DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Why don't anarchists vote?

126 posts / 0 new
Last post
lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jun 6 2007 21:30

so icc "goons" wink : surely even in a non-decdent phase free of social revolution, developement of the productive forces is down to conflict between those productive forces and the relations of production?

re twister: hey, good to see you n that. i am confused why you don't subscribe to decadence. do you not think that at any one time one way of organizing society (e.g. capitalism, or communism, or feudalism, etc.) develops society (productice forces, whatever) more than another? and that was at one time capitalism, and at another communism?

sorry, i guess i may sound a little self-obsessed there.

jeremytrewindixon
Offline
Joined: 6-03-07
Jun 8 2007 08:43

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, we don't have many left communists in Australia. The main one I know did try to convince me of the 'decadence' perspective but he didn't explain it as it has been explained here, and the truth is I never quite understood.

So, a "decadence" perspective is based on Marx's principle that revolution is impossible until the dominant system is a brake on the developement of the forces of production; ie that capitalism has now reached just such a situation?

In my preliminary view that is slightly premature, the development of the internet is the first major sign of this "decadence" situation developing and it seems to me to have a long way to go. (But the visible sign that the process has started is the worldwide strengthening of intellectual property law and the appearance of shareware and freeware etc) But I'm open to being convinced and I certainly don't deny the importance of the issue.

But I don't see what it has to do with whether one abstains from voting or not.

Lurch
Offline
Joined: 15-10-05
Jun 8 2007 19:46

Jeremy: Bit off topic for this thread (Why Don’t Anarchists Vote?) to once again go into the question of decadence. There is thread on Decadence elsewhere on Libcom (not the first and not the last).

If you have the time and energy, try the ICC’s pamphlet The Decadence of Capitalism. It was written some 30 years ago (no, decadence didn’t start with the Internet) and needs updating IMO, but if you really want to get to grips with the subject...

http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/decadence

Alternatively, a quicker fix: an editorial in the current International Review deals with both decadence and climate change:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/129/editorial

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jun 8 2007 22:27

Lem: you're right up to a point - the clash between the relations of production and the productive forces in the 19th century led to temporary crises which spurred the search for new markets. The prolonged crises of the ensuing century show that the possibility for such outward expansion has been drastically reduced. But all in all you seem to be coming round to the notion of decadence....
Jeremy: the point about decadence isn't that all development ceases. It's fundamentally a point where capitalism cannot continue without dragging the world through growing catastrophes, while at the same time the horrors of capitallism lose all historical justification because communism has become a concrete possibility This is the history of the 20th century, not something for the future.