This text is by a young comrade from France who adheres to the general positions of the communist left without being formally a member of a political organisation. I only became aware of it by coincidence after finally finishing my own critique; both texts together represent, to my knowledge, the only attempt at a comprehensive critique of the ICC's theory of decomposition to be written from a left communist perspective. While there are political divergences on some questions, significantly both independently come to many of the same basic conclusions. (I understand the comrade sent their text to the ICC who didn't deem it necessary to reply). Mark Hayes
Introduction
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.
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 three main pitfalls:
• its schematic dogmatism,
• its revisionism 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 and then the neo-liberal turn with financialisation, relocation, tertiarisation, etc.).
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, which produces 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.
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” (Grundrisse, Editions 10/18, Volume IV, p.17-18).[1]
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.” (Thesis n°2, International Review n°107). 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 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.” There is no evidence to support this assertion and we are reduced to accepting that the “dislocation of the social body” and the “decay of economic, political and ideological structures” (idem), formulas so vague that they could contain almost anything, are not decadence but only (by virtue of what authority?) of decomposition.
3.
There is a frequent confusion between the history of modes of production (ascendancy, 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 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” (Thesis n°3, International Review n°107).
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 1960s and 1970s, 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 in the mid-1970s, they have been steadily declining ever since. The last great struggle, that of the Polish workers in 1980, ended in defeat.
The 1980s, far from representing the period of truth when the alternative of war or revolution had to be decided, began the decline of the working class. 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 is content to rationalise its economic system by entering the phase of neo-liberal capitalism, characterised by the massive development of the financial system, a temporary solution to the decline in the return on capital, as well as by deindustrialisation, ie. the relocation of the secondary sector to emerging countries and the development in the central countries of an important tertiary sector.
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 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” (Theories on Surplus Value, Editions Sociales, II, p. 592). 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 economic expedients of state capitalism; 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” (“The 80s: Years of Truth”, International Review n°20).
7.
If we review the manifestations supposedly characteristic of decomposition, we notice that they are in no way new and constitutive of a new period.
• Thus, first of all, with regard to famines in the Third World, it is enough to study the list of famines that affected Africa in the twentieth century to see that today’s famines are only part of a long and tragic series of famines: 1928-29 in Rwanda-Burundi, 1931 in Niger, 1940-48 in Morocco, 1943 in Rwanda-Burundi, 1958 in Tigray, etc., 1967-70 in Biafra (1 million deaths), 1968-72 in the Sahel (1 million deaths), 1972-73 in Ethiopia, 1980-81 in Uganda, 1985-85 in Ethiopia (1 million deaths), 1991-92 in Somalia, 1998 in Sudan, 1998-2000 in Eritrea-Ethiopia, in 1998-2004 in Congo (3.4 million deaths), in 2012 in West Africa, in 2016 in South Sudan, in 2017 in Somalia... As for overproduction and food waste in the rest of the world, it is characteristic of capitalist crises of overproduction. It is this contrast between a production that can largely meet the needs of the population and an immense waste that constitutes the decadence and loss of the progressive nature of capitalism.
• Regarding the development of slums, it is linked to the population explosion in the countries of the South, which began in the 1960s and is due in particular to the mechanisation of agriculture and the rural exodus that follows the creation of large farms requiring fewer and fewer farmers. It was thus these influxes of landless peasants that generated the first slums, merely reproducing with a delay of almost a century and a half the characteristics of the primitive accumulation of capital, analysed by Marx in Book 1 of Capital.
• As for the development of slums in the central countries of capitalism, it is enough to recall the slums in France because of the housing problem produced by the destruction of the war, the significant poverty, rural exodus and foreign immigration that characterised the decades 1950-70, well before the entry into the period of decomposition.
• Accidental disasters are once again not a novelty arising from the period of decomposition. Marxists have always been interested in the manifestations of the irrationality of capitalism which, as a result of the quest for maximum profit, neglects the most elementary conditions of security. The most characteristic example in Marxist literature is undoubtedly Bordiga’s article “Weird and Wonderful Tales of Modern Social Decadence”,[2] which evokes several disasters that took place during the summer of 1956, including the sinking of the transatlantic liner Andrea Doria following a collision in fog off the island of Nantucket (near New York) on 26 July 1956 and the mining disaster at Marcinelle (Belgium) on August 8, 1956, which killed 263 people. These events were already an opportunity for Bordiga to denounce a mode of production that had lost all historical legitimacy. Again, the concept of decomposition adds nothing and only repeats the classics of Marxism despite its claim to identify a new period.
• Bordiga did not limit himself to industrial disasters, and in 1951 he published an article in the magazine Battaglia Comunista entitled “The Flood and Rupture of Bourgeois Civilization.” It suffices to quote the introduction to the article, which clearly expresses the Marxist vision of the period of capitalist decadence: “If it is true that the industrial and economic potential of the capitalist world is increasing and not decreasing, it is equally true that the greater its virulence and the worse the conditions of the human mass in the face of worsening natural and historical cataclysms” (“Piena e rotta della civiltà borghese”, Battaglia Comunista, 8.12.1951 (Invariance translation)), Everything was already said in 1951!
• 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.”[3]
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.
Decomposition manifests itself above all on the political and ideological levels. Let’s see if the facts support 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.”[4]
• 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.[5] 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.[6] 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. (Letter to Denise Naville and Jean Rous, May 10, 1938).
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. It is enough to mention the financialisation of the economy, the techniques of state capitalism and central banks or the tertiarisation of the economy to see the extent to which the bourgeoisie continues to impose its orientations in the face of 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.” (“The significance and impact of the war in Ukraine”, International Review n°168).
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” (“Facing a New World War,” August 9, 1937).
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” (Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right). 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” (Rosa Luxemburg, The Crisis of Social Democracy).
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.
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
The ICC proposed an update of its theses on decomposition in 2017. On this occasion, four dimensions were added. The question here is whether they are better able than the initial theses to convince 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.
[1] Unless otherwise specified, the passages underlined are my emphasis.
[2] "The Sinister Black Book of Modern Social Decadence", Communist Program nº 17/1956, 24 August 1956, available online: https://www.marxists.org/francais/bordiga/works/1956/08/bordiga_19560824.htm
[3] Engels, The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man, 1876, available online: https://www.marxists.org/francais/marx/76-rotra.htm
[4] Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, February to June 1848, 1850, available online: https://www.marxists.org/francais/marx/works/1850/03/km18500301b.htm
[5] Vantage Point, Seoul, November 1995, p. 17
[6] For the British case, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2cqrwx/revision/8