Is the balance of power between the classes still the determining factor in the dynamic of capitalist society?
Introduction
The publication of the report on the question of the historic course tells us more about the thinking behind the ICC’s decision at its 23rd Congress that the concept of the historic course has not been valid since 1989 and sheds more light on the content of the congress resolutions that provoked questions and criticisms from comrades on the ICC’s forum.
A fundamental change in the dynamics of capitalist society?
We should say first of all the report doesn’t really question whether there may have been any flaws in this concept from the start that might help explain why the ICC continued to defend an invalid position for so long. Rather it sets out to reconcile the ICC’s concept of the historic course with its position that capitalism entered a new and terminal phase of decadence in 1989.
The main clarification in the report is that the concepts of the historic course and the balance of power between the classes are distinct and separate and it accepts this wasn’t clear from the beginning; it certainly wasn’t clear to me and judging by online discussions it wasn’t clear to other ICC supporters either.
It has to be said the arguments explaining this distinction are some of the most convoluted I have ever read in an ICC text (see for example the para beginning “We have tended…”), so it is perhaps not surprising the resulting resolutions met with some incomprehension even from those familiar with the organisation’s positions.
In summary, the ICC has concluded that:
- before 1989 the balance of power between the classes was the determining factor in the general dynamics of capitalist society because it was on this that the outcome of world war or revolution depended;
- but since 1989, because world war is no longer on the agenda but capitalism will continue to decay, the balance of power between the classes is no longer the determining factor.
Thus, for the ICC, “1989 marks a fundamental change in the general dynamics of capitalist society”.
So how does the ICC explain why it took 30 years – an entire generation – to recognise that that this fundamental change had taken place?
Because it did not want to “throw the baby out with the bath water”, and wanted to follow Bilan’s example of fully understanding the new period before changing its analysis … although it admits it was also due to reluctance to let go of the ‘safety blanket’ of its concept of the historic course. But at its 23rd Congress it claims it was finally able to make a “decisive theoretical step forward” and congratulates itself: “Better late than never, and much better with theoretical conviction!” (ICC response).
I will leave it to comrades to decide whether they are convinced by this explanation.
Consciousness always lags behind reality of course and it would necessarily take some time for it to become clear that the formation of new blocs was unlikely and therefore that the threat of a new world war was no longer on the agenda, while the process of decay of capitalist society is by definition a gradual one whose effects would take time to show.
But there is another possibility: that this supposed “fundamental change” is not, in fact, real, and the ICC’s implausible conclusion that the balance of power between the classes is no longer the determining factor in capitalist society is a purely theoretical product of its attempt to reconcile the concept of the historic course with its position that capitalism entered a new phase of decadence in 1989.
Is the class struggle still the motor force of history?
The online discussion on the resolutions of the 23rd Congress began with a simple question to the ICC:
“Is the class struggle, under the conditions of decomposition, no longer the ‘motor force’ of history” (KT).
In its response the ICC of course as a Marxist organisation re-affirmed “the centrality of the proletarian struggle in this new period”, stressing that “The … explanation of the reasons for the evolution of our analysis does not call into question the vital importance of the balance of class forces for the future of humanity”.
In fact it goes on to affirm that “The inner laws of decomposing capitalism are driving capitalist society ever deeper into worsening economic crisis, imperialist wars, social decay. The only force in society capable of stopping this insanity is the proletariat and its revolutionary struggle”; the perspective is still therefore potentially towards massive struggles and decisive class confrontations.
In fact, the more the ICC insists, in response to criticisms, that the balance of class forces is still crucial, the more it throws into question the change in its position.
So what exactly has changed? “By saying that the historic course is no longer applicable to this period … means that this perspective will have to develop in the context of increasingly difficult circumstances for the proletariat. Unlike world war, the proletariat cannot hold back decomposition.”
Well, there can be little doubt that the proletariat faces increasing difficulties. “Unlike world war, the proletariat cannot hold back decomposition” - this is the key argument for the ICC’s change of position, so let’s examine it more closely. As always, we can only do this by analysing the evolution of the class struggle and specific changes in the balance of class forces.
So what exactly is it that determines the dynamic of capitalist society in any given period? If the starting point of a materialist analysis is that the ‘motor force’ of history is the struggle between the classes, in a given phase this is determined by a range of factors, including the depth and prolongation of capitalism’s historic crisis, and more specifically the evolution of:
- the economic crisis
- inter-imperialist antagonisms and
- the struggle of the proletariat.
We also need to consider what the ICC used to call the political crisis of the bourgeoisie but certainly includes the relative strengths and weaknesses of the capitalist class and its capacity to ensure its class rule. Together these different dimensions describe the balance of power between the classes and determine the overall direction of capitalist society in a given period.
In the period opened up by the return of capitalism’s open economic crisis from the late 1960s, as a result of the balance of power between the classes the proletarian struggle was in a position to obstruct the full development of the dynamic towards a world war. But in the 1980s this balance shifted:
- faced with a worsening economic crisis and a threat to its class rule the bourgeoisie launched a massive frontal attack on the working class to restore profitability and reinforce its class domination
- the inability of the rigid Stalinist bureaucracy to respond to the deepening economic crisis together with the escalation of the arms race and the effects of the class struggle resulted in the disintegration of the USSR and its satellite bloc.
As a result, the dynamic towards a world war was attenuated and the proletarian struggle went into a deep reflux which continues today.
In this new phase of the class struggle the balance of power between the classes is characterised by:
- the prolongation of capitalism’s historic crisis which has led to an acceleration and qualitative deepening of its decay at all levels
- a further deepening of the economic crisis (2007-8 Crash), which has nevertheless also seen signs of spectacular growth, eg. the East Asian countries
- the proliferation of inter-imperialist conflicts exacerbated by the collapse of the two-bloc system and the rise of China (Middle East, South China Sea), although the threat of a future world war (eg. China vs USA) also still exists
- a continuing reflux in the proletarian struggle despite massive social movements and some significant political developments (Arab Spring, Indignados).
In this historic situation, the acceleration of capitalism’s decay – a process which began with the onset of decadence – does indeed create increasing difficulties for the proletariat. In fact the prolongation of capitalism’s historic crisis, driven by the ever more violent accumulation of its contradictions, means that the direction of capitalist society today – in the absence of an intervention by the proletariat - is potentially towards the destruction of the material conditions for a communist society.
Certainly the proletariat cannot “hold back” the violent accumulation of capitalism’s contradictions – any more than it can “hold back” decadence; nevertheless its presence as a revolutionary class in capitalist society remains an active, conscious factor in the situation, even in the absence of open or massive struggles. The proletarian revolution is the only alternative to the final plunge of the system into full-blown barbarism and any deep defeat of the proletariat could only accelerate this. The struggle of the proletariat thus more than ever is the determining factor in the historic situation.
"It's not a crisis it's the system": Indignados anti-austerity demonstration, Spain 2011
Conclusions
The balance of power between the classes cannot be measured by its immediate or day to day appearances, otherwise we would have to reject the Marxist concept of the subterranean maturation of consciousness, and for this reason alone Marxists must affirm that the balance of power between the classes remains the determining factor in the dynamics of capitalist society.
The ICC on the other hand appears to have concluded that since 1989 the determining factor in capitalist society is what it terms ‘decomposition’. But if this is true it does indeed seem to imply, despite the ICC’s protestations and reassurances regarding the continued centrality of the class struggle and the balance of class forces, that decomposition - which is essentially an advanced phase in the decay of the mode of production, the result of the violent accumulation of contradictions of the decaying system - is itself now the ‘motor force’ of history…
The fact that the ICC’s attempt to reconcile its concept of the historic course with its position that capitalism entered a new phase of decadence in 1989 should apparently lead to such a questionable (and possibly unintended?) conclusion is surely a sign that something has gone wrong somewhere along the line of the ICC's argument, and the simple fact that it has created such confusion as a result of its change of position, on crucial questions like decadence, the class struggle and the balance of class forces, strongly brings to mind the advice: when you are in a hole comrades, stop digging….
Mark Hayes
May 2020