-- emphasis added.

This is historically wrong.

It was after World War I that "the age of reform" began...and lasted for decades in all of the "old" capitalist countries.

One can argue the details about "when" it ended in a particular country; but I think the evidence now shows that it has ended in all of the "old" capitalist countries and, indeed, all the "great reforms" are being dismantled as a decaying social order can no longer afford them.

By contrast, the "age of reform" is beginning in the "maturing" capitalist countries in Latin America...that's what the "rise of the (bourgeois) left" really means in those places.

I think that to a considerable extent, Luxemburg, Hilferding, Lenin, et.al., thought that Europe was "the whole world". Clearly they completely missed the enormous booms that characterized capitalism in North America (both 1920-29 and 1940-70).

Inspite of the great depression of the 1930s and two incredibly destructive world wars, the 20th century was nevertheless western capitalism's "golden age"...a period of development in the means of production that makes even the complete sum of the 19th century look trivial.

It is only within the last few decades that "old" capitalism has faltered; while "new capitalism" (in Japan, China, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.) goes from triumph to triumph...and while even newer capitalisms are making their appearance (Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Mexico, India, etc.).

What this suggests to me is that Marx's idea that the "old" capitalist countries would be first to experience proletarian revolution will be confirmed.

Why? Because it is in those particular countries that capitalism is decaying to the point in which it is becoming a fetter on the further development of the means of production.

What are the basic requirements for proletarian revolution?

1. A very high degree of technological development.

2. A very culturally developed and sophisticated proletariat.

3. A chronic stagnation in the further development of technology.

4. Consequent falling standards-of-living of the proletariat.

5. Practical impossibility of significant reforms.

6. A major (or "terminal") economic crisis, an unsuccessful imperialist war, or both.

There are countries where those conditions are clearly "on history's agenda" and many other countries where those conditions lie in the distant and even very distant future.

May I respectfully suggest that the ICC needs a "software update".

My thanks to Redstar for trying to find the quote. I appreciate the effort - your comment revives a vague memory I had that Marx or Engels had used the phrase.

The point of emphasising that Kautsky had used it was to refer to the fact that awareness in the classical Marxist tradition that capitalism had or was reaching an epochal turning point into decadence - even in the Second International - did not (contrary to Lukacsian myth) lead to a belief in the inevitability of socialism.

The sense that capitalism had reached its highest stage had a programatic rather than an apocalyptic character in the Marxism tradition, in the sense that it led to the questioning of the 'build the movement' strategy promoted by Max and Engels since the 1870s.

The perception of an epochal change within capitalism at that point justified what would otherwise have been adventurist seizures of power by the Russian bolsheviks to trigger a process which, for the first time, was historically desirable.

The very difficult programmatic question, which the continued recognition of the decadent nature of capitalism overall raises, is whether, within the epoch of the highest stage of capitalism there might be periods where it is no longer (for that period) appropriate to support programs focused on lighting fires of international revolution.

The justification for that would be that, while capitalism may be epochally degenerate, it is nevertheless capable of very substantial, fitfull, periods of localised or even global economic growth (however undesirable the structure of that economic growth) such that the revolutinary programme may become quixotic for significant periods, although epochally justified. More prosaically: revolution is objectively desirable from the point of view of the species as a whole, but the workng class forces to push it forward simply cannot for whole periods, be mobilised because of the structure and nature of capitalism.

Hello,

In response to what’s been written (again apologies for the length of the post):

Unsurprisingly, given what I previously wrote, I (and the ICC) would disagree. To re state what I said, rather than signalling an ‘age of reform’ the First World War heralded the onset of capitalisms decadence, which has twice plunged humanity into a barbaric cycle of crisis, world war, reconstruction and new crisis. The conditions, which had allowed capitalism to expand in the Nineteenth Century, had begun to disappear, to quote from our pamphlet, Unions against the working class:

“The economic and social life of each nation was more and more thrown into disorder. To cope with rivalries developing over the competition of commodities on the world market, as well as military competition, the whole economy had to be stretched to its maximum limits in order to lower the costs of production and release the necessary resources to develop armies and a military apparatus of the most modern type. The margin of manoeuvre which had once been available to the national capitals and which had allowed the proletariat room to lead a struggle for reforms within bourgeois society shrank rapidly. The pitiless war, which the capitalist nations embarked upon, led naturally enough to an internal war waged by capital against any amelioration in the living conditions of the producing class. The economic and military efficiency of each national capital vis-à-vis other national capitals depended as never before on the capacity of each to extract the maximum surplus value from its exploited class. No national capital could grant concessions to its proletariat without falling behind on the international arena”.

State capitalism, was another consequence of this process of degeneration. In periods of decadence, whether in the 15th century or in the 20th century, the state, faced with “the exacerbation of the system’s contradictions” (ICC, Platform & Manifesto), is forced to take responsibility for the ‘security’ of the existing society in order to defend the existing mode of production. The state “thus tends to strengthen itself to the point of incorporating within its own structures the whole of social life” (ICC, Platform & Manifesto). This has become the general tendency within decadent capitalism. Now faced with sharp imperialist competition national capital cannot expand in the same unfettered way it did during the period of capitalism’s ascendancy. Therefore, each national capital must organise itself as efficiently as possible in order to compete, economically and militarily, with its imperialist rivals, and to deal internally with ‘national’ problems thrown up by the social contradictions of decadence. The state is the only force capable of achieving this task.

Only the state can take charge of the economy, develop military forces and, through “an increasingly heavy repressive and bureaucratic apparatus, reinforce the internal cohesion of a society threatened with collapse through the growing decomposition of its economic foundations” (ICC, Platform & Manifesto). However, it is important to state that although never fully realised, state control of the economy does not indicate the disappearance of the law of value and competition, which are “fundamental expressions of the capitalist economy” (ICC, Platform & Manifesto). Any ‘rationalisation’ is merely an expression of capitalism’s decadence.

This general tendency towards state capitalism manifests itself in every country and has taken place gradually, like in the more developed countries where there is been a ‘joining up’ of private and public capital (e.g. in most of Europe), and in “sudden leaps in the form of massive and total nationalisations” (ICC, Platform & Manifesto) in nations where private capitalism is at its weakest. Although a general tendency, state capitalism makes a more rapid, and has a more obvious, appearance during those periods (e.g. war) in which capitalism’s decadence is at its most brutal, particularly in those nations which are weaker economically. Effectively, “the state [whether ‘totalitarian or democratic’] has become under decadent capitalism, a monstrous, cold, impersonal machine which has devoured the very substance of civil society” (ICC, Platform & Manifesto).

The ‘reforms’ you allude to in your post, the NHS in Britain, welfare systems throughout Europe, etc., are the result of this general tendency towards state capitalism. The introduction of the NHS for example “was not a product of a stubborn struggle by the working class but the conscious decision of the government of National Unity in World War Two” (The NHS is not a Reform for Workers to Defend WR 217). Rather than having the interests of workers in mind it ensured that they were ‘fit for service’ and was a major part of the move towards state capitalist control of all aspects of life in Britain. It is of course not immune to capitalism’s crisis and hence suffers from constant financial crisis. Workers who fight to defend the NHS find themselves defending the very state, which attacks them.

As capitalism’s crisis has deepened over the last 35 years the state can no longer afford these ‘great reforms’. This is a true in the ‘new’ countries on the periphery of capitalism (e.g. Japan has been in a deep economic crisis for 15 years) as it is in the ‘old’ heartlands of capitalism. As the state, internationally, strengthens itself to defend its own interests, workers whether in Britain, China, Venezuela or wherever are forced to answer the same question: what future does capitalism offer us?

Anyway, I have already written far too much and not even begun to answer some of the other fundamental points that have been raised, like:

“One can argue the details about "when" it ended in a particular country; but I think the evidence now shows that it has ended in all of the "old" capitalist countries and, indeed, all the "great reforms" are being dismantled as a decaying social order can no longer afford them”

“What this suggests to me is that Marx's idea that the "old" capitalist countries would be first to experience proletarian revolution will be confirmed”.

Perhaps I, or someone else, will be able to respond to them in the near future?

For communism!

Morven

NB: Once again, the cited texts are available on the ICC's website

This is a plausible hypothesis...but again faces empirical difficulties.

The capitalist state apparatus today is indeed bloated beyond recognition of a 19th century robber baron.

But the trend in the "old" capitalist countries is, of course, privatization.

Even in the area of its most vital concern -- military security -- the U.S. has privatized its entire logistics. The ammunition that an American mercenary uses in Iraq was not only manufactured by a private corporation, it was delivered to him by a private corporation...most likely Halliburton.

The uniform he wears was probably made by prison labor contracted out to a private corporation. Indeed, it's increasingly possible that the prison itself is privately owned.

One could say, of course, that the capitalist state apparatus is "administering" all of this...because private capital is no longer "up to the task".

And there's probably quite a bit of truth to that.

But I don't think that's much help in coming to grip with the concept of "decadence". If the idea is to be useful, it must tell us in which countries has capitalism reached "the end of the line" or at least might be approaching that.

A "sweeping" declaration that "global capitalism has become decadent" doesn't tell us anything useful...it's like saying "the earth will be slightly warmer next year". Which parts of the earth? How much warmer? Will there be parts that get colder?

In the U.S., capitalism is stagnating. In China, capitalism is booming. Are both "decadent"?

Well, I am not an "expert" on the situation in Japan...but it does seem that Japan continues to advance the development of the means of production. This suggests to me that an "age of reform" ought to be possible in Japan.

Clearly, the rise of the bourgeois "left" in Latin America suggests the beginning of an "age of reform" in those countries.

How much substantive rise in proletarian living standards will actually materialize from those reforms is speculative at this point. Venezuela can, I think, easily afford to be a Latin American "Sweden"...Brazil may find such matters more difficult to manage.

It's probably better to post "in your own words" than to quote extensively from formal manifestos. That would allow you to respond more explicitly to the posts of others -- whereas manifestos, by necessity, are extremely general.

As a general rule, we don't mind long posts on this board...if they are interesting responses to the points raised by others.

And, of course, you are always free to start a thread on a subject of interest to you and write as much as you think appropriate. We much prefer the individual thoughts of the members here to the formal statements of particular groups.

But of course, such wouldn't be possible without state apparatus working in favor of those private corporations.

But the point is that capitalism, in general and on a global scale, is decaying. It had reached that point that no more significant development is happening. What the Imperialist countries, or in your term "old" capitalist countires, were doing were simply intensifying the contradictions within the capitalist system, that is, among themselves.

What you call as the "new" and "rising" capitalist countries, such as China, were not really booming. They only serve to intensify more the ever deepening capitalist crisis.

Those "new, emerging capitalist societies" were not actually capitalist in the complete sense of capitalist development. Looking back into capitalism as it arose, industrialization has flourished and these industries (basic and heavy) were owned by the local/ethnic bourgeoisie. While in these "new emerging capitalist countries," industries, especially the heavy industries, were transnationally/multinationally owned. These industries (means of production) were owned by a corporation tracing its root from one or more Imperialist country. The Imperialist countries were investing their "surplus" capital in those countries.

That is not a capitalist development.

That is, in fact, an intensification of Imperialist domination not just over their market but even on their means of production to accumulate more capital and gain more control over those countries.

Not just in Latin American countries do this kind of "development" occur. It is the same in Korea, Taiwan, etc. Even China gained from these investments of surplus capital from the US.

Maybe that is your notion of an "age of reform."

But in reality, it was a mere step done by an Imperialist country to sustain its existence and prevent, even a little longer, its decay.

Even if true, that's a meaningless statement. As I said before, that's like saying "the world is getting warmer". It doesn't tell us anything useful.

And I'm not even sure that it is true...though it may be true.

Capitalism is a "many-headed" monster...and accordingly difficult to "sum up".

We are told that the "world economy" continues to grow...but we have no way to validate the numbers given to us by "the authorities". The only thing we really know is what we can see around us...how's the economy doing where you live?

The daily newspapers in the U.S. speak of large layoffs, corporate bankruptcies, steeply rising energy costs, a real estate "boom", a "falling rate" in personal savings, and so on. Yet they nevertheless claim that the U.S. economy is "continuing to grow" and "unemployment" is "declining".

I don't see how all of those things could be simultaneously "true".

I know what living in the U.S. "feels like"...and "prosperous" or "expanding" are not words that spring to mind.

Capitalism here "feels decadent".

From what I have read, this does not seem to be the case in Asia or Latin America. Not only do their economies continue to grow at a rapid pace, but they continue to advance the development of the means of production.

The Chinese are actually starting work on a nuclear fusion plant!

Need I elaborate on the implications of that if their efforts are successful?

When a corporation from one of the "old" capitalist countries invests in one of the "new" capitalist countries, I agree with you that that is not capitalist development in the "classical" sense.

But what I think is happening is that these "new" capitalist countries are evolving their own "advanced" bourgeoisie...who are quite capable and quite determined to "take matters" into their own hands.

A western corporation, for example, that wants to take advantage of "cheap Chinese labor" to offset its own declining profit margins is welcomed. But there's a catch...the western corporation must hand over to the Chinese its advanced technology so that Chinese capitalists can build their own plants and compete with the western capitalist -- and not just in China but globally!

Chinese capitalism "booms" while western capitalism has only dug its own grave a little deeper.

Could you elaborate a bit futher on this particular bit?

Because as far as I can tell, the old capitalist countries are the ones pushing the latest technology.

The means of production in these country's indeed are expanding.

However, none of these country's are accumulating capital. Indeed, the only income generated from these ventures that stay's in the country are wage's. And the reason that these enterprises are funded by imperialist Capital is precisly becuase wages.

How could these country's develop there own bourgoise, when there means of production are owned by forign capitalist's ?!?

This statement just dosen't stand up to the fact's. China for example, owns a mere 4 of the world's 1000 bank's. And all of these are sudsiduary's of forign owned banks !

How can a country be "booming new capitalist state" when it has no finance capital ?

Why would a capitalist hand over technology to a competitor ? Youre statement makes no sense.

The "advancement" in their means of production that you were talking here is not an advancement in the natural sense. It is the recycled means of production or the surplus capital being invested in them by the Imperialist countries. The outdated technology from the Imperialist countries were transferred to these "new capitalist" countries while the Imperialist countries themselves continue to develop new technologies. Who benefits most from these "advances" were not the local bourgeoisie but the Monopoly Capitalists who invested their "surplus" capital, including finance capital. These Monopoly Capitalists accumulates more capital out of it, thus prolonging a bit their existence.

Well, in reality, it is not happening and it cannot happen in the future, either. The fact is, the local bourgeoisie of these countries cannot take matters into their own hands simply because the Imperialists control their means of production and their government.

Western capitalists were not dumb to hand over their technology to their soon-to-be competitor. It would be like they're "getting a stone to be poked at their own heads," as the saying goes.

Assuming that this is true, what will happen is that an old, outdated technology will be left on them while a new and more advanced technology shall have been developed by the Imperialist countries before such transfer of technology occurs.

That, my friend, is what's happening globally.

Chinese capitalism only recycles the old capitalism, and they shall be dragged also when capitalism will be overthrown.

The scientific "infrastructure" of the "old" capitalist countries is still superior...and still capable of innovating new technologies. But the application of these new technologies to the means of production is increasingly located in the "new" capitalist countries.

Bright kids from Asia or Latin America still come to western universities to study science and technology. But instead of staying in those western countries (like they used to do) they go home...because the opportunities are better.

Western capitalists actually encourage this process. When they build a plant in China, they don't just "copy" the old plant that they closed in the U.S. or the U.K., they build a new "state of the art" plant with the most modern technology they can obtain...which in turn is copied by Chinese capitalists.

Quote:

JC1

If you go back at look at the U.S. from say 1850-1900, you'll see that the role of finance capital was relatively small.

Moreover, a great deal of the necessary capital investment actually originated in Europe...where American railroad bonds were extremely popular.

Much was made in the years immediately before World War I of the "power" of "finance capital" over "industrial capital"...this was one of the rationales of the "new and final stage of capitalism" hypothesis.

In my opinion, it was much fuss over nothing. The influence of finance capital and industrial capital waxes and wanes...probably depending on technological innovation. Sometimes the banks "rule" and sometimes industrial capital is so profitable that it reduces the banks to spectators.

I think it would be difficult now to even clearly separate the two; industrial corporations routinely buy and sell financial products to "hedge" their position in both market share and currency variations. If I'm not mistaken, the currently most profitable division of the General Motors Corporation is GMAC...the division that handles consumer auto loans.

Because that's the price of doing business in China at all. When Boeing Corporation wanted to build jets in China, for example, the Chinese said sure...but you have to hand over the technology to us. Otherwise, we'll just build our planes ourselves.

Boeing had no choice but to agree.

Yeah, but who controls that industry? Was it China?

And who controls the capital (financial and the machines)? Was it China?

I don't think so. The Imperialists control those things. They only pay the Chinese workers because their wages were a lot cheaper than the American workers.

So, who will gain from this? The American capitalists, the Monopoly Capitalists.

And was there a "boom" with this kind of trade? None.

Hello,

Taking on board the Moderator's stern words another response to some of what’s been written:

Redstar wrote: "a sweeping" declaration that "global capitalism has become decadent" doesn't tell us anything useful...”

Although I disagree with the term ‘sweeping’, doesn’t? Basically, recognising, in continuity with the workers movement, that capitalism is decadent at least gives us a starting point, a framework, grounded in the marxist method, that enables us to begin to think about its development in the 20th Century. It allows us to move from the general to the specific. I hate to bang on about it, especially as some of the other posters on the thread (e.g. Red Che) seem to share this perspective, but this is a fundamental acquisition of the workers movement! Anyway, didn’t Rosa Luxemburg write somewhere that being a revolutionary meant having to repeat the same thing over and over again? (If anyone knows which text this phrase appears in I would like to know, I have forgotten where I saw it originally).

Redstar wrote: “If the idea is to be useful, it must tell us in which countries has capitalism reached "the end of the line" or at least might be approaching that”.

Again, I don’t think a phrase like the ‘end of the line’ really ‘does it’.

Capitalism is a global system (obvious perhaps, given Marx’s comments in the Communist Manifesto: “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere”. But some may disagree, some may even think that feudalism still exists in a meaningful way!). Therefore if you accept that it is decadent then Chinese capitalism is a decadent as American capitalism and so on.

But when left communists talk about decadence they don’t, can’t, deny that there has been, and still will be, growth. The onset of decadence didn’t signal a halt in development, it started a process of decay, which continues today. So, to answer one of your questions, how could there be an economic boom between 1945 – 1970 if capitalism is decadent?

Well, as I said in an earlier post, decadence has twice plunged humanity into a barbaric cycle of crisis, world war, reconstruction and new crisis. The American ‘booms’ (i.e. growth) you referred to in one of your posts, for example, are largely a consequence of the periods of reconstruction following the two imperialist wars (although other factors played a role). If we look at European ‘capitalism’ for example, its ‘golden age’ following the Second World War certainly wouldn’t have been possible given the levels of destruction without the intervention of the Americans and the Marshall Plan. Elsewhere as capitalism’s crisis deepens all sorts of measures have been used to prop it up ranging from the use of massive levels of debt to artificially create the markets which capitalism requires (e.g. in Japan for example) through to state intervention (i.e. state capitalism). Essentially, and this is massively simplifying it, the growth that has occurred in capitalism’s decadence has either been slow, cyclical or artificial.

Neither do we deny there were at the beginning of the 20th Century, and still are at the beginning of the 21st, extra-capitalist markets. But how does decadent capitalism exploit these markets when it is still struggling to integrate whole continents (e.g. Africa)?

As for ‘technology’, “the scientific "infrastructure" of the "old" capitalist countries [may] still [be] superior...and still capable of innovating new technologies”, but these new technologies, however innovative, can’t solve capitalism’s inherent contradictions. Recently the dot com ‘revolution’ was hailed as being as important as the ‘railway age’, well the majority of these companies quickly ran out of steam and capitalism’s crisis continues to deepen.

What makes the theory of decadence ‘useful’, as I stated above, is that it provides a framework to help us understand these questions (e.g. the role played by state capitalism, the reconstruction periods, the existence of extra-capitalist markets, the role played by arms production, and so on). Without it we are left with the ‘mess’ of ‘immediatist explanations’ regularly offered up by the different factions of the bourgeoisie.

Capitalism, I’m sure you would agree, won’t simply stop or ‘reach the end of the line’ but what it may do, through its pursuit of profit, is destroy the very basis of human life, the planet which we live on before the working class is able to realise its historic task. Therefore the deepening of its crisis, the reality that it is rotting on its feet, makes the need to destroy capitalism more pressing than ever but to do this we need to understand it, the theory of decadence helps us do that.

Redstar wrote: Capitalism is a "many-headed" monster...and accordingly difficult to "sum up".

I agree but as revolutionaries trying to offer a perspective for the future we have to try and ‘sum it up’ don’t we?

For example, we also have to try and ‘sum up’ what the consequences were for the workers movement of the onset of capitalism’s decadence? As I mentioned in my first post decadence had a serious impact on how workers responded to a number of questions like, the unions, national liberation, communist organisation and so on, but this really is for another thread (if in the meantime anyone is interested in this you could look at the ICC’s Platform, which is available at: http://en.internationalism.org/platform).

For communism!

Morven

There's another parallel with the "railway age". In the 1880s and 1890s, there was a massive "shake-out" of railroads in the U.S....during which many collapsed and were bought out by a few big outfits.

This is normal under capitalism.

If that's the practical consequence of the "decadence" hypothesis, then it's not much help.

Telling people to overthrow capitalism "or human life will come to an end" just sounds wacko!

Granted that in a really decadent capitalist country, "end of the world" superstitions enjoy a modest revival...supposedly some 7% of the American population expect to "see" the "Rapture".

I don't think that sort of thing has any significant appeal in the "new" capitalist countries where capitalism seems to have a "bright future".

I do expect capitalism to come to "the end of the line" in western Europe and North America before the end of this century...but that won't mean "the end of the capitalist epoch".

Any more than 1789 meant "the end of feudalism".

I know the feeling.

But there's a danger lurking in that sentiment. If you just "repeat the formula", you may miss something new and unexpected.

Marxist theory cannot be treated as an exhibit in a large glass museum case...kept safe from "contamination". The various versions of Leninism do that...which is why everything they say sounds so "old-fashioned". In the Trotskyist "universe", the clock stopped in 1940. In the Maoist "universe", it stopped in 1976.

The dead oppress the living.

I think we should emulate the approach of Marx and Engels and attempt to look critically at modern phenomena the way they did in their own lifetimes.

That doesn't mean passively "buying in" to the "flavor of the month" in bourgeois ideology. But it does mean paying attention to how the world has changed and is changing.

Just "saying the same thing over and over again" is unlikely to prove useful in the long run.

I'd agree with this sentiment: Marxism is not a dead dogma. It is a living dynamic world view. Indeed, it is the only basis on which the past, present and future of humanity can be truly comprehended and shaped. At the core of Marxism is historical materialism which gives us a method for approaching reality, and by using it all of the great Marxists were able to 'pay attention to how the world was changing' and thus adapt their analysis and positions accordingly:
- After the Paris Commune Marx and Engels changed the views they expressed in the Communist Manifesto on the working class being able to use the capitalist state.

- After the Mass Strike in Russia 1905 Rosa Luxemburg was able to see how the soviet form of revolutionary organisation had eclipsed that of the trade unions.

- After the onset of the First World War and the betrayals of Social Democracy the left of the Second International saw the need to press forward the struggle against opportunism and centrism and fight for the formation of a new International.

- And the Third International itself - in particular during the first two Congresses (1919 & 1921) - was very clear in its understanding that the world war had opened up a new phase in capitalism's history. To quote the Theses on Comintern Tactics from the Fourth Congress

Does Redstar2000 reject this analysis made by the Communist International in 1922?

So yes, look at how history has developed and what the future holds - but with a method , with a clear framework: historical materialism. It is this method of understanding which shows that modes of production go through phases of rise and fall, of progress and reaction, of ascendancy and decadence: not this or that particular country.

The question of the 'Chinese boom' shows what can happens if you don't approach reality with a materialist method. If you think China is a booming economy then you really have 'bought in' to the lies of the bourgeoisie. The 'boom' in China is in fact a fantastic expression of the crisis of capitalism taken globally, because it is flooding the already saturated world market with products and exacerbating the economic crisis. And the 'boom' is being paid for by the working class through massive attacks on its working and living conditions: mass unemployment, poverty, famine and environmental destruction. If this is 'progress' then what does reaction look like?! See this article for how China is more of a capitalist mirage than an economic miracle:
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/278_china.htm

The ICC has written several series of articles on the question of the decadence of capitalism, which have been collected here:
http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/270

Beltov.

Yeah, I think they missed really badly on that one.

It "looked that way" in the aftermath of World War I...I'll grant you that.

But it completely missed the enormous technological development of the means of production that took place throughout the remainder of the 20th century.

It missed the decline of countries like England, France, and Germany and the rise of the U.S. and (monopoly state capitalist) Russia.

It missed the "computer revolution" completely.

Quote:

Originally posted by beltov@ It is this method of understanding which shows that modes of production go through phases of rise and fall, of progress and reaction, of ascendancy and decadence: not this or that particular country.

Well, there's a sense in which that is true...but new modes of production do happen to arise or decline in specific countries in specific historical periods.

If it were the case that every country's economy was completely dominated by foreign trade and investment, then a "global approach" would be suitable. If capitalism lasts long enough, this could happen.

But it certainly hasn't happened yet. We know this because if it were true, then wages would be approximately the same everywhere.

The whole world would be economically "on the same page".

I personally don't expect capitalism to last long enough for that to happen.

Quote:

If you think China is a booming economy then you really have 'bought in' to the lies of the bourgeoisie. The 'boom' in China is in fact a fantastic expression of the crisis of capitalism taken globally, because it is flooding the already saturated world market with products and exacerbating the economic crisis. And the 'boom' is being paid for by the working class through massive attacks on its working and living conditions: mass unemployment, poverty, famine and environmental destruction.

The article that you link to suggests that the current Chinese "boom" is somehow "different" from 19th century "booms" in the "old" capitalist countries.

But, frankly, it looks very much the same to me.

Overproduction? Happened all the time. Environmental destruction? Commonplace. Air pollution? London used to actually be called "the Smoke". Immiseration of the proletariat? So universal in 19th century capitalism that Marx thought it was a "built-in trend". Bank failures? Routine.

Will China have a "great depression"? I don't see how it could possibly be avoided...they'll probably have several. The U.S. had a whole bunch in the second half of the 19th century. So did the other new capitalist countries of that era.

To take a slightly different example, consider the "deflationary" trend in the Japanese economy over the last 15 years or so. The U.S. had a trend like that from 1870 to 1880...and still went on developing the means of production.

What strikes me about China and the other "new" capitalist countries is the building...the new factories, the new railroads, the new power systems, the new office buildings, etc.

This is what a confident young bourgeoisie does. While the infrastructure of the "old" capitalist countries deteriorate, China's is modernized. I've even read that they're planning a "new city" (realistically, a town of about 75,000) that will be entirely solar powered.

Not to mention building a working nuclear fusion plant. (!)

Can you imagine the truly decadent capitalist countries doing anything on that scale?

Well, France, I think, is working on a model fusion plant that could, in principle, be "scaled up".

But if the Chinese can "show the world how it's done", imagine the consequences.

I certainly share your skepticism about the hype surrounding different "models" of capitalism...probably a product of the desire to show that capitalism "does have a future". But I think most of this hype originates in the "old" capitalist countries where it's starting to look like capitalism doesn't "have a future".

Capitalists in China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, Brazil, etc. don't have to "hype themselves"...their landscapes speak for them.

To be sure, there's no reason to think that their "hour in the sun" will last any longer than that of the "old" capitalist countries. If we posit that capitalism becomes decadent in a particular country after two or three centuries (at most!), then the China of 2206 or 2306 will be just as moribund as American capitalism is now. And it could happen even faster.

In the course of another discussion, I came across this interesting remark by Engels made back in 1848.

Quote:

Engels

We may, if we are fortunate, see the hangman show up where we live before the end of this century.

But a "new" capitalist cannot even imagine such a thing. He thinks capitalism is "immortal".

Historically, the epoch of capitalism is on a decline. It reached the point of ever-deepening and unresolving crisis. This must be viewed not only in a certain country at a certain point. It must be viewed epochally and globally.

As beltov stated, the societies and historical stages go through phases of rise and fall. Now capitalism, as a definite system and stage of historical development, is on its phase of decline. And it is during this period that workers must organize themselves and deal that final blow in order to finally end the epoch of capitalism and start the epoch of socialism.

That wouldn't happen in reality. Because the international division of labor under capitalism have put a barrier to prevent such a thing.

You are obviously overwhelmed by the outside appearance of capitalism. And you obviously get caught by the lavish bourgeois propaganda. These advances are not the measure of capitalist development as a whole. Even at its very last day, capitalism would continue to develop new technologies. It is just its character, capitalist accumulation means developing new technologies for faster accumulation of profit and capital.

But we must look into the relations of production. Was it going along the same way as the means of production is going? No. In fact it is lagging behind. Everytime new technology is developed, more and more workers are laid-off of their work, more and more workers are thrown into poverty and misery. More and more workers are oppressed and exploited. And everytime that general crisis of capitalism bursts, it is ever more destruvtive, more violent.

In the past, during the elementary stage of capitalism, there is always a "boom" after every crisis. That is, the condition of liveing goes back the same way before the crisis. But now, the condition of living sinks deeper as every crisis comes and goes unresolved. This characterizes the decadent stage of capitalism.

That ain't what Marx said.

Doesn't mean Marx couldn't have been wrong and you are right.

But I'm inclined to go with Marx on this one. As long as an "epoch" of production continues to advance the means of production, it "ain't dead yet".

It may well be "dying" in certain areas. Feudalism was dying in 18th and 19th century western Europe...but still growing (at least in substance) in eastern Europe and Latin America.

That does seem to be the effect in the "old" capitalist countries. In the "new" capitalist countries, the standards-of-living are rising.

They are still below what we would consider a "tolerable minimum"...but they're getting there.

Well, we only have two examples in our "sample" so far...that is, two "world wars".

But note that the "Asian melt-down" did not result in a regional war between rival "new" capitalist countries.

The logic of historical materialism does suggest that regional wars in Asia or Latin America are probable as capitalism matures there.

How "destructive" and "violent" they will be remains to be seen.

I do not know what you can possibly be basing this assertion on...except observation of life in the "old" capitalist countries.

Yes, here every "recession" is not followed by any significant improvement in the life of ordinary people. Things stagnate or even get worse.

That does not seem to be happening at all in the "new" capitalist countries.

Of course, we are not "there" and it's quite possible that if we were, my opinions might change. As it is, we must perforce rely on what people say who are or have been there and what they say they saw.

I've read articles written by western journalists about Beijing and Shanghai...and they are "shocked and awed" by the rapidly changing landscape of those cities. There's nothing like that going on in the "west". And, from what I've read, stuff like that is going on all over China...even in its "backward western" provinces.

However realistic the concept of decadence looks in the "old" capitalist countries, it simply sounds metaphysical when applied to the "new" capitalist countries.

Quite tricky and very misleading.

Production continues to advance while societies emerge and die. New means of production are always developed in a society even as its old system is dying. And it could be more developed when a new society emerges.

Ridiculous. The workers may have a new look. They may have wore new uniforms, work on a "high-tech" factory, and get money. But, is this consistent with the standards of living in their place? Hell, no. In fact, more than three billion people, or half of the world's population today, live on a meager USD2 a day. How can half of the world's population be able to have a decent living with such amount? Considering that almost everyday prices of basic commodities go up. While the three riches peole in the world have a combined wealth of more than USD200 Billion. Is that what you say "the standards of living are rising"?

Haha... Look around you. And be critical. Don't just assume.

So, you don't really know. You only rely on what was said to you. But it would depend on who is looking at it. If the bourgeoisie were to be asked they would say the same thing as what you just have said above. But if you would ask the ordinary workers, they would say otherwise. So, which of the two would you believe?

But as for me, I was there. And I know their conditions. In fact, the standards of living in the US is even higher. And they are nowhere close to getting at the same level as the US'.

See? You are only basing your "assumptions" from bourgeois sources, after all.

Capitalism evidently has "lots of room" to develop, then.

Do you imagine that people living in destitution are capable of even imagining communism...much less doing it?

Or, like a good Maoist, are these the people that will hail you as a "Great Leader" when you impose a new despotism on them "for their own good"?

Well, you might be right...they might well hail you as "the red sun in their hearts".

Desperate people do desperate things.

But I wouldn't feel too smug if I were you. As we've already seen, Maoist "socialism" becomes modern capitalism.

Enjoy your brief "moment in the sun"...if it's not already passed.

As an aside, Redstar's determination to see this question in black and white terms reflects his discomfort with dialectical forms of thinking in which ideas that are contrary are placed within a more complex broader conception.

On the main point, the role of the concept of decadence, as the quote from the Third International correctly reflected, was as a central tool of the analysis which diagnosed the need to bring to an end the 2nd International movement-building programme. THat had been based on the analysis that Capitalism continued to have growth potential and that the socialist movement needed to concentrate on building, waiting for the opportune period. By diagnosing capitalism as decadent, the THird International justified moving away from that.

Decadence was always an international concept, even in Luxembourgs and Bukharin's flawed conceptions - both emphasised it as applying to capitalsm as an international economy rather than a national economy. To propose that the concept of decadence is ineffective unless it applies to national economies is to desire a black and white world, and it is to demand a simplicity that the world will not provide. The linkages between seizures of state power by workers movements will not flow directly from economic fundamentals (that would be reductionist), they will flow from the tactical accidents occuring in varying political contexts.

Restars insistence on this, looks to me like it demands a reductionist conception of the seizure of state power (such seizures being something quite distinct from 'revolution' or 'the overthrow of capitalism'). Such a reductionist conception of the moment of seizure is not what Marxism aspires to. Trotskys History of the Russian Revolution is excellant in balancing the role of conceptions of accident and determinism etc in the conceptualisation of political seizures.

The leninist conception of revolution generally involves a concept of tactical seizures of state power within national economies within which (taken in isolation) capitalism would not be considered decadent - but which are justified because a nationalist concept of decadence would be wrong.