Readers will see that the Counter-theses on Decomposition on this site have been updated by the author.
Having read this more developed version, I do think it shows a convergence of our views on several key points. In anticipation of a response from the ICC at some point, it may be helpful to summarise these :
1. The decomposition of capitalism begins not arbitrarily in the 1980s but with the onset of capitalism’s decadence: decadence is the decomposition of capitalism.
2. The whole period of capitalism’s decadence represents a threat to the proletarian revolution; time has not been on the side of the working class since c1914.
3. The ICC’s schema of decomposition is based on an incorrect analysis of the balance of power between the classes, specifically:
· it underestimates the defeat experienced by the working class in the 1980s, and
· it fails to recognise the extent to which the bourgeoisie was able to create a ‘breathing space’ for its system due to the effects of this defeat and the restructuring of capitalism
· there is therefore no ‘stalemate’ between the classes.
In summary, while the decomposition of capitalism is a very real phenomenon, the ICC’s theory is a dogmatic schema based on a one-sided, undialectical view of the evolution of capitalism and the class struggle.
It may also be helpful here to highlight two areas where I tend to disagree with the Counter-theses:
1. While I think the text provides a much-needed, broader Marxist historical perspective on the phenomenon of decomposition, and emphasises the need for a two-sided, dialectical view of capitalism's evolution from the 1980s, I feel it risks understating the extent to which this evolution constituted a qualitative step in capitalism’s descent into barbarism. In particular, the destruction of social cohesion, as a direct and indirect result of the capitalist counter-offensive, in my view forms part of a very real ‘tipping point’ in decadent capitalism’s trajectory, which only serves to underline the threat to the proletarian revolution.
2. I also feel that the text’s conscious effort to re-assert the validity of the positions defended by the Communist Left in the past leads it to defend an inconsistent position today. So, while it agrees that the decadence of capitalism poses the possibility of the destruction of humanity, it criticises the ICC for ‘reformulating’ the historic alternative “war or revolution” as “the communist revolution or the destruction of humanity”, arguing that this risks ‘disarming’ the proletariat in the face of the bourgeoisie. I’m not convinced by this argument, with its appeal to “the clarity achieved by our predecessors”, which also leads it – overoptimistically in my view – to argue that revolutionary possibilities could emerge from a future world war; there seems precious evidence to support this view in the imperialist wars raging today in Ukraine or the Middle East.
But hopefully these and other issues can be discussed further.
MH
コメント