Can Capitalism grant meaningful reforms today? Is Decadence Theory valuable?
What can we know? How should we act? In what may we hope?
It is suggested that capitalism can no longer grant meaningful reforms, that it has entered a decadent phase. Apparently obscure, that issue is in reality of the utmost importance to the conduct of socialists. If it holds true, socialists should restrict themselves to propaganda and intervention at the critical phase of the most radical popular struggles only. If false, socialists should involve themselves also in the full panoply of reformist and leftist activities: trade unions, electoral political parties, residents associations.
The centrality of this issue cannot be over exaggerated. The Platform being debated currently (and since the 1920s) is the correct organisational structure where meaningful reforms are possible; but, in the contrary situation where reforms are not possible, Voline's anarchism- without-hyphens propagandising organisation is instead the correct way to operate.
Settling this issue then will settle much more about the socialist project.
So, is capitalism decadent? Can capitalism grant meaningful reforms today?
1. Empirical Evidence
Economics is an observational science, like astronomy, and observed behaviour in the past is not a sure predictor of future behaviour. But it does provide an indicator, a presumption for future behaviour that any contrary theory would find the burden of proof placed against it.
And the past behaviour of capitalism is clear: economically it has grown continuously, and fairly steadily, and so far shows no sign of altering that behaviour. It is true that the future could be very different, that capitalism could collapse tomorrow, but history has shown no sign of that happening yet, so proponents of that idea can start to sound like those announcing that "the end of the world is nigh": they may be right, but since the world hasn't ended yet, the ordinary public are going to retain a healthy degree of scepticism.
Yes, there are periodic crises (=recessions), yes the system displays short and long Kondratieff cycles. But the long (or even medium) term trend is unmistakable. From 1913, or from 1973, or from any other date, long term it has only one direction. See http://www.historicalstatistics.org/ for evidence, from just about every country there is.
2. Theory
If the facts don't fit the theory - change the facts!
Marx said that the decline of capitalism was inevitable. He only said that the once, and Marx said a lot of stuff, some of it just for effect. The artist formerly known as Redtwister - Marxist of Marxists - thinks Marx was talking shit at that point. But - that we know already, what can you do?
All that theory is based on the Labour Theory of Value - the idea that equilibrium prices are determined by socially necessary labour time, that the rate of profit will fall.
Nice idea, but in fact, the most simple analysis shows that socially necessary labour time and equilibrium prices are unrelated, that the rate of profit has no tendency to fall, that capitalism is (unfortunately) perfectly stable.
And so falls the position of the International Communist Current, and also of the Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol, god bless 'em. Still, while it lasted....
Actually, Andrew we don't hold to 'decadence theory'. We do say that meaningful reforms are impossible though. I will leave the ICC to argue the economics with you.
Devrim