there!).

Forum: 

Agree with much of what you write - that an understanding that capitalism, as it slides into increasingly acute crisis, impacts on all social relations: political, productive, domestic, intellectual, psychological ……, doesn’t need to dress up that understanding as a ‘key theory’ as does the ICC. Agree too that their notion of ‘subterranean maturation of consciousness’ raises more questions than it answers, as does their notion that an undefeated working class is halting the movement towards war. (I reckon it should be possible to debate the notion of an ‘undefeated’ class without positing that it is therefore ‘defeated’.) But the ICT's characterising them as ‘idealist’ falls into the same trap as their theory of ‘decomposition’, polarising debate and laying down formulistic divisions to delineate one organisation from the other. As an outsider, the ICT’s and the ICC’s statements on the riots are essentially interchangeable (and both good). Your proposal of a debate around the question of whether the present crisis is terminal is welcome – it would be good if the members of both organisations could enter such debate without feeling the need to constantly defend their own scripture. I found a couple of comments on the ICC’s forum ‘riot’ thread saying that the writers felt the need to await the formal organisation statement on the riots rather sad.

It would be good, too, if debate could avoid bad faith – when I tried to query with the ICC what I see as a superstructural theory (decomposition) it was suggested that I was anti-theory (!) and showing a ‘modernist hostility to organisation’.

I think the ICC is trying to cover its fundamental problems regarding class consciousness, and the crisis. Neither the 'dawn' of 68 nor the years of truth seem to have materialised,instead what we have is more or less a class war determined by the ruling class who have sucessfully pushed through their agenda, and a working class which has very little sense of its own history, the fact that it is a class, the enormity of the crisis etc.

One comment I read on the SOLFED website about the rioters struck a chord. These people are like a bull in a ring, tortured and maddened. They attack indiscriminately. To a certain extent the working class has been reduced to this subhuman level, threats and fear on all sides.

The result is not a blossoming of consciousness but a survivalist racism/nationalism/conservatism. Such an outlook serves them well at work in a situation where maintaining a job is far from assured.

However I suggest that such a mentality is only going to survive so long and that the more extreme crisi conditions will crack it.

If the old left reformist unionist type mentality has died a death with the onset of crisis, so will the surviavalist reactionary outlook as the crisis deepens and the result of working class collaboration becomes ever more manifest in unemployment, poverty etc.

The deepening of crisis and the resulting pauperisation of the class will be the material basis for struggle and generalistion of communist consciousness via the advanced vanguard.

The rejection of the ICC's perspective is not a hopeless rejection of the capacity of the working class to become the class of revolution. It is a recognition of the fact that the capitalist crisis is not a sudden overnight ''saturation'' of markets but a more drawnout affair which is far from its peak even now, and desapite mounting signs of proletarian suffering, the situation is still not the scene for a life or death revolutionary struggle as the ruling class has managed the crisis up to this point without utterly ruining the working class.

However, the indications are that proletarian conditions are taking a sustained battering with no relief in sight, so the relatively low class response could rapidly become one of massive resistance with all the opportunities that would present for the revolutionary movement.

Shug I already posted on the ICC site that we were glad to see that they had not simply dismissed the riots as due to decomposition and chaos but had attempted a materialist analysis of what was really going on. Sadly the ICC supporters (not members as far as I know) then started criticising us for not accepting their theory of decomposition! It is the ICC's refusal often to start from what is really going on which gives rise to our characterisation of them as idealist. They have a problem in that they start from the premise that 1968 was the "end of the counter-revolution". Something we came to reject. The counter-revolution still rules. As you point out this does not necessarily mean that the working class is defeated (but we have retreated so far in the last 40 years a revival is going to require a massive shift) because the "course of history" is never as predictable as the original ICC theses made out. Today there are signs that in the British section of the ICC reality is beginning to intrude. Unfortunately not in the French. I thought Steven posed the question well in his last post.

Perhaps it would have been better to open up a second topic, but I think the two are related, on the ICC perspective on the historic course.

Firstly, I would say that anyone in this movement who has ruled out the cuirrent crisis leading to revolution is mistaken and objectively are most useful to the ruling class. Marxism is not simply disinterested science, it is actively on the side of proletarian revolution and rejects the concept of class neutrality.

However neither does this mean that we tint our glasses with the finest rose hues and substitute our dreams for reality. The fact is that the working class, not only the most nihilistic lumpenised elements, does not constitute a revolutionary force at the present and is not gradually becoming more and more revolutionary, there is no great evidence that the ''muck of ages'' firmly cemented in the collecective proletarian outlook has been washed away by a gleaming torrent of class consciousness, even if that may be the case for the ICT/ICC elements who, thank God (if only poetically speaking), prove that such consciousness is possible and sustainable. In fact it is the bedrock of our perspective that the working class is able to acheive such revolutionary consciousness in the main, that the party we aspire to construct is one of the fraction of the class that arrives at such consciousness earlier than the bulk, and we do not consider that class consciousness is solely the realm of the phd student or the fallen bourgeoisie elements.

However, the potential for generalised class consciousness coincides with the development of sharp class struggle. so far we have not seen such development, even if capitalism constantly provokes a certain level of significant struggle, and the current moment does seem to be more promising in this regard than the previous 20 years or so.

What we do have is a mounting crisis, a crisis which has to be understood as progressive, deepening, intensifying, rather than a fairly rapid 'on/off' switch. The crisis forces the capitalist class to erode proletarian conditions and this in turn provides the material incentive for proletarian struggle in which the advanced class conscious vanguard can intervene and extend its grip on the class.

The crisis is also the motivating force for ever more reckless capitalist adventures, military escapades that contain the seeds of a much wider conflagration. However, as the ICC in all probability correctly point out, and which no doubt the ruling class are also taking into account, the gamble of pursuing a reckless military policy with its possible result of another imperialist world war, is scarcely attractive when there would be no victors apart from cockroaches. Still, it would be a bluff for us to categorically discount the current crisis leading to its historic outcome of generalised imperialised conflict and the recent rash of military adventures clearly demonstrate that the ruling class is confident enough in its domination of society to pursue the military option.

So, I think the following is a good summary, and others can correct me if they think I am wrong.

We have a crisis which can only intensify which can only be rolled back by massive destruction of capital and population.

We have a working class which has largely been unable to rise to the challenge of the crisis, unable to acheive the necessary anti-capitalist consciousness via its everyday experience.

We have a series of wars that demonstrate the willingness of the bourgeoisie to use the military option.

So what is the historic course?

Well, as mentioned several times in the ICC article on the subject, the path remains open for a capitalist and a working class finale. War or Revolution.

But let us for a moment put away our scientific white lab coat and put on our Marxist beard and shamelessly opt for the proletarian outcome. Because in the final analysis, there is no historic course, we have to choose it. We can choose to wallow in pessimism and start stockpiling baked beans in the hope that we will survive WW3 a little longer than the neighbours who didn't see it coming, or we can contribute to the revolutionary movement. The subjective factor determines the outcome of this conundrum, simply identifying the causes of crisis, the history of the working class etc will not give any Marxist the power to predict the future.

What we can say is what do you want, what are you going to do about it?

I came to communist left politics initially through reading ICC literature and for a while I thought decomposition did answer an important question of why the working class has still not launched a revolutionary offensive against the capitalist state. However the more I thought about decomposition as an explanation the more I came to see it as essentially an incredibly pessimistic view of working class struggle. After all if the working class is caught up in the general social disintergration of social bonds then working class revolution is of the agenda not only in the short term but also for the long term.

For the working class to fully develop a class consciousness and a class identity then as Stevein implies this will require an organisational reponse to the continuing bourgeoise ideological campaign of not only saying that we are in this together but also their argument that there is no alternative to capitalism. This does require an organisational response which can begin to generate a class response to the inertia that exists at the present time. To see that the working class is the objective force of history is not to take either a fatalistic or a deterministic stance rather it requires an intervention within the class.

We see each day workers taking action to defend some aspect of their work and they come together collectively. If decomposition diid exist then even this action would be impossible. Also to see 500,000 workers out on the streets during the March 26 demo indicates that decomposition does not hold up. The problem is not decomposition but the influence that reformism has over workers. I don't think that it has ruun its course, it may have been weakened but it still packs a powerful sedative. Its our task to help to wake workers from the sedative of reformism.

I am very grateful to Dave for pointing out that he found the idea of decomposition "an incredibly pessimistic view of working class struggle" because that was exactly my response and it makes me feel sick. The bourgeoisie and its economic system are clearly in a big mess, and they don't know what to do about it. Probably there's nothing they can do about it. To say that they and their system are rotting, or decomposing, is descriptive and satisfying. To lump us all in this state together in a sort of inescapable quicksand, is for me tantamount to writing off the revolution for ever. This is a ghastly almost traitorous thing to do, and it makes me feel horribly sick.

But something did happen in 1968, and if it wasn't the start of the counter-revolution, then what was it? For me is was the start of a totally new feeling about the world, and the advent of new realizations ie that Russia wasn't communist. The whole social atmosphere changed from the miserable deadly way it had been during the late forties and the fifties. This is all subjective stuff, but Steve has told us that's all right. So coming across the ICC saying that 68 was the end of the counter-revolution made a lot of sense. So now I find the ICT's idea that we're still in the counter-revolution difficult to understand. I also find it difficult to go along with the idea put forward elsewhere on this site - I think- that workers councils might suddenly materialize the day after tomorrow, so to speak. Confusions abound. Still, as Rosa said, the day before the revolution it appears impossible, the day after it seems inevitable. And she should know!

''The problem is not decomposition but the influence that reformism has over workers. I don’t think that it has run its course, it may have been weakened but it still packs a powerful sedative. Its our task to help to wake workers from the sedative of reformism.''

I agree. Not only reformism. Nationalism, racism capitalism, religion. Its all there as heavy as a lead ball chained to the collective class. And the crisis will intensify.

Lets all stop being petit-bourgeioise immediatists and have a bit of depth, a bit of historical vision.

Sometimes I think revolutionaries have trouble relating to the backwardness so prevalent out there.

Since 1968, its pretty obvious that he bourgeosie retain the upperhand, but.....so what.

Revolutions are incendiary, they don't gradually happen, perhaps what gradually happens is the build up of anti-working class pressure, forcing our apparently docile class to defend itself.Revolution can be an explosive affair, a steep learning curve.

1968 was a failed revolutionary process, it did not develop and like, say the Russian revolution, could only give way to counter revolution.

All or nothing, but nothing to cry about, the working class has to take a beating before it administers one.

Greetings All.....

And hello Kinglear somewhere different .

I am A.S and put 'none' in the drop down box despite the fact that I intermittently for 10 years or so was a sympathiser with the ICC but I wasn't an Anarchist previously but someone whose world view was 'stood on its head' 42 years ago by Marx's Materialist View of History : that choice wasn't on the menu or else I missed something :@}

I arrive because I found myself quite rightly 'corrected' in the ICC's forum by a member of ICT after a reasonably appalling post I put up about decomposition and materialism in which I quoted the ICT 'second -hand' out of context ....and I thought ...hold on ..I know my Marx , I have certainly been enlightened to some extent by the ICC mainly in the period from the miners' strike in the seventies , to 'Perestroika' ( and fallen out with them more times than I care to remember ) but here I am dishing out gratuitous facetiousness against the ICT almost without thinking or solid foundation.

Had I become one of the 'parrots' mentioned elsewhere ? :@}

I started reading your articles last night both for fresh insight and to get my own clarity on the fundamental differences mentioned passim .

So especially at this time when at least some attempt is being made to communicate without compromising positions ( mine are hopefully still Marxist ) I thought I would add my flawed human nature to this forum .

I won't say too much yet ( which will be a first ) except to apologize to Kinglear if my directions to the 'decomposition' articles made him nauseous : there is clarity there and the Riot Thread is actually going somewhere and it's not dogma : there's you me , Shrug and good ICC input ...and yet then ( I think a member ) someone started to speculate whether there wasn't yet another phase of 'decomposition' .... it is depressing isn't it K:L ? and what's more perhaps an example of the criticism of 'purism' often levelled at the ICC : a subject which I have personally written to them about :

'....sitting on the riverbank waiting for the corpse of capitalism to float by ...' I read within minutes here : ha ! not a precise critique but I 'get' the metaphor .

Well I'll get the feel of the forum before I shoot my mouth off .

AS

Welcome AS. It might have been me who criticised you for repeating an erroneous criticism of us repeated by ICC sympathisers (on decadence) I would also take the oppportunity to apologise for my quip about your pen name in that comment. The full view we have on decadence is on here under "The Meaning of Decadence". Re "decomposition" we have no objection to the description of certain features of capitalist society but for the ICC it has a much bigger meaning and goes all the way back to their foundation. The ICC was predicated on the premise that the counter-revolution was over (c. 1968) and that the "course of history" was towards revolution. They have elaborated several theoretical particularities on the basis of this (such as the machiavellianism of the bourgeoisie, the left in opposition, years of truth etc). These were all to explain either how the working class was still on course for revolution or why it was not more revolutionary (bourgeois mystifications are too powerful). When the USSR collapsed (and not due to proletarian revolution) the notion that the counter-revolutionwas over was harder to sustain. Hence they proclaimed a draw - the class struggle had resulted in paralysis and only decomposition and chaos would follow. There are material elements in the development of capitalism that give superficial support for the idea that decomposition of society is taking place but why go down this road in the first place? For us the counter-revolution is not over and the crisis is making the lives of workers all over the world more miserable by the decade (4 of them now). The task for us remains to rebuild the revolutionary internationalist party of the proletariat. This can't be done by asserting the uniqueness of your group's contribution nor can it be done outside the beginnings of wider real movement of the class. I think some ICCers might agree to this but they are locked into the resolutions that they have voted in the past. Anyway welcome to the discussion here. Jock

I think the approach to discussion on this thread is very welcome. All the posts seem motivated by a will to understand and to discuss the real questions rather than just score points. Perhaps this reflects some underlying developments:- an actual tendency for the ICC and the ICT to come to similar conclusions even if they begin from different premises. Their statements on the riots being a case in point. What struck some of our sympathisers was not so much that the CWO article didn’t adopt the notion of decomposition, but that it succinctly laid out the negative consequences of the process which we term ‘decomposition’ but which can certainly be called something else. As Jock wrote in our thread on the riots: “After 40 years of capitalist stagnation it is not surprising that social disintegration is taking place” . But this is precisely one of the key elements in what we call decomposition: the long drawn out nature of the crisis brings with it the real danger of an increasing social disintegration which works against the proletariat and its capacity to constitute itself as a class. For us this was very clearly illustrated by the riots and it was not necessary to outline our whole theory of the current phase of capitalism in order to get the point across.- A healthy pressure on both organisations, coming from the actual development of the revolutionary milieu and a modest but significant growth in interest in the ideas of the communist left, to raise the level of the debate and to honestly confront their differences.Both developments positive signs that the perspectives we face are not entirely negative….I don’t want this to be a long post but if the discussion is to move forward, it will be necessary to correct some misconceptions. This one in particular from the original post:“The ICC has published materials claiming that there is already a generalised anti-capitalist class consciousness”.I don’t know what materials are being referred to here but it is certainly not the case that we claim that there is already a generalised anti-capitalist consciousness. If this was the case we would be close to the revolution. Certainly we take very seriously the task of analysing the real advances (and retreats) in class consciousness that have taken place over a whole period (since 1968 in particular) but we also are only too aware that the response of the working class is well below the level of the attacks raining down upon it and that the process of social disintegration carries with it the danger of a growing incapacity of the proletariat to respond on its own terrain, of being drawn into dead-end reactions of the kind we saw in the UK and which have taken a far more sinister turn in Libya, given the extreme weakness of the working class there and the direct involvement of the imperialist powers.

Hi Alf,

Re "com[ing] to similar conclusions even if they begin from different premises": I am not sure how important a point this is really. Since what you are pointing to are features of the contemporary reality, which you interpret as prove of "decomposition" and the ICT view as features of capitalist society in the downward phase of its accumulation cycle. I don't think those of us who reject the theory of "decomposition and chaos" deny the features it is meant to explain. Rather the rejection is based on a broadder opposition to the web of theoretical innovations that the ICC has come up with - parasitism (?), decomposition, machievilianism of the bourgeoisie etc etc etc.

I have not re-read the whole thread before typing this message. So I'm not sure what the quote on the ICC and a generalised anti-capitalist consciousness is referring to specifically. But I would guess it is probably to do with the ICC's notion of "social revolts" and disagreement over the extent of the class content in the revolts in the Middle East and North Africa.

Just to add: my first paragraph did not come off the way it was intended. The differences in the ICT and ICC statements and particuliarly tthe explanation of contemporary reality is inevitable given the respective politcal frameworks. But yes the statements are quite similiar when you overlook the nuances implicit in them (i.e. decomposition in the ICC's statement).

However, I think the more important point should be that the organisations of the Communist Left should be able to co-operate practically. Contributing positively to the struggles that will inevitably arise in the period ahead.

I should add that I am not a member of the ICT, just a supporter/sympathiser.

The Principle Of 'Give and Take' :

( from Sylvia Pankhurst' s article in Worker's Dreadnought , 16th October 1920 ) :

although of course this was written on return from the Third International and the history we make has moved on , as context for this thread I feel that the principle still holds

" International action, like national action ,entails a certain amount of give and take . Extremists who believe their extreme stand to be justified may sometimes have to wait and be content to find themselves in a minority for a time . More moderate elements may have to swallow policies that are a little alarming to them .If this sort of compromise is carried too far , the party whether it be national or international , will lose coherence and definitiveness and become deprived of driving force .

On the other hand , without some reasonable give and take , we should each find ourselves in a party consisting of one member .( say....the IFIFICC ? ....apologies to Alf :@})

We of the Communist Party ( substitute any group you belong to : ED ) do not find ourselves in agreement with the Third International ( ibid : ED ) on every point .

Therefore we must ask ourselves :

1) Whether the points we disagree on are fundamental .

2) Whether these points of disagreement are minor questions of tactics , or major questions of principle .

3) Whether these points of disagreement will be so rigidly enforced as to hinder us in revolutionary action ?

4) Whether these points of disagreement are likely to remain a permanent part of the policy of the Third International (.. one could surely substitute 'policy of any Revoultionary Group ? : ED ) or whether , owing due the fact that there is a growing tendency in the Third International (..again substitute 'Revolutionary Milieu ? : ED ) to reverse the policy with which we disagree, these points of difference may shortly disappear

Lenin's reply - and I run out of chapter and verse here 'cos I can't find the letter - was along the lines of : better the British Communists should make the lesser error of not agreeing if it helps them towards the greater good of building a strong International Revolutionary Party : ( he put it much better )

I am pretty sure I know the ICT/ICC 's answers to 1) and 2) and quite rightly perhaps .

I am hoping that answering 3) and 4) will not be so 'automatic' and provide food for thought .

Good points from all to which I will reply to later : no worries Jock I found your quip very funny :@}

And yes Steve , I will take off my white coat now : and put on my - surely Leninist -style beard ? - and ask myself as much as anyone :

What is to be done ?

AS

Steve says that the working class has to take a beating before it administers one. I can only agree. And at the moment the beating is getting a bit ugly, and reaching the point where it can no longer go unnoticed, even by those who don't want to have to look. Steve also points out that revolutions happen suddenly, not gradually. A good point. Rosa said the same. And Steve sees the pressure building up to the extent that even our "apparently docile class" will be forced to react. Yes, that's right. We are apparently docile. But only apparently so. We are a tolerant class, not a class of vicious, self -interested, murderous thieves, like our blood sucking exploiters. But even our patience will run out! Just give us time.

And hello to AS. I didn't recognize you at first, it must have been your white beard, or Leninist smock. You ask "what is to be done?" I would suggest: leave decomposition to the dead, and join the living struggle! And finally, Android's point about organizations of the communist left joining together in struggles and preparing for the great battles to come. He says these struggles will "inevitably arise". He has to be right, doesn't he?

Kinglear,

Just a quick reply to your point aimed at me. I do think it is inevitably that under the level of attacks the working-class is facing a response of some degree is inevitable. That does not say anything about the strength (it is you that is talking of "great battles") of the class response, that is still a very open question in my mind.

Agreed Steve that powerful revolutionary advance by the Working Class can be ( has been ) explosive , 'a steep learning curve ': class consciousness spreading like wildfire : it is visible in history or better - plain for all to see at those points where the oppressed are making history 'en masse'

Is it not also equally visible at such times - and I really am just asking in a spirit of co-operation not confrontation, that whatever theoretical platforms/'webs' have been most necessarily built /woven - with whatever best effort and intention , with whatever forensic accuracy or not , with whatever 'valiant ' adherence to this or that lineage are to a greater or lesser degree dwarfed though not proved invalid by the powerful force that 200,000 workers saying no and moving represents ?

As you so rightly point out we are but a tiny fraction .

Shrug formulates it well ( and also I feel in a non-confrontational way ) when he says : " ..the [idea of ] slow maturation of subterranean class consciousness raises more questions than it answers ..." Or to paraphrase - simplistically as is my wont but not too sloppily I hope - his statements re: decomposition : sure the slide into acute crisis has multiple impacts on all social relations : political , productive , domestic , intellectual , psychological : it is not 'untrue' - far from it . But he suggests that there is no need to treat each sector of this self-evident feature of Decadence as if it were 'key theory ' or to act as if it were similar to discovering a new sub-atomic particle ......sort of ..." ok you discovered another particle and ? ..

I hear that Shug .

I will add just one more point : Steve's last paragraph which - correct me if I am wrong - seems to echo something in Jock's first paragraph in 'Refining The Meaning....' .

Capitalism will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions : a Marxist concept ? well yes because he did say that : BUT we are not Bordigists so is there not a greater precept ? :

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established , an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself .We call communism the real movement ( motion and change : ED ) which abolishes the present state of things ....

So I think it is very much linked to this thread : Marx made mistakes , changed his mind ,predicted courses of immediate history which didn't turn out that way : so would he not be the first to 'develop the new concept' precisely because material conditions had changed ?

AS

I think Marx said quite a few things in order to accelerate the revolutionary process. If he had been a disinterested academic, perhaps he would have been more guarded. When confronted with statements like 'Marx got it wrong' I usually point to the facts of two world wars and say that he did predict revolution or common ruin and so far he has been right three times, including 1917 in the argument. Re the ICC comment on generalised anti-capitalist consciousness , I read it in their Latin American press and wrote to them on the matter, I think Cleisbotham (posting here) will remember. Great to read these debates. Negatives creep in, lack of seriousness etc, but overall there are some jewels and the style is often clear and direct, a good complement to the printed materials and fertile soil for ideas.

My posting as Lazarus on ICC forum.

en.internationalism.org:80

A precondition for debate is an effort to understand what the other person is saying, and an effort to put over one's own ideas clearly - neither of these are easy. So, the first problem I have is this: what exactly is it that people disagree with in the ICC's Theses on Decomposition? It would be very helpful if critical comments could actually quote from the texts instead of making rather vague and generally inaccurate assertions about ICC positions, that way we could get a clearer idea of what the points at issue really are. Reading through the comments on this thread, my impression is that comrades do not disagree with our description of the situation, but with the underlying explanation for why it exists, and in particular with the following ideas: a) that the period around 1914-17 opened up a new historical era - what we term "decadence"; but this is not an ICC invention, we are merely following the Communist International which described the new epoch as one of "wars and revolutions". Certainly this epoch has lasted longer than anyone expected, but I don't think anyone on this thread would dispute the fact that the era of "reforms" is over (indeed, every time you hear the word "reform" on the news, you know something bad is going to happen...) b) that the period following 1968 in France also opened up something new; one can debate about exactly what that something was, but surely these events did actually usher in a change in the life of capitalist society, both in terms of opening up a new economic crisis, and in terms of bringing new - revolutionary - ideas to the fore again; if we are materialists then we surely have to recognise that it is no accident that the present revolutionary groups, however tiny, are all essentially the fruit of that historical moment of class struggle; c) that it is the working class that prevented the bourgeoisie from unleashing imperialist war. I don't want to go into this at length (it would make this post too long), but just try a few "thought experiments". Could the USSR have relied on the Polish working class to fight a generalised war against the West in 1989? What would happen today if any European government (or the US come to that) tried to introduce generalised conscription, for military action abroad? Would the US working class today be prepared to accept the casualties of the Vietnam war (50,000 dead and injured)? Would the Chinese working class today (with literally tens of thousands of strikes and violent demonstrations against government action every year) be prepared to accept the casualties of the Korean War? Another problem I have is this idea that we are still "in the counter-revolution". This does not seem to me very clear. What exactly does Cleishbottam mean by "counter-revolution"? Surely the present period is different from the 1930s, which was very clearly a counter-revolutionary period? What will it take to get out of this "counter-revolution" and is it possible to say anything about whether or not we are headed in that direction? The first duty of revolutionaries is not to console the working class with the idea that "it'll be alright on the night", but to point out clearly where its responsibilities lie. The decomposition of capitalist society (whether you call it that or not) is an objective fact, and if you want to know what social decomposition really means, I can think of no better example than the state of Sinaloa in northern Mexico, where there have been somewhere in the region of 30,000 deaths over the last 4 years or so as a result of wars between the narcotraficantes and the army, and amongst the narco gangs themselves: here, the chances of working class resistance to capitalism, and certainly of any kind of public working class political activity are reduced to nil; here, we are reduced to a desperate situation of clandestinity. This situation is the result of certain material conditions, and perhaps the main point of what we are saying is that these material conditions are not going to get better as long as capitalism is standing. It is our responsibility to say to workers everywhere: Sinaloa is our future, unless YOUR struggle, YOUR solidarity, YOUR political vision, YOUR ability to create another future, gains the upper hand.

Precisely Steve : I was agreeing with you : perhaps I am not expressing myself clearly enough : must try harder ( I get the feeling you think I wasn't : or is that just a delusional figment of my Simpleton's mind ? :@} )

The fact that 'Marx got it wrong' ( occasionally : ED ) has never for a millibandsecond made me doubt the force of his Materialist View of History in practice as well as theory : proven in the instances you cite .

SO re : 'there is no way out for Capitalism' ( or is there )? ....it is a telling question and related very much to this thread - that's what I was trying to say .

Jock's paragraphs on 'Parasitic Appropriation' ( Refining The Meaning ...) ..'Speculative Capital' ( bets on bets on defaults on debts from bets on bets on defaults etc.) is relevant here .

You write :

" I would also invite comments regarding the validity of the theory that we are now facing a terminal crisis of capitalism, that there is no way out for capitalism. Although this may well prove to be the case, I ask whether this is a Marxist concept, or one which is only (possibly) valid because of the relatively recent advent of nuclear weapons. Related to the question is the inevitability of communist revolution or destruction of humanity, or is there in fact a possibility of yet another round of accumulation following a harsh period of crisis which, however painful, does allow capitalism to continue, and so on indefinitely, echoing Lenin’s words that there was no objective situation that capitalism could not overcome (very rough quote there!)."

Again I agree : a vital consideration : I will consider .

Off the top of my head : my comment would be :

I do not see in the world around me any practical proof that there is not :

"a possibility of yet another round of accumulation following a harsh period of crisis which, however painful, does allow capitalism to continue, and so on indefinitely ......"

Nor can I 'academically deduce it ' from anything .

Is that clearer ?

AS

P.S. for levity's sake : there is of course amongst musicians the ( probably apocryphal ) joke about the aristocrat at a party who was unaware of Beethoven's death a month prior :

" Is Ludwig still composing ?" he asked .

" No : decomposing " was the reply .

AS

One of my problems is the word 'decomposition' because it suggests a disintegration, a plurality, something like the post-modernist thinking where multiple 'realities' or perspectives co-exist. However I would tend more towards a more fascistic, more integrated, one way system, the greater dominance of the commodity ideology and the failure of the false contestation/reformist/left project. For me, we have a more totalitarian society. Or at least a different sort of totalitaranism largely without the fake left-right divide. The ICC and its conception of the crisis and its conception of some sort of generalised post 68 proletarian power expected the revolution and when it has not materialised has had to create a special theory that the two classes locked in combat have created a stalemate where everything is falling into chaos. The reality is that the working class is as yet only a potential threat and the ruling class are firmly in the driving seat. Massive generalisation of class consciousness has not been the legacy of 68, it requires the class party and a revolutionary process.

And to expand a bit on Steve's last sentence "Massive generalisation of class consciousness has not been the legacy of 68, it requires the class party and a revolutionary process."

It would be significant demonstration of the revival of class struggle if there was the prospect of the revolutionary process within the class manifesting itself in more organisational forms i.e bigger revolutionary minorities, more class wide initiatives [such as strike committees, mass meetings or assemblies]. Since the speculative bubble burst we have had small echoes of these but they are small in comparison with the scale of the crisis we face.

Just to clarify some points. AS keeps referring to the ICT text on the decadence as "Jock's text". In fact I gave the wrong title. I was referring to the text in IC23 "Refining the Concept of Decadence". This was not even drafted by me but was the most collective, most extensively discussed text in the history of the ICT (or IBRP as it was then). In fact I can safely say it was the only text which was discussed in detail for months before it was finally produced.

This leads me to consider another point by AS (if I understand him). After quoting Pankhurst on what you would have to abandon to unite he asks what would be our response to this situation. I think we take our view from the Italian Abstentionist Socialists who in forming the Communist Party of Italy, Section of the Third International had to abandon abstentionism. As abstentionism was a tactic and not a principle (something the KAPD could not quite get their heads round) then it was acceptable to join the Communist International and abandon the tactic. What AS seems to be saying is what are real principled positions and what are mere shibboleths or immediatist responses by one group or another to specific situations? I don't think we have any shibboleths or special positions since we do not pass resolutions binding members to this or that "line". Our members write what they like as long as it conforms with the Platform. The Platform of the ICT, not the most poetic of documents, is a very minimum statement aimed at uniting and not separating for the maximum possible cooperation. It is also not a graven tablet but allows for its amendment by new elements produced by the future development of the working class.

Finally Lonelondoner asks what counter-revolution means to me. Well I think the continuing idea that communism died in the USSR still hangs over us. The fragmentation and dispersal of the class through the process of restructuring of industry in the main capitalist countries has reduced the working class capacity to fight back and the continuing refrain that there is no alternative to capitalism are all evidence that the class still has not reversed the heavy defeat of the 1920s. 1968 was the harbinger of the end of the cycle of accumulation (not the opening of the road to revolution as the ICC clearly believed and the CWO agreed with for 18 months) and the years that followed were characterised by workers in corporatist ways attempting to keep up with the inflation induced by the deficit financing which was supposed to sustain the economy. We called it "money militancy". In Britain that meant very militant struggles but without questioning the nature of wage labour under capitalism. That is still largely the situation in the wider working class. How long it can continue when the propect is a decade of stagnation and decline in working class living standards is of course the key question.

Cleisbotham says

This leads me to consider another point by AS (if I understand him). After quoting Pankhurst on what you would have to abandon to unite he asks what would be our response to this situation. I think we take our view from the Italian Abstentionist Socialists who in forming the Communist Party of Italy, Section of the Third International had to abandon abstentionism. As abstentionism was a tactic and not a principle (something the KAPD could not quite get their heads round) then it was acceptable to join the Communist International and abandon the tactic. What AS seems to be saying is what are real principled positions and what are mere shibboleths or immediatist responses by one group or another to specific situations? I don’t think we have any shibboleths or special positions since we do not pass resolutions binding members to this or that “line”. Our members write what they like as long as it conforms with the Platform. The Platform of the ICT, not the most poetic of documents, is a very minimum statement aimed at uniting and not separating for the maximum possible cooperation. It is also not a graven tablet but allows for its amendment by new elements produced by the future development of the working class.

I think the only point we have to insist on is the power of the Worker's Councils (and even that exact term is debatable) and a formal organisation of revolutionaries on a world scale.

All other nuances of analysis, disagreements etc can be tolerated.

The term Party/Revolutionary Organisation does not seem to me to be of paramount importance. If our interests are best served by a term such as "worker's International" or any combination of words like Revolutionary/Communist/Internationalist/Organisation rather than the word Party, then I do not think this is of major importance.

What strikes me as important is the set of conditions for adherence to the Organisation. Not that it is formally called a party.

The other aspect I would like to consider is what exactly are the minimal conditions when the Party/Organisation is declared viable. It seems to me that Damen was arguing that there were no minimal requirements. there should always be a Party (slipped back to the one term). I also seem to think that the concept of Fraction is not one which means that the minimal conditions for a Party do not exist, but that there is a hope of conquering a larger pre-existing organisation.

Apologies in advance if this comes across as ignorance.

Now this is constructive :

Thank you Cb for picking out the'essence' of what my point in posting Pankhurst's 4 Criteria for decision making - and I'm not suggesting they are the only ones - in The Organisation/Party/Internationalist/Communist was : and to Stevein7 for taking it further.

Yes you do understand me correctly : what you write above grasps the difference between 'temporary tactic' , principle , likelihood of advance making the disagreement largely irrelevant et al .

You write :

"I think the only point we have to insist on is the power of the Worker’s Councils (and even that exact term is debatable) and a formal organisation of revolutionaries on a world scale.

All other nuances of analysis, disagreements etc can be tolerated."

A refreshing statement in my simple mind .

SO : the - for me - key question she asks is No. 3 :

"*whether these disagreements will be *so rigidly enforced as to hinder us in revolutionary action ?"

Well never mind the 'rigid enforcement' : disagreement - to an outsider/newcomer/sympathiser/marxist equivalent of a 'floating voter'/ on the face of it seems to constitute a significant part of Revolutionary output : it can be constructive or destructive .

I am not such a Simpleton that I don't understand how vital detail can be : but it can be the devil or clarity .

So in a spirit of co-operation ( with a tinge of confrontation) I ask an open question to my 'old school -teachers' The ICC :

What is there to object to in Cb/Stevein7's statements above ? And please don't go back to 1943 and present square miles of 'context' : it's 2011 and if I tried now to read all the necessary detail pertaining to the 'schism' so that I could fully understand and really appreciate the nuances and present chapter and verse critiques of this or that then I will be decomposing before I have finished ...

Apolgies if this sounds naive but to quote

cf steve ( not verified) above :

"Sometimes I think revolutionaries have trouble relating to the backwardness so prevalent out there.

AS

I know this is an old one, but at what point did the PCint stop regarding itself as the Party and become simply one more group in favour of the future party?

If I'm confused, many others must be.

For example when I read fairly recent articles like this

leftcom.org

I see no indication that the PCInt has renounced its claim to be what it says 'The Internationalist Communist Party''.

Would Damen accept that we are NOT the party?

Is it simply a numerical issue?

In terms of theory, I think we are the party. We won't find a better theoretical guide, others will learn from us.

The questions raised about the criteria for cooperation between the ICC and the ICT, and the meaning of the term party, are certainly important, but I think it would be better to start new threads about them, either here or on our own site. There are still a lot of questions regarding the concept of decomposition, so I hope that discussion will continue, and I will also try to come back to this soon.

Yes ....and ....No : reply to Alf :

" The questions raised about the criteria for co-operation between the ICC and the ICT, and the meaning of the term party, are certainly important, but I think it would be better to start new threads about them.... "

Yes : ....however ... in a sense this thread could never have lead anywhere else .

Having read , re-read , re-re-read , the ICT Thesis : Refining The Meaning of Decadence ( apologies C:b for my inept shorthand 'Jock's article' unintentionally for some - perhaps- implying a lack of depth and weight ) and other relevant articles , I find them thought provoking , thought changing indeed : especially the important exposition of economic analysis on which the deduction that centuries of ducking-and-diving bourgeois economic dominance could continue - even though increasingly desperate .

And might I point out Alf the word 'could' ? As C:b says above re: The ICT's inclusive stance : 'nothing is graven in stone ......'

Although this is probably just down to my 1844-ist predilection for theory rather than economics the economic basis for the ICT's stance ( in this drawn-out Decadence ) does not seem so prevalent in forefront ICC Theses .

I will do some homewrok and post a thread on the ICC's forum : after all why should a member/supporter/sympathiser of the ICT be bothered to start a new thread here in order to have to re-state for the umpteenth time what they have already stated ?

Equally there may well be ICT misunderstandings , born possibly out of a ' contempt bred from familiarity of the argument '

Leaving Decomposition and its '29 different phases' ( sorry is it 30 now ? ) aside : re : Machiavellianism for example :

The ICC article on it is quite true : but it does not 'shock' this old Marxist :since 1968 I never doubted the conspiratorial lengths that Oppressors go to : just anecdotally it seems quite obvious even to yer average London taxi driv

As Shug above points out : yes sure but why 'dress it up ' as 'key theory ' that differs from everyone else ?

Sorry to bang on about them but 'Pankhurst's Principles' will be relevant I think and the discussion can continue .

Key Theory or Shibboleth ? : Strong Party or 'spontaneous formation of workers' councils in well-determined circumstances'?

The latter being noticeable by its continuing absence

IN the light of Pankhurst's third principle : will the points of disagreement be so rigidly enforced as to himder revolutionary action ?

Well at the time of writing this Simpleton sees more 'intransigence' on one side and more inclusiveness ( without compromising class position ) on the other

AS

Having thought about it more, I think the word 'Party' is indispensable.

It denotes the highest level of political commitment and discipline.

It differentiates between looser concepts and the unitary revolutionary instrument required in the life or death phase.

However I think the ICC is advocating a Bordigist line regarding the possibility of declaring the party whereas the ICT is following the Damen perspective.

.......Decomposition....Yesterday I was in the gym and subjected to about an hour of vile racist, sexist "conversation'' as the big men mouthed off, presumably to impress their peers. Niggers/Pakis/terrorists/dick size/sexual prowess all rolled into a pile of stinking ignorance that seeme to provide great joy to the participants. Interestingly (?) the police were a major part of this performance.

I doubt that they were part of a formal BNP/EDL type group, but perhaps even this crap does inicate an elementary oppositional mentality. Certainly one which could be manipulated to the most reactionary ends, but perhaps one which could go another way if the advanced sector put up a fight.

Sadly i think the reality is that these people are the result of crisis and there are many of them, but equally thee are those who will feel revulsion at them and hopeflly a polarisation which may strengthen the vile reactionaries would also propel others in a diametically oposite direction.

All of this fueled by the collapse of a centre built on welfare etc.

The diagnosis seems to be little changed since Marx wote of revolution or common ruin. Time and time again the working class has been written off and up it gets.

AS Can I just point out that the following was Steve and not me I think the only point we have to insist on is the power of the Worker’s Councils (and even that exact term is debatable) and a formal organisation of revolutionaries on a world scale. _All other nuances of analysis, disagreements etc can be tolerated_ Steve tacked this comment on to the end of a quote from me which was not in italics so it is difficult to know who said what at first glance. He, I think, is arguing for the minimum basis of cooperation with other groups (something he has been doing on various sites). I had not gone that far and was arguing that the Platform (a broad document based on the heritage of the Communist Left) was our minimum basis for adhesion to the ICT but that the Platform was designed to be inclusive and I don't think it contains anything that smacks of particularism (but this is always open to debate). The Platform also contains something about the content of communism and not just its forms. Steve has been stressing the latter in his enthusiasm to get organisational cooperation in smashing capitalism because I think he takes it as read that we all understand that communism will be a stateless, classless, moneyless, community of freely associated producers where the law of value does not dominate. I think though that its content has to be continually discussed. Anyway your contribution is welcome. I am glad you reminded us of what Shug states on decomposition which is spot on. For us "decomposition" is a description of phenomenon which we can all identify within capitalism and we don't object to using the word. But for the ICC it has become an analytical tool which gives it a significance beyond the descriptive. It recalls for us the difference we have on economics where for them the phenomenon overproduction is also the law that explains it (and not the operation of the law of value including the tendential fall in the rate of profit). The adoption of the ideas of decomposition and chaos led to an unnecessary and bitter split in the ICC (the so called Internal Fraction) so now their very existence seems to be bound up in holding on to this "shibboleth" and this makes it difficult to discuss with them as I think you appreciate.

Yes I do appreciate the difficulty and am glad you mentioned 'unecessary' ( though I cannot judge that )

Once the clarity and therefore 'level' of the difference is defined with straightforward explanation ( avoiding the very kind of sloppy misquoting that brought me here in the first place ) : once these criteria have been honestly applied to the relative platforms - trying to avoid understandable bitterness as best as humanly possible viz:

1) Fundamental ?

2) Principle ? or 'transitory tactic' ( cf your reference to The Italian Abstentionist Socialists abandoning 'abstentionism'...for the greater good of unity : not the case here I'm sure )

Once the intransigence/rightful explanation as to why even a difference of principle needs to be 'so rigidly adhered to that it hinders revolutionary action' has been justified as necessary and so forth , then :

At least the matter is settled and no more energy needs to be devoted to it .

I can't quite put my finger on it but there is something in the quote below that resonates

From The German Ideology ( Chapter 1 : section 9 : 'Additional Criticism of Feuerbach's Idealistic Conception of History )

...."It is also clear from these arguments how grossly Feuerbach is deceiving himself , when by virtue of the qualification "common man" he declares himself a 'communist' transforms the latter into a predicate of "man" : he thereby thinks it possible to change the word 'communist ' into a mere category : in the real world it means the follower of a definite revolutionary party .................he wants to establish consciousness of this fact : i.e. like other theorists , merely to produce a correct consciousness about an existing fact : whereas for a real communist it is a case of overthrowing the existing state of things "

AS

" For us “decomposition” is a description of phenomenon which we can all identify within capitalism and we don’t object to using the word. But for the ICC it has become an analytical tool which gives it a significance beyond the descriptive. It recalls for us the difference we have on economics where for them the phenomenon overproduction is also the law that explains it (and not the operation of the law of value including the tendential fall in the rate of profit). The adoption of the ideas of decomposition and chaos led to an unnecessary and bitter split in the ICC (the so called Internal Fraction) so now their very existence seems to be bound up in holding on to this “shibboleth” and this makes it difficult to discuss with them as I think you appreciate".

For us too decomposition is the outer expression of something more fundamental, like the signs that a body is on the verge of death. I don't think the difference is there. Nor is the difference in the recognition that the economic crisis is such a fundamental, determining element, whatever our specific interpretation of Marx's crisis theory. The difference is in how the two major classes have reacted to this longest running overt economic crisis in capitalism's history. Interestingly enough, both the ICT and the ICC seem to be converging towards the view that we are indeed in the terminal phase of capitalism's decline (judging for example from an article in the current Revolutionary Perspectives: leftcom.org/en/articles/2011-08-01/the-crisis-is-terminal-the-“recovery”-is-an-illusion).

I don't think the Internal Fraction story is relevant here. Their disagreement with the notion of decomposition developed after they had left the ICC. It was not the cause of the split.

)

Alf notes that we are in "this longest running overt economic crisis in capitalism’s history."

Good. For us it is the crisis which is behind all the signs of decline of the system. The ICC though deny cycles of accumulation in the era of imperialism (for you the crisis is permanent since 1914 - the post World War One "Roaring twenties" did not happen for example). You cannot even admit that there was a boom after World War Two without hedging it with the idea that it would not have occurred but for the Marshall Plan.

And as usual the notion of decomposition is a cover for the failure of your previous over-optimistic perspectives re "the course of history" (although the latest theses from your XIXth Congress recognises that 1968 and after was the beginning of the crisis and not as you have previously suggested "the end of the counter-revolution" but this change is not acknowledged). Hence why we regard your current pleading on this as only relevant for yourselves to sort yourselves out. It is a bit like a blind man, sight restored, telling a sighted person that the sky is blue. The sky remains as it always has - your perceptions are what has changed.

Surely none of us can be more than partially sighted ? : is it not a premise of dialectics ?

No polemic , attack or defense intended : ( and I realise C:b you are using a metaphor )

Now although I have been a -now more fervent , now less so - Marxist since 1971 I do have some 'catch up' to do with any group's platform and further refinement/clarification since 1994 : that's the context .And excuse the length of this post but especially in this case , it is most important not to quote out of context ( the foot in mouth activity that brought me to this forum in the first place )

However - perhaps even to my surprise - I find that my analytical toolbox of Marx's Materialist view of history , and its use - or lack thereof - has nonetheless not blunted the tools inside , including the 'criticism of weapons ' tool over the years .

I will take 1 example :(although there are others from the opposite point of view)

Before I knew who Lazarus was on the ICC forum ( although - even as A Simpleton - I guessed he was probably not an ICCer ) he posted a short clear paragraph , picking up on the last sentence of a post which ' [found] the ICC's position a little overoptimistic '

Lazarus replies :

"...I imagine you would also find the ICT overoptimisic too.

_Anyway, there is always a future possibility of revolution while humanity survives.

We dialecticians know development occurs explosively, unexpectedly.

We think a long drawn out crisis could be the exact recipe for forming the party and

revolution.

The working class retains all its potential._

L'audace, l'audace, et toujours l'audace."

then I replied ( under the title : The Fuse and The Dynamite )

" Lazarus' contribution says more in a few words than certainly I have in too many ..."

MY post was ' over -taken' by 40 minutes or so by the one line attack beneath in which the anger was scarcely concealed ( I now deduce by an ICCer)

it read :

"...So in addition to being "idealist," is decomposition also non-dialectical? " ( finito: ED)...er...excuse me ? I took issue with this because : a) Lazarus did not seem to me to be saying 'Simpleton !! you're are not a dialectian !' nor was there any mention of 'idealism' polemically aimed at anyone .The post in other words was addressed to an invisible 'subtext' leaving the rest of us out of it . To be fair , and apology was posted but only on the basis that ' sorry I thought it was an ICTer' ( hmmmmmm... ) *On the other hand the repetitions that '1968 was the end of the counter-revolution' ( allegedly an ICC 'theory') baffles me : I sat at meetings read the press and if I had gained the impression that this statement was being laid down as 'law' I would have shouted dissent at the time and pointed out that revolution/ counter-revolution are the way the advance /retreat , flux /reflux/ of the Class war : new vistas may be ushered in with differing characteristics but : IT is an illogical claim : all dialectical, materislist , Marxists well know that EVEN when The Working Class have 're-appropriate the streets , the media :i.e the revolution has 'exploded ' the counter-revolutionary forces don't just go away : and defy anyone to claim that the ICC have , are , or will ever say that . Thanks for bearing with this long post Am I making any sense to anyone out there ? ( I won't be offended by the answer 'NO' bu the way AS

AS

"Forbid me the use of a metaphor and I could not speak at all" (Karl Marx apparently). However Marx did not comment on the quality of some metaphors in political discourse and quite frankly some are dire. Mine is just plain mediocre and shows the dangers of posting a comment when you are ready for sleep. The point I was trying to make is that Alf is trying to draw us into a debate which only has meaning in the context of the long history of the ICC's perspectives based on "the course of history". We have commented on these elsewhere. It is for us a pointless discussion since they are defending an entrenched position. Entrenched by virtue of their having passed a resolution on it which we assume is binding on all members. I am surprised that you have not come across the "1968 was the end of the counter-revolution" thesis. It was almost a mantra of the early years of the ICC and I have not read that they have abandoned it (which is why they need decomposition and chaos to explain the fact that the working class has largely gone backwards over the last 40 years). The CWO even believed if for a short while too (until we developed a more materialist analysis) but admitting you have changed your views is not a sign of weakness in my view.

Where we may have some point of contact is agreement on the seriousness of this crisis. But we think this only underlines the classical Marxist position that war or revolution will be the ultimate outcomes. We think the bourgeoisie have taken speculation as far as they can. They have used up all their options of restructuring, deficit financing and straightforward mortgaging of the future in historic levels of debt etc etc. Their pundits have nothing to say (Nouriel Roubini this week condemned the cuts but also said that Keynesian would not work (since you can't pile debt on debt) - he sounded knowledgeable but ultimately said nothing) Ditto almost any economic "expert" they trot out before us. We may be wrong on this (there is always a factor that seems to arise that we have not foreseen or discounted) but the betting is that massive exploitation will not work. It will exacerbate class and international tensions (already there is a form of competititve devalution going on, cf the Swiss national bank this week setting a ceiling on how its franc would rise [another forlorn hope]). Either we then impose our solution [assuming class resistance matures with the increasing attacks] or they carry on taking us down the road to barbarism with the ultimate means of devaluing capital (theoretically posed as one real outcome in a Financial Times review of the last report on the world economy by the Bank for International Settlements) - global war. We are rolling up our sleeves for option A ...

I like my bullet points and dislike windbags....

Historical course-It could go either way, socialism or barbarism.

Decomposition - The crisis is ever more intense.

Seems to me a lot of ink could have been saved.

  • Fair point
  • Good summation
  • I posted elsewhere : "...a reminder to land my theoretical hot-air balloon ..."
  • Feel free to dislike me
  • Logic dictates that this thread has therefore reached its natural end
  • Everyone agreed ?

AS

^ We love you.

Feel the virtual hug!

A.S said:

"The latter (workers' councils) being noticeable by its continuing absence"

Well we certainly haven't had The Revolution yet, but coucils have sprung up in times of struggle the latest I know of was prior to the Krygstan (sp.) bourgeois faction fight and horrible killings that took place.

I'm also reminded of the councils during the struggles in Kurdish regions in 1991, might have been in Iraqi Kurdistan?

Councils seemingly always pop up, what about Hungary in 1956?

I would have thought possibly square demonstrations and so on of recent times could be a precursor to a re-emergence of workers' councils?

Have there been councils in Egypt and in related countries?

I don't know if I'm correct but I seem to remember reading of the emergence of what could have been workers councils during the early stages of the Tunisian uprising. I think that they were organisations which had links with each town annd attempted to take over the administration of certain regions. Unfortunately I can't remember which areas of Tunisia were affected.

Welcome Information : yes I did say 'noticeable by its continuing absence' ..... ( until now perhaps ? )

To be fair this was a more general comment within my 'Simplisticist' question cf :

" Key Theory or Shibboleth ? Strong Party or 'spontaneous formation of Worker's Councils ...? " ...perhaps a false divide ....

It doesn't say ' noticeable by its obvious impossibility ..'

If this ( latter ) process is happening/did happen ( however briefly ) in any of the recent ,large scale and successive social revolts which woke me up then :

It is heartening , encouraging news :

Does it not - equally encouragingly - confirm , whatever one's tendency :

"The Working Class still has its full potential" [C:b aka Lazarus : other forum]

"The underground maturation of Class Consciousness"[my understanding of ICC stance]

"Time & time again the working class has been written off and up it gets"[steve:here]

AS

{Health Warning : there is a serious threat of Milieu agreement : everyone is advised to run and hide}

You're quite right A.S you did not say impossible. They have appeared too infrequently and for too little time perhaps but are a reoccurring theme.

On Kyrgyzstan:

"As reported on the website Fergana.ru, on March 31, leaders of the Central Executive Committee of the United People's Movement of Kyrgyzstan - the opposition to the current government - held a press conference at which they announced that on 7 April all over the country there would be regional kurultais to “convey to the people the demands of the opposition and the kurultai of March 17.”

"According to one report, "The whole country is in turmoil. Meanwhile, mass kurultais have begun to appear. They are headed by representatives of opposition parties. They are being held in the city of Naryn, in Sukuluke, located near Bishkek and in Osh region.”

From here:

marxist.com

There is more on the Kyrgyzstan councils here:

marxist.com

The 1991 Kurdish councils I refer to I read about here:

libcom.org

Sadly there are no follow-up articles on Kyrgyzstan. It would have been useful to reflect on events as a whole and in particular what the roots and causes of the terror which followed (I have just emailed them about this). If I remember rightly an election took place shortly after all this. In a way I kind of see it as disciplining the working class, prior to the voting in bourgeois elections - a return to normality, be thankful for bourgeois rule kind of thing.

Maybe a word on the idea 'defeated/undefeated'. Again, perspective can vary. I don't use the terms, but I think ICT/ICC have. As far as I can see, post WW2, proletarian revolution has not been seriously put in practice This is the basis for 'defeated' It also concides with a very strong boom and a long, deep crisis. This was punctuated by the 1968 revolt, strong in France, which the ICC took as marking a permanent upswing which would culminate in revolution. Hence, undefeated. I propose that both terms are non-dialectical analysis. Like the historical course, there is a balance of forces. Largely unconscous, lacking a class party, but still a giant that crisis threatens to wake, the working class may not actually be much of a player on the political stage, but that is by no means eternally assured. Looking at the way the crisis is mounting, the time scale could take us by surprise. Dialectics, neither one nor the other.

I have from time to time thought that I knew what "dialectics" is (are). But to be truthful I haven't got a clue. AS is very confident that he's a dialectician, and he says:"Surely none of us can be more than partially sighted ? : is it not a premise of dialectics ?"

This leaves me quite mystified. Steve says, in the context of defeated/undefeated: "Dialectics, neither one nor the other." Neither one nor the other, I can understand. But where do dialectics come in? Could somebody explain this for me in clear and simple terms? .

Perhaps an arm wrestling match illustrates the concept.

Opposing forces produce the constant movement.

Every aspect of reality is driven by these inner contradictions.

Dialectical materialism is our perspective, we need to emphasise and explain this.

{Just rather clumsily stretching the 'eyesight to the blind' metaphor in the previous post- partially sighted in that context simply meaning can't predict the outcome } forget it .

Opposing forces .... constant movement : yup can't say it better .

One arm pushes : the other pushes back : a new 'moment' in the wrestle is reached .

Before that moment is even over : next push , next push back : next new moment .

Thesis , Antithesis , Synthesis : Hegel's scheme : the dialectic ..but

"No ! arm-wrestling in the real material world " said Marx

He starts this end : no more 'abstract philosophy' 'pure thought' : 'history' somehow sitting outside the world like Newton's Divine Clock ticking time outside the universe .

Making the dialectic materialist ." Every aspect of reality driven..." in this way .

Spot on Steve

Very confident I am a 'dialectician ? .. makes it sound like a boast :@- : I'd put it differently : just very confident that Marxist method is the key .

AS

Thank you Steve and thank you A.Simpleton. Yes, thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and of course arm wrestling. I understand a bit better now.

Note to 'Lazarus' and Shug : my contribution on the ICC forum 'Drug Trafficking....;

See what you think : based on your economic analysis that ( to paraphrase -hopefully accurately ) the contradictions ( and in this case social rections to them ) in ascendancy are basically the same in decadence rendering decomposition 'theory' a red-herring embellishment .

...mixed metaphor : not as good as many of yours ...which I welcome by the way .

AS

I think we can use the word 'decomposition' or 'disintegration' , 'rot', 'decay', 'putrescence' and many other adjectives to describe capitalism's effect on society. Atomisation, 'separation perfected', isolation, etc were all used in the midst of post war boom to deal with the problem of alienation. You're right, this is not something new, something that EXCUSES THE ICC'S ERRORS.

Suicide, despair etc have been here a long time. Alienation is a constant under capitalism.

The crisis has been with us for decades. That certain negative social indicators have risen with it is no great revelation.

And so now I understand more clearly the validity - necessity even - of challenging some 'new key theory' which actually could ( although I don't believe that to be the ICC's intention ) in a way 'mystify' or at least draw attention away from the constant of alienation .

Bluntly put : mystify the blatancy and simple-to-see continuing constancy of oppression - especially as this 'Theory on Rot' has developed forensically differentiated 'Stages of Rot'

Consequently I more clearly understand the charge of 'idealism' levelled at them and your thoughts that such theoretical - in the sense of starting NOT from the 'arm-wrestling' end - forgets the A B C of Marxian dialectic . ( Un-dialectical , non-dialectical ? ....well proper greek would be a-dialectical : but then television should be 'teleops' or 'longevision' ...so sod that )

Irony of ironies : it was C:b's deservedly curt response to my unthinking defence of the 'Theses' that brought me to this forum .

Then I realised that I could think for myself .

......er.........'say it loud I'm simple and proud '? ha !

AS

The Marxist formerly known as 'Parrot'

I think things are a bit more complicated than this.

Let's just take the first one. "Historical course-It could go either way, socialism or barbarism." Well of course, in the long run - and since we base ourselves on the assumption that our path is not fixed irretrievably towards barbarism - that's true. But it doesn't tell us very much. I'll try to illustrate what I mean by analogy. Imagine you're sitting in front of the telly, watching the first match of the FA Cup season (sorry to any Yanks listening in). Its Chelsea v Arsenal and Chelsea are 5 goals down. The commentator comes on and says "Well, of course the FA Cup could go either way still". True... but not very interesting, and it doesn't tell you anything about the match in hand. And you wouldn't think much of a commentator who couldn't tell you whether Chelsea was 5 goals down, 5 goals up, or if the match was 0-0, would you? Nor if he told you, 5 minutes before the end of the match "Well, Chelsea are 6 goals down, but something incredible could still happen and they could pull through if only they changed the trainer" (apologies to Chelsea fans). Believe it or not, there is actually a serious point behind this. What would you think of a revolutionary organisation that can't even tell you whether the working class is defeated and the road is open to barbarism, or not? Hence my previous question - still unanswered, I believe: what exactly does the ICT mean by "counter-revolution"? I think we can all agree that the 1930s was a counter-revolutionary period: the working class was either utterly smashed, as in Germany or the USSR, or else rounded up in defence of democracy (Spain, Popular Front in France, etc), and the result was WWII. Does the ICT seriously mean to tell us that the situation was the SAME (ie a "counter-revolution") in 1970, after the biggest strike in history (10 million workers in France), and the struggles in Poland, and... and... (I could go on). And if the situation was different, then HOW was it different? Are there different "periods" in a counter-revolution? Clb's answer, that the 70s and 80s were marked merely by "money militancy" seems to me beside the point. If the working class is to recover its class identity and self-confidence, which are preconditions for a revolutionary consciousness, how do you suppose it is going to do this if not by the collective defence of its material interests, its living conditions, ie through "money militancy" (though more often "job militancy" these days, except in China perhaps)? And please, can we get away from this purely mythical idea that the theory of decomposition was invented by the ICC merely to avoid admitting our own mistakes? For those who've forgotten, the ICC said at the time the Berlin Wall came down that this meant the end not just of the Russian bloc but of the USSR itself, and that we were in for a bad time as far as the class struggle was concerned. Here, is what Battaglia was writing in December 1989:"Russian Perestroika involves an abandonment of the old policy towards the satellite countries, and has the objective of transforming the latter. The USSR must open up to western technologies, and COMECON must do the same, not - as certain people think - in a process of the disintegration of the east bloc and of the total disengagement of the USSR from the European countries, but in order to facilitate, through reviving the COMECON economies, the revival of the soviet economy." Bullet points... if only Powerpoint had been invented when Marx was alive, he could have written the whole of Capital in bullet points. Think how much ink would have been saved!

Steve's bullet points...

I think things are a bit more complicated than this.Let’s just take the first one. “Historical course-It could go either way, socialism or barbarism.” Well of course, in the long run — and since we base ourselves on the assumption that our path is not fixed irretrievably towards barbarism — that’s true. But it doesn’t tell us very much. I’ll try to illustrate what I mean by analogy. Imagine you’re sitting in front of the telly, watching the first match of the FA Cup season (sorry to any Yanks listening in). Its Chelsea v Arsenal and Chelsea are 5 goals down. The commentator comes on and says “Well, of course the FA Cup could go either way still”. True… but not very interesting, and it doesn’t tell you anything about the match in hand. And you wouldn’t think much of a commentator who couldn’t tell you whether Chelsea was 5 goals down, 5 goals up, or if the match was 0-0, would you? Nor if he told you, 5 minutes before the end of the match “Well, Chelsea are 6 goals down, but something incredible could still happen and they could pull through if only they changed the trainer” (apologies to Chelsea fans). Believe it or not, there is actually a serious point behind this. What would you think of a revolutionary organisation that can’t even tell you whether the working class is defeated and the road is open to barbarism, or not? Hence my previous question — still unanswered, I believe: what exactly does the ICT mean by “counter-revolution”? I think we can all agree that the 1930s was a counter-revolutionary period: the working class was either utterly smashed, as in Germany or the USSR, or else rounded up in defence of democracy (Spain, Popular Front in France, etc), and the result was WWII. Does the ICT seriously mean to tell us that the situation was the SAME (ie a “counter-revolution”) in 1970, after the biggest strike in history (10 million workers in France), and the struggles in Poland, and… and… (I could go on). And if the situation was different, then HOW was it different? Are there different “periods” in a counter-revolution? Clb’s answer, that the 70s and 80s were marked merely by “money militancy” seems to me beside the point. If the working class is to recover its class identity and self-confidence, which are preconditions for a revolutionary consciousness, how do you suppose it is going to do this if not by the collective defence of its material interests, its living conditions, ie through “money militancy” (though more often “job militancy” these days, except in China perhaps)? And please, can we get away from this purely mythical idea that the theory of decomposition was invented by the ICC merely to avoid admitting our own mistakes? For those who’ve forgotten, the ICC said at the time the Berlin Wall came down that this meant the end not just of the Russian bloc but of the USSR itself, and that we were in for a bad time as far as the class struggle was concerned. Here, is what Battaglia was writing in December 1989: "Russian Perestroika involves an abandonment of the old policy towards the satellite countries, and has the objective of transforming the latter. The USSR must open up to western technologies, and COMECON must do the same, not — as certain people think — in a process of the disintegration of the east bloc and of the total disengagement of the USSR from the European countries, but in order to facilitate, through reviving the COMECON economies, the revival of the soviet economy." Bullet points… if only Powerpoint had been invented when Marx was alive, he could have written the whole of Capital in bullet points. Think how much ink would have been saved! Sorry about the double post, I got in trouble with the formatting. Could an admin please delete the one just above?

And if an admin could look at the formatting it would help... I checked very carefully that my previous posts looked right in the Preview, then when I saved them they screwed up and lost all the new lines and paragraphs. It would be nice if an admin could look into this...

Lonelondoner you just don't get it at all.

The way the ICC poses the question is what we reject and we leave to you your meanderings re the course of history. For us the beginning of a new cycle of accumulation wiped the slate clean in 1945. Talk of a defeated or undefeated class ended then. Physically as a class we entered a new period. What has not changed though is the ideological weight of the counter-revolution on the working class. This has existed throughout the whole period (and not just after the fall of the USSR) and continues today. This is a major factor in explaining why the communist left groups remain small.

I can see why you don't want to talk about the real class consciousness of the working class when you dismiss what I said about the money militancy of the 1970s when referring to Britain. But you seem to forget that "the greatest strike in history" in France was bought off with a 10% wage rise (soon to be swallowed in inflation). But you cannot accept this material view of what was going on because you had the fantasy that the working class was on course towards revolution, holding back war and all the rest of it. And we are not making up the fact that "decomposition" and "chaos" represents a volte face from this over optimistic scenario. What happened to the "years of truth"? It is plain to see that you altered the direction of your perspectives but found a formulae to sweeten this bitter realisation. I am very touched by your lecture that the daily material struggles of the class are part of the process of its coming to consciousness but you miss the point again here - the struggles were massive and bitter but with no political content, no vision beyond the immediate. There were moments when things looked like tipping into something more significant (the Pentonville Dockers in 1971 saw the state on the rack) but these crises passed and the opportunity vanished.

Your quotation without reference from Battaglia says little. As every Prometeo at the time (and I have just spent the morning reading them all again) clearly analyses the capitalist crisis of the USSR showing the seriousness of the impasse the USSR was in (from 1986 on) I assume that the passage above is a summary of the intentions of the policy of perestroika not BC's position on it. If I remember correctly this comes from and article in your International Review which also states that the CWO was the only organisation to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union (but ... wait for it) as a result of ... a piece of lucky empiricism! In fact although we did not translate so much from each other at the time the analyses of the CWO and BC were very similar (explaining that all the main categories of capitalism existed under "really exisiting socialism" and ergo that it shared the same crisis as in the West.) BC even added in two articles Prometeo that the backwardness of the USSR made it even more vulnerable.

On bullet points I agree here with LoneLondoner. As to the loss of formatting/text I have already asked the webmaster to look at this.

If I remember correctly this comes from and article in your International Review which also states that the CWO was the only organisation to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union (but … wait for it) as a result of … a piece of lucky empiricism!

My uni thesis , (1986) was

Towards the end of the PRI hegemony

Fell in 2000.

Hey, cut me some slack there Cleish! I'm trying to "get it", I really am.

First of all, I'm not trying to "avoid" anything. As you know, the ICC can talk and write till the cows come home about our own ideas. I'm quite prepared to come back on the "years of truth" later, but what I am trying to do here is to understand better what the ICT really thinks,and to be honest it is still not clear to me.

What on earth does it mean for example, to say that "Physically as a class we entered a new period"? I would say that physically the workers in 1945 were the same as the ones who had just fought and lost a revolution, suffered a decade of debilitating crisis and counter-revolution (the 1930s), and been through the catastrophe of WWII (which left tens of millions of them dead). I quite agree that the 1970s, and indeed the whole period right up to now, was and is marked by the "ideological weight of the counter-revolution" (you may have noticed for example that we go on endlessly about the "organic break" in the revolutionary movement, ie the fact that the immense majority of the revolutionaries from the period of the revolutionary wave were either dead or had betrayed). That is an important and true point. I would also agree that, in a broad sense, the working class in the 1970s (and perhaps to a lesser extent in the 1980s) was marked by very profound illusions in the possibility of simply resisting the attacks of capital and returning to the status quo ante of the post-war boom.

However, that still leaves some major questions unanswered, and in particular this: was the situation in the 1970s THE SAME as in the 1930s from the point of view of the class struggle and class consciousness? And if it was not the same, then how was it different? And is the situation now the same as in the 1930s, or 70s, and if not, then how is it different? This is what I am trying to get at, and this is what I would like to understand your viewpoint on.

On May 68, we can come back to this in more detail later, but you seriously underestimate its importance (continuing to this day) if you think of it as just "another strike" (albeit a big one). It is also simply untrue (or at the very least an enormous over-simplification) to say that the workers were "bought off" by a 10% wage rise.

You are right about the provenance of the quote from BC - I took it from our article. In principle, if it appears in quotes that means it is just that: a quote, and judging from our article I would say it comes from the December 1989 issue of Battaglia Comunista, not from Prometeo (very regrettable that there is not an explicit provenance given, I agree).

However, that still leaves some major questions unanswered, and in particular this: was the situation in the 1970s THE SAME as in the 1930s from the point of view of the class struggle and class consciousness? And if it was not the same, then how was it different? And is the situation now the same as in the 1930s, or 70s, and if not, then how is it different? This is what I am trying to get at, and this is what I would like to understand your viewpoint on.

I think that the difference to a large extent was that the previous attempt at revolution was seen as a failure and that anyone who seemed to be rehashing the same formulae was tarred with the same brush. Plus the economic consumerism of the post war boom, even if ultimately boring and alienated, took the edge off the situation.

I think the whole idea of hierarchical power, the Party as a thinking head and the rest of the class as a dumb body, presentation styles etc came across as an obsolete black and white telly does today.

Given that the economic situation still had some leeway and the crisis had a fair while to run and possibly still does) there was no urgency for the working class to challenge the equation between communist revolution = a bunch of boring old hypocrites in big black cars dictating from afar.

Today the crisis is still not enough to dramatically turn the tide, but it increasingly looks like that is a calm before the storm.

Our task is still pretty tough, despite the economic logic that should drive the class away from capitalism.

Communism = separate power of an elite who will invariably shit on the class is a powerful ideological force.

Lonelondoner

Stevein7 has already answered the question about the ideological shadow of the counterrevolution stretching down to our own times. When you ask abut how the 1930s were different from the 1970s I could answer with Marx that the historical specificivity of each period has to be our starting point. But in reality to do this you have to look at the 1950s and 1960s. There never was a period of class quiet so fondly imagined in the ICC scenario. I remember Joe Jacobs in Solidarity days showing me his scrapbooks of workers occupations of factories right through the 1950s, and the 1960s were full of mass strikes that went on for weeks (not token one day actions as today). And most of these were very successful in economic terms (at least in the short run). Why? Because capitalism was in the upward part of a cycle (what we call the third cycle) of accumulation. They could concede to militant workers without it being a problem. It was only when the cycle of the falling rate of profit entered its period of decline that our demands caused problems. This was the background to the 1968-74 wave of strugle. The communist left in Britain and elsewhere was produced on the back of the resistance to the decline of the cycle (unfortunately so was the Trotskyism revival given their implantation in the unions). Trotskyism throve on what I called before "money militancy" and where we were successful it as just in greeting "sparks of consciousness". In general the situation was not a political challenge to the system and its faliure to even minimally go to that level meant that the communist left that was produced remained very small.

In Britain WR got it right by aiming at other political minorities (of educated beings) whilst RP and later the CWO spent all its time at factory gates giving out a thousand leaflets per member (and that is a minimum) in a failed effort to generalise class consciousness. I put it to you that such an effort in the 1930s would have been several times more successful. We frequently tried to start debates on the real natrue of the USSR etc at 6.00 a.m outside shipyards but without success.

By December 1976 we recognised that such efforts were futile (we gave out a leaflet called "Is the worst over?" - it was rejected (I will never forget looking down the road into Swann Hunters shipyard as they threw them away - their jobs were thrown away within three years) hence the CWO humourless joke "was this the worst ever". It led to the departure of of our working class base (although that story is more complicated). At the time you were still calling for ever onwards and upwards which made us think you were as our Italian comrades say "fuorimondo" - out of this world. Idealist.

In Britain when we wrote that the miners strike of 1984-5 was an absolute crossroads for the working class (all our agitation at the time was based on the "the Miners strike is our strike" despite the craft arrogance of the "coal not dole" slogan which made it hard to bring out solidarity support) WR dismissed it as "a corporate struggle" of no real significance (although I notice a change of tone since).

I don't know if this answers your question or even "cuts enough slack" (I am not sure what that means) but I hope it makes some sense in the quest to broaden the appeal of the communist left.

P.s I also find that paragraphing etc gets mangled on my posts (but I have the privilege of being able to sort them!). Hopefully we can get it sorted

Regarding the upward part of the third cycle, Cleishbotham, presumably the first one takes places with the 1850-1873 boom and the second one from 1895 to 1913, correct? The boom for the third cycle I would (following Anwar Shaikh inter alios) put in 1933 until somewhere in the 60s. For Shaikh then, the boom of the 4th cycle starts in 1982 and ends in 2007. This view doesn't agree with your war-reconstruction cycle however. Periods of booms see the rise of reformist politics (big union movement, etc.); first International in the first cycle, II International from 1895 to 1913, and your point about workers struggles in the 1950s and 60s fits this frame. I agree that the more 'revolutionary' politics in the 68-74 period are a symptom of the downward period of the cycle (which lasted until 1982).

Maybe its controversial to put the beginning of the upward period already in 1933, but it conveniently makes sense of the end of the revolutionary sequence then (which is put by the ICC with the repression of the Shangai Commune).

Noa

When we talk of the three cycles of accumulation we refer to the period when capitalism is in its imperialist/ monopolist/ state capitalist phase. So for us 1895 would be the start of the first cycle.

Before that date capitalism was expanding in a process of centralisation and concentration which roughly followed the decennial crisis. This begins to break down after 1873 (the so-called Great Depression) when the decennial crisis begins to vary (as Stephen Constantine has shown the myth that the period 1873-95 was one depression is overstated).

Thus our periodisation would be that the first cycle ended in the years before the First World War, the second (admittedly very weak revival in the so-called Roaring Twenties ended with the Wall St Crash) and the third cycle began in 1945 and entered its downward phase in 1971-3.