Report of Midlands Discussion Forum in Birmingham

February 23 2013

As Link had posted his introductory text on our website and as we were engaged in an exchange with him and others in this forum I went along. Link obviously put a good deal of work into the introduction and it was successful in that it sparked off a wide-ranging discussion amongst the initially 9 people there (but the 3 SPGB left after few minutes to go to their own meeting in the same pub).

Link’s text is on our Forum so I won’t repeat his summary of it. If there was anyone in the meeting who did not now think we were living in a period which could be described as the decay of capitalism they kept quiet (although there was one person who had never been to such a meeting before and it was all new). I did not take notes so this is a brief summary of the discussion as I recall it. Broadly there were three approaches expressed in the meeting. Although it was not stated it was clear that Link supported the (ICC) idea that without a theory of decadence you cannot really understand all the phenomena of this period and all its features and decadence is what holds revolutionary politics together in a coherent fashion.

The first response to this was by Spikeymike who supported the notion of International Perspectives that although 1914 was an important moment in the transformation of capitalism as the first significant turning point from an ascendant to a decadent phase of capitalism, that the transition from the “formal to the real domination of capital”, that lay behind this, was a continuing process that was extending both geographically and socially through a number of other equally significant points such as the 2nd World War and the collapse of the Soviet bloc to just name two. This was a correct response to those cruder theories of decadence which capital wakes up one morning decadent in August 1914 and it is certainly true that the process of decadence does not halt capitalism’s capacity to grow (as the ICC used to argue in their early years). I did not object to the formula about the formal and real domination of capital but something in my memory was telling me that Marx and/or Engels had use similar words about the mid to late nineteenth century when capitalism was in its “golden age”. However Spikeymike went on that these material changes needed to be understood in terms of their influence on the composition and consciousness of the working class both positive and negative. He argued that class struggle (short of a revolutionary break) was also relevant as against competition between capitals in continuing capitalist modernisation (or as he put it “deepening of the real domination of capital”). I agreed that too often the role of the class struggle is left out of discussions on decadence (and pointed out that income distribution via the welfare state after WW2 would not have happened without the fear of the working class) but did not see how the abstract theory of decadence related directly to the issue of consciousness (the defeat of the revolutionary wave in the 1920s seems to me more critical in the formation (or rather the lack of it) of class consciousness today. That defeat still stands before us. This led to an agreement between us that the notion of decadence and crisis as simultaneous was a mistake (the neo-Luxemburgist ICCist vision). Link sees this but still maintained that the theory of decadence was central to anyone trying to understand the period. I contested this as I had a theory of “decadence” long before I had heard of the concept as in my youth I had struggled to come to terms with the transformation of capital from the laissez faire model to the statist version we see today. You don’t need a concept of decadence to see that unions are barriers to working class revolution, that state capitalism is not a step towards socialism but the opposite, that parliamentarism is the ultimate form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Only on the notion that national struggles are a thing of the past is it useful (and this was what Onorato Damen realised sometime before 1943).

The meeting seemed to agree that the automatic application of the ascendant/decadent phasing theory to all pre-capitalist societies as represented by the simplified schematic put forward in the introductory text was not valid. I gave an account of the decline of the Roman Empire which showed that ultimately it was not the class struggle within it which led to its decline but the impact of barbarian societies from outside which finished it off. Similarly we noted (and Link agreed) that the Asiatic mode of production was omitted from the “Eurocentric” schema derived from the Communist Manifesto. The Asiatic mode of production which arose from primitive communist societies in the Neolithic phase gave rise to an enormously stable but static mode of production which only ended when they were attacked by a more dynamic mode of production from outside (Cortes and the Incas being a classic example). The meeting seemed to agree that the notion of decadence in every mode of production was different (if applicable at all) and that each society had to be understood in its own particular way. We could not extrapolate from past societies to say how long capitalist decay would take. As a more dynamic mode of production was it doomed to a swifter or end or would that dynamism prolong its existence? Not a question that can yet be answered.

Some have criticised the Marxist theory of Hisotry as Eurocentrisc and Link raised this in the discussion. I added that what we were really was “Capitalocentric” and the mode of production had its origins in Europe so I was not too phased by criticism of Eurocentrism of Marxism.

Link also introduced into the discussion this idea of the nation state as the archetypal integument for the capitalist mode of production. I agreed and said this was rooted in property relations, as under feudalism you had no “countries” merely the landed possessions of the monarch. You were a subject not a citizen. Under capitalist conditions in which property was not merely grounded in the land but took various forms from mercantile capital to landed and industrial capital you needed to define the limits of the state – the invention of the “nation” derives from this. Link added that the nation as such was thus also a limitation on the development of capitalism in the present epoch. No-one disagreed.

I also argued that the notion of decadence should not be confused with the capitalist crisis which would periodically occur due to the insoluble contradictions of the accumulation process. At this point I underlined the weakness of the introduction in seeing the establishment of the world market as the beginning of decadence. As Marx thought the world market was established around 1850 this clearly cannot be right. Instead I pointed to the cyclical crises of capitalism which are brought about by the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Each cycle leads to a crisis which not only eliminates capital but leads to an increase in the centralisation and concentration of capital (I said it was like an upward spiral) which ultimately leads to monopoly forms of capital which can be parasitic on the system extorting surplus value as extra-profit not only from the working class but also smaller capitals. This is what transforms the nature of capitalism at the end of the nineteenth century when the state is called upon to regulate monopolies (e.g. US anti-trust laws). At the same time the concentration of capital also makes the nation state the defender of capital invested abroad so it coincides with the onset of imperialism. As we have always maintained capitalist competition alters to one between firms to one between states. I think Link does not accept the notion of cycles (and his text does not even mention it). It made me wish we had republished the Economic Foundations pamphlet either warts n’ all with an intro updating it or in revised form to take account of all that had happened since 1974.

By this time the discussion was becoming a bit fragmented but some individual points made included one by Spikeymike that the automatic application of the ascendant/decadent phasing theory to all pre-capitalist societies as represented by the simplified schematic put forward in the introductory text ought to be rejected. I agreed and Slothjabber seemed to agree with this too (he told me in the break he had written a text called “The Decadence of Feudalism” for an earlier MDF meeting). Spikeymike made his usual point that the differences on decadence might be down to small groups defending their own identity (might be true about some issues but not fair here I think).

We did have one useful clarification in that after praising Link’s text for insisting not that “reforms were impossible under decadence” but for saying that reforms were only intended to save the system (state capitalism, welfare state) I then criticised him for saying just that in his introduction. But both he and Spikeymike corrected me to say that he had actually said reformism was impossible or rather it was no longer credible for Social democracy to maintain that capitalism could be reformed out of existence. After this we had a little digression into the meaning of “reforms” today (i.e. an attack on the working class).

One interesting confirmation of the decadence thesis came from a letter to the FT (Jan 8 2013 if anyone wants to check it) by Robert H Wade professor of Political Economy at the LSE. I mentioned it in the meeting but did not have it with me so include it here for everyone. His letter is about the fact that China has still along way to go to catch up with the US but in it he gives the unwitting testimony that

“Since the Industrial Revolution – 200 years – fewer than 10 non-Western countries have become developed even using expansive criteria for “non-western” and “developed”. The list includes Japan, Russia, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Israel; and then?”

He argues it is the West’s control of the laws of international commerce that has caused this but it could equally be the West’s control of capital which it makes flow back to the centre of the system. What is interesting also about the list is the role of the state and monopolies (like chaebols etc) play in the development of these places. These places have succeeded through responding to monopoly and state capital with their own versions. If China does the same it will be with a similar model.

There seemed to be considerable degree of agreement in the meeting despite the wide range of views on the issue (perhaps it would have been better if there had been a decadence rejectionist there)

The meeting lasted about 3 and half (what seemed to me rapid) hours but at the end I said I thought the most important thing was to understand where we are now. And the first thing we have to say is that we are in a unique situation. Capitalism has never had a crisis phase which has lasted so long and coming after the greatest boom in history. We have now had 40 years of a “managed” crisis which once again is threatening to get out of control. We don’t apriori see the outcome of this as the end of civilisation as we know it but without a devaluation of capital no new round of accumulation can take place. It might take time but the capitalist solution is global war (and the capitalist are doing all they can to avert it except that their material interests keep driving them back towards conflict). The only alternative is proletarian revolution.

Jock

Link sorry to delay replying but there seems to be much going on at the moment! The real issue you pose is in this paragraph

"Why is decadence less important than crisis then. Without a view of decadence how is it possible to definitively state that reforms are not possible, that reformist policies and trade unionism lost to the wc and are in fact now on the sign of the capitalism, why cant rank and file organisations be class organisations, why cant capitalism become a progressive system again, why cant economic growth in underdeveloped signify a progressive capitalist state? Sorry, don’t need answers to them all as that’s all one question really. Without accepting decadence, I cant see how you can rule out capitalism being ascendant again?" But if you read it again you have performed the ICC trick. You have slid from accepting that there is an alternative view of decadence to then saying we don't have one! We have had the same operation performed on us by the ICC many times. Capitalism is still capitalism what is different is that the centralisation and concentration of capital has brought about a change in its ways of dealing with its cyclical crises. In the nineteenth century a mere economic degvalaution of capital via bnakrupticies etc could allow the cycle of accumulation to begin again. Today that is not enough - it takes much more massive devalaution such as that of global imperialist war. Today we are the end of the third cycle of accumautlion of the twenthieth century but it still has not been resolved. Using the state in various ways at various times the capitalist have managed this crisis (but not solved it). Today they seem to have few options but hang on and hope that future inflation will cancel debt. The conditions are not ripe for an imperialist war therefore they are fixated ona global attack on working class living standards. Yoiu can understand the nature of unions today without understanding decadence (there are many groups who do). Unions have never been revolutionary but by 1914 they whad entered into pacts with the capiatlist state in the advanced centres of capitalism. I don't know that the formula "no reforms possible" is true since the biggest reformof all was the post-war welfare state (a state capitalist measure which ensured the survival of the system but defended today as again for the working class)? Decadent capitalism is limping along (and all the attempts of free marketeers to roll back the state fall down on the need to keep the system functioning and the state is the last guarantor). It is in cul de sac from which it is difficult to see a solution in capitalist terms. What we have rejected is to see decadence, which is a useful way of seeing how the features of modern capitalism now impede the system, and precisely where we are in the crisis as the same thing. Today we have arrived at what looks like the endpoint of a capitalist cycle of accumulation but the key issue for us is not that but how the working class will respond. At the moment it is not being held back by unions but by its own lack of a movement against the system.

DKTZ thanks for your thoughtful comment. There are many in the CWO who agree with the need for an outline of the future society. There are others who take the "anti-blueprint" line. However we did reach an agreement recently that we need to do more to underline the principles of communist society without being prescriptive in advance of the nature of the precise forms it will take (indeed we cannot since we do not know what condition capitalism will reduce the world to before international proletarian resistance really generalises). Hopefully we should be getting something into print on this during the year.

On blueprints again, since ALL the foregoing comments, in Anne Applebaum's new book 'Iron Curtain - The Crushing of Eastern Europe' I came across a section in the introduction, page xxviii, which summarises the situation in Russia in the early days in the wake of the Revolution, in which she says that Bolsheviks did not begin with a blueprint and followed a zizgzag course. I haven't read much further so far, but would recommend the introduction, which may well interest both newcomers and experienced students of the events following 1917 and of those leading to it. No doubt workers there had enough to do in the circumstances to organise revolution and would not deserve any criticism for not having drawn up blueprints for their economy in advance. However, we could consider whether or not a blueprint would have made much or any difference for the economy between 1917 and, say, 1925. We could and probably should go to ask whether or not a blueprint would be helpful and necessary for parts of the world likely to develop revolution as in and from 2013. The sheer vast extent of latest population, technology, communications and weaponry make it seem to me likely that unless economic planning with the aid of international proletarian computing is initiated and then steadily reviewed in the light of ongoing circumstances, the outlook would be of even more chaos whilst matters are sorted out. It seems unlikely that children will be able to vote in 'workers' assemblies', but let's remember that children tend to suffer most in all sorts of chaotic situations, and that, comrades, is not just sentiment.

We are in process of producing RP so giving the comments above the care they deserve won't be easy. I don't know who Applebaum is (heard her onthe radio when half asleep the other morning so am little wiser) but I have argued long and hard against theories of a "Bolshevik plot" that despite the CWO and ICT sharing Link's view that the critical factor in the decline of the Russian Rev the Bolsheviks did not have a programme for dealing with the situation once the proletariat was in power. The debate in 1917 led to the acceptance of the April Theses (by the rank and file more than by the old leadership which was always divided about them). The April Theses ditched the old Social Democratic programme but were themselves not detailed nor explicit enough to act as a new one. I would not say that the Bolsheviks zigzagged (it s very bourgeois way of seeing events - the circumstances the found themselves in (civil war, imperialist attack, economic collapse they inherited from the PG) meant that policy had to be made on the hoof (the setting up a Sovnarkom being one such Social democratic throwback (in continuiity with the SRs and Mensheviks) which undermined Soviet power). Although the Bolsheviks extended soviets they should have left the EC elected by the soviet congress (naturally dominated by Bolsheviks and other revolutionary tendencies at the time) in charge whilst they got on with spreading world revolution. We know this with the wisdom of hindsight but it now has to be part of our "communist programme". Link, I appreciate you consciously did not mean to deny the idea that we have view of decadence but it always seems to be the tendency. I read your posts on the ICC website and agreed with most of what you posed there. Give me a few days and I'll take up your other points unless someone else chips in first.

The problem that Lenin did not see (in his polemics with the Kommunist group) was that he considered state capitalism a step towards socialism (and for many Trotskyists, Stalinists etc that is still the case). In fact it is a step towards the preservation of capitalist relations under the mystification that the workers are now owners of the means of production. The working class may have to acquiesce in all kinds of capitalist hangovers (I think the position of Damen) but that does not mean we defend them. On the contrary we seek to transcend them by ensuring that class wide organs and not a government of a state take the lead in economic decision-making.

Again, I am not claiming any great authority or clarity but I think I see it thus.

Capitalism produces anarchic conditions of unco-ordinated production, it tends towards a concentration of production in larger and larger enterprises but cannot finish the process of concentration, instead the process culminates in crisis and war.

The proletariat organises itself to take power into its own hands and is confronted with the task of re-organising the process of production for its own ends.

Initially the multiple separate economic units have to be integrated into one. The small business sector emplying millions has to be phased out. I think Lenin correctly saw State capitalism as a step in that direction.

At the same time a socialist process has to arise and take over. For example, communist saturdays. Otherwise state capitalism becomes permanent.

Totally vague, I know, but I am yet to be convinced by the line that says State capitalism is absolutely outside of the revolutionary process, but possibly reality will prove that it is.

I am not going to defend State capitalism.

I query if it can be absolutely ruled out from day 1 post the fall of the bourgeoisie which may not be as simultaneous as we would like.

I am totally prepared to say that any state capitalist initiative prior to a revolutionary destruction of the capitalist state and the establishment of proletarian power exercised by class wide organs without any permanent ruling class is to be condemned.

The probnlem arises when the transformation of capitalism to socialism has to be tackled. I don't think we can overnight go to a utopia (no, we will never go to a utopia) and the process has to begin from where we are, capitalism, under the conditions of the moment.

From Marx, I think the essential outline is that the process begins as follows- Society takes the productive forces out of private hands, workers are rewarded according to the work they do. there is a deduction to provide for replacement of productive forces and to care for those who cannot work. No mention of cigarette trees, or lemonade fountains.

It's still inequality, there is not much vision of a wonderful world, its a sober assessment of what is possible.

A constant improvement may be possible, but it won't necessaily start off as any Brave New World, full of pneumatic beauties and endless conformity, it may be a hard slog under adverse conditions.

But Lenin thought "common property" was state property. We now know (amongst other things thanks to the experience of the Russian Revolution) that this is not the same thing. And why just Saturday? There will be voluntary work every day ...

V. I. Lenin

From The First Subbotnik On The Moscow-Kazan Railway

To The All-Russia May Day Subbotnik[1]

Written: 2 May, 1920

First Published: Pervomaisky Subbotnik, May 2, 1920; Published according to the newspaper text

Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 31, pages 123-125

Translated: Julius Katzer

Transcription\HTML Markup: David Walters & R. Cymbala

Copyleft: V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marx.org) 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

The distance indicated in the above title has been covered in a single year. This is an enormous distance. Although all our subbotniks are still weak, and each subbotnik reveals a host of defects in arrangement, organisation and discipline, the main thing has been done. A heavy and ponderous mass has been shifted, and that is the essence of the matter.

We are not deceiving ourselves in the least about the little that has yet been done and about the infinite amount of work that has yet to be done; however, only malicious enemies of the working people, only malicious supporters of the bourgeoisie, can treat the May 1 subbotnik with disdain; only the most contemptible people, who have irrevocably sold themselves to the capitalists, can condemn the utilisation of the great First of May festival for a mass-scale attempt to introduce communist labour.

This is the very first time since the overthrow of the tsars, the landowners and tho capitalists that the ground is being cleared for the actual building of socialism, for the development of new social links, a new discipline of work in common and a new national (and later an international) system of economy of world-historic importance. This is a matter of transforming the very habits of the people, habits which, for a long time to come, have been defiled and debased by the accursed private ownership of the means of production, and also by the entire atmosphere of bickering, distrust, enmity, disunity and mutual intrigue that is inevitably generated—and constantly regenerated—by petty individual economy, the economy of private owners in conditions of “free” exchange among them. For hundreds of years, freedom of trade and of exchange has been to millions of people the supreme gospel of economic wisdom, the most deep-rooted habit of hundreds and hundreds of millions of people. This freedom is just as utterly false, serving to mask capitalist deception, coercion and exploitation, as are the other “freedoms” proclaimed and implemented by the bourgeoisie, such as the “freedom to work” (actually the freedom to starve), and so on.

In the main we have broken irrevocably with this “freedom” of the property-owner to be a property-owner, with this “freedom” of capital to exploit labour, and we shall finish the job. We are combating its remnants ruthlessly, with all our might.

Down with the old social links, the old economic relationships, the old “freedom” of labour (subordinated to capital), the old laws, the old habits!

Let us build a new society!

We were not daunted by defeats during the great revolutionary war against tsarism, against the bourgeoisie, against the omnipotent imperialist world powers.

We shall not be daunted by the gigantic difficulties and by the errors that are inevitable at the outset of a most difficult task; the transformation of all labour habits and customs requires decades. We solemnly and firmly promise one another that we shall make every sacrifice, that we shall hold out and win in this most arduous struggle—the struggle against the force of habit—that we shall work indefatigably for years and decades. We shall work to do away with the accursed maxim: “Every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost”, the habit of looking upon work merely as a duty, and of considering rightful only that work which is paid for at certain rates. We shall work to inculcate in people's minds, turn into a habit, and bring into the day-by-day life of the masses, the rule: “All for each and each for all”; the rule: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”; we shall work for the gradual but steady introduction of communist discipline and communist labour.

We have shifted a huge mountain, a huge mass of conservatism, ignorance, stubborn adherence to the habits of “freedom of trade” and of the “free” buying and selling of human labour-power like any other commodity. We have begun to undermine and destroy the most deep-rooted prejudices, the firmest, age-long and ingrained habits. In a single year our subbotniks have made an immense stride forward. They are still infinitely weak, but that will not daunt us. We have seen our “infinitely weak” Soviet state, before our very eyes, gaining strength and becoming a mighty world force, as a result of our own efforts. We shall work for years and decades practising subbotniks, developing them, spreading them, improving them and converting them into a habit. We shall achieve the victory of communist labour.

N. Lenin -->

Endnotes

[1] The first communist subbotnik was held on April 12, 1919, by railwaymen of the Sortirovochnaya marshalling yards of the Moscow-Kazan Railway. Subbotniks were soon being held at many other enterprises in various cities. The experience of the first communist subbotniks was summed up by V. I. Lenin in A Great Beginning (Heroism of the Workers of the Rear. “Communist Subbotniks” ).

An all-Russia subbotnik was held on May 1, 1920, with over 425,000 people in Moscow alone participating, including V. I. Lenin, who, together with Kremlin army cadets, worked on clearing away building rubble on the territory of the Kremlin.

Lenin's article “From the First Subbotnik on the Moscow-Kazan Railway to the All-Russia May Day Subbotnik” was brought out on May 2, 1920, in a specially published handbill Pervomaisky Subbotnik, which was drawn up, set and printed during the May Day subbotnik by the staff of the newspapers Pravda, Izvestia, Ekonomicheskaya Zhizn, Bednota, the ROSTA Telegraph Agency, and by workers at the printing-house of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee.—Editor.

I have read your post three or four times Link but I am unclear as to where we are going on this (although you are right to re-assert the original theme of the discussion). My reading of Marx gives the sense that Marx only considered the prospect of proletarian revolution from the point of view of the subjective preparation of the proletariat (and not from the idea that capitalism had exhausted all its "progressive" possibilities) thus he seems to see a possibilty for socialist revolution even as early as the Commune (he puts its defeat down to it isolation not because it was premature (but then it might be argued that the isolation was due to the fact that capitalism still had more tricks up its sleeve). But then perhaps too much has been made of the idea that capitalism is decadent (which it surely is) and thus proletarian revolution is imminent - the two are not so linked. Historically we have never lived under such a dynamic social system as capitalism but that leaves us the question - does that mean that it will be more capable of surviving despite its manifestly more desperate contradictions or - onthe other hand - does it mean that those contradictions will increase in intensity more rapidly and pose the very existence of humanity sooner rather than later? The key thing for us in every case is the preparation of the proletariat which has now been in retreat over 3 or 4 decades (making it difficult for any revolutionary revival or regroupment). To me this is more important than the precise meaning of decadence but some want to use the idea of decadence to pose the either or of socialism or barbarism in the immediate term to try to stimulate some intensity to the issue. Perhaps well-meaning but ultimately can backfire if your immediatist perspective turns out to be false. I think (as I have said to them many times) this was what lay behind the splits and disasters of the ICC from 1984 on.