Economic crisis

quite possibly not, i'm very busy in the real world at the moment so i'm not writing much of substance here. briefly, i think crises are recurrent, and have been a feature of capitalism from the start. However clearly these express themselves differently and have different implications is differerent periods, and one could certainly argue that in a globalised digitised economy with masses of ficticious/financial capital that crises have more serious implications for captialism than ever before, and raise the question of overthrowing capitalism internationally like never before.

actually, i might be starting a new job in the credit industry soon which might give some insights. pointless work to pay the bills, how decadent

There unfortunately won't be a perspective of revolution with it, either. (At least not in this specific one if it comes to pass.) Thus I prefer not to lose my job and I prefer that working class living standards aren't severely cut.

Do you agitate workers around this issue? "God bless the crisis!" or something? I don't really understand what it means to "welcome" an economic crisis when it's something that we really have no effect on (at the moment). It would be akin to "welcoming" rain, or snow, or some other natural process. It's a personal issue, not a political one. (The welcoming, that is. Obviously the crisis itself is a political issue.)

And what do you mean by "communists welcome the economic crisis of capitalism"? Is this something you have observed about communists, or is it more like "If you don't welcome the economic crisis of capitalism you are not a communist" ?

Obviously an economic crisis doesn't guarantee a revolution, but without some form of crisis (I'd include war here) there's no reason at all for the proletariat to revolt. As long as capitalism can offer us palliatives (or at least the illusions of them) to soothe our exploitation, the system will survive. It's only when existence becomes unbearable for the working that it rises up against its oppressors. Even then, this is not always the case. After all, the Great Depression produced no revolutionary upsurge and the appalling conditions of workers in the 3rd world haven't automatically led to revolution either. Nonetheless, crisis (again in the broad sense) provides the material basis for such a revolt. So I suppose you could say we welcome it is in that sense.

But I have to admit the idea of "welcoming" the crisis doesn't sit completely comfortably with me. Are we welcoming the misery that this will inflict on hundreds of thousands of people? I would hope not. Or are we welcoming the revolutionary response that (we hope) this misery will generate? I think these are rather distinct things.

On a personal level though, I have to admit to the guilty pleasure at watching the bourgeoisie scurry around like ants trying to shore up their sorry mess of a system.

Oisleep, did you miss the bit of my post that said "But I have to admit the idea of "welcoming" the crisis doesn't sit completely comfortably with me. Are we welcoming the misery that this will inflict on hundreds of thousands of people? I would hope not"?

Personally, I'd be more than happy if capitalism really was the paradise on earth the bourgeoisie claims it is. I don't welcome crisis and misery because it will get rid of capitalism. I want to get rid of capitalism because more and more crisis and misery is all it has to offer us.

My only point is that without such a crisis, revolution is impossible. If you want to get rid of capitalism then you have to accept the necessity of such a crisis. Of course, the reason most people want to get rid of capitalism in the first place is precisely because of the misery it creates.

That is a slightly different issue. Essentially, you're talking about the choice between socialism or barbarism.
The moments of crisis in past history have given us World War 1 but they also gave us the great revolutionary waves that rose in direct response to the war and put an end to it and nearly brought down the whole system. The next major crisis gave us WW2 but the proletariat's failure to respond showed us exactly what the capitalism system had to offer: genocide and devastation followed by decades of "cold war" where people starved as unprecedented amounts of resources were pumped into weapons capable of destroying the planet. That's the best capitalism has to offer us and why we need to get rid of it, don't you think?

There is a vast qualitative difference between the defensive struggle of the working class for immediate demands and the revolutionary struggle against capitalism, even if they spring from the same class interest. Taking sickies and cutting corners (which is done as often under management pressure in any case) are purely individual responses to the condition of the working class. Strikes and go-slows are a collective response to the system but they almost always take place in the face of intolerable demands from management, i.e. direct attacks on the proletariat's living and working conditions. People don't go on strike for fun, for goodness sake!

The revolution is indeed a revolt against waged labour (and, in fact, the entire commodity form) but this takes place not because of some idealistic aversion to such things but because the living conditions of the proletariat demand it i.e. because waged labour is the foundation of a system that means nothing but poverty, crisis and war.

I would agree that the revolution won't be the response to a particular financial crisis but rather to the broader economic and social crisis of capitalism, of which the current financial crisis is only an episode.

What if crisis doesn't happen? Should we welcome and celebrate the non-crisis moments of capitalism? Celebrate what is on the surface 'peaceful' in some parts of the world? The normal everyday is having a massive impact on the population you so wish to protect, but communism is not a charitable ideology about 'helping people'. Leave that for the Catholics.

I care about myself and my friends, and I want to see this shit destroyed. I cannot see capitalism being destroyed outside of the space or window that may be opened by crisis and the response to it. So yes, I welcome the crisis.

same reply goes to you

open your eyes, realise it's not the 19th century anymore, look at the things today that the theorists of that period could not have ever even contemplated at the time, and have a think about what your wishing for

Since I don't think revolution will come out of crisis, barring an already strong level of working class self-organization, I don't welcome it. I'm rather scared by it in fact. I imagine most workers are. I think we can expect to see reactionary ideology make a resurgence, even amongst the working class, in the midst of any coming crisis. If the working class is not already prepared it will just get beaten up more badly than it has been for the last 30 years. That is not appealing to me.

I guess the issue is really that of spontaneism. I don't think the spontaneists' wishes will be fulfilled by crisis. Previous crises which sparked more open class struggle already had a relatively high level of working class organizaiton. We don't have that now. To expect the same social outcome as, say, 1917, when the general situation of the working class (ideologically and organizationally) is completely different is nothing more than wishful thinking.

And it came to pass that The Great Accumulator sauntered across the globe, hands thrust well down into his pockets, fondling much ill-gotten paper gold (lately called dollars), surveying the full majesty of his labour power spread below it. And the Law was writ large and it did verily prevail upon all to “Amass! Amass! Amass!” Lurking deep within its soul was the dark, dark secret, known only to the Prophet Rate, who proclaimed to the Inner Circle: “Woe is me, I am fallen”. This did lead to much anguish and gnashing of teeth, until in a single moment the revered Accumulator was pitched into the Abyss of the Surplus Shortage. And lo! The End was no longer nigh, but was now in the Final Crisis. The Reserve Army did grow mightily, even whilst all around it swirled vast multitudes of commodities, all unspent and unrealised. But contrary to all expectations, from the maelstrom of the Breakdown there emerged as by a miracle – at least, no mortal hand was observed – a magnificent New Beginning. And all was at peace. Repeat together: “Aaah”.
In this ancient, almost biblical tale, some of you may recognise the parody of Grossman’s breakdown theory of capitalist accumulation, as purveyed by some of his least-informed critics. It was (is?) commonly thought that he saw capitalism as destined to collapse with mathematical precision in 35 years, and we could all keep our eyes peeled for the four horsemen, then step into the apocalyptic breach left vacant by the outgoing capitalism. Mattick revealed it as the caricature it was, in “The Permanent Crisis” (1934). I found it a revelation (waxing biblical again) when I recently came across it, and decided to make it available on Libcom.org. (The advertising blurb unfortunately perpetuates the myth, depicting it as analysing the “dynamics behind the inevitable downfall”. Also unfortunate is the missing table formatting– pretty crucial – which I hope Libcom will soon enable me to resolve).
I find it surprising that none of the discussion on this thread has referred to the falling rate of profit. I would not expect it from ICC contributors (although I hear that the ICC is recalibrating its fundamentals to place “more emphasis” on the rate of profit as against saturated markets), but cannot understand the reticence of others. In particular, where is the CWO in this discussion? Or is economic crisis merely to be treated as a problem for the City/Wall St/the IMF? And what about Pannekoek’s point that “the emancipation of the proletariat is the collapse of capitalism”? To what extent are Libcommers talking to themselves rather than to outsiders having a tentative, exploratory look?

indeed, which is why it's even more stupid that some of the arguments being put forward seem to contain an axiomatic view that a crisis will not only bring about a revolution, but one that is progressive in nature (contrary to all historical examples failing to do so)

your going about it arse before tit though as i've said previously, welcoming crisis when the only ideas that are lying around at the time it will happen are ones which are diamatrically oppossed to what you are actually trying to push is plain stupid (not to mention the complete ignoral of the resultant impact of environmental & resource problems that will characterise any coming crisis), it will only ensure you become yet further away from where you want to get to