Counter-theses on Decomposition - Response to the ICC (Tibor)

 

CONTROVERSIES : We publish below an excellent contribution written by comrade Tibor, which appeared in French on the blog Communist Opposition. It responds to the theses on decomposition, the ultimate phase of capitalist decadence of the International Communist Current (ICC). For the reader to understand its origin, we reproduce here the endnote where Tibor explains it. In view of the importance of this contribution, we have added some additional considerations: On the importance of the ‘Counter-Theses on Decomposition’. They can be found here at the end of these Counter-Theses... as well as in a separate article.

 

AUTHOR’S NOTE (Tibor) : First drafted in the summer of 2023, this text received welcome initial feedback from individual members of the Groupe révolutionnaire internationaliste (GRI), the French section of the International Communist Tendency (ICT). It was then forwarded to the ICC in September 2023. In the absence of a response from the latter, we agreed to forward it to the Breath and Light website, also the originator of a critical analysis of decomposition, which published a English translation on February 28, 2024. The interest it aroused among revolutionary circles enabled us to develop a sustained discussion with comrade C.Mcl during the month of March. Although this second, more developed version is entirely my own work, the exchanges with this comrade, his careful rereading, and his suggestions for corrections and improvements have significantly improved the text. Our thanks to him. We sent this second version to the ICC in April 2024, who acknowledged receipt. However, in the absence of a reply from the latter, we are publishing this second version with the kind permission of the OPPOSITION COMMUNISTE.

 

TIBOR : Counter-theses on Decomposition

 

The ICC is convinced that it has discovered the philosopher’s stone capable of interpreting all the events of the world, from the war in Ukraine to the success of rap and pornography, through the economic crisis and the election of Donald Trump. This is the theory of decomposition, a new period that opened at the turn of the 1980s and 90s with the fall of the Eastern bloc and a stalemate between the two classes of capitalist society: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie [1].

This theory, which is obviously erroneous, nevertheless deserves to be studied and fought seriously and rigorously, which the form of these counter-theses allows. They are part of the necessary confrontation between revolutionary minorities, and thus contribute to the clarification of the main political problems of our time. Reading the counter-theses, the reader will see that this theory of the ICC suffers from four main pitfalls: its schematic dogmatism, its revisionism, its idealism and its impressionism.

Dogmatism, first of all, because it 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).

Revisionism, then, insofar as this theory serves to break with the essential elements of revolutionary Marxism, first and foremost the ever-present perspective of an inter-imperialist world war, produced by the intrinsic contradictions of capitalism, a bourgeois perspective opposed by the proletariat’s own perspective, the world revolution. This theory is therefore not only erroneous but also dangerous, in that it disarms the proletariat theoretically and practically. This reinforces the need for confrontation and polemics, which governs these counter-theses.

Idealism, moreover, since the ICC always starts from theoretical postulates that are posited as a priori and from which it derives all the consequences that are supposed to validate them, even though, as we shall see, these postulates are never demonstrated by reality, or even enter into total contradiction with it.

Impressionism, finally, because it is content to accumulate evidence of decomposition that seems recent in the light of its own relatively short history (barely five decades), instead of considering these phenomena from a historical perspective based on the long term, a perspective that reveals that all these phenomena, when they are not the organic product of capitalism, in reality date from the entry of capitalism into its phase of decadence, obsolescence or decay, terms that should only be used as synonyms for one and the same reality.

May these counter-theses contribute to decomposition becoming once again what it should have always been: another synonym for capitalist decline.

 

1. All modes of production in history have successively passed through three phases: a revolutionary or progressive phase in which the relations of production are radically transformed; a phase of stabilisation, and a reactionary phase in which, to use Marx’s famous preface to the Critique of Political Economy, « from forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters ». By analogy with Rome’s period of decadence, this last stage can be described as the decadence of capitalism.

Nevertheless, capitalism differs from all previous modes of production by one fundamental characteristic: it never ceases to revolutionise the relations of production. This is also stated by Marx in the Communist Manifesto: “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. […] Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.” Capitalism, by the very logic of accumulation, cannot therefore experience a phase of definitive economic decline, a “historic crisis of the economy” (Thesis n°1, International Review n°107). There is no such thing as a final crisis. Capitalism, by its cyclical character, successively experiences periods of prosperity followed by periods of crisis, potentially eternally, as long as the proletariat does not overthrow the bourgeoisie through social revolution, i.e. the seizure of political power, followed by a radical destruction of the capitalist economic structure: “Capitalist contradictions will provoke explosions, cataclysms and crises in which the momentary stoppage of work and the destruction of a large part of capital will bring capitalism back to a level from which it can resume its course. Contradictions create explosions, crises in which all work stops for a time while a large part of capital is destroyed, forcibly bringing capital back to a point where, without committing suicide, it is able to fully employ its productive capacity again. However, these catastrophes, which regularly regenerate it, are repeated on an ever larger scale, and they will end up provoking its violent overthrow” [2].

Thus, unlike the previous modes of production, the relations of production that bear the new society do not develop alongside capitalist relations of production, within it; they are its direct negation. Communist society cannot be born within the framework of capitalist relations of production. Ultimately, the difference between the decadence of capitalism and that of previous modes of production can be distinguished on the following three levels:

• It does not prevent capitalism from continually revolutionising the relations of production, which cannot experience a historic crisis of its economy, a supposed final crisis of its economy;
• It is the decadence of the last class society in history;
• It is the first to carry the germ of the threat of the destruction of humanity, as Engels and then Rosa Luxemburg expressed it with the formula “socialism or barbarism”.

 

2. The ICC claims that « Elements of decomposition are to be found in all decadent societies: the dislocation of the social body, the rot of its political, economic, and ideological structures etc. » [3].

In reality, these elements have never been described by anyone before as phenomena of decomposition, but rather as the necessary products of a period of decadence. To claim that earlier periods had elements of decomposition is to play with words and to distinguish what in reality covers only one and the same reality: the decadence of a society with all the manifestations linked to it. These phenomena of decadence have thus been highlighted by Marxism, on the basis of a materialist conception of history demonstrating the historicity of class societies, successively experiencing their apogee, their stabilisation and then their decadence.

It is because of its inability to fully grasp what the notion of decadence covers, both in authors prior to Marx, in particular Edward Gibbon, who was the first to introduce this notion of the decadence of Rome, and in Marxists themselves, notably Bukharin, that the ICC believes that it is in a position to invent a new qualifier to describe certain phenomena that it isolates from their environment. However, separating certain characteristics from the rest by qualifying them as phenomena of decomposition is a non-dialectical method that refuses to consider the notion of decadence in its totality.

The sentence that concludes thesis n°2 is therefore total nonsense, when it states: « In this sense it would be wrong to identify decadence and decomposition. While the phase of decomposition is inconceivable outside decadence, we can perfectly well conceive of a period of decadence which does not necessarily lead to a phase of decomposition. » (ibid.). There is no evidence to support this assertion and we are reduced to accepting that the « dislocation of the social body » et le « decay of economic, political and ideological structures » (ibid.), formulas so vague that they could contain almost anything, are not decadence but only (by virtue of what authority?) decomposition.

 

3. There is a frequent confusion between the history of modes of production (ascendancy, with a progressive phase followed by a stabilization phase, decadence) and the different economic phases within these modes of production. In its progressive phase, capitalism successively adopted the forms of mercantilism, manufacture, Manchester capitalism and trustified capitalism. In its phase of decline, it successively adopted the forms of trustified capitalism and state capitalism (first of the Keynesian type, then of the neo-liberal type).

Imperialism, as Lenin showed in his book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, is not a historical phase within decadence but the constitutive economic form of that period. Thus, whether it is the imperialist nature of all states, the threat of world war, the tendency towards state capitalism or the crises of overproduction, all these manifestations of the phase of decadence are maintained. Nevertheless, if the classic manifestations of decadence are not doomed to disappear to be replaced by new manifestations, it is certain that the longer this phase of obsolescence continues, the more these manifestations take on intense and unbridled forms. Capitalism is a system that is rotting on its feet, and it is doing so more rapidly and pronouncedly as this period of decadence drags on.

Thus, it is correct, or partially correct, to assert that the historical manifestations of decadence are as follows: « two imperialist massacres which have bled white most of the world’s major countries, and which have dealt the whole of humanity blows of unprecedented brutality; a revolutionary wave which made the world bourgeoisie tremble, and which died in the most atrocious form of counter-revolution (Stalinism and fascism) as well as the most cynical (“democracy” and anti-fascism); the periodic return of an absolute pauperisation, and a degree of poverty for the working masses which had seemed banished; the development of the most widespread and deadly famines in human history » [4]. On the other hand, the last manifestation of decadence presented by the ICC, namely « the capitalist economy’s 20 year dive into a new open crisis, without the bourgeoisie being able to take it to its logical conclusion […] world war » (ibid.) turns out to be false, as we shall now demonstrate.

 

4. It is this last point that is supposed to determine the entry into the period of decomposition. While the class struggle undoubtedly experienced a real revival in the context of the struggles of the years 1968-1974, reinforced by a deep economic crisis of capitalism in the 1970s, the latter were only a parenthesis on a historical scale, insofar as after reaching a peak during a decade, they have been steadily declining since 1975 [5].

 

Graph 1 : Strike index in 16 Western countries : USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, UK, Italy, Norway, Austria, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan.

 

The last great struggle, that of the Polish workers in 1980, ended in defeat. The decade of the 1980s, far from representing the period of truth when the alternative of war or revolution was to be decided as the ICC claims, symbolizes this decline in class struggle. The inability of the latter to break radically with the period of counter-revolution and to impose its alternative, the communist revolution, has led to the fact that capitalism, in order to put an end to the deep crisis of the 1970s, did not need to have recourse to the ultimate, but extremely costly and risky, solution of world war. It was content to rationalise its economic system by entering the phase of neo-liberal state capitalism, characterized by the need to restore the rate of profit, which had fallen drastically between 1966 and 1982 [6].

 

Graph 2 : Rate of Profit and Periodic Crises – United States 1929-2023

 

Capitalism, through the adaptation of its productive apparatus and the weakness of the proletariat, was thus able to provide its solution to the crisis without needing the solution of the Third World War. So there was no stalemate between classes in the 1980s. The alternative, wars or communist revolution, if it remains true on a historical scale, is not obliged to manifest itself in this extreme form as long as the economic contradictions (tendency of the rate of profit to fall, overproduction) and political contradictions (class struggle) remain at a limited level, which was the case at the time.

 

5. Through the recurrent devaluation of constant and variable capital in the context of crises, capitalism is able to survive its crises. There is, in fact, no permanent crisis of capitalism, as Marx clearly stated: « there is no such thing as a permanent crisis » [7]. If capitalism is therefore incapable of providing a perspective to the whole of humanity, and above all to the working class, which makes the resumption of the struggle and the march towards revolution certain, it can nevertheless do so for the capitalist class.The promise of unlimited accumulation, albeit subject to painful economic crises devaluing capital, is the prospect that capitalism has to offer humanity.

In addition to this perspective, limited to the capitalist class, the latter also seeks to mystify the working class by offering them false perspectives. The first is that of the sacred union for the defence of the homeland, civilization, progress, democracy, etc. against another nation that is supposed to embody barbarism, or, even worse, fascism. Anti-fascism, in the form of a popular front for example, is thus in the final analysis only a much more effective form of the union sacrée. Other perspectives, whose effectiveness is largely due to the agents of influence of the bourgeoisie within the working class (trade unions, social democracy, Stalinism), are the perspective of a reconstruction of the economy following a war, or the promise of an improvement in living conditions through the conquest of living space, technical and scientific progress, etc.

If today the capitalist class does not feel the need to concentrate all its forces on the mystification of the proletariat, it is because the threat it represents is still too limited. When the latter re-emerges, and imposes its own alternative more and more obviously, then capitalism will be forced to resort to these temporary expedients. The success or failure of these expedients cannot be anticipated here. It is above all the consciousness of the class, and the strength of its vanguard, that will make it possible to see whether the working class will fall into the trap or not.

The only thing certain today is that in a large part of the world proletariat, nationalism (Russia, Ukraine), anti-populism (Europe, the United States), the promise of an improvement in living conditions (China, etc.) seem to find a certain echo with the class, correlative to the weakness of its class consciousness and that of revolutionary minorities. The comparison with 1929 is therefore more than necessary. At that time, the proletariat was too weak to prevent the bourgeoisie from imposing its perspective (world war). Today, it is still too weak to prevent the bourgeoisie from pursuing its destructive perspective of endless accumulation.

 

6. The fact that the so-called period of decomposition does not invalidate the cycle of crisis/war/reconstruction/new crisis; nor the militarisation of states; nor the greater ability of state capitalism to overcome crises; nor the rationality of the bourgeoisie, which has a historical experience and real class consciousness; nor the weakness of the consciousness of the working class, clearly demonstrates that the period of decomposition is nothing other than the phase of decadence. It is the one and only argument of the stalemate between the classes that justifies this notion, a stalemate that nothing confirms in reality, as we have seen in thesis n°4. 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.

The non-correspondence between reality and the dogmatic schema of the ICC was to produce, in the absence of questioning a visibly defective analytical method, the development of a new theory, just as erroneous as the thesis of the 1980s as the « years of truth » [8].

 

7. A theoretical hypothesis only becomes a valid explanation if it is borne out in reality, enabling us to understand it better. However, 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.

• Thus, the first “essential characteristic of decomposition” cited by the ICC concerns “the multiplication of famines in ‘Third World’ countries”. Yet famines have been declining since the 1960s [9].

 

Graphe 3 : Annual rate of people dying due to a famine globally, per decade

 

• Moreover, famines are part and parcel of both ascendant and decadent capitalism. There were as many famines between 1860 and 1914 as there have been since 1914. What is true, however, is that in the phase of decadence, and especially since 1950, it is increasingly the developing countries, particularly in Africa and Asia, that are affected [10]. Finally, it’s important to note that while the trend today is downwards, all forecasts point to a significant increase in the number of people suffering from hunger as a result of global warming. For example, the UNDP predicts that over 600 million people worldwide will suffer from hunger in 2030 [11]. But the evolution of this curve has nothing to do with an alleged period of decomposition, or else we’d have to say that decomposition begins at the turn of the 2020s and 2030s. As for overproduction and food waste in the rest of the world, this is characteristic of the capitalist mode of production. In fact, it is this contrast between production that can largely meet the needs of the population and immense waste that is constitutive of the decadence and loss of the progressive nature of capitalism.

• As far as the development of shanty towns is concerned, what the ICC has to say is hardly more convincing, since there has been a slight decrease since the beginning of the 21st century [12]. In reality, the transformation of the “Third World” into a vast shantytown is in no way characteristic of a supposed phase of decomposition of capitalism, but predates it. It is in fact linked to the demographic explosion that began in the 1920s, and especially after the Second World War in the countries of the South [13].

 

Graph 4 : Share of urban growth

 

• As for the development of shantytowns in the countries at the heart of capitalism, we need only recall the shantytowns in France as a result of the housing problem caused by wartime destruction, widespread poverty, rural exodus and foreign immigration, all of which characterized the 1950-70 decades, well before the period of decomposition began. As for the lower life expectancy in certain urban districts of developed countries compared with backward countries, this fact is in no way characteristic of the period of decomposition, but was far more significant in the 1950s-80s.

• Once again, accidental disasters are nothing new to the period of decomposition. Marxists have always been interested in manifestations of the irrationality of capitalism, which, in the pursuit of maximum profit, neglects the most elementary conditions of safety. The most characteristic example in Marxist literature is undoubtedly Bordiga’s article « Drammi gialli e sinistri della moderna decadenza, sociale » [14], which evokes several catastrophes that took place in the summer of 1956, including the sinking of the transatlantic liner Andrea Doria following a collision in the fog off Nantucket Island (near New York) on July 26, 1956, and the mining disaster at Marcinelle (Belgium) on August 8, 1956, which claimed 263 lives. These events are already an opportunity for Bordiga to denounce a mode of production that has lost all historical legitimacy. Once again, the concept of decomposition contributes nothing and merely repeats the classics of Marxism, despite its claim to identify a new period. Worse still, the examples of « catastrophes ‘accidental’ » cited by the ICC, such as « planes crashing, trains and subways turning into coffins » were far more numerous before the said phase of capitalist decomposition, and have declined sharply over the last four decades [15].

 

Graph 5 : Air accident fatalities - 1918-2018

 

• At the same time, even “accidental disasters” more directly involving the working class have declined significantly, as have the number of fatal workplace accidents [16] :

 

Graph 6 : USA - Number of Fatal Workplace Accidents

 

• The ICC empirical “evidence” is no more convincing when it asserts that there are « increasingly devastating human, social and economic effects of ‘natural’ disasters (floods, drought, earthquakes, cyclones) ». Quantitative data show that their intensity tends to decline, particularly during the decomposition phase [17] :

 

Graphe 7 : Number of deaths by type of natural disaster - World

 

• As for the link between natural disasters and capitalism’s loss of historical legitimacy, we note that Bordiga had already said it all back in 1951, and that we shouldn’t wait for the advent of a so-called decomposition phase of capitalism. In the journal Battaglia Comunista, for example, in an article entitled “Piena e rotta della civiltà borghese”, we need only quote the introduction to the article, which clearly expresses the Marxist vision of capitalism’s period of decadence: “If it is true that the industrial and economic potential of the capitalist world is increasing, not decreasing, it is equally true that the greater its virulence, the worse the conditions of the human mass in the face of worsening natural and historical cataclysms.” [18].

• One would have to be a notorious fool to deny the worsening destruction of the environment, which is only increasing year after year. But the destruction of the environment is not linked to the decomposition of capitalism, it is not even linked to its decadence. It has been with capitalism from the outset and is inseparable from it. A passage from Friedrich Engels from the end of the nineteenth century – so before decadence! – shows how the visionaries of Marxism anticipated by almost a century the so-called ecological prophets, discoverers of the climate catastrophe in the 1970s: « In short, the animal only uses external nature and causes modifications in it by its mere presence; by the changes he brings to it, man brings it to serve his purposes, he dominates it. And it is in this that the last essential difference between man and the rest of the animals consists, and this difference is once again to work that man owes. However, let us not pride ourselves too much on our victories over nature. She takes revenge on us for each of them. Each victory certainly has in the first place the consequences that we have expected, but in the second and third place, it has completely different, unforeseen effects, which only too often destroy these first consequences. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and other places cleared the forests to gain arable land, were far from expecting to thereby lay the foundations of the current desolation of these countries, by destroying with forests the centres of accumulation and conservation of humidity. The Italians who, on the southern slope of the Alps, were ransacking the fir forests, preserved with such care on the northern slope, had no idea that they were thereby undermining high mountain livestock farming on their territory; They suspected even less that, in doing so, they were depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year and that these, in the rainy season, would pour out torrents on the plain that were even more furious. Those who spread the potato in Europe did not know that with the floury tubers they also spread scrofula. And so the facts remind us at every step that we in no way reign over nature as a conqueror reigns over a foreign people, as someone outside of nature, but that we belong to it with our flesh, our blood, our brain, that we are in its womb, and that all our domination over it lies in the advantage we have over all other creatures, of knowing its laws and being able to use them judiciously » [19].

All these economic and social calamities, therefore, pre-exist not only decadence but their magnitude and cumulative nature were already present long before the entry into the supposed period of decomposition. The complete impasse of a system that has nothing to offer the greatest part of the world’s population, if not that of an increasing barbarism beyond imagination is not characteristic of decomposition, it is characteristic of reactionary and rotting capitalism!

 

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. Once again, let’s see if the facts bear out this assertion.

• It is first of all corruption that is given to us as proof of decomposition. One only has to read the way Marx depicted the July Monarchy, one of the most corrupt regimes in the history of France to understand that corruption is not a manifestation of the decomposition of capitalism, or even of its decadence, but of a society where money reigns supreme. Thus, as Marx wrote in The Class Struggles in France : « Moreover, the enormous sums thus passing into the hands of the state gave way to fraudulent supply contracts, corruption, embezzlement and swindling of all kinds. The large-scale plundering of the State, as practised by means of loans, was renewed in detail in public works. The relationship between the House and the government was multiplied in the form of relations between the different administrations and the various contractors. As well as public expenditure in general and public borrowing, the ruling class also exploited the construction of railway lines. The Chambers threw the principal burdens on the State and secured the golden manna to the speculative financial aristocracy. One remembers the scandals which broke out in the Chamber of Deputies when it was discovered, by chance, that all the members of the majority, including some of the ministers, were shareholders in the railway companies themselves, to which they then entrusted, as legislators, the execution of railway lines on behalf of the State. On the other hand, even the slightest financial reform failed in the face of the influence of the bankers, such as, for example, postal reform. Rothschild protested, did the state have the right to diminish sources of revenue that it used to pay the interest on its ever-growing debt? The July Monarchy was nothing more than a joint-stock company founded for the exploitation of the French national wealth, the dividends of which were shared among the ministers, the Chambers, 240,000 voters and their aftermath » [20].

• Secondly, terrorism as a form of war between states is one of the proofs of political and ideological decomposition. While it is undeniable that in its latest forms, such as targeted assassinations or hostage-taking, it is a recent phenomenon on a historical scale, it is nevertheless characteristic of the Cold War, as the Korean case proves. Thus, as far as the Korean peninsula is concerned, the record years for infiltrations were 1967 and 1968 with 743 armed agents identified out of the 3,693 known infiltrators between 1954 and 1992 [21]. In this context, several attacks were committed against members of the Southern government until the 1980s, including two against President Park Chung-hee in 1968 and 1974. Last example: on December 11, 1969, a YS-11 airliner flying from Kangnung to Seoul was hijacked by a North Korean agent on Pyongyang with 51 people on board (including the hijacker). Again, the phenomena we are seeing today are merely an extension of previous situations and not a qualitatively new situation.

• This is also visible in the case of crime, which, although it was already present during the period of the birth of capitalism (one need only consult Friedrich Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England), made a dramatic comeback during the decadence, especially from the 1950s and 60s, and has continued to grow ever since [22]. This is particularly the case for juvenile delinquency, which became a security issue in the 1950s. Once again, the phenomena we see today originated decades before the alleged entry into decomposition.

• The development of nihilism and no-future are constitutive of any period of crisis and lack of perspectives, and were therefore already encountered in the decades preceding the 1980s. In this respect, it is striking to note that the ICC’s description of the absence of prospects can be transposed without any change to the situation faced by societies in the early 1930s, in the aftermath of the 1929 crisis. As for hooliganism, if the Heysel tragedy of 1985 is indeed symptomatic of this drift, this phenomenon has existed since the beginning of the nineteenth century and the French equivalent took place in 1967 with the burning of a stadium by hooligans.

• It was also the 1960s that saw an increase in drug use and trafficking. In this regard, it is sufficient to mention the various UN conventions that regulate the use of narcotic drugs, proof of the growing importance of this issue in societies, which date from 1961, 1971 and 1988 respectively, two of them before the period of decomposition.

• As far as intellectual and scientific decline is concerned, no Marxist could legitimately trace this back to decomposition. A reading of Bukharin’s analyses in his textbook on The Theory of Historical Materialism is very enlightening on this phenomenon, which according to him characterises the decadence of capitalism: « In modern philosophy, idealism, while divided into nuances, has been considerably strengthened with the tendency of the bourgeoisie towards mysticism and mystery. This is a sign of the profound decadence of the bourgeoisie, which in desperation seeks spiritual consolation.” Or a little later in the same writing: “To show still more clearly how much philosophy depends on social life, we will give as a final example the philosophy of the bourgeoisie in the epoch of its decadence (after the imperialist war of 1914-1918). The tremendous military, economic and social crisis which is now becoming the crash of capitalism, whose whole civilization it is shaking to its foundations, provokes among the ruling classes a desperate pessimism, a marked scepticism in their own strength, in the strength of their intelligence; it arouses a return to mysticism, a thirst for the mysterious, the aspiration to secret cults and ancient religions, as well as the infatuation with that modern form of worldly witchcraft which is spiritualism. In many ways, this philosophy is reminiscent of that of the ruling classes at the time of the decadence of the Roman Empire. » (Historical Materialism, p.120). A contemporary example, commented on by Bukharin, illustrates this intellectual decadence of the bourgeoisie. This was the Monkey Trial in 1925 in which a Dayton Public School teacher was fined $100 for teaching the theory of evolution to his students despite a Tennessee state law, the Butler Act, prohibiting teachers from denying « the story of man’s divine creation, as taught in the Bible ». « The profusion of sects, the renewal of the religious spirit including in the advanced countries, the rejection of rational, coherent thought » (Thesis n°8 on decomposition, International Review n°107) does not date from decomposition, it is the undeniable product of decadence and cannot legitimately be invoked as proof of a new historical period opening at the end of the 1980s.

• A further proof of the decomposition proposed by the ICC is « the invasion of the same media by the spectacle of violence, horror, blood, massacres, even in programmes designed for children » (ibid.). However, this phenomenon is not specific to a historical period. The decline of the capitalist system, which also affects the sphere of the superstructure, obviously does not spare the media. Bordiga gives us the example of the Muto trial, a scandal which took place in April 1953 following the discovery on a beach of the naked body of a young woman named Wilma Montesi, whose main suspect was the son of the Vice-President of the Council. On this occasion, the press of the time offered a riot of sordid and vulgar details on this affair, a worthy precursor to the gutter press that is spreading today, thus offering Bordiga the opportunity to mock « sources which are of an intellectual scope worthy of the accounts of the Muto trial. » As the note in the translation of Bordiga’s article states, « Bordiga condemns the despicable modern post-World War II society, post-U.S. victory, totally degenerate, which is fascinated by the sex stories, more or less sordid, of movie stars. » (Amadeo Bordiga, “Virgin Land, Satyr Capital”). As we can see, it is indeed decadent modernity that produces a degenerate press, and there is no need to invent a so-called period of decomposition to become aware of this.

• The ICC allows itself to consider contemporary artistic works as relevant to decomposition. It is not a question of taking a position on the quality of this or that work of art. Let us only recall how Bukharin considered the state of art in his time, and we shall see again that the theory of decomposition merely repeats, without knowing it and with the pretence of illuminating the last decades, what other Marxists had already identified much earlier: “Now, by contrast, let us look at the art of the dying bourgeoisie. This art found its most remarkable expression in Germany, after the debacle of 1918 and the Treaty of Versailles: under the permanent threat of a proletarian insurrection, the existence of the bourgeois world in this country is more gloomy than elsewhere; the mechanism of the capitalist regime is breaking down more quickly than in any other country; and, for this reason, the downgrading of bourgeois intellectuals is also faster; they become “dust of humanity”; they are nothing more than isolated and powerless individuals, disoriented by formidable events. It is this decomposition that results in an increase in individualism and mysticism. Painfully, we look for a new "style", new synthetic forms, without finding them: each day sees the emergence of some new "ism" which soon ages and loses its interest: following impressionism, we have seen neo-impressionism, futurism, expressionism, etc... Multiple trends, countless attempts, profusions of theories; but no more or less certain synthesis. And this in painting, in music, in poetry, in sculpture, in all areas of art. […] In poetry, the sentence is sacrificed to the isolated word, or Dadaism is preached; in painting and sculpture one indulges in absurd puerilities... [...] “From all sides now, we hear this cry: let’s forget nature! What this means, on the side of expressionist poetry and the plastic arts, we know: we turn away from what is perceived through the senses, we go beyond the limits of the experience of the senses and we show a tendency to rise towards the beyond of things, towards the spiritual”. In music, this leads us to “super music” and “anti-music”, without harmony, without rhythm, without melody, etc... […] In the collapse and landslide of the immense temple of capitalism, we will no longer find new majestic syntheses; inevitably, there will be nothing left but rubble, rubble, and nothing will be seen but the incoherent mystical delirium and the “ecstasies” of the followers of theosophy. Such has always been the state of every culture which was doomed to soon disappear.” (Nikolai Bukharin, op. cit., pp. 132-133).

• Let us continue with Bukharin, who is decidedly a very useful companion on these questions. Concerning now “the attitude of “every man for himself”, marginalisation, the atomisation of the individual, the destruction of family relationships, the exclusion of old people from social life, the annihilation of love and affection and its replacement by pornography, commercialised sport ruled by the media, these mass gatherings of young people in a state of collective hysteria that passes for song and dance, a sinister substitute for completely non-existent solidarity and social ties.” (Thesis No. 8 on Decomposition, International Review no. 107), we can read the following passages in Bukharin: “Theodore Däubler admirably expresses this point of view, which is essentially and profoundly individualistic, of dispersed social atoms: ‘The central point of the world is in every self, and even in every work of an authorised self’ (Däubler speaks somewhat “abstruse” language). Of course, from such a point of view, one inevitably arrives at mysticism. […]” (ibid.). Here is how Bukharin describes philosophy in the epoch of Roman decadence: “This is a philosophy of absolute individualism, pessimism, an advocacy of death, the sterile criticism of all social institutions, a worship of abstract reason which despises all things – such is the philosophy of the time. Is it not a faithful reflection of the psychology of a satiated, decadent, parasitic class, which has lost its taste for life?” (ibid., p. 119). One last example to refute this false proof of decomposition: the way the Bolsheviks describe the consequences for Russian society of the defeat of the 1905 revolution. Lenin and Trotsky thus insist on the impact that this defeat of the working class had on the intellectual and moral climate of the time, with the growing success of pornographic novels, a return to favour of mysticism and religion, leading figures such as the legal Marxist Sergei Bulgakov to become an Orthodox priest. This example is not misleading: it shows that it is precisely in all periods of reaction that intellectual and moral decadence manifests itself, thus preventing this criterion from serving as justifying proof of entry into a supposed period of decomposition.

 

9. Among the major characteristics of the decomposition of capitalist society is the growing difficulty of the bourgeoisie in controlling the evolution of the situation on the political level. From an organisation that never ceases to show the extent to which the bourgeoisie is a Machiavellian class, capable of inventing the most complex plans to mystify the working class, the contradiction is most obvious. In reality, the bourgeoisie succeeds, much more than the working class, in pursuing its one and only perspective: the accumulation of capital, applying the formula recalled by Marx “après moi the deluge”.

Evidence of this supposed irrationality of the bourgeoisie is not legion in the theses. But as for claiming that it is decomposition that explains the fall of the Eastern Bloc, we must show here the greatest bad faith or the greatest ignorance of history. If the Soviet bloc imploded, because of its contradictions, it was as a result of the strategy pursued by the American ruling class, which consisted in pushing its weaker adversary into a militaristic headlong rush that could only exhaust this colossus with feet of clay.

It is therefore not the irrationality but the strength and relative weakness of the respective national bourgeoisies, ie. the evolution of the balance of forces within the bourgeoisie, that determines the political choices made by the bourgeoisie. Apart from the fact that the mistakes of previous leaders could just as easily be explained by decomposition (if Hitler made such strategic mistakes, wasn’t it because of decomposition? The same goes for the tsarist general staff in 1916, Napoleon in 1812, Robespierre in 1794, why not Xerxes in 480 BC?), it is above all the lack of understanding of the balance of forces in the struggle between bourgeois factions that leads the ICC into a dead end. The errors or weaknesses of leaders are due neither to rationality nor irrationality, they are part of a balance of power which is the product of historical evolution. As Trotsky put it, “What is important from both a theoretical and political point of view is the relationship or rather the disproportion between these ‘mistake’” and their consequences […] At a certain moment in the revolution, the Girondin leaders completely lost their compass . Despite their popularity and their intelligence, they only make mistakes and clumsiness. They seem to be actively participating in their own downfall. Later, it was the turn of Danton and his friends. Historians and biographers never cease to be amazed at Danton’s disorderly, passive and childish attitude in the last months of his life. The same goes for Robespierre and his followers: disorientation, passivity and incoherence at the most critical moment. The explanation is obvious. Each of these groups exhausted its political possibilities at a given moment and could no longer advance against the powerful reality: domestic economic conditions, international pressure, new currents that were the consequences among the masses, etc. Under these conditions, each step began to produce results contrary to those that were expected.” [23].

On the contrary, far from having lost control, the bourgeoisie has managed to postpone – albeit in vain on the historical scale – the recourse to the ultimate, and at the same time extremely risky solution of generalised war, through a series of adaptations and manipulations that testify to its impressive resilience and capacity for adaptation. We need only mention its ability to increase the rate of capital gains in order to restore its rate of profit, the financialization of the economy, the techniques of state capitalism and central banking, or the development of unproductive sectors, to see the extent to which the bourgeoisie continues to impose its orientations on a disoriented working class.

 

10. This tendency to lose control is accentuated by three factors.

The first of these is the economic crisis. If the tendency towards a growing loss of control is not proven, it is nevertheless certain that the effects of the economic crisis represent a growing danger for the bourgeoisie because behind it hides a proletariat potentially ready to strike.

The second is the break-up of the Western bloc. Today, with the effects of the war in Ukraine, we are instead seeing a Western bloc reforming behind NATO and the United States. Even the ICC is forced to assert that France and Germany, which are mavericks within the Western bloc, have been brought to heel by American power: “The war has obliged the countries that were showing a certain independence to return to the ranks (whereas this didn’t happen at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003). In fact, NATO has been restored in all its glory under American control whereas Trump even thought of withdrawing from it – against the advice of his military. Contesting European “allies” have been called to order: thus, Germany and France have broken or are breaking their commercial links with Russia and in the rush have made military investments that the United States has been demanding from them for 20 years. New countries, such as Sweden and Finland have posed their candidatures to NATO and the EU has even become partially dependent on the Unites States for energy. In brief, things have gone quite to the contrary of the illusory hopes of Putin in seeing the European states divided on the question of Ukraine.” [24].

The third and final factor is the exacerbation of particular rivalries between sectors of the bourgeoisie. In reality, as Bilan has shown, capitalism does not take the form of a unified world capital (a perspective found only in Kautsky’s hyper-imperialism) but that of a plurality of national capitals competing with each other. Capitalism is based on competition between capitals within the state but also between states. Only the threat of proletarian revolution pushes the capitalist states to temporarily set aside their differences and unite against the proletariat. This is shown by the example of the Paris Commune, crushed by the Versaillais with the complicity of Bismarck, and above all of the First World War, where the capitalist states joined forces to put an end to the revolutionary wave following the October Revolution.

These three factors are therefore either erroneous or independent of a so-called tendency to lose control. The rest of the thesis is devoted to proving the impossibility of reconstituting the blocs. We believe that this perspective is erroneous because it is based on a schematic vision of bipolarisation, inspired by the Cold War. In fact, if we look at the trend towards bloc formation before the Second World War, we see that it was extremely confusing only a few years before it broke out. One need only read how Trotsky described the international situation in 1937: “The press scans the world horizon every day for smoke and flames. If one wanted to count all the possible hotbeds of war, one would have to use a treatise on geography. Moreover, the international contradictions are so complicated and confused that no one can predict exactly where the war will break out, or how the contending sides will regroup. It is certain that they will shoot, but where the shots will come from, and on whom they will fall, is what we do not know. Today, we don’t even have to think about the relative stability of the camps, as in the good old days. The policy of London, determined by the contradiction of the interests of this imperialism in the different parts of the world, allows even less than before August 1914 to make a prognosis. In every question, Her Majesty’s Government is forced to orient itself according to the dominions, which develop the most powerful centrifugal forces. [...] Small and medium-sized states further muddy the waters. They are like celestial satellites that don’t know which constellation to revolve around . On paper, Poland is allied with France, but in fact it has ties to Germany. Formally, Romania belonged to the Little Entente, but Poland lured it, not without success, into the Italo-German sphere of influence. The growing rapprochement between Belgrade, Rome and Berlin is causing growing concern not only in Prague, but also in Bucharest. On the other hand, Hungary fears, and rightly so, that her territorial claims will be the first to be sacrificed to a friendship between Berlin, Rome and Belgrade” [25].

We can stop quoting here. Reading these lines of Trotsky, one might think that the decomposition dates back to 1937 and that the contradictions between the protagonists prevent the formation of blocs and the occurrence of a new world war. But Trotsky, in this respect and unlike the ICC, remains a Marxist. He is aware that versatility and reversals of alliances are not opposed to the formation of blocs. However, this is the only argument that the ICC puts forward to defend this thesis. The facts having settled in the case of the Second World War, it does not seem necessary to revisit them. From then on, the prospect of a third world war remains relevant.

 

11. Decadence is associated with an alternative between the victory of the proletariat or endless chaos. This is the perspective that Friedrich Engels already envisaged at the end of the nineteenth century when he introduced the formula “socialism or barbarism”, which was taken up by Karl Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg.

The outbreak of the First World War, which undeniably carries the seeds of this prospect of total chaos, resoundingly confirmed this alternative. Since then, many phenomena have further reinforced this alternative, whether it is the nuclear threat or the destruction of the environment. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the twentieth century, revolutionaries settled on this perspective in the form of “war or revolution” insofar as the division of the world having been completed, world war becomes a necessity for the bourgeoisie, and, capitalism having lost all progressive character on a world scale, the socialist revolution becomes a possibility and a necessity for the proletariat.

The formula “communist revolution or the destruction of humanity” therefore only reformulates this classic alternative expressed by Marxism, but it has the disadvantage of leaving aside the perspective that the bourgeoisie will necessarily seek to impose, of war. It also aims to leave the door open to other alternatives, such as decomposition, whereas previous counter-theses reject this possibility.

Decomposition is then opposed to the ascendancy of capitalism, even if it would retain certain features, such as the absence of blocs (in reality, there were already blocs in the ascendancy phase, suffice it to mention the Holy Alliance, or the bloc of Western powers allied with the Ottoman Empire against Russia, with the countries of the East regularly changing sponsors according to their interests between the Ottomans and the Russians). While rejecting this notion of decomposition, for the reasons previously mentioned, it is certain that any prospect of a return of capitalism to a progressive and revolutionary role must be rejected. History has never shown that a mode of production can return to its previous state or become progressive again after a less advanced society has regained the upper hand (contrary to certain erroneous theses that make fascism the return of the feudal mode of production, and consequently make capitalism a new progressive mode of production).

Some forms of the destruction of humanity are then evoked. If it is wrong to reject them on principle, the fact remains that this possibility, based on the impossibility of a world war (a position whose falsity we have shown), leaves aside the clear idea that war constitutes a necessity for the bourgeoisie on a historical scale. This substitution of a confused formula (“communist revolution or destruction of humanity”) to a clearer one (“war or revolution”) is not limited to a retreat from the clarity achieved by our predecessors, which would already be a serious problem. Marx said that “theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses” [26]. One could say, reformulating this thesis, that, conversely, an erroneous theory leads to the disarming of the proletariat in the face of the inevitable offensives of the bourgeoisie.

This is precisely what decomposition does. By underestimating the strength of the bourgeoisie, perceived as incoherent and irrational, by denying the prospect of a future world war, by rejecting Lenin’s clear formula of the transformation of imperialist war into civil war, the ICC contributes to maintaining confusion within the proletariat. In doing so, it condemns itself and its followers within the proletariat to blindness and impotence, becoming an obstacle in spite of itself on the road to clarification.

 

12. 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.

This is not to deny the seriousness of the current situation. Nevertheless, to claim that the Marxists of the twentieth century described an idyllic situation compared to that of today is a bad joke that any serious revolutionary could only dismiss out of hand. The situation has been extremely serious since the beginning of the twentieth century, and it will remain so as long as the proletariat does not take power and overthrow this reactionary and completely rotten mode of production.

Since the reality of decomposition has been called into question, there is no need to dwell on the idea that it is necessary. It is nevertheless important to point out that in Marxism, necessity can be understood in several ways. It can be in the historical sense. Thus, class division, inequality, slavery, colonisation, were, for Marxists, necessary in the sense that they allowed an unprecedented advance of the productive forces, the development of knowledge, etc. It is only a question of the application of the dialectical method to the analysis of reality.

Necessity can also be understood in the sense of particular social classes. Thus, world war is a necessity for the bourgeoisie, in the sense that it cannot do without it, but it is not a necessity for the rest of society. On the contrary, it testifies to the fact that the bourgeoisie has lost its progressive role on a historical scale. On the other hand, empirical facts tend to prove that it is mainly as a result of wars that the proletariat has embarked on the revolutionary road. It is therefore an exaggeration to say that world war is the necessary and only condition for revolution, insofar as reality is always more complex than analyses and perspectives can take into consideration (“grey is the theory but green is the tree of life” as Goethe writes in his Faust), it is nevertheless relevant, on the basis of historical experience, to expect from a future world war the emergence of revolutionary possibilities for the proletariat.

 

13. The ICC offers a quote from Rosa Luxemburg. We reproduce it here insofar as it makes it possible to completely reject the idea that the destruction of humanity is a phenomenon linked to decomposition. On the contrary, it accompanies from the outset the period of capitalist decadence. The argument that the growing chaos we face is evidence in favour of decomposition must therefore be rejected. Here is what Rosa Luxemburg says: “A bloodletting which [risked] fatally exhausting the European workers’ movement’, which ‘threatened to bury the prospects of socialism under the ruins heaped up by imperialist barbarism’ by mowing down on the battlefields (...) the best forces (...) of international socialism, the vanguard troops of the whole world proletariat” [27].

Decomposition is then presented as an obstacle on the revolutionary road of the proletariat. Is it true that the aggravation and intensification of the contradictions of capitalism make the path of the proletariat more and more difficult? In reality, as in any situation, it is important to apprehend it in a dialectical way, considering the contradictions within it. In this respect, the situation is twofold. If, in the first instance, it is discouragement and the absence of prospects that can prevail, in a second stage, these manifestations of decay can only give substance to the propaganda of revolutionary militants demonstrating that capitalism can offer no perspective to humanity, and in particular to the proletariat, inciting it to rise up insofar as, as Marx put it, “the proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains, it has a world to gain” (Communist Manifesto). This was exactly proved by the First World War, where, after the initial disarray and defeat, the proletariat, faced with the total absence of any prospects for stability or a return to the status quo ante, embarked on the highly difficult, but indispensable for its survival, path of revolutionary struggle.

But it is above all at the level of the class consciousness of the proletariat that decomposition is supposed to be the main obstacle in the way of the proletariat. The ICC thus opposes various elements, which it presents as constitutive of the strength of the proletariat, to the forms taken by decomposition. Solidarity is opposed to every man for himself; the need for organisation to the destruction of social relations; confidence in the future to no-future; consciousness to mystification. In reality, these various factors are not so much related to historical phases as to the evolution of the class consciousness of the proletariat. If, in the phases of the offensive of the proletariat, when the proletariat is fully conscious, these positive characteristics prevail, as was the case during the revolutionary wave of 1917-23 or, on a smaller scale, after May 1968; in the phases of counter-revolution and disorientation of the proletariat, the situation is quite different.

These negative dimensions (destruction of social relations, mystification and obscurantism, every man for himself) are not specific to decomposition; they are the product of a significant retreat in the consciousness of the proletariat, of a counter-revolution in which only revolutionary minorities are able to stay the course. Bilan was confronted with a situation that had many analogies with the period of writing the theses, with a mystified proletariat incapable of organising and acting autonomously.

 

14. 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. Contrary to what the German Stalinists thought in the 1930s, in a period of atomisation the unemployed did not represent the vanguard of the proletariat. On the contrary, unemployment can lead to a lack of prospects and to discouragement.

However, in the long run, unemployment, again like war and crisis, constitutes one of the main proofs in the eyes of the proletariat that the capitalist system has nothing left to offer and that, therefore, the proletariat has nothing to lose if it engages in revolutionary struggle. Moreover, the ICC admits in its theses that the analogy is made between the weight of unemployment as a brake on class consciousness in the 1930s and during the drafting of the theses, thus showing that, much more than the periodisation of capitalism (ascendancy, decadence, decomposition), it is really the balance of forces between the classes that determines whether unemployment is an accelerator or a brake on the consciousness of the proletariat. This example given to us by unemployment, and this implicit admission of the ICC, clearly show that yesterday as today, it was indeed a defeat that the proletariat was confronted with.

 

15.The difficulties of the class struggle, which mark the period of decomposition, are presented in a one-sided, and therefore erroneous, way by the ICC.

Thus the collapse of the Eastern bloc and the disappearance of Stalinism are presented as an obstacle for the proletariat. It would be much more accurate to say that the disappearance of Stalinism was both a real opportunity for the proletariat – to the extent that the most powerful force for the control of the working class during the 20th century, the harbinger of the counter-revolution, has finally disappeared from the face of the earth, leaving a real free space for revolutionary minorities – as well as a danger – insofar as the equation Stalinism = communism, served to deal a powerful blow to the class consciousness of the proletariat.

If this last dimension has dominated since then, it only takes a lasting revival of the struggle and consciousness for the disappearance of Stalinism to become a real point of support for revolutionaries. It should be noted in passing that, while the collapse of the Eastern bloc had consequences in terms of working-class consciousness, it would be quite wrong to present it as the cause of the downturn in struggles. The curves showing the evolution of workers’ combativity clearly show that the struggle was already at its lowest point around 1989, and there were no notable fluctuations following the fall of the Berlin Wall (cf. Graph 1 at the beginning of this article).

Among other difficulties, the ICC falsely presents the difficulty of the proletariat in unifying its struggles as a product reinforced by decomposition, whereas, by the ICC’s own admission, Marx in the 18th Brumaire presents this difficulty as characteristic of the movement of the working class. It is precisely the role of the experience of the struggles and propaganda of revolutionary minorities to enable the proletariat to overcome this initial difficulty of the lack of unity of struggles. Corporatism was born with the proletariat, it will only disappear with the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat, without decomposition playing any role in these dynamics. The whole history of the proletariat, from the nineteenth century to the present day, shows that the trap of corporatism can only be avoided with a conscious proletariat and a powerful revolutionary organisation, two dialectically linked dynamics.

Therefore, to the two elements rightly identified by the ICC in the difficulty of the proletariat in strengthening its class consciousness in the 1980s – the slowness of the crisis, and the organic rupture in the revolutionary organisations due to the weight of the counter-revolution – we must, rather than decomposition, add the retreat of the class struggle on a world scale.

 

16. The ICC’s approach to the dimension of time testifies to its lack of understanding of the phenomenon of decadence. Thus, to claim that time was on the side of the proletariat in the 1970s is to show a real lack of awareness of the dangers of decadence.

In reality, since 1914, time has only been working against the proletariat. Decadence being the product of a situation in which capitalism is no longer progressive and the proletariat incapable of taking power, any delay of the proletariat in its revolutionary action only intensifies the barbaric phenomena of capitalism, first and foremost war. Material and human destruction did not wait for the 1980s; the destruction of the environment did not wait until 1980, it has only worsened since 1914. The decadence of capitalism is a real race against time, and if time is less and less on the side of the proletariat, this was already the case in previous decades. It is inconsistent to pretend that a rotting system does not imply the urgency of providing a solution on the part of the proletariat. In reality, it appears that the ICC’s catastrophism vis-à-vis the current situation (the psychological root of the analysis of decomposition) is only the counterpoint to a dangerous relativisation of decadence and the threat it represents for the proletariat.

In this regard, it is interesting to see how the ICC underestimates the danger of world war. Thus, it is presented as easily preventable by the action of the proletariat. This assertion is extremely peremptory, not only because it is invalidated by history – the proletariat was all-powerful in 1914 – but also because it affirms, while history is a product of a balance of forces, by nature evolving and changing, that the proletariat will never again allow itself to be mystified by war, even though, throughout its history, the bourgeoisie has been able to invent the most insidious forms (the union sacrée, anti-fascism, anti-populism tomorrow?) to make the proletariat adhere to its destructive project. The conclusion of this assertion is to present world war as a limited danger, easily stopped by the proletariat, when a phenomenon as unfounded as decomposition is the greatest threat humanity has ever encountered. One only has to re-read Rosa Luxemburg’s previous quotation to see how far removed this relativisation of the threat of the destruction of humanity by imperialist war is from the classics of Marxism.

This double standard between a decadence that is supposed to cause more fear than harm and decomposition as an unprecedented threat, is superbly illustrated by the following statement of the ICC: “The workers’ resistance to the effects of the crisis is no longer enough: only the communist revolution can put an end to the threat of decomposition.” (Thesis n°16, International Review n°107). Thus we learn that before decomposition, simple workers’ struggles of resistance sufficed, whereas it is only in decomposition that the communist revolution suffices. The revolutionaries of yesteryear will be delighted to learn that they vastly overestimated the danger of decadence by asserting that revolution became the only way out. It now appears that workers’ struggles of resistance were enough.

The ICC’s thesis concludes with an analysis of the difficulties for the proletariat in turning the effects of decomposition against the bourgeoisie. In reality, as we mentioned earlier, the consequences of decadence are felt in different ways, depending on the respective strength of the proletariat, its revolutionary organisation and its degree of consciousness. Depending on the conditions, they can be both a factor aggravating the disorientation of the proletariat and a springboard to the revolutionary offensive. Again, we must recall Marx’s formula in the Manifesto that the “proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains.” If this tendency is always present in a relative way, it becomes so in an absolute way when the contradictions of the period of decadence become insurmountable for capitalism.

 

17. On a historical scale, the manifestations of decadence do not represent an insurmountable obstacle to the struggle of the proletariat. They cannot prevent the revolutionary outcome; on the contrary, they demonstrate its growing necessity.

This being admitted, it is important to understand in what situations decadence can become an obstacle to the struggle of the proletariat. This is the case when they express themselves in a period of counter-revolution, where the working class is defeated. However, today, contrary to what the ICC asserts, the proletariat has been defeated. Indeed, if the period of the 1960s and 70s represented a return to the offensive struggle of the proletariat, this phase ended in the mid-1970s, beginning a continuous decline in the scale of the struggles at the world level, and mainly in the central countries of capitalism. At the same time, class consciousness has retreated extremely sharply, especially with the bourgeoisie’s assertions that the proletariat had disappeared and that communism had definitively failed because of the disappearance of the Eastern bloc. Finally, this defeat manifested itself at the level of the revolutionary organisations which, after having experienced a large influx of new militants, faced a succession of serious crises, splits and massive departures of militants, sending these organisations back to their pre-1968 life.

These three concomitant phenomena, the retreat of struggles, the retreat of consciousness, and the retreat of revolutionary organisations, undeniably testify to a moral and political defeat of the proletariat, although not physical as in the 1920s and 30s. From then on, revolutionary organisations are forced to act against the tide, waiting for the contradictions of capitalism to force the class to resume its life-and-death struggle against capitalism. It is therefore right that the ICC affirms that it is on the economic terrain that the attacks of the bourgeoisie will be most pressing, but also represent the most favourable terrain for the consciousness of the proletariat: “the economic attacks (falling real wages, layoffs, increasing productivity, etc) resulting directly from the crisis hit the proletariat (ie the class that produces surplus value and confronts capitalism on this terrain)” (Thesis n°17, International Review n°107), or “unlike social decomposition which essentially effects the superstructure, the economic crisis directly attacks the foundations on which this superstructure rests; in this sense, it lays bare all the barbarity that is battening on society, thus allowing the proletariat to become aware of the need to change the system radically, rather than trying to improve certain aspects of it.” (ibid.). If the economic crisis provides the objective conditions for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, the subjective conditions are also fundamental. These will be reinforced, both by the deepening of the contradictions of capitalism and by the propaganda of revolutionary organisations whose role is to contribute to the unification of the proletariat in the struggle as well as by highlighting the immediate and historical interests of the working class. It is therefore incumbent upon revolutionaries to participate actively in the development of the class struggle, which includes the criticism of theories that represent an obvious dead end for the proletariat.

 

Addendum

Following the Covid-19 crisis, the ICC added four characteristics of decomposition in the present situation that would testify to its acceleration (“The acceleration of capitalist decomposition openly poses the question of the destruction of humanity”, International Review no. 169, 2022). The point here is to see whether they are more capable than the initial theses of convincing the proletariat of the existence of this supposed period of decomposition.

1) First of all, the increasing seriousness of the effects of decomposition is highlighted. In fact, this insistence testifies to a lack of dialectical understanding of what a rotting dynamic is. While the ICC sees the consequences of decadence in a fixed way, the very notion of decay implies that the effects are continually worsening, so that the events of the moment are no longer the same as those of the previous moment. This dynamic is at the very heart of the notion of decadence. The decay began around 1914 and has never stopped since. This is to say that the increasing severity of the effects of decadence is a permanent phenomenon. We don’t have to wait for decomposition, and even less so for the years 2010-20 to realise this.

2) The second factor is the eruption of the effects of decomposition on the economic level. The fact that decomposition may have arisen on a non-economic basis should be enough to call into question such an analysis. Even though decadence arises on an immediately economic basis, monopolies, financial capitalism, capitalist unification of the world, productive forces having reached the limit of their historical progressivism ... we must wait several decades for decomposition to take an economic form. Here we recognise an empiricist and impressionist method far removed from Marxism, putting itself at the tail end of events rather than analysing the economic underpinnings of the contradictions of modern capitalism.

3) The penultimate factor is the increasing interaction of the effects of capitalism. Again, this observation stems from a problem of method, and more precisely from a non-dialectical analysis of reality. One of the necessities of dialectics is to consider observed phenomena as a whole, as subject to permanent interaction. Rather than isolating a phenomenon in order to observe it in abstracto, the dialectical method involves understanding it through its relations with other phenomena, and refuses to abstract it from the environment in which it evolves. By applying this method, it appears that the interaction of the different components of capitalism is a fact organic to it, independent of any historical periodisation. The relationship between economic crisis, class struggle and militarism has always been intertwined and has been mutually transformed. The year 1871 was a year of war, famine and class struggle. The post-war period in 1919 combined militarism, pandemics, class struggles, etc. Examples abound of situations where it becomes impossible to isolate one of its manifestations from the general context in which it takes shape.

4) Finally, the last dimension is the growing presence of decomposition in the central countries. If, once again, the angle chosen is short-sighted and an analysis based only on a few decades instead of the historical perspective favoured by Marxism, this dimension highlights an undeniable fact, namely that the bourgeoisie of the central countries is better able than its rivals in the countries of the periphery of the global capitalist system to control and repel in a relative way the contradictions of capitalism. This reality manifested itself throughout the twentieth century, justifying for the Bolsheviks the thesis of the weak link insofar as the contradictions of capitalism erupt more easily in a country like Russia than in the historical centre of capitalism, the United Kingdom, where the contradictions of capitalism remain attenuated. But it is true that the more capitalism rots, the more the bourgeoisie of the central countries encounters difficulties in overcoming or rejecting the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. Stripped of its empiricist trappings, which require us to wait until the 2010s and 20s to see the contradictions in the central countries manifest themselves, this assertion contains some truth.

 

Tibor

 

---

 

C.Mcl : 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 [28], the ICC uses every means at its disposal to give it credibility by appealing to our illustrious predecessors. It repeats over and over that [29] :

• « 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 » [30].

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 [31] , 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 [32]. 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 [33] 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 [34].

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 [35] – and it has been regularly reaffirmed throughout the half-century of the ICC’s existence [36]. 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... » [37]. 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 » [38].

 

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 [39], 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 [40]. 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 [41]:

• « 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 [42].

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 » [43].

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 » [44], 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 [45].

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