decadence again

yeah but if capitalism continues we're fucked, right?

Big deal. People can put up with any old shit, and even if they didn’t, they’d remain unconvinced that communism offers any way out. In the end it’s communism-with-decadence-theory or no-communism-at-all.

What does the ICC ,have to say about IP's formal and real domination stuff?

nah that's not right. you can't expect a world wide revolution on the grounds of people buying into some ideology. there's probably a theaory somewhere that says just that. from our point of view it's just faith that certain ways of ordering society likely create certain beliefs, and there is a dialectical process intrinsic to society. i don't think there is anything/much else to marxism. [/ignorant]

Alibadani - we did an article about this in the International Review in the 80s. It's not online yet but we could send you a copy. Basically, the article argues that the fundamental transformation from formal to real domination takes place inside the ascendant period of capitalism, because in Marx's work it describes the transition from early 'manufacturing' (where the old artisanal labour process is retained even if it is commanded by capital and brings many artisans together) to the factory system proper. This is why we don't think that Marx's concept can be bent into an alternative theory of decadence as IP have tried to do.

Are there any political implications/ramifications of the IP's theory of decadence. Why is their theory seemingly more attractive to certain types

what types are they [/gossip]

A couple of belated points in response to earlier posts:
On John on the central contradiction of the falling rate of profit.
As Marx says, capitalism is a play of two acts. It's not enough for it to produce and extract surplus value, it also has to sell the product. The extraction of surplus value is the first act of production and the second is limited by the extent of the market and depends on its expansion. If the second doesn't follow the first then exploitation has taken place but SV has not been realised. A partial or total loss of capital results. Production itself doesn't entirely produce a market (bourgeois economists like Malthus were clear about this) and there is a constant need for productivity to increase and the market to expand, and because of the limited buying power of the producers it can never absorb the commodities it produces. If it could there would be no profit, no market and capitalism wouldn't exist. But of course it does and the market is not an abstraction but a real, material, limited global thing.
WWI was an imperialist war fought over a restricted market and not a war to increase the rate of profit. The rate of profit was increasing before WWI, as it was before WWII and as it has been since 1980 to today during which the capitalist world has been wracked by continuing crisis and unemployment. Global warfare initially, and then of greater and greater intensity, is a fundamental expression of the decadence of capitalism. WWI wasn't the result of an economic crisis but of the relative glut of a saturated world market. No economic system, not slavery (Rome), nor feudalism, have become decadent because of the result of an economic crisis but, along with capitalism, have become decadent modes of production because they act as a barrier, a fetter to a new, materially possible, progressive form of production and society for mankind.

On Joseph K and, to paraphrase, 'leftists and liberals can agree that capitalism should be overthrown'. They don't. The fact that the former particularly has taken up the language of communism and revolution is what makes them dangerous for the development of class consciousness, but their programmes are entirely state capitalist, more or less in tune with the needs of capitalism in its decadent period. In fact it's one of the aspects of decadence that this language of the working class, the presentation of socialist forms by leftism, has been fully integrated into the capitalist state both for its practical and mystifacatory use. The fact that individual leftists agree that capitalism should be overthrown is neither here nor there - it's being trapped in a capitalist framework from the start that hobbles their development and is of overall use to the state, despite and even because of the 'good intentions' of individuals.

Alibadani asked: Are there any political implications/ramifications of the IP's theory of decadence. Why is their theory seemingly more attractive to certain types

I don't know if the political conclusions flow logically from the economic theory, but it strikes me that IP, like many others, wants to construct a watered down, more 'reasonable' concept of decadence, which underplays not only the import of the general epoch, but above all the gravity of the present situation, thus avoiding the recognition that we are in the final phase of decadence.

Not accidental that Spikeymike likes them so much, their approach to decadence allows him to stay comfortably on the fence, as ever.

Excellent post, Baboon.

I think perhaps I have been a bit hard on Spikeymike in recent posts. He probably deserves it up to a point for being such an eternal centrist, but I do believe he's sincere about the wish to discuss.

Internationalist Perspectives views are better expressed by themselves rather than me,so I would urge those who are interested to take the trouble of checking out their web site on the link I offered in my last post.

As to being classified a 'centrist', by the ICC, well this is a rather specialised language borrowed from the past and given a new twist by that organisation. Its not much use to anyone else, but probably better than being a 'confused element' or a 'parasite' , other seemingly less desireable epithets which I have had to put up with in the past!

The point about the value of Marx's theories on the formal and real subsumption of labour etc is that they provide a basis for understanding some of the CONTINUING changes going on in the modern capitalist world and in particular the differences in the nature of the class struggle and its representation in different parts of the world. It is at least arguable that even in terms of the dominant world situation that this process was not complete by 1914.

As to the causes of the First World War it was surely a straightforward Interimperialist war based on the inabillity of Germany in particular to be able to expand on a modern basis without access to sources of raw materials and not just exploitable markets, both of which were dominated by other powers. However the fact that these sources were already divided up by other powers, does not seem to me to justify, in itself, any categorisation of the period in marxist terms as 'decadent'.

In general terms, whilst capitalist markets do become 'saturated' from time to time and give rise to economic convulsions, there is no real evidence to support Rosa Luxemburgs thesis that there is a one time historic crisis due to the dissapearance of 'non -capitalist' markets.

However, whatever the timing of changes in capitalism there seems little doubt in my mind that to-day we face an integrated global system that is generating massive problems it has no hope of adequately solving except at the expense of the worlds workers and humanity in general. Whether or not there is a point of no return approaching (perhaps in ecological terms) I cannot say.

As an aside on the question of the 'left' and the 'unions'etc, any opposition they proclaim from time to time to 'capitalism' is purely retorical - they and their ideology are thoroughly integrated into capitalism - whether you explain that as a result of the 'decadence' or 'progression' of modern capitalism. This is not of course to right off every individual that gets cought up in left organisations.

Sorry if the above points are a bit disjointed but I will miss the opportunity to make them if I leave it another couple of days or so.

Rather than return to economic arguments on this thread, which I think, from a left communist point of view, are perfectly valid and validated by the development of history these last three years, I want to use it to raise the question of the ecological effects of the continuance of capitalism.

Last night I was flicking through the various news channels and what unfolded was something that looked like trailers for disaster movies: unseen pollution on top of the already known pollution in the Florida Gulf region (known to workers in the region for some time as "cancer alley"); at least 15 million people affected by unprecedented floods throughout Pakistan; a dam giving way in central Europe; fires in Russia causing pedestrians in Moscow to suffer the effects of smoking several packets of fags a day - and threatening nuclear material; mud slides in China killing hundreds; warm water currents breaking off chunks of polar ice. I thought that these were quite alarming reports one after the other.

If you want to look on the bright side the war in Afghanistan is going well, Iraq is finally a success story and the opening up of the polar regions has already resulted in an imperialist scramble for resources.

Yes, it does seem that the End Times have arrived and that End of the World is Nigh.

Don't forget the wheat shortage soon to come because of droughts in Russia.

This catastrophism, regardless of its intentions, helps to :
1. Present all disasters as "natural" disasters, when it's obvious, e.g., that the fire on the outskirts of Moscow is not just a product of global warming but of Mafia-controlled underfunding of simple anti-fire precautions; it also serves, through asphyxiation etc., to wipe out the weak and old , clearly a burden on the surviving fittest. An extra bonus is to increase the price of grain on the world market.
2. Make people more resigned (and impotently depressed) to the so-called inevitable - things are so overwhemingly bad that there's clearly no point in contesting anything. We're doomed doomed dooooooooomed.

Whats the Lenin quote about how the capitalsits would sell the length of rope the workers would then use to hang them?

Greenland's population and government want to increase global warming; so they can get to the Northern part of the islands minerals, gas and oil resources easier.

Link

Another article with similar content says that as global warming causes devastation to the rest of the planet (massive population migrations/mass exodus from coastal regions, major cities becoming flooded or unable to sustain a large population, increased drought and crop failures, etc), the ultra-wealthy and powerful segments of the international bourgeoisie are expected to turn the island of Greenland into their own giant "gated community" where only other super powerful and wealthy people can live (because after the global temperature reaches a certain point, Greenland will become extremely cool and mild all year 'round, with natural boundaries that will keep the legions of poor and destitute from trying to migrate). Plus, Greenland is a key geo-strategic military interest- illegal immigration will be extremely difficult.

It's like something out of a bad novel, or cartoon. Reminds me of that old G.I. Joe episode from the late '80s where COBRA gets a weather control machine and fucks everything up from their hideout- where they relax in luxury.

Well naturally this topic comes up from time to time.

Aufheben had a long, thorough article attempting to refute the idea of decadence.

None-the-less, I basically disagree. Some version of decadence is crucial for a revolutionary understanding of the present world.

The thing is that critics of decadence often reduce the position to a series of specific claims. I think it's important instead to ask what the general approach we are going to take for understanding capitalist society.

The main question is whether capitalist society is irreversibly transforming itself. I think it's very clear that it is.

Whether there's a particular point where capitalism "ceased to be progressive" or whether capitalism just makes war on more and more aspects of humanity, the capitalism of today is distinctly different from the capitalism of a hundred and fifty years ago.

Whatever the problems of the various movements to revolutionize or reform capitalism a hundred years ago, they were the honest products of working class having a fair degree of autonomy from the capitalism of the time. Today, the modern capitalist has integrated not only previous reform efforts but a large portion of what could be called "culture".

Whether we're talking about Walmart corporation's willingness to simply close any store that unionizes or the integration of many ideologies which pass for the left today, we live in a world where one must struggle against the totality rather than it's particular instances.

Anyway, capitalism's irreversible movement towards an increasingly integrated system is the kernel of the decadence idea for me. Everything else is a detail that can be debated.

Capitalism's continuously accelerating rate of technological change is just one argument for this position, though a rather powerful one.

As I've argued previously, it's common for folks to evoke the word "realism" or make gestures towards common sense in trying to refute this argument. But I haven't seen these make any more than well done hand-waving - that's including the Aufheben article.

An article in the latest issue of International Review brings up a great point concerning decadence and its sister theory- decomposition:

From "Capitalism has reached a dead-end; neither austerity packages nor recovery plans can change anything" Link .

The toolbox of capitalism, developed in WWI as the war economy and perfected globally in the 1930's as what we know as state capitalism and keynesianism, is unable to 'fix' the present global economic crisis. Traditional state capitalist, keynesian measures are not working or are not working as well as they used to (defecit spending, public welfare benefits, etc).

World leaders are finding it hard to figure out what to do next.

From meteorologists there seems to be some clear links emerging between a changed weather pattern in the atomosphere and the heatwaves across Russia with the inundations in Europe and Asia. These seem to be what would be expected with global warming.
On Sams post on the Russian mafia - I've no doubt that all elements of capitalism exacerbate the effects of disasters, the example of the New Orleans flood in the richest country in the world is exemplarly, but the evidence seems to me to suggest that global warming is anything but natural and could well be expressive of a decaying social system.