Following the discusion on Trotsky, I thought I would post this. The third part has some relevance to the question as it concerns the idea of a continuity in the Marxist movement as the ICC see it. I would like to stress that this in no way represent the position of the EKS, but is a doccument in an intenal discusion written by myself:
Some notes on the discussion on the ‘Theory of Decadence’1) To me one of the problems with the Theory of Decadence is one of the problems of Marxism as a whole. As Marx wrote “the dominant ideas of a given time period are the ideas of the ruling class”. It would be strange to consider that Marx was immune to this dominant ideology also. I think that Marx was particularly influenced by the prevailing 19th century ideology of progress.
This is one of the things that led Marx to believe that society would automatically go through a series of stages until it arrived at the ‘highest stage’ of communism. I think that Luxembourg saw the reality of the modern period much more clearly when she stated that “ We will have either socialism, or barbarism”. There is no automatic tendency for society to progress. Of course, I am not accusing the ICC, or even Marx of believing in this as I have stated it. I think though that this idea has some reflections in their theory:
a)The idea that each successive form of society develops the productive forces to its limit before it is replaced is something that I see as a direct result of this ‘progressivist’ ideology. This idea is also tied in directly with the ICC’s theory of decadence. They state that capitalism becomes decadent because it can no longer develop the productive forces. Now, although there is some truth in this assertion, namely that the physical limits placed upon the expansion of capital had been reached, which led rival imperialisms into direct confrontation in the First World War, it seems to me to be a very strange way of looking at the situation. Surely for communists it is important to look from the position of the working class. I feel that this progressivist ideology fails to do that, which leads me directly to my next point.
b)The idea that it was the task of the working class to support capitalisms development of the productive forces is again something where I see the ‘progressivist’ ideology coming to the fore. Even if it were true that society did develop in these stages, it would not necessarily be true that the task of the working class was to side with capital in developing these forces. To me a very clear example of this is the expansion of capital in America. Engles wrote on the Mexican-American War “And will Bakunin accuse the Americans of a "war of conquest", which, although it deals with a severe blow to his theory based on "justice and humanity", was nevertheless waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilization? Or is it perhaps unfortunate that splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it? That the energetic Yankees by rapid exploitation of the California gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship, construct a railway from New York to San Francisco, for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilization, and for the third time in history give the world trade a new direction? The "independence" of a few Spanish Californians and Texans may suffer because of it, in someplaces "justice" and other moral principles may be violated; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance?” It would also be possible to quote Marx writing on the American Civil War, but I think that this quote demonstrates the nature of the position very well. Communist opposition to wars of capitalist expansion should not have rested on moral principles of ‘independence’, or ‘justice’, but on the fact that the interests of the working class did not involve them dying in wars to fuel the motor of capitalist expansion. Marx supported the North in the civil war. What practical consequences would this have had for communists operating on the ground at the time? New York for example saw massive anti-conscription riots. Would it have been the task of the communists to condemn the rioters, and act as recruiting sergeants for American capital, all in the interests of the expansion of productive forces of course? I think that alongside the ideology of ‘progressivism’, the fact that Marx, and Engels did not experience the expansion of capital as the working class did is also partly responsible for these positions. Even if we accept the theory of decadence, and as I have stated before all left communists have a theory of decadence, it does not logically follow that we see the task of the working class in the ascendant period to struggle for the development of productive forces. The task of the working class, even in its infancy, has always been to fight for its own interests.
2) The theory of decadence looks to economic developments within society in order to show that we are in a revolutionary period. It states that capitalism has developed to the point where it is a global system, and therefore the revolutionary period is open. Again, I think that this is a perspective that looks at the development of capital from an academic view point, and not from the position of the working class. The revolutionary period opens in 1905 with the mass strike, and creation of soviets in Russia. The working class itself showed that the era of revolutions had opened. Of course, this movement does not stand outside of history. The war between Russia, and Japan, which set the tone for the mass strike is a direct result of the saturation of markets, and the fact that capital is forced deeper, and deeper into war, as its crisis deepens, is obviously of relevance to the issue. It is, however, the working class itself, not the theorists of socialism which opens the new period.
3) The continuity, which the ICC claims runs through the Marxist movement, “The ICC thus traces its origins to the successive contributions of the Communist League of Marx and Engels (1847-52), the three Internationals (the International Workingmen’s Association, 1864-72, the Socialist International, 1889-1914, the Communist International, 1919-28), the left fractions which detached themselves from the degenerating Third International in the years 1920-30, in particular the German, Dutch and Italian Lefts.”, is in my opinion an attempt to link the communists of today directly with Marx in a sort of apostlistic succession. The programme of the communists today is not a result of a direct progressive development of the ideas of Marx from the IWMA through the Second International, to the Communist International, and its left fractions. Rather it is a result of a break with the traditions of the ‘old workers’ movement’. Social democracy was not a revolutionary current until 1914, and while it is true that those who were clearest in their break with social democracy came from the ‘Marxist’ tradition, there were also healthy reactions within anarchism to the incorporation of the old workers’ organizations into the state, (e.g. the Friends of Durutti in Spain, and the APCF in Britain). Communist theory is not some holy dogma, which is handed down some line of succession, but something that springs directly from the experience of the class. Even though anarcho-syndicalism is in some ways the other side of the social democratic coin in other ways it showed a healthy reaction to the ‘parliamentary cretinism’ of the second international. The revolutionary minorities within the workers movement were attempting to come to terms with the new period which had opened in 1905. The important thing is not the line of continuity stretching from the Second International, but the rupture with social democratic ideology. Some, for example Lenin, and Trotsky, could not make that break, and ended up siding with capital against the working class. Others like the ‘Fraction’ made the break very late, and although they were eventually one of the most clear groupings, and were clear on some questions very early on they were also certainly very confused on issues such as the nature of the Soviet Union for a very long time. The communist left today derives its positions directly from the experience of the class. The fact that those positions in the twenties, and thirties were expressed mostly clearly by those who had come out of the Second International does not make the communist left the logical progression of the social democratic movement, rather it is in fact its antithesis.
Devrim
