A General Discussion of Decadence Theory

I haven't "avoided" discussion of practice. For a long time I basically agreed with the positions of the "anti-state communists", which to me means basically the SI-inspired modern incarnation of ultra-leftism. If you agree with those politics in full, as I always did, there is not a lot to say besides repeat ones line over and over again. (See the ICC, although their line is somewhat different.) I figured I'd let others do that, since that was never terribly fun to me.

Now I'm not so sure. I definitely don't think revolutions will occur in the way that most ultra-leftists today (I don't include the ICC in this) imagine it, basically as some kind of spontaneous uprising that gradually becomes uncontrollable. To me, aside from rhetoric, this is almost identical to the position of the "insurrectionary anarchists", which is not a position I'm comfortable with. I think all of the spontaneous uprisings pointed to by the "anti-state communists" basically exhausted all of their potential and it's a mistake to think that somehow what we need is more spontaneous uprisings.

If I had any approach at all I'd say I was something in between council communist and syndicalist. Naturally I don't think that the early 20th century can or will be repeated but I like a lot of what I understand of syndicalism (admittedly much less than I should) and I am in favor of revolutionary unionism. But I generally like the council communist vision of a communist society better than the anarchist-syndicalist one, and I'm much more inclined to Marx than any syndicalist I've ever met (although here on libcom there seem to be a fair number of anarchists who are rather friendly to Marx).

But this is something I'm still thinking through. I guess this can be my "coming out" post, so to speak.

And to return back to the topic of decadence:

Your post seems to define decadence as the period when communism is possible. I don't deny that in certain time periods, even after the beginnings of capitalism, the possibilities of communism were basically zero. But this is a major step back from Alf's claim that decadence is when communism becomes both possible and "necessary" (although I admit I really have no idea what Alf means when he says that communism becomes "necessary"). It is entirely conceivable, for example, that capitalism could be continuing to grow while revolution is possible, which is of course an idea foreign to the ICC. So in order to rule that possibility out it seems you have to go a bit further and make some claim about necessity and about some kind of path that capitalism does/must take, which I still haven't seen you do. I think you're trying to save the phrase "decadence theory" without actually adopting any of the specific assertions of the decadence theorists which differentiate the decadence theorists from those who don't disagree with it.

When the revolutıonary generatıon of 1914-27 came to the conclusıon that revolutıon was now on the agenda they based thıs on the argument that capıtalısm had suffıcıently unıfıed the globe to make a world revolutıon possıble; they also foresaw that ıf the revolutıon was not succesful, capıtalısm would become a growıng menace to the survıval of human culture. That was what they understood by the necessıty of revolutıon and ıt seems to me that the trajectory of hıstory sınce then has amply confırmed theır prognosıs. Of course capıtalısm has contınued for far longer than they would have cared to ımagıne but the threat has not gone away - ın fact ıt has consıderably ıncreased ın ıts scope

Nowhere have I said that capitalism has been stagnant and that it's not expanded. This is only relative to the major, underlying problem which, as you can see from the present economic crisis, is still with us.
Capricorn, you make no mention of the destruction of the means of production during the 20th century. I would call this unprecedented, very real and easily verifiable. You also make no mention of the means of production being given over to the means of destruction. This is enough to show me that the economic system is in decay, particularly when you take into account the reality of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Your argument is another variation of "it's the same old thing" (since the 16thC in this case) a self-reassuring, conservative, even reactionary argument that's underlined when you talk about wars since WWII being "limited" and "on the periphery" (ie, they're aberrations and nothing to do with us). I'll leave you to add up the wars and the numbers of civilians killed since 1945. Don't you think that a European city being bombed from the air in the 1990s was a significant development?
The conservative nature of your argument is further underlined by your statement that wars are fought not over markets but raw materials, trade routes, strategic points and so on, and it's true this was a feature of capitalism's growth. But the first world war was qualitatively and quantitatively different from what had gone before. And war has changed over the history of the decadence of capitalism and could be said to be in a new period since the collapse of the Russian bloc. The war in Iraq for example has been costed by the US bourgeoisie as approaching two trillion dollars. There are reports that Saddam came to them three times and would have settled for exile and a few million. But like the first world, the war in Iraq is totally irrational from the perspective of the working class and humanity as a whole.

Yet capitalism was not a menace to the survival of the human species until the development of nuclear weapons. Or are you distinguishing the survival of human culture from the survival of the human species?

And as far as the necessity goes it seems something like: If we want the human species (or culture) to survive, then we must overthrow capitalism.

Is that what you mean by the necessity of communist revolution?

Mike

of course the development of immense military power was entirely predictable by Marx/ists.

i for one will wait to see iof he's actually understood all he's read tho. in an entirely comradly way mind.

To call LA, Argentina, France, Iran and China the real anti-capitalist struggles, and then to counterpoise these struggles to the ones "cooked up entirely between our own ear[s]" is totally absurd (although which events in France, Iran and China you are talking about are not entirely clear) given that the supposed anti-capitalist content of these struggles is almost totally conjured up in the minds of post-situs, rather than the people actually involved in the struggles. Even if you could make a case that there has been nothing going on with organized workers since the supposed period of decadence, you would only prove that things are equal between the organized and unorganized working class: nothing is going on. (Although, I don't that such a strong case could be made, anyway.)

Sure, there were struggles against some aspects of capitalist society in the riots you point to but there is no evidence that any of the people involved had a new society in mind (with the exception of Argentina, and possibly Iran and France depending on which events you are talking about). I don't view these events as bad things but they are nothing to get terribly excited about and it is a huge leap of faith to imagine that communism will suddenly come out of these kinds of things. Riots have been occurring for hundreds of years and they have never lead to communism or even a fight for communism. I see no evidence that this will suddenly be different in the future. Theorie Communiste only justifies this view with a an absolute joke of a philosophy of necessity.

This is what makes debating with you so annoying and virtually impossible. When have I ever said that I am "not interested in the need to develop communist theory beyond what existed in 1890", or that I like "a practice which... hasn't changed since then." I am fully interested in the development of communist theory beyond what existed in 1890. It's just that I'm not convinced that anyone has done very much in this direction. Just because I don't like the theory you spout, nor the theory that the ICC spouts, nor the nonsense coming out of TC, does not mean that I don't think it's possible or a good thing to develop theory.

And I explicitly said in my last post that I don't see a repeat of the early 20th century as possible. Even as far as straight syndicalists are concerned, I don't think this is anything more than a straw-man argument. The most interesting thing the IWW has done in recent years (that I'm aware of) has been precisely to organize Starbucks and other service-sector workers, which is entirely different from the steel-worker-obsessed characterization you and other pro-situs like to make of syndicalists, council communists, etc.

And as for your claim that I argue from "first principles", I have no idea what you are on about. If you are speaking of my emphasis on the critique of political economy, then you should know, as I have explicitly said to you before on anti-politics, that I don't think that economic theories can point to specific organizational forms for the destruction of capitalism. (At best, it can rule some out.) I have said this all before. Why you feel the need to repeat your completely inaccurate claims is something known only to you and God.

Mike

I'm not even going to respond to this nonsense. I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about, to be entirely honest. It sounds to me like you are debating yourself more than me.

Go on, by all means...

Mikus; riots have occurred in many strikes, social movements and in revolutions and have been one form of expression of those movements.

Red; Bangladeshi workers' struggles may validate certain anti-union positions (though you don't say how - and it is the local ruling class' disinterest in/opposition to them so far that has mainly prevented them becoming more established). But they, for me, invalidate other left communist positions expressed on libcom. The self-identified 'communist left' here, - ICC & EKS - think riots have no potential for the working class as a form of struggle - 'they have no perspective', it's been claimed. But, often, I don't see how you can look at riots and strikes as two separate tactics in the actual struggles going on in Bangladesh. They're more like part of the same developing process. For example, one of the big problems workers face there is getting wage arrears paid by bosses. So they strike, if the bosses still won't pay up they often begin to attack his capital, his property - they riot. They are part of the same struggle, deployed, at least sometimes, tactically by proles - with one effect being that rioting that emerges from strikes, beyond a certain critical mass, begins to spread the struggle beyond one sector of workers, one workplace, or one area and become a more generalised revolt of the dispossessed. A communistic tendency, one might think, but one that the 'communist' left here denies.

I don't intend to get into another argument as to the value or not of riots - have done that at length on earlier threads.

Ret,

The rioters in France were hardly attacking their bosses' property. So in what sense are they "like part of the same developing process." Burning your neighbors' cars and your siblings' schools is some proletarian tactic?

ret is clearly and specifically talking about the struggles in bangladesh, not france. saying some riots can express communist tendencies isn't the same as saying every riot everywhere does.

I don't think this should change into a thread about strikes versus riots. It's a discussion about 'decadence'. Red's point was to contrast the left communist position on the unions - which tries to give a historical explanation for why they can't be built as real class organisations any more - with the syndicalist position, which thinks that you can still build revolutionary unions today. This is entirely relevant to the theme of the thread.

In response to the question raised by mikus further back: in the Junius pamphlet, Rosa Luxemburg specifically talks about the threat of further world wars bringing a definitive collapse of 'culture' (although the German word Kultur can mean both culture and civilisation). It's true that since 1945 this threat has now mushroomed, if you''ll excuse the word, into a direct threat to the survival of the human species. But the issue is not to speculate whether capitalism will wipe out all humans, or all life on earth. What's at stake is the threat of a historical relapse that, whether or not it involves this extreme conclusion, will still mean the burying of the communist project - for centuries, if not for good. And that still makes the communist revolution a necessity.

Oh dear, Alf. Mike's going to make mincemeat of you for this! Since (like the rest of us) you're making communism a moral necessity -- a choice facing the working class -- rather than an objective, economic (or as ICC put it, misusing the word, a "materialist") inevitability. Communism is "necessary" in the sense you've just used it for all sorts of reasons, of which an economic breakdown (if it really was a threat) leading to the collapse of civilisation would only be one, e.g to end exploitation, stop starvation, end the housing problem, restore community, banish wars and the waste of armaments, etc, etc, etc.

Looking at the theory of capitalism's decadence, its consequences and perspectives, demands a particularly thorough methodology. It's the main question facing the working class: socialism or barbarism. Like some threads on Luxemburg, the economic crisis, etc., where the "discussion" isn't just pure academicism and largely incomprehensible, there's a particular lack of method from anarchism in general. As with the crisis, its dramatic development over the last couple of months, there was an initial and persisting view that this was the "same old thing", no problem for the bourgeoisie, been going on for ever, "they will just print money and everything will be OK again", and so on. Imperialism, cut-throat competition raised to a new destructive level with all its development over one hundred years, virtually in front of our eyes - so there's no excuse for missing it, provokes the same sort of anti-method from strains of anarchism. "Nothing different", "always been wars" (pick any century from, even millenium, depends on personal taste). This conservative, at times reactionary view can not only hold no revolutionary perspective, it actually militates against it. It's a pacifist, passive view that presents capitalism, against what I see as clear evidence to the contrary, as an eternal system that just goes on and on adapting here, a war there. This view is tolerant of capitalism and already sees it as perpetually victorious.

Alibadani; the uniform party line having a supposed universal/eternal application may be how your mental processes prefer to work; but specifics and particularities of Bangladesh was what I was referring to, not any universal party line on riots always being great - as Joseph K recognised. If you're going to respond to people, address what they're actually saying.

Oh dear, Alf. Mike's going to make mincemeat of you for this! Since (like the rest of us) you're making communism a moral necessity -- a choice facing the working class -- rather than an objective, economic (or as ICC put it, misusing the word, a "materialist") inevitability

Capricorn: we have never, ever, once said that communism is an economic inevitability. Neither did Marx, Engels, or Luxemburg, or the previous fractions of the communist left. Yes it's a 'moral' necessity in one sense, i.e. the revolution has a profundly moral dimension just as it has a profoundly conscious dimension. But the difference is that for you, given the eternal and unchanging existence of capitalism, the communist revolution could just as well have happened in 1830 or 1848 and it can equally well happen three hundred years from now. Whereas we are saying that, however desirable it might have been, it just wasn't possible in 1830 or 1848, and that we need to make it in rather less than three hundred years or it will never happenat all

Yes, Alf and Baboon, I do say capitalism was as bad in the 1840s or 1880s as it was in the 1920s and today: it was based on the exploitation of the producers and it caused all sorts of problems for them as a class as well as leading to wars and environmental pollution. And it "needed" to go.
A logical consequence of your view, if I understand it correctly, is that it is only after 1914 that capitalism became economically "decadent" and that before that date it was still "ascendant" and so "progressive" and so revolutionary communists should have supported reforming capitalism via the mass Social Democratic Parties of the day as there was not yet any "need" to abolish it since it was still capable of genuinely expanding the forces of production.
A hundred years ago, I'd still have been advocating the "need" to abolish capitalism immediately while the two of you would have been saying "no, that's premature, we have to wait till it becomes decadent" and canvassing for votes for the German SPD or its equivalent in England or America.
So don't accuse me of being tolerant of capitalism!

This is the logical conclusion of the ICC's decadence theory - and they insist that capitalism was progressive during this period (although then fudge around the issue by saying it was 'becoming' decadent as early as 1870 to avoid having to support the worst results of such an analysis).

Alf, so as you've said before, decadence theory is basically a statement of two positions:

1. Capitalism is not an eternal system
2. Communism is necessary.

When questioned about these two propositions, you have basically explained them as the following.

1. Capitalism will not last forever.
2. If humans want to survive (or, alternatively, if humans want their culture to survive), then they (or, rather, the working class) must create communism.

In regards to the first proposition, no one on here seems to disagree.

In regards to the second, I doubt anyone would disagree either. I certainly agree.

But you create massive confusion when you say that communism is "necessary." It sounds like some kind of categorical imperative. In reality, communism is only necessary if humans want to survive, or maintain certain aspects of their culture, or end exploitation, etc. But when framed in this way, even most anarchists would agree, and you lose any specificity of the "decadence theory" which differentiates certain communist groups from any others.

In regards to the issue of what makes capitalist society "decadent", you seem to mention two points:

1. When the creation of a communist society has become possible.
2. When the creation of a communist society has become "necessary" (in the sense that "necessity" was defined above).

For the first proposition, I, as I imagine most on here, agree that the creation of a communist society was not always possible (although the dates when it is thought that this possibility developed probably differs among posters), and that it now is possible.

As for the second proposition: Given that "necessity" in the sense we are discussing is not a categorical imperative but is rather only a necessity given certain value judgments, desires, etc., how do you define when this "necessity" came into being?

Take, for example the claim about communism being necessary if we want the human species to survive. When does this necessity first begin? The human species was not in danger of extinction before the development of nuclear weapons, yet you claim that capitalism entered its "decadent" phase long before that point.

If the removal of capitalism becomes "necessary" even before capitalism is in the process of driving the human species to extinction, then where do you draw the cut-off point? Or alternatively, if capitalism becomes decadent only when it actually starts the process of driving the human species to extinction, why does the period begin early in the 20th century, long before the development of nuclear weapons, and even before the first world war?

Mike

This is perhaps the dumbest post to come out on this issue yet.

I will dare say that if you found the discussion incomprehensible, you haven't read Luxemburg's book and aren't familiar with her theories. Even a few people who have not read her book seemed to find the discussion mostly comprehensible. Why would you support her basic theories while not being very familiar with them?

Also, who exactly are the anarchists here? I'm not. I have no idea if capricorn is. Dave c argued a little bit and I know he isn't. Red for one reason or another is on your groups' nuts but he is surely more anti-organizational than myself, and probably most others on this board as well. So please stop typing out your half-baked ideas for everyone to see until you think this through a little bit better.

Who said that the bourgeoisie would just print money and everything would be "OK again"? I assume you are referring to me, since as far as I remember, I was the only one to discuss this issue in any depth. But my claim was emphatically not that the bourgeoisie would print money and everything would be okay again, but rather that if Luxemburg were correct (which anyone who actually read the thread would know I don't think is the case) then the bourgeoisie would be able to print money to get rid of its problems. Since I don't actually believe that Luxemburg is correct, I don't actually believe the issue is so simple as to print money to get out of crises.

I should remind you, however, that the bourgeoisie does print money to try to alleviate crises, to varying degrees and to varying amounts of success, and that it was Marx himself who claimed that the restriction of the ability to print money due to the banking act of 1844 was a major cause of crises. (Remember that he sided against Ricardo and the currency school/bullionists, and in (generally) in favor of the anti-bullionist/banking school on this issue.)

So not only are you ignorant of Luxemburg, but also of the actual measures taken by the state, and also of Marx. 0 out of 3. Not very useful cadre in my opinion.

As capricorn pointed out, this is not only idiotic, but also offensive given that no one has claimed that capitalism is an eternal system, nor has anyone held any kind of pacifist views on the issue of revolution, nor has anyone here been "tolerant of capitalism". If you feel like arguing with figments of your imagination, I suggest you do it in your head and not on a public discussion forum.

Mike

So just to sum up then, apart from the ICC no-one thinks that capitalism had any progressive role to play in history at all?

Well, there's Karl Marx.

"In reality, communism is only necessary if humans want to survive". (mikus)

"Wanting to survive" has something to do with the materialist theory of history, no? if you were living in a tribe in a particular area of the forest and the animals you depended on were moving to a distant part of the forest, you would probably want to survive by being able to catch and eat the animals. That would have a certain effect on your mode of social organisation. If you weren't able to follow the animals, you wouldn't be able to eat. No doubt your tribe would discuss the best moment to move camp and how to move it, but they probably wouldn't have a long discussion about whether or not they wanted to survive. Unless perhaps their society had already been totally ravaged by external capitalist encroachment and they had lost the will to live, which did happen to tribal peoples in certain circumstances.

I would say this is an example of material necessity. Making the revolution because we see that we have no choice except a descent into barbarism is also an expression of material necessity.

I don't see that there's any abstract content to the concept of necessity being posed by the ICC here. The question is whether capitalism can provide viable progress for human society. If the answer to this is "no" then clearly it is necessary to get rid of it if human society is going to survive or progress.

If capitalism can provide a viable human society then there is no materialist reason to get rid of it that I can see. We may object to it on moral grounds, of course, which is exactly what pre-Marxist communists largely did. But unless there is a reason to actually get rid of capitalism root and branch, why not just reform it?

Say what you want about the reformists in the 2nd International, but they understood this question far more clearly than we seem to today. In order to push their focus onto reformism they realised they had to demonstrate that there was no doom facing capitalism.

Similarly, the revolutionary currents around Lenin, Luxemburg, etc. realised that the revolutionary perspective could only be justified if capitalism was indeed finished in some form or other. Luxemburg's Accummulation and Lenin's Imperialism both attempted to demonstrate that not only was this point theoretically possible but that it had actually come about - both also offered, to some extent, explanations as to the mechanisms behind it.

So my question is this: if we cannot talk in any objective sense about capitalism exhausting its progressive content for humanity where does this leave a revolutionary perspective?

Capricorn and catch, yes we do say that capitalism fully entered its period of decadence with WW1. There were signs of its decadence before, but only with the unheard of slaughter of millions in the very centre of capitalism it the full horror of what decadent capitalism had to offer become clear.
Capricorn your posiiton is a historical, if you cannot see the difference between a system that grow from being the dominant system in basically one country to encompassing the whole world, and the in the processs creating an international proletariat and a development of the means of production that would enable humanity to live in abundance, and a system that has been tearing society apart for 100 years, leaving a trail of destruction behind the likes of which had been unknown before that is your problem not ours.
The working class developed its conscious and self-confidence through its creation of its mass parties. When before in history had an exploited class been able to organise itself not only on a national scale but internationally i.e., the Internationals? Yes the 2nd International and the mass social democratic parties succomb to opportunism and the penetration of bourgeois ideology, but this process only took place in the context of a bitter struggle by the Marxist fraction who wanted to defend the revolutionary organisation of the working class. The working class gained great confidence in itself through its parties, through its ability to scare the shit out of the ruling class, a perfect example of which was the banning of the SDP in the 1880's, the illegal nature of the Social Democrats in Russia and elsewhere. As we have said many many times before it is very easy and 'radical' to pour forth scorn upon the mass socialist parties, but this does not change one iota of the fact that these parties were the highest expression of class consciousness at the time, which is why Luxemburg,Lenin etc militated within them and did all they could to stop their being putrified by the poison of compromise with bourgeois ideology.
Catch we are not avoiding anything we are very open in our tracing of our heritage to the 1st International and the "nd particularly the Marxist fraction within it. These organisation marked historical significant steps forwards towards the working class being able to pose itself as a revolutionary alternative to capitalism. It was only the Marxist fraction that emerged from the 2nd International that was able to put forwards an organised internationalist response to the slaughter of WW1 and which were able to understand the historical importance of the change that had taken place.

Mikus for us communism is a necessity because all that decadent capitalism has to offer humanity is destruction. In the 19th and early 20th century it has something to offer humanity: the development of the world market and the international proletariat i.e., the material basis for the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of communism. Barbarism or Socialism is the choice facing the working class. You may think that humanity has a multitude of choices and that is fair enough, but for the Communist Left the last 100 years have clearly shown that capitalism is a system that now only survives by destruction.
Mikus your jumping to conclusions based upon your own prejudices is amazing some times. So Baboon has not read Rosa or understood her, well at least you say so: have you even bothered to ask him? But then it is much easier to invent a nice simplistic strawman that to aask someone what they actually know or think, and reply to that.

I agree with Ernie's criticisms; mikus is often ill-mannered. But I do welcome the fact that he has chosen to 'come out' about his political positions.

"If I had any approach at all I'd say I was something in between council communist and syndicalist. Naturally I don't think that the early 20th century can or will be repeated but I like a lot of what I understand of syndicalism (admittedly much less than I should) and I am in favor of revolutionary unionism. But I generally like the council communist vision of a communist society better than the anarchist-syndicalist one, and I'm much more inclined to Marx than any syndicalist I've ever met (although here on libcom there seem to be a fair number of anarchists who are rather friendly to Marx).

But this is something I'm still thinking through. I guess this can be my "coming out" post, so to speak".

We (the left commies) will be happy to debate with you about these questions. Perhaps that might help to take the 'economic' debate forward.