This is the full version of a text recently submitted to the ICC for publication.
I have already commented online on the ICC’s response to my critique of the 23rd Congress resolutions, and don’t intend to reply to every point here. I don’t disagree with a lot of what the ICC says, although I still think comrades were absolutely right to point out the confusions in the congress texts, especially the Resolution on the International Situation.
Hopefully the debate is moving on. The ICC response certainly helps by framing the debate squarely in terms of the balance of class forces rather than the specific question of the ‘historic course’, and more texts on this topic are promised.
Here I want to try to define my own position more clearly on the question of the balance of class forces in the period opened up by the events of May ’68, with the aim of offering a basic framework which hopefully helps to clarify the specific question of the ‘historic course’.
All quotes unless otherwise stated are from the ICC’s key text on the historic course in IR 18, 1979, which I have taken as a reference point.
The need for revolutionaries to understand the balance of class forces
First of all, on the question of method, of course Marxists need to try to “make predictions”, as the IR 18 article puts it. More precisely, if Marxism is a scientific method for understanding the laws governing human society then Marxists, as ‘scientists’, must attempt to extrapolate from an investigation of existing conditions in order to draw out the general dynamic of a historical period.
Since Marxism is a theoretical weapon of the proletariat, the purpose of such predictions is to arm this class in its historic struggle for communism. As well as clarifying the broad “line of march” of the proletarian movement, they determine its mode of struggle in each period in the life of capitalism.
The most obvious example in the 19th century is Marx’s understanding that capitalism was a historically progressive system still in its phase of expansion. Within this phase, Marx was able to recognise periods of reflux and advance in the class struggle, and therefore to recognise periods when it was not possible for a party of the proletariat to play an active role, and periods when it was vital for revolutionaries to lead the movement of the class.
So it is essential for revolutionaries to analyse the balance of force between the classes as the only way to clarify the perspectives for the workers’ movement and the role and activity of its revolutionary minorities. This task takes on an even greater importance with the entry of capitalism into its epoch of decadence.
Understanding the balance of class forces in decadence
In decadence, war and revolution are the only two historic alternatives facing humanity. “Left to its own dynamic, capitalism can’t escape imperialist war”, which is the expression of the historic bankruptcy of the capitalist mode of production. Which of the two alternatives is ultimately victorious – war or revolution – depends above all on the balance of class forces and it is “the ability of the proletariat to react to the historic crisis of capitalism on its own class terrain [which] will determine whether or not this system will be able to impose its own solution to the crisis: imperialist war”.
But if the dynamic of decadent capitalism is towards imperialist war and the dynamic of the struggle of the proletariat is towards revolution, these two opposing tendencies are not equal:
· the tendency towards war is inherent in capitalism - “the ‘normal' course of capitalist society is towards war.” (‘Revolution or war’, IR 21, 1980);
· but the tendency towards revolution will not inevitably develop to the point where it results in the overthrow of capitalism.
The victory of the proletariat depends above all on its ability to become aware of its nature, its struggle's ends and means and the lessons of its defeats: “And this ability of the proletariat to gain in awareness does not spring automatically from the material conditions it is confronted with, just as it is nowhere written that it will come to consciousness before capitalism plunges society into barbarism or destruction” (‘Why the proletariat has not yet overthrown capitalism, Part 1’, IR 103).
In the absence of a successful proletarian revolution, “Left to its own dynamic, capitalism can’t escape imperialist war”.
The balance of class forces and the dynamic towards world war in the 20th century
If the tendency towards imperialist war is inherent in decadent capitalism and develops independently of any action by the proletariat, the way in which this tendency towards imperialist war is expressed, and the form it takes, is determined by the balance of class forces and the evolution of the class struggle.
In the first 70 years of capitalist decadence the tendency towards imperialist war took the specific form of a dynamic towards wars on a global scale between rival imperialist blocs in which the proletariat was mobilised to fight behind its respective national capitals.
Due to the evolution of the class struggle in this period and the balance of class forces, this dynamic resulted in different outcomes, as we can see from a brief (and, dare I say it, rather schematic) summary of its key phases.
1900-1917
In the period before 1914 we see:
· the strengthening of the tendency towards war with growing conflicts between the rival imperialist powers, and
· the strengthening of the tendency towards revolution, with an international wave of political and economic struggles including the 1905 revolution in Russia and mass strikes in Western Europe and America.
These two tendencies developed simultaneously and in parallel. Specific factors determining the balance of class forces in this period include:
· the fact that neither class understood the implications of the change of period from capitalist ascendance to decadence
· the degeneration of the social democratic parties and trade unions due to the weight of reformism and opportunism in the period of capitalism’s progressive growth.
As a result of these factors, the bourgeoisie launched a world war without first inflicting a physical defeat on the proletariat, but at the same time the proletariat was unable to prevent the outbreak of war. The But the tendency towards revolution was not decisively blocked and in only three years the proletariat was able to end the world war and directly threaten to overthrow capitalism.
1933-45
Before WW2 the balance of class forces was determined by:
· the defeat of the world revolutionary wave of 1917-21
· the dynamic towards a new world war, with growing conflicts between the rival imperialist powers and the formation of rival blocs
· the lesson learned by bourgeoisie that before launching another world war it was necessary to inflict not only an ideological but also a profound physical defeat on the proletariat.
As a result, despite major struggles (Spain 1936-7, France, the USA, etc.), the tendency towards revolution was decisively blocked.
This balance of class forces was correctly identified by the Italian Communist Left, which understood that with the physical defeat of the revolutionary wave the conditions for a new world war definitively blocked the tendency towards revolution.
1945-1968
In the post-war period we see:
· a strong tendency towards war, with the consolidation of two imperialist blocs and growing conflicts between the rival imperialist powers
· The continued blocking of the tendency towards revolution due to the political and physical defeat of the proletariat in WW2.
But the dynamic towards a new world war was attenuated by:
· the reprieve for the capitalist system granted by the reconstruction period and ensuing ‘post-war boom’
· the existence of nuclear weapons which, without overstating the rationality of the bourgeoisie, is reasonable to assume was a factor in its calculations of launching a new world war.
This attenuation of the dynamic towards world war was not grasped by the GCF which mistakenly concluded that due to the blocking of the tendency towards revolution a new world war must therefore be on the immediate agenda – a warning against a simplistic view of world war and revolution as mutually exclusive opposites.
1968-1989
In the period after 1968 we see:
· the strengthening of the dynamic towards a new world war, with growing conflicts between the rival imperialist blocs (Indo-China, Middle East, Horn of Africa)
But also:
· the ending of the post-war boom, signalling the re-appearance of the open economic crisis of the capitalist system
· the emergence of a new generation of proletarians who had not experienced defeat
· the consequent strengthening of the tendency towards revolution, with an international wave of political and economic struggles including the general strike in France ’68, ‘Hot Autumn in Italy, strikes in Britain, Spain, Argentina, etc.
As a result, the balance of class forces was more favourable to the proletariat than at any time since the revolutionary wave.
The ICC correctly analysed this favourable balance of class forces and identified the strengthening of the tendency towards revolution as an obstacle to the dynamic towards a new world war.
Reversing the position of the Italian Left in the 1930s, it initially described this balance of class forces as constituting a “course towards revolution”, which implied that the conditions for a new world war were definitively blocked. It later corrected this to a “course towards class confrontations”, based on the recognition that the dynamic towards a new world war could only be realised by first confronting and defeating the proletarian struggle.
On a day to day level the struggles of the proletariat were unable to prevent the continued strengthening of the tendency towards war but they were sufficient to constitute an obstacle to the bourgeoisie’s war plans. For example, the Vietnam War had to be abandoned partly because the American conscript army disintegrated and Russian imperialism experienced a similar problem in Afghanistan. Above all the mass strike in Poland 1980 showed clearly that the proletariat was not prepared to be mobilised to fight a new world war.
The disintegration of the USSR from 1985 and the subsequent collapse of its bloc was a product of the deepening economic crisis and the effects of the acceleration of the arms race by the US, but also indirectly of the tendency towards revolution after 1968. But the Polish mass strike proved to be the high point of the international wave of struggles after May ‘68. Despite a wave of struggles in the 1980s (France, Italy, Belgium, Britain) this took place in the context of a growing counter-offensive by the bourgeoisie.
The tendency towards revolution had already suffered a major setback before the collapse of the blocs.
1989-
The collapse of the Russian bloc signalled a major change in the balance of class forces.
Specific factors determining this change included:
· the collapse of Stalinism and the ensuing ideological campaigns around ‘the end of communism’
· the weakening and fragmentation of the rival US bloc and a growing dynamic of ‘every one for themselves’ among the imperialist powers
· the continuing counter-offensive of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat (neoliberalist policies, breaking up old centres of class militancy, etc.)
· the acceleration of the decay of the superstructure of capitalist society (‘decomposition’) at all levels.
As a result:
· the tendency towards revolution remains intact but is temporarily blocked, exacerbated by the effects of the advanced decay of capitalist society which causes increasing difficulties for the proletariat in developing its consciousness and finding its class identity.
· the dynamic towards a new world war is at least temporarily blocked due to:
- the difficulties in forming new blocs and,
- the failure to inflict the necessary physical defeat on the proletariat in order to mobilise it behind its respective national capitals.
· At the same time, the tendency towards war can only strengthen as the expression of the historic bankruptcy of the system, exacerbated by the effects of the decay of capitalist society leading to the proliferation of local wars and increased use of terror and terrorism, etc.
Conclusions
So what conclusions can we draw from this necessarily brief and schematic review?
· That if the tendency towards imperialist war is inherent in decadent capitalism and develops independently of any action by the proletariat, the way in which this tendency is expressed, and the specific form it takes, is determined by the balance of class forces and the evolution of the class struggle.
· That between 1914 and c1985 the inherent tendency of decadent capitalism towards imperialist war took the specific form of a dynamic towards world war between rival imperialist blocs which demanded the defeat of the proletariat and its mobilisation behind its respective national capitals.
· That this dynamic changed due to the depth of the economic crisis, the effects of the class struggle and the acceleration of the decay of capitalist society (‘decomposition’).
· That the proletariat, despite the tendency towards revolution being temporarily blocked, is not definitively defeated. The balance of class forces remains therefore the determining factor in capitalist society.
The dynamic of decadent capitalism towards a new world war is not definitively blocked and it would be dangerous for revolutionaries to underestimate the threat. Given the depth of the economic crisis, the potential clearly exists for future global conflicts (US v China in the South China Sea, US v Russia in the Middle East, etc.), and while the two world wars in the 20th century were preceded by the formation of blocs, as the ICC itself reminds us, “That is not to say that, a priori, a future imperialist war would need to have identical conditions”.
With the acceleration of the decay of capitalist society, however, the tendency towards war in the current period is expressed primarily in a proliferation of local wars and increased use of terror and terrorism, etc., fuelled by an increasing loss of control by the bourgeoisie over its own political apparatus. As a result, the tendency towards a generalised war, possibly including the use of nuclear weapons, remains a potentially fatal threat to humanity.
* * *
The ICC has now concluded that in the period after 1989 its concept of the historic course is no longer valid because, due to the advanced decay of capitalist society (‘decomposition’), there is no longer a dynamic towards a new world war. In this situation the balance of class forces is no longer the determining factor in “the general dynamics of capitalist society” (23rd Congress Resolution on the International Situation).
As we have seen, the ICC initially described the balance of class forces in the period opened up by May ’68 as constituting a “course towards revolution”, which was in effect a reversal of Bilan’s position in the 1930s implying that the conditions for a new world war were definitively blocked. It later corrected this to a “course towards class confrontations”. As an approximation of the balance of class forces, based on the lesson learned by bourgeoisie that before launching a new world war it was first necessary to inflict a physical defeat on the proletariat, this correctly summarised the balance of class forces existing at the time based on the lessons of the revolutionary wave. The class struggle did indeed constitute an obstacle to the bourgeoisie’s war plans. Above all the mass strike in Poland 1980 showed clearly that the proletariat was not prepared to be mobilised to fight a new world war.
But by introducing the idea of a fixed ‘course’ or direction to ‘history’, this concept of the historic course, it is argued, caused inherent difficulties for the ICC in responding to changes in the balance of class forces and drawing the necessary conclusions from the subsequent evolution of the class struggle.
It is often said that generals always tend to fight the last war; faced with the post-’68 upsurge of struggles the bourgeoisie had adopted a strategy based on the lessons it had learned from the previous revolutionary wave, above all the need to inflict a physical defeat on the proletariat before it could safely launch a new world war as the only capitalist ‘solution’ to the economic crisis.
But by the 1980s, it is suggested, the bourgeoisie had realised this strategy was unrealisable. The proletarian struggle, even though it had not been able to develop into a consciously revolutionary movement, had proved itself an effective obstacle to the dynamic towards a new world war. From the 1980s onwards we see the emergence of a new capitalist strategy with the objective of breaking the resistance of the proletariat through the wholesale restructuring of capitalism at an international level, via neoliberalist policies and ‘globalisation’, breaking up old centres of class militancy and re-composition of the working class.
This new strategy was successful. Even before 1989 the tendency towards revolution opened up by May ’68 had suffered a serious setback, which after the collapse of Stalinism led to a major change in the balance of class forces and a deep reflux in the class struggle which continues today.
Of course, in the longer term this strategy could only serve to worsen the contradictions of the system and today we can see the price being paid by the bourgeoisie in terms of increased instability, with the rise of populism and the acceleration of the symptoms of decay at all levels of capitalist society.
The ICC has since accepted its difficulties in recognising the effects of the defeats in the 1980s and its underestimation of the capacity of the bourgeoisie to prop up its system, along with its lateness in appreciating the significance of neoliberalism/globalisation and its full impact on class militancy (21st Congress Report on the Class Struggle, IR 156). It is not very surprising therefore that it also failed to draw the necessary conclusions of these developments for its concept of the ‘historic course’.
In summary, while we mustn’t underestimate the dramatic impact of the collapse of the Russian bloc which was historically unprecedented, the argument put forward here is that the defeat of the post-’68 upsurge of struggle was also the result of a change of strategy by the bourgeoisie in response not only to the need to manage the deepening economic crisis but above all to its failure to break the resistance of the proletariat to its war plans.
The implication of this for the ICC’s concept of the historic course is that even before the collapse of Stalinism the position of “a course towards class confrontations” had been progressively emptied of meaning by the evolution of the class struggle, demanding a reassessment in the light of the change of strategy by the bourgeoisie which, it is argued, was no longer focused on the mobilisation of the proletariat for a new world war but on the defeat of the proletariat through the restructuring of capitalism at an international level.
In fact, one implication – beyond the scope of this text to prove - is that this change of capitalist strategy itself helped to undermine the dynamic towards a new world war, by hastening the disintegration of the USSR, the weakening of the US imperialist bloc and the opening up of China, as the price to be paid for the survival of the capitalist system and the defeat of the proletariat – its primary goal.
The ICC always stressed that its position on the ‘historic course’ was not fixed and could change. But, despite the fact that its analysis of the negative effects of the collapse of Stalinism and the campaigns around the ‘end of communism was very clear, it maintained its position for a further thirty years, and then concluded that the concept was no longer valid because of the effects of ‘decomposition’.
Why? Partly, as we have seen, due to an underestimation of the defeats suffered by the proletariat and the effects of the conscious strategy of the bourgeoisie. But also, it is strongly suggested here, due to an inherently rigid and schematic concept of a ‘course’ or ‘direction’ of ‘history’ which actively contributed to preventing the ICC from drawing the correct conclusions from its own analysis of the change in the balance of class forces. In fact this rigid schema may also have contributed to its underestimation of the defeats suffered by the proletariat and the capacity of the bourgeoisie to prop up its system and maintain its class rule.
In summary, today the dynamic towards a new world war may have changed, or even be blocked, but the two fundamental opposing dynamics of decadent capitalism - towards war and revolution - remain intact, albeit increasingly affected by the irreversible process of capitalist decay, and which of these two alternatives is ultimately victorious is dependent more than ever on the balance of class forces. Despite the absence of open class struggle it is still the capacity of the proletariat to develop its consciousness even in periods of major defeat that offers the possibility of an alternative to the inevitability of imperialist war and full-blown barbarism.
Mark Hayes
19 November 2019