On the importance of the Counter-Theses on decomposition

 

This text develops complementary arguments to the excellent Counter-Theses on decomposition written by TIBOR

 

Table of contents

An ill-chosen argument from authority
Marx’s Manifesto refutes the ICC
The impossible phase of decomposition in capitalism
Capitalism « in permanent crisis » ?
A ‘theory’ that obliterates reality
The origin of the decomposition ‘theory’
The idealism of the ICC
An idealised vision of the ‘ascendancy’ of capitalism
Ignorance of the dialectic
A mishmash of contradictions

 

---

« It is therefore of the utmost importance that the proletariat rejects, as a result of a scientific examination and not as a result of a priori or prejudice, the erroneous position which makes decomposition a new historical phase, the characteristics of which would be qualitatively new, and which would lead to the transformation of the perspectives of the proletariat, ie., in reality, to the disarming of it » Tibor, Counter-Theses on Decomposition.

---

 

You only have to read any article by the International Communist Current (ICC) or listen to its activists to realise that ‘decomposition’ is the recurrent and roborative explanation put forward behind any phenomenon ranging from crisis to war, politics, culture, delinquency or affairs of morality... This all-purpose ‘explanation’ claims that a « situation of temporary “social stalemate” » has arisen « due to the mutual “neutralisation” of the two fundamental classes » which « each preventing the other from providing a definitive response to the capitalist crisis » (Thesis 6 of the ICC on decomposition, the ultimate phase of capitalist decadence). It would be this blockage which would determine almost everything in capitalism since the 1980-90s: the rise of populism, the accelerated destruction of the environment, the generalisation of corruption, etc.

The important thing about comrade Tibor’s Counter-Theses is that they offer those seeking Marxist clarity a solidly argued deconstruction of a ‘theory’ which, on the surface, seems to be able to explain everything, but which explains nothing at all because it is purely phenomenological. We’d like to stress their importance here, in that they offer a double demonstration: not only of the inanity of this ‘theory of decomposition’, but also, by ricochet, of the vacuity of this other ‘theory’ of ‘political parasitism’ of which decomposition is one of the pillars. We shall develop here two aspects which reading these Counter-Theses has inspired in us: one on their importance (the present contribution) and the other on a fundamental difference of opinion we have with comrade Tibor (this divergence will be developed in a forthcoming contribution).

If, in many respects, the analysis of the Counter-Theses is in line with our own critique developed on pages 14 to 19 of our Cahier Thématique n°3, they are however much more global in that they flush out almost all the arguments of the ICC’s argumentation which obliterate a true Marxist understanding of reality. We won’t therefore go back here to the refutations of each of the CCI’s theses developed by comrade Tibor, as they are sufficient in themselves. We would, however, like to bring in a few complementary arguments and underline certain elements which comrade Tibor little or never touched on.

 

An ill-chosen argument from authority

 

Desperate to be isolated in its defence of this ‘theory’ of decomposition [1], the ICC uses every means at its disposal to give it credibility by appealing to our illustrious predecessors. It repeats over and over that [2] :

• « The phase of the decomposition of capitalist society is not at all an "elaboration", a "vague idea", "invented" by the ICC. Marx himself, at the beginning of the Communist Manifesto, envisaged this eventuality drawn from the historic experience of class societies when he wrote: : “The history of all societies up to now, is the history of class struggle. Free man and slave, patriarch and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes”. Among these “contending classes” today, we only have the bourgeoisie and proletariat » [3].

Not only does the ICC demonstrate that it is incapable of reading Marx correctly, but he does not hesitate to transform the meaning of his words! Indeed, when Marx evokes this « common ruin of the contending classes », he cites Antiquity (free man and slave, patriarch and plebeian), the Middle Ages (lord and serf) and the Ancien Régime (guild-master and journeyman), but he never cites capitalism, contrary to what the ICC fallaciously claims, by putting it in Marx’s words that : « among these “contending classes” today, we only have the bourgeoisie and proletariat ». And with good reason, since Marx explicitly rejects in the Manifesto any possible existence of such a phase for capitalism.

 

Marx’s Manifesto refutes the ICC

 

For the ICC, since the 1980s capitalism has entered a new phase of its decadence: a « phase of decomposition is fundamentally determined by unprecedented and unexpected historical conditions: a situation of temporary “social stalemate” due to the mutual “neutralisation” of the two fundamental classes, each preventing the other from providing a definitive response to the capitalist crisis » Thesis 6 of the ICC on decomposition, the ultimate phase of capitalist decadence.

Marx, on the other hand, explicitly rejects any possible existence of such a phase in capitalism. The Manifesto thus rejects the two basic foundations of the ICC’s ‘theory of decomposition’:

1. « The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society » writes Marx. In other words, if the very existence of the bourgeoisie depends on the constantly revolutionising of the whole relations of society , any social stalemate or neutralisation of the latter implies the pure and simple cessation of capitalism. Consequently, Marx rules out any possibility of a phase of decomposition for capitalism.
2. And Marx explains this impossibility by a fundamental difference (and not an analogy, as the ICC claims) between the capitalist mode of production and all the others: « Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ».

If, in his first Counter-Thesis, comrade Tibor opportunely takes up these same passages from Marx to challenge the idea of « historic crisis of the economy » defended by the ICC [4] , in reality, these passages just as explicitly reject the two basic foundations of decomposition theory !

 

The impossible phase of decomposition in capitalism

 

Marx’s rejection of a possible « temporary “social stalemate” due to the mutual “neutralisation” of the two fundamental classes » (ICC) for capitalism is intrinsic to his analysis of this mode of production, since such a configuration is totally incompatible with the imperatives required by the accumulation of capital, which necessitate « constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society » (Marx).

The facts fully support this conception and totally invalidate that of the ICC since, in accordance with Marx, the balance of power between the classes never experiences ’social stalemate’ - ’neutralisation’ during the entire history of capitalism, neither on the socio-political level of the evolution of social conflict (Graph 1), nor on the economic level of the evolution of the rate of exploitation (Graph 2).

 

Graph 1 : Strikes in 16 developed countries

 

In fact, the graph above clearly shows the absence of any ’social stalemate’ - ’neutralisation’ of the balance of power between the classes since the latter fluctuates constantly in the short and medium term [5]. The continuous decline in social conflict since 1975 has even reached one of its lowest historical levels, and is ten times less than during the 1965-75 decade. Consequently, to claim that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat « confront each other without either being able to impose its own definitive response » is purely and simply a view of the mind, one of those idealistic schemes typically out of touch with the ground of the ICC.

It is this continuous weakening of the retreat of social conflict over the last half-century which allows the bourgeoisie to impose its imperatives on the proletariat with increasing ease and to give free rein to its imperialist impulses. Indeed, not only is the bourgeoisie able to impose its austerity and the beginnings of a war economy, but it is also able to advance its pawns on the military and inter-imperialist fronts without encountering much resistance from the working class ... all things which the ICC denies since it claims that we have been witnessing a historic resumption of class struggles since the summer of 2022 [6] and that the reformation of imperialist blocs with a view to a Third World War is virtually out of the question in this context of decomposition [7].

Consequently, the weakening of the working class since 1975 has been reflected in a rise in its rate of exploitation (or surplus value) since that date (Graph 2). This rate is the measure of the balance of power between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in economic terms, since it relates the surplus value extracted to the wage bill. It is calculated in Great Britain, the country studied by Marx in Capital. Here too, we see a total absence of ’social stalemate’ - ’neutralisation’ and a continual fluctuation of this rate of exploitation in the short and medium term.

 

Graph 2 : Rate of Surplus Value

 

The rate almost doubled during the industrial revolution (1760-1855), stabilised for about fifteen years (1855-1870) and then fell back until 1895 as the workers’ movement gained strength. This was followed by a counter-offensive by employers until the First World War; the peak during the latter (during which labour was over-exploited); the relative decline in this rate during the inter-war period and the conventional state capitalism of the Thirty Glorious Years; then its rise again with the transition to neo-liberal state capitalism from 1974 onwards.

In other words, not only have the two foundations of this ‘theory of decomposition’ already been rejected by Marx, but they do not correspond to anything tangible in reality. With no solid theoretical or empirical basis, this ‘theory’ is no more than a house of cards built on shifting sand ... and the danger of shifting sand is to drag the proletariat into it ... thus justifying the warning issued by comrade Tibor in his Counter-Theses: « It is therefore of the utmost importance that the proletariat rejects, as a result of a scientific examination and not as a result of a priori or prejudice, the erroneous position which makes decomposition a new historical phase, the characteristics of which would be qualitatively new, and which would lead to the transformation of the perspectives of the proletariat, ie., in reality, to the disarming of it ».  

 

Capitalism « in permanent crisis » ?

 

In his Counter-Theses 1 & 5, comrade Tibor attacks one of the foundations on which the ICC was built: the mechanistic and fatalistic idea of a « historic crisis of the economy » which would be permanent since the end of the 1960s (the expression « permanent crisis » appears three times in the ICC Theses). This idea comes from its political ancestor - the Gauche Communiste de France [8] – and it has been regularly reaffirmed throughout the half-century of the ICC’s existence [9]. We have refuted it in detail in our article, the title of which is a quotation from Marx: Des crises permanentes, ça n’existe pas because this conception is totally alien to the Marxist understanding of the dynamics and contradictions of capitalism. In fact, blinded by this immediate certainty of a « permanent crisis », the ICC has completely missed three major developments in capitalism:

 

1- The ICC totally missed the point of neo-liberal state capitalism

Instead of realising the decline in social conflict from the mid-1970s onwards, the consequent turnaround in the policies of the bourgeoisie and the need to put in place right-wing teams capable of leading them, the ICC saw it only as measures to give credibility to the left-wing unions and parties, allegedly thrown into opposition to block the radicalisation of a supposed ‘third wave of international struggles’ potentially decisive during the « 80s of truth » ... when, in fact, social conflict had already been divided by four (Graph 1)! What’s more, social conflict in the 1980s had fallen back to the worst levels of the inter-war period ... but the ICC claimed that it was supposed to decide between war and revolution! This is where blindness to purely idealistic schemes that are never questioned leads.

 

2- ‘Permanent crisis’ and the danger of war

Firmly believing that capitalism had exhausted all its economic cards, the ICC has failed to see the recovery in the rate of profit since 1982, following the application of neo-liberal policies aimed at increasing the rate of surplus value (Graph 3). This recovery has removed the need to resort to massive devalorization through war, crisis or state capitalism measures leading to the same result. Instead of analysing this, the ICC maintained the imminent danger of a third world war as the only solution to a « permanent crisis ».

It was only after 1989 that this organisation removed the threat of a third world war, but only because of the implosion of the imperialist blocs after the fall of the Berlin Wall, as the credo of the « permanent crisis » was reiterated with redoubled vigour: « ...the economic crisis, despite ups and downs, has essentially become permanent. [...] The crisis that has already been unfolding over decades is going to become the most serious of the whole period of decadence... » [10]. However, the rate of profit has only increased since 1982, recovered rapidly after the Covid-19 pandemic, and is currently at its highest level in history:

 

Graph 3 : USA – Rate of Profit, Surplus Value and Organic Composition of Capital

 

That the next crisis will come is a certainty, given their cyclical nature, as Marx clearly pointed out (and not permanent, as the ICC maintains): « capitalist production moves through certain periodical cycles. It moves through a state of quiescence, growing animation, prosperity, overtrade, crisis and stagnation » in Wages, Prices and Surplus-Value. As for its scale, Marx did not wait for the clairvoyant gifts of the ICC to affirm that crises « repeat themselves on an ever larger scale » [11].

 

3- ‘Permanent crisis’ and emerging countries

The ICC has also been blind to the consequences of the neo-liberal policies that have accelerated the economic emergence of many countries, not least China, India and most of Asia. So, after the sentence pronounced with the faith of a coal miner in 1980 by his two mentors who decreed the total impossibility of any development in a Third World condemned to the most absolute misery [12], he has done nothing but repeat this dogma ever since. This kind of recurrent and ridiculous prognostication is still repeated today: « Nor does India offer a viable long-term alternative that could play a role equivalent to China’s in the 1990s and 2000s; the circumstances that made the “miracle of China’s emergence” possible are no longer present, and such a prospect is now impossible » International Review n°172, even though, like China, it has been emerging for nearly five decades:

 

Graph 4: India - Real GDP/capita growth

 

Thus, as Tibor rightly notes, it is also on the basis of this immediatist foundation of a « permanent crisis of capitalism » that the ICC « makes the alternative of war or revolution an immediate and permanent perspective, even though it is a historical perspective whose threat never ceases to loom and whose necessity is certain, but which does not force the bourgeoisie to unleash this weapon if other less destructive solutions are possible for it. This has been the case since the end of the Second World War (neo-Keynesian state capitalism, then turning to neo-liberal state capitalism in order to raise the rate of profit by increasing the rate of surplus value, with all the consequences that this has entailed, such as the financialization of the economy and offshoring) ».

 

A ‘theory’ that obliterates reality

 

Supposed to account for reality, in fact, decomposition theory obliterates it. Thus, until recently, in its theses, resolutions and other texts, this organisation asserted page after page that decomposition was inexorably aggravating and accelerating the economic crisis, and that it was now preventing any real economic development. For example, the ICC stated with certainty that the former Eastern bloc countries would never recover, that they would descend into chaos, and that the implosion of the remaining Stalinist countries (Vietnam, China, Laos...) was only a matter of time...

We could fill entire pages with quotations illustrating this catastrophist vision for the future of the Eastern bloc countries and the evolution of the world economy after 1989. A few titles of articles and resolutions in his International Review will suffice: n°62 Eastern countries: irreversible crisis, impossible restructuring; n°61 The crisis of state capitalism: the world economy sinks into chaos; the tone was already set in his Theses on decomposition: « Amongst the major characteristics of capitalist society’s decomposition ... Obviously, this is a result of the ruling class’ increasing loss of control over its economic apparatus, the infrastructure of society [...] The absence of any perspective (other than day-to-day stop-gap measures to prop up the economy) ... ».

The ICC was so convinced of the impossibility of restructuring the countries of Eastern Europe that it even accused Battaglia Comunista of contributing to the ‘repugnant campaign on the superiority of capitalism over communism after 1989’ ... because it defends : « the astounding hypothesis that Western capitalism could make golden business by investing in the countries of the East, one’s arms really do fall off ... Battaglia is going straight ahead and taking seriously the chatter about the next huge influx of capital to the East ... the markets in the East have already shown that they are not solvent compared to the modest investments of the late 1960s; how could they remunerate “unprecedented investments of financial capital” ». And the ICC continued sententiously and contemptuously: « This is what aberrations, what irresponsibility, the permeability of Battaglia Comunista to bourgeois ideology leads to. ...we at least have the right to demand that Battaglia Comunista stop publishing articles that say everything and its opposite » Frederic, RI n°187 - 1990. Thirty-five years on, the supposed ‘accuracy’ of such prophecies, asserted in the name of the superiority of the ‘Marxist analysis of decomposition’, really does make you cringe ... and you, in turn, would be « right to demand that the ICC stop publishing articles that say everything and its opposite »!

In fact, instead of having ‘decomposed’ as the ICC predicted, capitalism has considerably recomposed itself by developing in Asia and even in several Eastern European countries. Just take a look at graph 5 below: while the ICC was harping on its catastrophic schemes, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia rapidly restructured and even performed better than Western Europe and the United States:

 

 
Graph 5: Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Western Europe, USA

 

In reality, none of the ICC’s economic predictions from its Theses on Decomposition have come true: the phenomenon of emerging countries has swept East Asia into a spiral of economic development since the 1950s (Graphs 6 and 7); India (Graphs 4 and 8) and China (Graph 8) too ... despite being two demographic giants among the poorest countries in the world after the Second World War! Even Vietnam (graph 9) and Laos (graph 10) have prospered, but these are two Stalinist countries (supposedly irreformable and doomed to implosion according to the ICC), which have been the most bombed countries in the world and ravaged by an interminable war ... and which the ICC has declared bankrupt forever!

 

 
Graph 6: Emerging Asia

Graph 7: South Korea - Taiwan - Hong Kong - Singapore

Graph 8: The great divergence: China-India / USA-UK

Graph 9: Vietnam: GDP per capita 1820-2018

Graph 10: Laos, GDP per capita 1950 - 2018

 

The origin of the decomposition ‘theory’

 

In his Counter-Thesis 6, comrade Tibor reveals the true origin of this decomposition ‘theory’: the need for the ICC, not to better understand reality, but to mask the bankruptcy of its analysis of the balance of power between the classes and the so-called ‘80s of truth’: « Thus, it is important to understand that, on a theoretical level, decomposition arose as an expedient to justify the lack of resolution of the alternative of war or revolution during the 1980s ».

And for good reason, this organisation was built on the perspective of a « course to revolution » opened up by May 68, leading to the alternative ‘war or revolution’ during the 1980s [13]. None of this having happened, the ICC had to cover up the failure of its analyses and respond to the many doubts and organisational crises that were plaguing it. Taking as its starting point a number of key events of the time and, above all, the collapse of the Eastern bloc in 1989, the ICC came up with this ‘theory of decomposition’ which was suddenly supposed to explain everything at once: the exhaustion of the dynamic of struggles which were supposed to determine the future of humanity; the collapse of the Berlin Wall; the non-breakout of the Third World War... but also to explain its internal organisational crises fostered by the so-called phenomenon of political parasitism stimulated by this ‘decomposition of capitalism’.

The result of all these excesses: the ICC has taken refuge in a fortress besieged by a world ‘in decomposition’ and a horde of parasites looking to do it in. The admission is made in the very title of two of his abject pamphlets: On the alleged paranoia of the ICC - I & II, brochures that make you want to vomit, and which capture the atmosphere and paranoid delirium that gripped this group.

 

The idealism of the ICC

 

By stressing, in his Counter-Thesis 7, that a « a theoretical hypothesis only becomes a valid explanation if it is borne out in reality, enabling us to understand it better », comrade Tibor has clearly identified the idealistic basis of the ICC’s analyses, since he meticulously shows in it that « all the "essential characteristics of decomposition" put forward by the ICC in its seventh thesis are either false, or in no way novel and constitutive of a new period ». He thus concurs with our own analysis of this organisation, which we described as the ‘Idealist Pole of the Communist Left’ in n°3 of our Cahiers Thématiques, a booklet entirely devoted to a critique of its theoretical foundations and organisational practices.

So it is with delicious irony that Tibor introduces his Counter-Thesis 8: « Perhaps sensing the fragility of his examples of “material” facts, ICC takes the precaution, in his next thesis, of asserting that decomposition would manifest itself above all on the political and ideological levels »!

 

An idealised vision of the ‘ascendancy’ of capitalism

 

While the ICC uses corruption as supposed proof that capitalism has entered its decomposition phase, Tibor cites Marx’s painting of the July Monarchy, one of the most corrupt regimes in French history, and does so to make it clear that « corruption is not a manifestation of the decomposition of capitalism, or even of its decadence, but of a society where money reigns supreme ».

This fine reference allows us to underline a characteristic feature of the ICC’s theoretical background: its ignorance of the most elementary realities of capitalism before 1914, which it systematically paints in pink, and therefore its total lack of understanding of the characteristics and evolutions of capitalism after 1914, which it systematically paints in black. Thus he always defines state capitalism as a sticking plaster on a wooden leg, i.e. a palliative to try to keep capitalism ‘in permanent crisis’ since 1914. However, with all due respect to the ICC, the strongest economic growth was all achieved after 1914 and under regimes of state capitalism: Japan and post-war Western Europe (especially Germany); the Newly Industrialised Countries (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore); India; emerging SE Asia; some Eastern European countries... and even the capitalisms of Stalinist states such as China, Vietnam and Laos, which the ICC characterises as intrinsically weak, incapable of reforming and developing in the same way as the Stalinist regimes of the former countries of Eastern Europe!

To illustrate this point, since the ICC refers to corruption as proof that capitalism has entered its supposed decomposition phase, we cannot resist submitting to it a question frequently asked on this subject by that excellent development economist Ha-Joon Chang [14]:

• « Here are the profiles of two developing countries. You are an economic analyst trying to assess their chances of developing. What are you going to say?
• Country A : Ten years ago, this country was extremely protectionist: its average rate of customs duty on industrial products was well over 30%. Although it has recently lowered its customs barriers, significant visible and invisible barriers to trade are still in place. Its banking sector is highly regulated and state-owned. It imposes heavy restrictions on cross-border capital flows and multiple limits on foreign ownership of financial assets. Foreign companies producing on its territory claim to be discriminated against: they complain of differential taxes and regulations imposed on them by local authorities. Elections are never held and corruption is rife. The property rights regime is opaque and complicated. Intellectual property rights, in particular, are poorly protected from pirates, making this country the world champion of counterfeiting. It has a large number of state-owned companies, many of which are making huge losses but are kept afloat by state subsidies and the monopoly rights it grants them.
• Country B: This country’s trade policy has been literally the most protectionist in the world over the last few decades, with an average tariff rate on industrial products of between 40% and 55%. The majority of the population does not have the right to vote. Vote buying and electoral fraud are extremely widespread. Corruption is rampant, and political parties sell public jobs to those who support them financially. This is a country where not a single civil servant has ever been recruited by competitive examination, in complete transparency. Its public finances are precarious, and its long history of defaulting on public loans has foreign investors worried. This in no way prevents it from inflicting severe discrimination on foreign investors. In the banking sector in particular, foreigners are banned from sitting on boards of directors, and foreign shareholders cannot even exercise their voting rights if they are not resident in the country. It has no competition laws, which allows cartels and other monopolies to grow unhindered. There are gaps in the protection of intellectual property rights, particularly tarnished by the country’s refusal to protect foreigners’ copyrights.
• Here are two countries mired up to their necks in practices that are supposed to be hindering their economic development: massive protectionism, discrimination against foreign investors, weak protection of property rights, monopolies, no democracy, corruption, no meritocracy, and so on. You conclude that in terms of development they are both heading for disaster. But don’t get ahead of yourself! Country A is present-day China - some readers may have guessed that. Few readers, on the other hand, will have guessed who Country B is: the United States - circa 1880, when it was a little poorer than today’s China ».

After this description, it’s clear that, despite the corruption and gangster-like mores of today’s bourgeoisie so portrayed by the ICC, it is still far more ‘civilised’ and regulated today than in the capitalism of pre-1914! What’s more, this striking resemblance between the China of recent decades and the United States of the 19th century has not prevented the latter from becoming the world’s leading economic power! So why has the ICC always denied this possibility of development to China (and to the whole of the ‘Third World’ as well) and repeated for half a century that, being fundamentally Stalinist and in ‘permanent crisis’, these countries would constantly be on the brink of collapse, ready to implode like the countries of the former Eastern bloc? This is where repeating old, obsolete software over and over again, which the ICC systematically refuses to discuss and question, leads!

 

Ignorance of the dialectic

 

On numerous occasions in his Counter-Theses, Tibor stresses the total inability of the ICC to reason dialectically. In this connection, we cannot resist extending the comrade’s argument on unemployment in his Counter-Thesis 14 by evoking all the ridicule engendered by the accumulation of all the errors of analysis of the ICC on this question of the place of unemployment and the unemployed in the class struggle [15].

Indeed, during the so-called ‘decisive years of truth’ (1980s), the ICC’s historic mentor decreed that: ‘if the unemployed had lost the factory, on the other hand, they had won the street’. This was followed by numerous articles on the positive role of unemployment and the unemployed in the development of the class struggle, inaugurated by a ‘framework text’ published in the International Review n°42 of the ICC in 1985: « ...the arrival and development of machinery and manufacturing - this did not have the same significance and the same impact as the unemployment which imposed itself with the advance of mechanization and of big industry in this historical period extending roughly from 1850 to 1900 [...] ...in our epoch, the development of unemployment has played and will play an extremely important role in the development of class consciousness and in the class struggle in general [...] Today, mass unemployment has made its reappear­ance, but in a totally different context. And in this situation, radically different to the ‘30s, where the yoke of the counter-revolution no longer crushes the working class, the strug­gle of the unemployed which begins to stir up threatens to accelerate the gigantic convulsions of the entire established social order. [...] It’s in this way that every gathering of the unemployed in demonstrations or in committees is a force to be reckoned with. Gathered mass­ively, the unemployed are directly led to become conscious of the immensity of the prob­lem they face, and the banality of the union speeches. Not only do the unemployed, when they are mobilized, become conscious of their strength, but also of the links uniting them to the whole working class, in relation to which they do not form a separate entity ».

Regular militant interventions at unemployment offices and in existing unemployed committees were therefore organised, etc. As all this agitation produced nothing supposedly positive for the development of the class struggle, unemployment was transformed into a negative factor with the said decomposition!

And so it is with everything in the reasoning of the ICC: a succession of abstract schemes, either white or black ... dialectics being totally unknown to the battalion, as comrade Tibor expresses it so well: « Unemployment belongs to those contradictions of capitalism whose effects on the proletariat depend to an important extent on the degree of its class consciousness. In the same way as war or crisis, unemployment is not, a priori, a factor favourable to the class struggle. ...unemployment can lead to a lack of prospects and to discouragement. » !

 

A mishmash of contradictions

 

Seemingly constructed and logical, comrade Tibor masterfully demonstrates that the theses of the ICC on the advent of a supposed phase of decomposition of capitalism at the hinge of the years 1980-90 are nothing but a tissue of sophisms and idealistic postulates extremely dangerous for revolutionary theory. What’s more, they are often contradictory if you read them carefully! A complete list of these aporias would take up too much space here, but we’ll highlight two particularly succulent ones!

Let’s start with the first: when the ICC explains the cause that gives rise to decomposition, it uses the terms ’social stalemate’, ’mutual neutralisation’ of the balance of power between the two fundamental classes. However, when he wants to explain the development of decomposition, he uses synonyms like gel and stagnation: « Still less for capitalism than for preceding social forms, is a “freeze” or a “stagnation” of social life possible ». Semantics aside, freeze, stagnation and social stalemate, mutual neutralisation are one and the same! But then, the ICC has to choose:

• Either there is a cause to the decomposition, thus a social stalemate, mutual neutralisation of the balance of power between the two fundamental classes, but then it is impossible for this decomposition to develop since « for capitalism than for preceding social forms, is a “freeze” or a “stagnation” of social life possible ».
• Either there is a development of decomposition resulting from an absence of freeze and stagnation of social life, but then the cause of decomposition disappears!

In other words, the ICC asserts both that there can be no stagnation or freez of social life in capitalism, but also the opposite by postulating that decomposition corresponds to a social stalemate, mutual neutralisation of social life ... understand who can!

But it gets even funnier. In the context of the social stalemate, mutual neutralisation of the balance of power between the classes which constitutes the cause of decomposition, the ICC makes the economic crisis the main factor in its development: « This last point is precisely the new, specific, and unprecedented element which in the last instance has determined decadent capitalism’s entry into a new phase of its own history: decomposition. The open crisis which developed at the end of the l960’s » [16].

However, recently obliged to recognise China’s formidable growth, which it had always denied, the ICC now explains it as follows: « It took the unprecedented circumstances of the historical period of decomposition to allow China to rise, without which it would not have happened » [17], or again: « ...the present “globalisation” stage of state capitalism, already introduced beforehand, made possible, in the post 1989 context, a real development of the productive forces in what until then had been peripheral countries of capitalism » in Revue Internationale n°157 by the ICC [18].

But then, if the phase of decomposition allowed « a real development of the productive forces », in particular the formidable ‘rise of China’ (and of most of Asia, which the ICC always forgets), according to ICC logic, there should have been a attenuation in the development of decomposition and not an aggravation as it tirelessly repeats!

And it is always like this in the ‘explanations’ put forward by the ICC: a tissue of inconsistencies as we demonstrated at length in No. 3 of our Thematic Notebooks entirely devoted to refuting the theoretical and organisational bases of this group.

 

C.Mcl, 04-10-2024, very slightly improved on 09-10-2024 and 22-11-2024