It is not my intention for this thread to become a place where we demean and discount each others opinions in ways that do not push the general discourse forward.
Edit: yeah I'm not trying to demean anybody; but that's my take on the concept of decadence. But we might go in a better direction through dialogue, hence my question here.
It's a theory created by the ICC in the 1980s. They were attempting to create a useful periodization of modern capitalism. In their view, at some point in the early 20th century, capitalism ceased being a progressive force in terms of the development of the productive forces, as well as other areas by obvious extension.
Apparently just a simple "Up/Down" dichotomy
But as the title of the thread suggests, I'm not at all soley interested in the ICC's opinions on the trajection of the capitalist world system. All commentary on the topic is more than welcomed at this point.
What aspects of capitalism are we expecting to be progressive? How? Why? Capitalism as such didn't give universal suffrage. Mass working class struggle forced them to concede. It seems to conflate the reforms gained under capitalism as purely cynical concessions, of which the capitalists have no means of granting anymore. Let's take a single-payer plan in the United States that would give healthcare to every person here. That would be great for the working class, in terms of a palliative reform. There is no reason it cannot happen aside from effective struggle with the capitalist class. Is there not enough money? Not enough people willing to work?
Just to point out, there was a thread on this started by Jamal last year: https://libcom.org/forums/theory/icc-position-decadence-bourgeoisie-developing-nations-01062015
A "theory" of decadence was posited by Marxists such as Engels and Kautsky in the long depression of the 1870-80s. It would be good to trace the evolution of Kautsky's views. In 1914 Marxists such as Gorter once again declared capitalism had passed the progressive/decadence point.
In the United States the Marxist theorist Herman Cahn developed a theory of the collapse of capitalism based on an analysis of contradictions inherent to money:
Capital to-day; a study of recent economic development (2 ed. 1918, written before the war)
https://archive.org/details/capitaltodaystud00cahnrich
The collapse of capitalism (1919)
https://archive.org/details/collapseofcapita00cahn
omg, I'm totally obsessed with the trajectory/future/end of capitalism! how odd! how strange!
I personally think we're in the midst of a paradigm shift. I think major industries like agriculture and healthcare are changing in pretty significant, "progressive" ways which will extend the lifespan/trajectory of capitalism to a farther point in the future.
Notice this has shitfuck all do with the ICC. Ya'll the one who keep bringing them into the discussion. The thread Noa posted is a year old now. Probably everyone in there has changed their positions on the matter a little bit since then. Also, the thread was addressed to the ICC directly. I couldn't care less if they didn't show up in this one.
Translated passage from 1886 on the prospect of opening up of China. In Kautsky's bibliography I did notice some other early articles that might be relevant (eg on English colonialism, military expenditure, in Züricher Post, but this paper is quite difficult to find).
There is a translation being done of his 1902 article on Tugan-Baranovsky (mentioned by Luxemburg).
Nicholas Stargardt in The German Idea of Militarism: Radical and Socialist Critics 1866-1914 on pp. 82-83 discusses how Kautsky's views shifted.
When I read it in Kautsky, or others, I take it to mean, in a depression period, or recessionary period, that 'things are declining' class conflict growing sharper, profitability declining in general, businesses closing, people getting laid off etc. but this is a cyclical phenomenon in capitalism.
On the other side, in the macro historical sense, capitalism (as pointed out by others) has a progressive role in the liquidation of the petty-producers in the countryside, that come to being in degrees of relative strength as serfs/peasants struggle for rights and land against less and less powerful aristocrats and nobility in the 18th-20th centuries. The problem of masses of petty producers, undeveloped internal industry, reliance of development upon export of one or a few major commodities or resources appear to be ones which cannot be addressed by communism without a far reaching internationally organized communist movement in the developed countries which adopt specifically a plan of unremunerated export of development technology and laborers to the undeveloped countries. Short of that, we can have nightmarish bureaucratic/bonapartist 'development' adventures in depravity (Stalin) in the extreme, and less extreme balancing of foreign and domestic, petty producer, large bourgeois, and working class, elements in the process of national economic development. The 'role of capitalism' as progressive or decadent in this?
Well, it depends on how you define capitalism. If you think capitalism 'automatically' gives a country democratic-republican government, universal suffrage, trade unions, etc. then in many countries it is no longer progressive. If you think those are the result of class struggle that, yes is internal to capitalism, but points beyond it, then you can see there is a push and pull, conflicting tendencies to the rise in the organized and concentrated power of one class as against the other. It also means that in less developed countries, there is a struggle developing, of the working class to assert it's interests as against both the petty producers and the capitalists.
Am I making sense? Part of what decadence appears to do, is suggest that 'reforms' are impossible which is absolute nonsense. It also appears to suggest that organizing anything other than the committees to carry out the revolution (and agitation, i.e. propaganda leagues) is a waste of time. The only period when this *may* have had *some* purchase was the immediate post-world war 1 revolutionary upheavals. Arguably it was past before the end of 1918.
The 'left-communists' (a subset of left 2nd internationalists) unfortunately appear to see these conditions as always lurking beneath the surface, beyond every historical event involving people on a large scale, or strikes etc.
In short, it is an ill-defined and useless term, a shibboleth, IMHO.
I personally think we're in the midst of a paradigm shift. I think major industries like agriculture and healthcare are changing in pretty significant, "progressive" ways which will extend the lifespan/trajectory of capitalism to a farther point in the future.
Can we have some details? And please include how these changes are "progressive" in contrast to previous changes in the post WW2 period; and how these progressive changes extend the lifespan of capital, as opposed to the bourgeoisie extending the lifespan of capital.
It just seems that all too often people in their eager attempts to disprove decadence, just end up repeating variations of arguments from Bernstein. Incidentally, Kautsky's book against Bernstein has no translation. Bernstein und das Sozialdemokratische Programm: Eine Antikritik (1899)
It just seems that all too often people in their eager attempts to disprove decadence, just end up repeating variations of arguments from Bernstein. Incidentally
Details, please, with citations from the previous thread where those of us disagreeing with decadence theory parroted Bernstein. Otherwise, you're just talking out your ass.
The point of all this is that you can call capitalism ascendant, or descending, "robust" or "decadent" and all such characterizations are irrelevant; holding no material historic content; no significance for class struggle. How capitalism reproduces itself, continues to reproduce itself. OTOH has exactly that critical import.
It's the alleged Zusammenbruchstheorie that Bernstein set up as a straw man to knock down. Bernstein did not propose his own theory, he just limited himself to some "critical questions", stressing the usefulness of reform struggles etc. I mentioned sources from the "decadence" camp (it's not necessary to get stuck up on the word) that analyze how capitalism reproduces itself (eg Herman Cahn's Capital to-day; a study of recent economic development).
Even to the extent that Kautsky employed the term, or Marx or Engels, it appears to function as unfounded hyperbole. Certainly capitalist development and change regularly shakes the foundations of entire countries. But it does not as a work system automatically collapse; the bourgeoisie invoke and impel crises where they can to take advantage and stave off in favorable conditions.
On the other hand, to the extent that Kautsky, Marx and Engels saw the 'decadence' of capitalism as a measure of the organization and education of the proletariat, it's fight against capitalism, that seems a more apt measure and defendable position. It also mirrors Marx's claim about capital creating g it's own gravediggers.
It's the alleged Zusammenbruchstheorie that Bernstein set up as a straw man to knock down. Bernstein did not propose his own theory, he just limited himself to some "critical questions", stressing the usefulness of reform struggles etc. I mentioned sources from the "decadence" camp (it's not necessary to get stuck up on the word) that analyze how capitalism reproduces itself (eg Herman Cahn's Capital to-day; a study of recent economic development).
Breakdown theory, the inevitable collapse and disappearance of capitalism, is quite a bit different from decadence theory. No need to get hung up on the word? Ok by me. Not ok by decadence theorists.
Anyway, refer to the previous thread where we beat this horse to death and made ourselves need a drink. Or two.
Even to the extent that Kautsky employed the term, or Marx or Engels, it appears to function as unfounded hyperbole.
Kautsky writes that the term was invented by Bernstein, just as the "immiseration theory" btw. And I would not be surprised if Aufheben was the first to use "decadence theory".
Can we have some details? And please include how these changes are "progressive" in contrast to previous changes in the post WW2 period; and how these progressive changes extend the lifespan of capital, as opposed to the bourgeoisie extending the lifespan of capital.
I understand a comprehensive answer is in order, but my time spent researching these questions deeply has been limited. I have not explored these questions enough in a purely academic manner. For now I'm just offering some thoughts.
I personally don't find the "progressive" or not thing super helpful. But when I do use the term, it's employed in an economic sense. When I hear the word "progressive", I think "growth". The world economy since WWII is obviously growing according to every statistic I've seen, but that rate of growth has been dropping off somewhat steadily; from 5.2% in 1970 to 2.2% in 2001. (http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/other_books/new_HS-7.pdf)
Here's a cool graphic of the US growth since 1800:
So overall growth is clearly still happening, only with longer "plateaus" of stagnation and in some brief periods actual decline, which seem to be occurring more frequently since after WWI.
This is what I mean by "paradigm shift". Sort of a permanent slow down of growth rates or something?
In this regard, there is a lot of talk from capitalists about reaching some kind of "equilibrium", where capitalism maximizes human potential above all else because that's what becomes cost efficient, or something. I'm not sure I understand it completely.
What I do know for sure is that the world around me is different. I was born in the 80s. Everything is changing. The distinction between what's natural and artificial has almost completely disappeared. We know today that within our own skulls is the most complex and little understood chunk of matter in the universe. We're starting to beat disease. People are becoming super human. The way we've started to integrate digital, physical and biological systems.
What we're doing might not be changing much, but who we are, what we are, is.
There were two big shifts in economic policy over the last century; first Keynesianism, then Neoliberalism. Seems we're due for a new shift. If in this shift, capitalism eliminates the most dire poverty and provides basic needs for everyone, what would we see? Is it possible for capitalism to do this? It seems so to me. In fact, global hunger and extreme poverty continues to lessen as we speak.
Our constraints due to lack of material resources seem to also be evaporating. If we actual start colonizing the solar system over the next 10 years, they'll disappear completely. What does that mean for growth?
Just to avoid repetition, Jamal had started this topic on the ICC forum last autumn already: http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/pierre/13423/how-does-century-decadence-explain
Jamal, why don't you just apologise to the ICC and ask if they'll unban you from their forums?
Growth and decadence aren't directly connected as growth is a measure of production and decadence is a theory about class relations. High growth might make it easier for the working class to organise and low growth or recession tends to lead to retreat, but that's not the same thing.
You haven't answered the question specifically regarding agriculture and healthcare.
Right, sorry. I think both industries are experiencing a technological revolution. The whole supply chain thing is changing, because more and more food and medicine is being produced within 25 miles of where it's needed. This in turn brings down how much other resources are consumed. We know more than ever how to grow food. We know more than ever about our bodies and our health, disease, etc. I see all of this knowledge being applied, new tech emerging, etc. Sounds like growth, "progressiveness", jobs for those who don't have them, etc...
Noa Rodman
Jamal had started this topic on the ICC forum last autumn already
I gather what jef means is that decadence for the ICC really means the dead-end, and ultimately counter-revolutionary role, of so called reformist labour struggles (whereas previously they claim there didn't have to be a contradiction per se between reform and revolution).
btw, probably the first use of the phrase "decadence theories" originates indeed from the critics (in 1985): http://gci-icg.org/french/lc23_decadence.htm
As so often happens in polemics, the label given by the opposite side sticks.
They do explicitly take target at the whole list of orthodox Marxists from Engels, Kautsky, etc.
You haven't answered the question specifically regarding agriculture and healthcare.
Right, sorry. I think both industries are experiencing a technological revolution. The whole supply chain thing is changing, because more and more food and medicine is being produced within 25 miles of where it's needed. This in turn brings down how much other resources are consumed. We know more than ever how to grow food. We know more than ever about our bodies and our health, disease, etc. I see all of this knowledge being applied, new tech emerging, etc. Sounds like growth, "progressiveness", jobs for those who don't have them, etc...
Noa Rodman
Jamal had started this topic on the ICC forum last autumn already
Umm, no I didn't. Fuck the ICC
Really? What portion of world's total foodstuffs is now grown with 25 miles of its market, as opposed to 20 years ago, 50 years ago 100 years ago 200 years ago? And how much more medicine? And what is necessarily "progressive" about that? You use less "resources"? You might as well be telling me US capitalism has become progressive since 1979 since it uses much less energy, and particularly hydrocarbon energy, per dollar of output.
As Marx pointed out 150 years ago, capitalist industries are always undergoing technical revolutions. So what's different about this one, this time?
Really? What portion of world's total foodstuffs is now grown with 25 miles of its market, as opposed to 20 years ago, 50 years ago 100 years ago 200 years ago? And how much more medicine? And what is necessarily "progressive" about that? You use less "resources"? You might as well be telling me US capitalism has become progressive since 1979 since it uses much less energy, and particularly hydrocarbon energy, per dollar of output.
I'm not sure, S. Perhaps you could help me locate some of the data?
As Marx pointed out 150 years ago, capitalist industries are always undergoing technical revolutions. So what's different about this one, this time?
Maybe nothing?
jura
Jamal, did you turn from a hyper-pessimist (regarding the future of capitalism) to a hyper-optimist?
...This would be literally true in almost any period, though.
Yeah, I kinda did. Still trying to get my mind around this question. And yeah, that's probably true and makes me curious as to why.
JamaI:"I personally don't find the "progressive" or not thing super helpful. But when I do use the term, it's employed in an economic sense. When I hear the word "progressive", I think "growth"
I think this statement needs to be challenged.The concept of 'progress' is the most important question: the meaning of progress determines the meaning of 'progressive' and 'decadent'. The idea that progress can be reduced to an 'economic' category of 'growth' is and I'm really not trying to be rude here Jamal but it is the most bourgeois definition of progress I can think of. 'Growth' is not the same as progress.
Now the question is, what is progress? and I'm a bit too stoned to answer that properly right now but it is about much more than how much stuff is being made/consumed.I will try to add to this another time.
Care to expand on this? Yes, it's a theory, one which points to the inevitable and soon forthcoming collapse of capitalism. I don't agree with that.
I think you know what decadence theory is as well as I do and I'm not sure I agree with it, certainly not in the form that it takes within the ICC. The idea of decadence and the fact that as capitalism advances it is less and less capable of offering improvements to workers is interesting but I'm not convinced and I'm not sure if it is actually helpful for us to prove.
I mean, it's not "bourgeois" for me to look towards metrics for answers. Plus I understand somewhat the broad problems in doing so. What other data could we use?
But yes, that's the question. Does it mean the average human condition and quality of life is improving?
If you recognize the problems with handling these growth data, figures, etc., it means you must use them with great care (statistics 101). Like you said yourself, you're not presenting here an academic work up to standard, just posting some graphs that you found on the internet.
Your defeinition of progress as "the average human condition and quality of life is improving?" is still not quite right. For example I would argue that things like the historical switch to agriculture was 'progressive'; however for the people involved at the time it pretty much meant worse living standards, worse health, more work, class exploitation and poverty. So why was it progressive? clearly not because it represents greater 'technological development' alone (although that is a part of it). It is much more to do with what it made possible in the long run which was the advancement of the world historical civilizations and the growth in knowledge etc that these represent. Even that on its own to my mind is not inherently 'progressive'; after all even without that knowledge/technology/development I would say for most people through history things would have been better if we had stayed in primitive communism.
So, what is progress? I think the only view of progress which makes sense and doesn't reify or objectify particular expressions of particular cultures- such as technology into independent goals in themselves is if we take seriously the idea of a 'species being' of humanity. In this view progress becomes the movement towards the achievement of a truly human way of life and being. Capitalism cannot produce this because it is an inherently inhuman society (possibly in some ways more inhuman than any other in history). Therefore progress for humanity cannot be measured in 'how well capitalism is performing'.
The (largely overstated) growth in living conditions which are being reported around the world in the last decade or so are mainly the result of capitalist social relations spreading more completely in every country (particularly China and India). In China this seems to have led to some improvements for some workers (not so much in India) but this is shouldn't be taken too much at face value. First of all having more money in the cities compared to the country isn't an indication that you are much better off as money is simply more needed in the city than it is in the country. Also the question is what is the historical effect of the rise of these new world powers?
Has it made world revolution significantly easier or more likely? I would say only marginally at best. On the other hand has it made the threat of war greater? I would say that is much more likely and expresses the current historical trajectory which more and more seems to be every country 'going its own way' and the proliferation of (nuclear armed) regional powers looking to out do each other.
I thought someone may have linked to this already but after the last thread on libcom, to try to avoid false arguments and set out the Marxist position on decadence as clearly as possible the ICC published this article:
The current thread seems to have moved on somewhat but I think there is still a tendency to confuse 'decadence theory' - ie. the historical materialist view that capitalism like all other class societies is transitory in nature - and crisis theory, ie. exactly when and through which mechanism(s) it enters into its decadence/senility/decay...
decadence theory' - ie. the historical materialist view that capitalism like all other class societies is transitory in nature
So decadence theory is just a really complicated restatement of the most basic point Marx was making. Wow, what a waste of time and effort if that is all it is. Really, what's the point?
decadence theory' - ie. the historical materialist view that capitalism like all other class societies is transitory in nature
So decadence theory is just a really complicated restatement of the most basic point Marx was making. Wow, what a waste of time and effort if that is all it is. Really, what's the point?
Which is of course the reason why this thread will be like all others on decadence theory.
NR's earlier post No 10 provided a link to one earlier discussion on this theme and if you check that out you will find a further 4 links to extensive discussions again on the same theme which some of the contributors here were involved in and which together seems to provide more useful substance than this one. As an aside I agree that 'decadence theory' and 'crisis theory' are not the same but they are linked and of course there are Marxist influenced 'periodisation' theories other than those specific to the ICC' - this issue also discussed previously in those threads. Can't be bothered to go through it all again!
Thirded, though for a larf I recommend ppl checking out the link MarkyMark from the funkybunch posted. Just the introduction is hilarious in and of itself. Being in a sect is a powerful drug...
why are you trying to summon
why are you trying to summon the icc?
thatsthejoke.jpg
thatsthejoke.jpg
Decadence is a delusional and
Decadence is a delusional and ill-defined shibboleth.
It is not my intention for
It is not my intention for this thread to become a place where we demean and discount each others opinions in ways that do not push the general discourse forward.
Re: Pennoid
Why do you think that?
What exactly is decadence?
What exactly is decadence?
Edit: yeah I'm not trying to demean anybody; but that's my take on the concept of decadence. But we might go in a better direction through dialogue, hence my question here.
It's a theory created by the
It's a theory created by the ICC in the 1980s. They were attempting to create a useful periodization of modern capitalism. In their view, at some point in the early 20th century, capitalism ceased being a progressive force in terms of the development of the productive forces, as well as other areas by obvious extension.
Apparently just a simple "Up/Down" dichotomy
But as the title of the thread suggests, I'm not at all soley interested in the ICC's opinions on the trajection of the capitalist world system. All commentary on the topic is more than welcomed at this point.
What aspects of capitalism
What aspects of capitalism are we expecting to be progressive? How? Why? Capitalism as such didn't give universal suffrage. Mass working class struggle forced them to concede. It seems to conflate the reforms gained under capitalism as purely cynical concessions, of which the capitalists have no means of granting anymore. Let's take a single-payer plan in the United States that would give healthcare to every person here. That would be great for the working class, in terms of a palliative reform. There is no reason it cannot happen aside from effective struggle with the capitalist class. Is there not enough money? Not enough people willing to work?
it also ignores everything
it also ignores everything that isn't the west
Just to point out, there was
Just to point out, there was a thread on this started by Jamal last year: https://libcom.org/forums/theory/icc-position-decadence-bourgeoisie-developing-nations-01062015
A "theory" of decadence was posited by Marxists such as Engels and Kautsky in the long depression of the 1870-80s. It would be good to trace the evolution of Kautsky's views. In 1914 Marxists such as Gorter once again declared capitalism had passed the progressive/decadence point.
In the United States the Marxist theorist Herman Cahn developed a theory of the collapse of capitalism based on an analysis of contradictions inherent to money:
Capital to-day; a study of recent economic development (2 ed. 1918, written before the war)
https://archive.org/details/capitaltodaystud00cahnrich
The collapse of capitalism (1919)
https://archive.org/details/collapseofcapita00cahn
Noa, is any of that Kautsky
Noa, is any of that Kautsky translated into English?
Jamal decadence theories
Jamal decadence theories existed before the ICC did and seriously you need to start moving on, as you seem totally obsessed.
omg, I'm totally obsessed
omg, I'm totally obsessed with the trajectory/future/end of capitalism! how odd! how strange!
I personally think we're in the midst of a paradigm shift. I think major industries like agriculture and healthcare are changing in pretty significant, "progressive" ways which will extend the lifespan/trajectory of capitalism to a farther point in the future.
Notice this has shitfuck all do with the ICC. Ya'll the one who keep bringing them into the discussion. The thread Noa posted is a year old now. Probably everyone in there has changed their positions on the matter a little bit since then. Also, the thread was addressed to the ICC directly. I couldn't care less if they didn't show up in this one.
Translated passage from 1886
Translated passage from 1886 on the prospect of opening up of China. In Kautsky's bibliography I did notice some other early articles that might be relevant (eg on English colonialism, military expenditure, in Züricher Post, but this paper is quite difficult to find).
There is a translation being done of his 1902 article on Tugan-Baranovsky (mentioned by Luxemburg).
Nicholas Stargardt in The German Idea of Militarism: Radical and Socialist Critics 1866-1914 on pp. 82-83 discusses how Kautsky's views shifted.
When I read it in Kautsky, or
When I read it in Kautsky, or others, I take it to mean, in a depression period, or recessionary period, that 'things are declining' class conflict growing sharper, profitability declining in general, businesses closing, people getting laid off etc. but this is a cyclical phenomenon in capitalism.
On the other side, in the macro historical sense, capitalism (as pointed out by others) has a progressive role in the liquidation of the petty-producers in the countryside, that come to being in degrees of relative strength as serfs/peasants struggle for rights and land against less and less powerful aristocrats and nobility in the 18th-20th centuries. The problem of masses of petty producers, undeveloped internal industry, reliance of development upon export of one or a few major commodities or resources appear to be ones which cannot be addressed by communism without a far reaching internationally organized communist movement in the developed countries which adopt specifically a plan of unremunerated export of development technology and laborers to the undeveloped countries. Short of that, we can have nightmarish bureaucratic/bonapartist 'development' adventures in depravity (Stalin) in the extreme, and less extreme balancing of foreign and domestic, petty producer, large bourgeois, and working class, elements in the process of national economic development. The 'role of capitalism' as progressive or decadent in this?
Well, it depends on how you define capitalism. If you think capitalism 'automatically' gives a country democratic-republican government, universal suffrage, trade unions, etc. then in many countries it is no longer progressive. If you think those are the result of class struggle that, yes is internal to capitalism, but points beyond it, then you can see there is a push and pull, conflicting tendencies to the rise in the organized and concentrated power of one class as against the other. It also means that in less developed countries, there is a struggle developing, of the working class to assert it's interests as against both the petty producers and the capitalists.
Am I making sense? Part of what decadence appears to do, is suggest that 'reforms' are impossible which is absolute nonsense. It also appears to suggest that organizing anything other than the committees to carry out the revolution (and agitation, i.e. propaganda leagues) is a waste of time. The only period when this *may* have had *some* purchase was the immediate post-world war 1 revolutionary upheavals. Arguably it was past before the end of 1918.
The 'left-communists' (a subset of left 2nd internationalists) unfortunately appear to see these conditions as always lurking beneath the surface, beyond every historical event involving people on a large scale, or strikes etc.
In short, it is an ill-defined and useless term, a shibboleth, IMHO.
Quote: I personally think
Can we have some details? And please include how these changes are "progressive" in contrast to previous changes in the post WW2 period; and how these progressive changes extend the lifespan of capital, as opposed to the bourgeoisie extending the lifespan of capital.
Uh oh, here we go again.
Uh oh, here we go again.
It just seems that all too
It just seems that all too often people in their eager attempts to disprove decadence, just end up repeating variations of arguments from Bernstein. Incidentally, Kautsky's book against Bernstein has no translation.
Bernstein und das Sozialdemokratische Programm: Eine Antikritik (1899)
Lenin's review of it here.
Details, please. Otherwise
Details, please. Otherwise let's just close this thread with a link to the previous thread.
I'm not presenting a
I'm not presenting a Bernstein argument, am I?
Quote: It just seems that all
Details, please, with citations from the previous thread where those of us disagreeing with decadence theory parroted Bernstein. Otherwise, you're just talking out your ass.
The point of all this is that you can call capitalism ascendant, or descending, "robust" or "decadent" and all such characterizations are irrelevant; holding no material historic content; no significance for class struggle. How capitalism reproduces itself, continues to reproduce itself. OTOH has exactly that critical import.
I don't think Noa Rodman ever
I don't think Noa Rodman ever leaves the library - nearly every response is a reference to a dusty book rather than a reply to what was said.
It's the alleged
It's the alleged Zusammenbruchstheorie that Bernstein set up as a straw man to knock down. Bernstein did not propose his own theory, he just limited himself to some "critical questions", stressing the usefulness of reform struggles etc. I mentioned sources from the "decadence" camp (it's not necessary to get stuck up on the word) that analyze how capitalism reproduces itself (eg Herman Cahn's Capital to-day; a study of recent economic development).
Even to the extent that
Even to the extent that Kautsky employed the term, or Marx or Engels, it appears to function as unfounded hyperbole. Certainly capitalist development and change regularly shakes the foundations of entire countries. But it does not as a work system automatically collapse; the bourgeoisie invoke and impel crises where they can to take advantage and stave off in favorable conditions.
On the other hand, to the extent that Kautsky, Marx and Engels saw the 'decadence' of capitalism as a measure of the organization and education of the proletariat, it's fight against capitalism, that seems a more apt measure and defendable position. It also mirrors Marx's claim about capital creating g it's own gravediggers.
Noa Rodman wrote: It's the
Noa Rodman
Breakdown theory, the inevitable collapse and disappearance of capitalism, is quite a bit different from decadence theory. No need to get hung up on the word? Ok by me. Not ok by decadence theorists.
Anyway, refer to the previous thread where we beat this horse to death and made ourselves need a drink. Or two.
Pennoid wrote: Even to the
Pennoid
Kautsky writes that the term was invented by Bernstein, just as the "immiseration theory" btw. And I would not be surprised if Aufheben was the first to use "decadence theory".
S. Artesian wrote: Can we
S. Artesian
I understand a comprehensive answer is in order, but my time spent researching these questions deeply has been limited. I have not explored these questions enough in a purely academic manner. For now I'm just offering some thoughts.
I personally don't find the "progressive" or not thing super helpful. But when I do use the term, it's employed in an economic sense. When I hear the word "progressive", I think "growth". The world economy since WWII is obviously growing according to every statistic I've seen, but that rate of growth has been dropping off somewhat steadily; from 5.2% in 1970 to 2.2% in 2001. (http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/other_books/new_HS-7.pdf)
Here's a cool graphic of the US growth since 1800:
So overall growth is clearly still happening, only with longer "plateaus" of stagnation and in some brief periods actual decline, which seem to be occurring more frequently since after WWI.
This is what I mean by "paradigm shift". Sort of a permanent slow down of growth rates or something?
In this regard, there is a lot of talk from capitalists about reaching some kind of "equilibrium", where capitalism maximizes human potential above all else because that's what becomes cost efficient, or something. I'm not sure I understand it completely.
What I do know for sure is that the world around me is different. I was born in the 80s. Everything is changing. The distinction between what's natural and artificial has almost completely disappeared. We know today that within our own skulls is the most complex and little understood chunk of matter in the universe. We're starting to beat disease. People are becoming super human. The way we've started to integrate digital, physical and biological systems.
What we're doing might not be changing much, but who we are, what we are, is.
There were two big shifts in economic policy over the last century; first Keynesianism, then Neoliberalism. Seems we're due for a new shift. If in this shift, capitalism eliminates the most dire poverty and provides basic needs for everyone, what would we see? Is it possible for capitalism to do this? It seems so to me. In fact, global hunger and extreme poverty continues to lessen as we speak.
Our constraints due to lack of material resources seem to also be evaporating. If we actual start colonizing the solar system over the next 10 years, they'll disappear completely. What does that mean for growth?
Jamal, You haven't answered
Jamal,
You haven't answered the question specifically regarding agriculture and healthcare.
Just to avoid repetition,
Just to avoid repetition, Jamal had started this topic on the ICC forum last autumn already: http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/pierre/13423/how-does-century-decadence-explain
Jamal, why don't you just
Jamal, why don't you just apologise to the ICC and ask if they'll unban you from their forums?
Growth and decadence aren't directly connected as growth is a measure of production and decadence is a theory about class relations. High growth might make it easier for the working class to organise and low growth or recession tends to lead to retreat, but that's not the same thing.
S. Artesian wrote: You
S. Artesian
Right, sorry. I think both industries are experiencing a technological revolution. The whole supply chain thing is changing, because more and more food and medicine is being produced within 25 miles of where it's needed. This in turn brings down how much other resources are consumed. We know more than ever how to grow food. We know more than ever about our bodies and our health, disease, etc. I see all of this knowledge being applied, new tech emerging, etc. Sounds like growth, "progressiveness", jobs for those who don't have them, etc...
Noa Rodman
Umm, no I didn't. Fuck the ICC
jef costello wrote: decadence
jef costello
Care to expand on this? Yes, it's a theory, one which points to the inevitable and soon forthcoming collapse of capitalism. I don't agree with that.
I gather what jef means is
I gather what jef means is that decadence for the ICC really means the dead-end, and ultimately counter-revolutionary role, of so called reformist labour struggles (whereas previously they claim there didn't have to be a contradiction per se between reform and revolution).
btw, probably the first use of the phrase "decadence theories" originates indeed from the critics (in 1985): http://gci-icg.org/french/lc23_decadence.htm
As so often happens in polemics, the label given by the opposite side sticks.
They do explicitly take target at the whole list of orthodox Marxists from Engels, Kautsky, etc.
Jamal, did you turn from a
Jamal, did you turn from a hyper-pessimist (regarding the future of capitalism) to a hyper-optimist?
Jamal
This would be literally true in almost any period, though.
Jamal wrote: S. Artesian
Jamal
Really? What portion of world's total foodstuffs is now grown with 25 miles of its market, as opposed to 20 years ago, 50 years ago 100 years ago 200 years ago? And how much more medicine? And what is necessarily "progressive" about that? You use less "resources"? You might as well be telling me US capitalism has become progressive since 1979 since it uses much less energy, and particularly hydrocarbon energy, per dollar of output.
As Marx pointed out 150 years ago, capitalist industries are always undergoing technical revolutions. So what's different about this one, this time?
S. Artesian wrote: Really?
S. Artesian
I'm not sure, S. Perhaps you could help me locate some of the data?
Maybe nothing?
jura
Yeah, I kinda did. Still trying to get my mind around this question. And yeah, that's probably true and makes me curious as to why.
JamaI:"I personally don't
JamaI:"I personally don't find the "progressive" or not thing super helpful. But when I do use the term, it's employed in an economic sense. When I hear the word "progressive", I think "growth"
I think this statement needs to be challenged.The concept of 'progress' is the most important question: the meaning of progress determines the meaning of 'progressive' and 'decadent'. The idea that progress can be reduced to an 'economic' category of 'growth' is and I'm really not trying to be rude here Jamal but it is the most bourgeois definition of progress I can think of. 'Growth' is not the same as progress.
Now the question is, what is progress? and I'm a bit too stoned to answer that properly right now but it is about much more than how much stuff is being made/consumed.I will try to add to this another time.
Jamal wrote: jef costello
Jamal
I think you know what decadence theory is as well as I do and I'm not sure I agree with it, certainly not in the form that it takes within the ICC. The idea of decadence and the fact that as capitalism advances it is less and less capable of offering improvements to workers is interesting but I'm not convinced and I'm not sure if it is actually helpful for us to prove.
jaycee wrote: Now the
jaycee
I mean, it's not "bourgeois" for me to look towards metrics for answers. Plus I understand somewhat the broad problems in doing so. What other data could we use?
But yes, that's the question. Does it mean the average human condition and quality of life is improving?
If you recognize the problems
If you recognize the problems with handling these growth data, figures, etc., it means you must use them with great care (statistics 101). Like you said yourself, you're not presenting here an academic work up to standard, just posting some graphs that you found on the internet.
Your defeinition of progress
Your defeinition of progress as "the average human condition and quality of life is improving?" is still not quite right. For example I would argue that things like the historical switch to agriculture was 'progressive'; however for the people involved at the time it pretty much meant worse living standards, worse health, more work, class exploitation and poverty. So why was it progressive? clearly not because it represents greater 'technological development' alone (although that is a part of it). It is much more to do with what it made possible in the long run which was the advancement of the world historical civilizations and the growth in knowledge etc that these represent. Even that on its own to my mind is not inherently 'progressive'; after all even without that knowledge/technology/development I would say for most people through history things would have been better if we had stayed in primitive communism.
So, what is progress? I think the only view of progress which makes sense and doesn't reify or objectify particular expressions of particular cultures- such as technology into independent goals in themselves is if we take seriously the idea of a 'species being' of humanity. In this view progress becomes the movement towards the achievement of a truly human way of life and being. Capitalism cannot produce this because it is an inherently inhuman society (possibly in some ways more inhuman than any other in history). Therefore progress for humanity cannot be measured in 'how well capitalism is performing'.
The (largely overstated) growth in living conditions which are being reported around the world in the last decade or so are mainly the result of capitalist social relations spreading more completely in every country (particularly China and India). In China this seems to have led to some improvements for some workers (not so much in India) but this is shouldn't be taken too much at face value. First of all having more money in the cities compared to the country isn't an indication that you are much better off as money is simply more needed in the city than it is in the country. Also the question is what is the historical effect of the rise of these new world powers?
Has it made world revolution significantly easier or more likely? I would say only marginally at best. On the other hand has it made the threat of war greater? I would say that is much more likely and expresses the current historical trajectory which more and more seems to be every country 'going its own way' and the proliferation of (nuclear armed) regional powers looking to out do each other.
GCI-ICG's text against
GCI-ICG's text against theories of decadence is translated and published here:
https://libcom.org/library/theories-decadence-decadence-theory
I thought someone may have
I thought someone may have linked to this already but after the last thread on libcom, to try to avoid false arguments and set out the Marxist position on decadence as clearly as possible the ICC published this article:
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201510/13467/once-more-decadence-some-questions-deniers
The current thread seems to have moved on somewhat but I think there is still a tendency to confuse 'decadence theory' - ie. the historical materialist view that capitalism like all other class societies is transitory in nature - and crisis theory, ie. exactly when and through which mechanism(s) it enters into its decadence/senility/decay...
Quote: decadence theory' -
So decadence theory is just a really complicated restatement of the most basic point Marx was making. Wow, what a waste of time and effort if that is all it is. Really, what's the point?
Khawaga
Khawaga
Which is of course the reason why this thread will be like all others on decadence theory.
NR's earlier post No 10
NR's earlier post No 10 provided a link to one earlier discussion on this theme and if you check that out you will find a further 4 links to extensive discussions again on the same theme which some of the contributors here were involved in and which together seems to provide more useful substance than this one. As an aside I agree that 'decadence theory' and 'crisis theory' are not the same but they are linked and of course there are Marxist influenced 'periodisation' theories other than those specific to the ICC' - this issue also discussed previously in those threads. Can't be bothered to go through it all again!
Exactly right, Spikymike. I
Exactly right, Spikymike. I think we vote with our feet here and abandon this thread.
Thirded, though for a larf I
Thirded, though for a larf I recommend ppl checking out the link MarkyMark from the funkybunch posted. Just the introduction is hilarious in and of itself. Being in a sect is a powerful drug...