I am very grateful to Dave for pointing out that he found the idea of decomposition "an incredibly pessimistic view of working class struggle" because that was exactly my response and it makes me feel sick. The bourgeoisie and its economic system are clearly in a big mess, and they don't know what to do about it. Probably there's nothing they can do about it. To say that they and their system are rotting, or decomposing, is descriptive and satisfying. To lump us all in this state together in a sort of inescapable quicksand, is for me tantamount to writing off the revolution for ever. This is a ghastly almost traitorous thing to do, and it makes me feel horribly sick.

But something did happen in 1968, and if it wasn't the start of the counter-revolution, then what was it? For me is was the start of a totally new feeling about the world, and the advent of new realizations ie that Russia wasn't communist. The whole social atmosphere changed from the miserable deadly way it had been during the late forties and the fifties. This is all subjective stuff, but Steve has told us that's all right. So coming across the ICC saying that 68 was the end of the counter-revolution made a lot of sense. So now I find the ICT's idea that we're still in the counter-revolution difficult to understand. I also find it difficult to go along with the idea put forward elsewhere on this site - I think- that workers councils might suddenly materialize the day after tomorrow, so to speak. Confusions abound. Still, as Rosa said, the day before the revolution it appears impossible, the day after it seems inevitable. And she should know!

Greetings All.....

And hello Kinglear somewhere different .

I am A.S and put 'none' in the drop down box despite the fact that I intermittently for 10 years or so was a sympathiser with the ICC but I wasn't an Anarchist previously but someone whose world view was 'stood on its head' 42 years ago by Marx's Materialist View of History : that choice wasn't on the menu or else I missed something :@}

I arrive because I found myself quite rightly 'corrected' in the ICC's forum by a member of ICT after a reasonably appalling post I put up about decomposition and materialism in which I quoted the ICT 'second -hand' out of context ....and I thought ...hold on ..I know my Marx , I have certainly been enlightened to some extent by the ICC mainly in the period from the miners' strike in the seventies , to 'Perestroika' ( and fallen out with them more times than I care to remember ) but here I am dishing out gratuitous facetiousness against the ICT almost without thinking or solid foundation.

Had I become one of the 'parrots' mentioned elsewhere ? :@}

I started reading your articles last night both for fresh insight and to get my own clarity on the fundamental differences mentioned passim .

So especially at this time when at least some attempt is being made to communicate without compromising positions ( mine are hopefully still Marxist ) I thought I would add my flawed human nature to this forum .

I won't say too much yet ( which will be a first ) except to apologize to Kinglear if my directions to the 'decomposition' articles made him nauseous : there is clarity there and the Riot Thread is actually going somewhere and it's not dogma : there's you me , Shrug and good ICC input ...and yet then ( I think a member ) someone started to speculate whether there wasn't yet another phase of 'decomposition' .... it is depressing isn't it K:L ? and what's more perhaps an example of the criticism of 'purism' often levelled at the ICC : a subject which I have personally written to them about :

'....sitting on the riverbank waiting for the corpse of capitalism to float by ...' I read within minutes here : ha ! not a precise critique but I 'get' the metaphor .

Well I'll get the feel of the forum before I shoot my mouth off .

AS

I think the approach to discussion on this thread is very welcome. All the posts seem motivated by a will to understand and to discuss the real questions rather than just score points. Perhaps this reflects some underlying developments:- an actual tendency for the ICC and the ICT to come to similar conclusions even if they begin from different premises. Their statements on the riots being a case in point. What struck some of our sympathisers was not so much that the CWO article didn’t adopt the notion of decomposition, but that it succinctly laid out the negative consequences of the process which we term ‘decomposition’ but which can certainly be called something else. As Jock wrote in our thread on the riots: “After 40 years of capitalist stagnation it is not surprising that social disintegration is taking place” . But this is precisely one of the key elements in what we call decomposition: the long drawn out nature of the crisis brings with it the real danger of an increasing social disintegration which works against the proletariat and its capacity to constitute itself as a class. For us this was very clearly illustrated by the riots and it was not necessary to outline our whole theory of the current phase of capitalism in order to get the point across.- A healthy pressure on both organisations, coming from the actual development of the revolutionary milieu and a modest but significant growth in interest in the ideas of the communist left, to raise the level of the debate and to honestly confront their differences.Both developments positive signs that the perspectives we face are not entirely negative….I don’t want this to be a long post but if the discussion is to move forward, it will be necessary to correct some misconceptions. This one in particular from the original post:“The ICC has published materials claiming that there is already a generalised anti-capitalist class consciousness”.I don’t know what materials are being referred to here but it is certainly not the case that we claim that there is already a generalised anti-capitalist consciousness. If this was the case we would be close to the revolution. Certainly we take very seriously the task of analysing the real advances (and retreats) in class consciousness that have taken place over a whole period (since 1968 in particular) but we also are only too aware that the response of the working class is well below the level of the attacks raining down upon it and that the process of social disintegration carries with it the danger of a growing incapacity of the proletariat to respond on its own terrain, of being drawn into dead-end reactions of the kind we saw in the UK and which have taken a far more sinister turn in Libya, given the extreme weakness of the working class there and the direct involvement of the imperialist powers.

Just to add: my first paragraph did not come off the way it was intended. The differences in the ICT and ICC statements and particuliarly tthe explanation of contemporary reality is inevitable given the respective politcal frameworks. But yes the statements are quite similiar when you overlook the nuances implicit in them (i.e. decomposition in the ICC's statement).

However, I think the more important point should be that the organisations of the Communist Left should be able to co-operate practically. Contributing positively to the struggles that will inevitably arise in the period ahead.

I should add that I am not a member of the ICT, just a supporter/sympathiser.

Steve says that the working class has to take a beating before it administers one. I can only agree. And at the moment the beating is getting a bit ugly, and reaching the point where it can no longer go unnoticed, even by those who don't want to have to look. Steve also points out that revolutions happen suddenly, not gradually. A good point. Rosa said the same. And Steve sees the pressure building up to the extent that even our "apparently docile class" will be forced to react. Yes, that's right. We are apparently docile. But only apparently so. We are a tolerant class, not a class of vicious, self -interested, murderous thieves, like our blood sucking exploiters. But even our patience will run out! Just give us time.

And hello to AS. I didn't recognize you at first, it must have been your white beard, or Leninist smock. You ask "what is to be done?" I would suggest: leave decomposition to the dead, and join the living struggle! And finally, Android's point about organizations of the communist left joining together in struggles and preparing for the great battles to come. He says these struggles will "inevitably arise". He has to be right, doesn't he?

Agreed Steve that powerful revolutionary advance by the Working Class can be ( has been ) explosive , 'a steep learning curve ': class consciousness spreading like wildfire : it is visible in history or better - plain for all to see at those points where the oppressed are making history 'en masse'

Is it not also equally visible at such times - and I really am just asking in a spirit of co-operation not confrontation, that whatever theoretical platforms/'webs' have been most necessarily built /woven - with whatever best effort and intention , with whatever forensic accuracy or not , with whatever 'valiant ' adherence to this or that lineage are to a greater or lesser degree dwarfed though not proved invalid by the powerful force that 200,000 workers saying no and moving represents ?

As you so rightly point out we are but a tiny fraction .

Shrug formulates it well ( and also I feel in a non-confrontational way ) when he says : " ..the [idea of ] slow maturation of subterranean class consciousness raises more questions than it answers ..." Or to paraphrase - simplistically as is my wont but not too sloppily I hope - his statements re: decomposition : sure the slide into acute crisis has multiple impacts on all social relations : political , productive , domestic , intellectual , psychological : it is not 'untrue' - far from it . But he suggests that there is no need to treat each sector of this self-evident feature of Decadence as if it were 'key theory ' or to act as if it were similar to discovering a new sub-atomic particle ......sort of ..." ok you discovered another particle and ? ..

I hear that Shug .

I will add just one more point : Steve's last paragraph which - correct me if I am wrong - seems to echo something in Jock's first paragraph in 'Refining The Meaning....' .

Capitalism will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions : a Marxist concept ? well yes because he did say that : BUT we are not Bordigists so is there not a greater precept ? :

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established , an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself .We call communism the real movement ( motion and change : ED ) which abolishes the present state of things ....

So I think it is very much linked to this thread : Marx made mistakes , changed his mind ,predicted courses of immediate history which didn't turn out that way : so would he not be the first to 'develop the new concept' precisely because material conditions had changed ?

AS

Precisely Steve : I was agreeing with you : perhaps I am not expressing myself clearly enough : must try harder ( I get the feeling you think I wasn't : or is that just a delusional figment of my Simpleton's mind ? :@} )

The fact that 'Marx got it wrong' ( occasionally : ED ) has never for a millibandsecond made me doubt the force of his Materialist View of History in practice as well as theory : proven in the instances you cite .

SO re : 'there is no way out for Capitalism' ( or is there )? ....it is a telling question and related very much to this thread - that's what I was trying to say .

Jock's paragraphs on 'Parasitic Appropriation' ( Refining The Meaning ...) ..'Speculative Capital' ( bets on bets on defaults on debts from bets on bets on defaults etc.) is relevant here .

You write :

" I would also invite comments regarding the validity of the theory that we are now facing a terminal crisis of capitalism, that there is no way out for capitalism. Although this may well prove to be the case, I ask whether this is a Marxist concept, or one which is only (possibly) valid because of the relatively recent advent of nuclear weapons. Related to the question is the inevitability of communist revolution or destruction of humanity, or is there in fact a possibility of yet another round of accumulation following a harsh period of crisis which, however painful, does allow capitalism to continue, and so on indefinitely, echoing Lenin’s words that there was no objective situation that capitalism could not overcome (very rough quote there!)."

Again I agree : a vital consideration : I will consider .

Off the top of my head : my comment would be :

I do not see in the world around me any practical proof that there is not :

"a possibility of yet another round of accumulation following a harsh period of crisis which, however painful, does allow capitalism to continue, and so on indefinitely ......"

Nor can I 'academically deduce it ' from anything .

Is that clearer ?

AS

Yes ....and ....No : reply to Alf :

" The questions raised about the criteria for co-operation between the ICC and the ICT, and the meaning of the term party, are certainly important, but I think it would be better to start new threads about them.... "

Yes : ....however ... in a sense this thread could never have lead anywhere else .

Having read , re-read , re-re-read , the ICT Thesis : Refining The Meaning of Decadence ( apologies C:b for my inept shorthand 'Jock's article' unintentionally for some - perhaps- implying a lack of depth and weight ) and other relevant articles , I find them thought provoking , thought changing indeed : especially the important exposition of economic analysis on which the deduction that centuries of ducking-and-diving bourgeois economic dominance could continue - even though increasingly desperate .

And might I point out Alf the word 'could' ? As C:b says above re: The ICT's inclusive stance : 'nothing is graven in stone ......'

Although this is probably just down to my 1844-ist predilection for theory rather than economics the economic basis for the ICT's stance ( in this drawn-out Decadence ) does not seem so prevalent in forefront ICC Theses .

I will do some homewrok and post a thread on the ICC's forum : after all why should a member/supporter/sympathiser of the ICT be bothered to start a new thread here in order to have to re-state for the umpteenth time what they have already stated ?

Equally there may well be ICT misunderstandings , born possibly out of a ' contempt bred from familiarity of the argument '

Leaving Decomposition and its '29 different phases' ( sorry is it 30 now ? ) aside : re : Machiavellianism for example :

The ICC article on it is quite true : but it does not 'shock' this old Marxist :since 1968 I never doubted the conspiratorial lengths that Oppressors go to : just anecdotally it seems quite obvious even to yer average London taxi driv

As Shug above points out : yes sure but why 'dress it up ' as 'key theory ' that differs from everyone else ?

Sorry to bang on about them but 'Pankhurst's Principles' will be relevant I think and the discussion can continue .

Key Theory or Shibboleth ? : Strong Party or 'spontaneous formation of workers' councils in well-determined circumstances'?

The latter being noticeable by its continuing absence

IN the light of Pankhurst's third principle : will the points of disagreement be so rigidly enforced as to himder revolutionary action ?

Well at the time of writing this Simpleton sees more 'intransigence' on one side and more inclusiveness ( without compromising class position ) on the other

AS

AS Can I just point out that the following was Steve and not me I think the only point we have to insist on is the power of the Worker’s Councils (and even that exact term is debatable) and a formal organisation of revolutionaries on a world scale. _All other nuances of analysis, disagreements etc can be tolerated_ Steve tacked this comment on to the end of a quote from me which was not in italics so it is difficult to know who said what at first glance. He, I think, is arguing for the minimum basis of cooperation with other groups (something he has been doing on various sites). I had not gone that far and was arguing that the Platform (a broad document based on the heritage of the Communist Left) was our minimum basis for adhesion to the ICT but that the Platform was designed to be inclusive and I don't think it contains anything that smacks of particularism (but this is always open to debate). The Platform also contains something about the content of communism and not just its forms. Steve has been stressing the latter in his enthusiasm to get organisational cooperation in smashing capitalism because I think he takes it as read that we all understand that communism will be a stateless, classless, moneyless, community of freely associated producers where the law of value does not dominate. I think though that its content has to be continually discussed. Anyway your contribution is welcome. I am glad you reminded us of what Shug states on decomposition which is spot on. For us "decomposition" is a description of phenomenon which we can all identify within capitalism and we don't object to using the word. But for the ICC it has become an analytical tool which gives it a significance beyond the descriptive. It recalls for us the difference we have on economics where for them the phenomenon overproduction is also the law that explains it (and not the operation of the law of value including the tendential fall in the rate of profit). The adoption of the ideas of decomposition and chaos led to an unnecessary and bitter split in the ICC (the so called Internal Fraction) so now their very existence seems to be bound up in holding on to this "shibboleth" and this makes it difficult to discuss with them as I think you appreciate.

" For us “decomposition” is a description of phenomenon which we can all identify within capitalism and we don’t object to using the word. But for the ICC it has become an analytical tool which gives it a significance beyond the descriptive. It recalls for us the difference we have on economics where for them the phenomenon overproduction is also the law that explains it (and not the operation of the law of value including the tendential fall in the rate of profit). The adoption of the ideas of decomposition and chaos led to an unnecessary and bitter split in the ICC (the so called Internal Fraction) so now their very existence seems to be bound up in holding on to this “shibboleth” and this makes it difficult to discuss with them as I think you appreciate".

For us too decomposition is the outer expression of something more fundamental, like the signs that a body is on the verge of death. I don't think the difference is there. Nor is the difference in the recognition that the economic crisis is such a fundamental, determining element, whatever our specific interpretation of Marx's crisis theory. The difference is in how the two major classes have reacted to this longest running overt economic crisis in capitalism's history. Interestingly enough, both the ICT and the ICC seem to be converging towards the view that we are indeed in the terminal phase of capitalism's decline (judging for example from an article in the current Revolutionary Perspectives: leftcom.org/en/articles/2011-08-01/the-crisis-is-terminal-the-“recovery”-is-an-illusion).

I don't think the Internal Fraction story is relevant here. Their disagreement with the notion of decomposition developed after they had left the ICC. It was not the cause of the split.

)

Surely none of us can be more than partially sighted ? : is it not a premise of dialectics ?

No polemic , attack or defense intended : ( and I realise C:b you are using a metaphor )

Now although I have been a -now more fervent , now less so - Marxist since 1971 I do have some 'catch up' to do with any group's platform and further refinement/clarification since 1994 : that's the context .And excuse the length of this post but especially in this case , it is most important not to quote out of context ( the foot in mouth activity that brought me to this forum in the first place )

However - perhaps even to my surprise - I find that my analytical toolbox of Marx's Materialist view of history , and its use - or lack thereof - has nonetheless not blunted the tools inside , including the 'criticism of weapons ' tool over the years .

I will take 1 example :(although there are others from the opposite point of view)

Before I knew who Lazarus was on the ICC forum ( although - even as A Simpleton - I guessed he was probably not an ICCer ) he posted a short clear paragraph , picking up on the last sentence of a post which ' [found] the ICC's position a little overoptimistic '

Lazarus replies :

"...I imagine you would also find the ICT overoptimisic too.

_Anyway, there is always a future possibility of revolution while humanity survives.

We dialecticians know development occurs explosively, unexpectedly.

We think a long drawn out crisis could be the exact recipe for forming the party and

revolution.

The working class retains all its potential._

L'audace, l'audace, et toujours l'audace."

then I replied ( under the title : The Fuse and The Dynamite )

" Lazarus' contribution says more in a few words than certainly I have in too many ..."

MY post was ' over -taken' by 40 minutes or so by the one line attack beneath in which the anger was scarcely concealed ( I now deduce by an ICCer)

it read :

"...So in addition to being "idealist," is decomposition also non-dialectical? " ( finito: ED)...er...excuse me ? I took issue with this because : a) Lazarus did not seem to me to be saying 'Simpleton !! you're are not a dialectian !' nor was there any mention of 'idealism' polemically aimed at anyone .The post in other words was addressed to an invisible 'subtext' leaving the rest of us out of it . To be fair , and apology was posted but only on the basis that ' sorry I thought it was an ICTer' ( hmmmmmm... ) *On the other hand the repetitions that '1968 was the end of the counter-revolution' ( allegedly an ICC 'theory') baffles me : I sat at meetings read the press and if I had gained the impression that this statement was being laid down as 'law' I would have shouted dissent at the time and pointed out that revolution/ counter-revolution are the way the advance /retreat , flux /reflux/ of the Class war : new vistas may be ushered in with differing characteristics but : IT is an illogical claim : all dialectical, materislist , Marxists well know that EVEN when The Working Class have 're-appropriate the streets , the media :i.e the revolution has 'exploded ' the counter-revolutionary forces don't just go away : and defy anyone to claim that the ICC have , are , or will ever say that . Thanks for bearing with this long post Am I making any sense to anyone out there ? ( I won't be offended by the answer 'NO' bu the way AS

I don't know if I'm correct but I seem to remember reading of the emergence of what could have been workers councils during the early stages of the Tunisian uprising. I think that they were organisations which had links with each town annd attempted to take over the administration of certain regions. Unfortunately I can't remember which areas of Tunisia were affected.

I have from time to time thought that I knew what "dialectics" is (are). But to be truthful I haven't got a clue. AS is very confident that he's a dialectician, and he says:"Surely none of us can be more than partially sighted ? : is it not a premise of dialectics ?"

This leaves me quite mystified. Steve says, in the context of defeated/undefeated: "Dialectics, neither one nor the other." Neither one nor the other, I can understand. But where do dialectics come in? Could somebody explain this for me in clear and simple terms? .

{Just rather clumsily stretching the 'eyesight to the blind' metaphor in the previous post- partially sighted in that context simply meaning can't predict the outcome } forget it .

Opposing forces .... constant movement : yup can't say it better .

One arm pushes : the other pushes back : a new 'moment' in the wrestle is reached .

Before that moment is even over : next push , next push back : next new moment .

Thesis , Antithesis , Synthesis : Hegel's scheme : the dialectic ..but

"No ! arm-wrestling in the real material world " said Marx

He starts this end : no more 'abstract philosophy' 'pure thought' : 'history' somehow sitting outside the world like Newton's Divine Clock ticking time outside the universe .

Making the dialectic materialist ." Every aspect of reality driven..." in this way .

Spot on Steve

Very confident I am a 'dialectician ? .. makes it sound like a boast :@- : I'd put it differently : just very confident that Marxist method is the key .

AS

Note to 'Lazarus' and Shug : my contribution on the ICC forum 'Drug Trafficking....;

See what you think : based on your economic analysis that ( to paraphrase -hopefully accurately ) the contradictions ( and in this case social rections to them ) in ascendancy are basically the same in decadence rendering decomposition 'theory' a red-herring embellishment .

...mixed metaphor : not as good as many of yours ...which I welcome by the way .

AS

And so now I understand more clearly the validity - necessity even - of challenging some 'new key theory' which actually could ( although I don't believe that to be the ICC's intention ) in a way 'mystify' or at least draw attention away from the constant of alienation .

Bluntly put : mystify the blatancy and simple-to-see continuing constancy of oppression - especially as this 'Theory on Rot' has developed forensically differentiated 'Stages of Rot'

Consequently I more clearly understand the charge of 'idealism' levelled at them and your thoughts that such theoretical - in the sense of starting NOT from the 'arm-wrestling' end - forgets the A B C of Marxian dialectic . ( Un-dialectical , non-dialectical ? ....well proper greek would be a-dialectical : but then television should be 'teleops' or 'longevision' ...so sod that )

Irony of ironies : it was C:b's deservedly curt response to my unthinking defence of the 'Theses' that brought me to this forum .

Then I realised that I could think for myself .

......er.........'say it loud I'm simple and proud '? ha !

AS

The Marxist formerly known as 'Parrot'

Steve's bullet points...

I think things are a bit more complicated than this.Let’s just take the first one. “Historical course-It could go either way, socialism or barbarism.” Well of course, in the long run — and since we base ourselves on the assumption that our path is not fixed irretrievably towards barbarism — that’s true. But it doesn’t tell us very much. I’ll try to illustrate what I mean by analogy. Imagine you’re sitting in front of the telly, watching the first match of the FA Cup season (sorry to any Yanks listening in). Its Chelsea v Arsenal and Chelsea are 5 goals down. The commentator comes on and says “Well, of course the FA Cup could go either way still”. True… but not very interesting, and it doesn’t tell you anything about the match in hand. And you wouldn’t think much of a commentator who couldn’t tell you whether Chelsea was 5 goals down, 5 goals up, or if the match was 0-0, would you? Nor if he told you, 5 minutes before the end of the match “Well, Chelsea are 6 goals down, but something incredible could still happen and they could pull through if only they changed the trainer” (apologies to Chelsea fans). Believe it or not, there is actually a serious point behind this. What would you think of a revolutionary organisation that can’t even tell you whether the working class is defeated and the road is open to barbarism, or not? Hence my previous question — still unanswered, I believe: what exactly does the ICT mean by “counter-revolution”? I think we can all agree that the 1930s was a counter-revolutionary period: the working class was either utterly smashed, as in Germany or the USSR, or else rounded up in defence of democracy (Spain, Popular Front in France, etc), and the result was WWII. Does the ICT seriously mean to tell us that the situation was the SAME (ie a “counter-revolution”) in 1970, after the biggest strike in history (10 million workers in France), and the struggles in Poland, and… and… (I could go on). And if the situation was different, then HOW was it different? Are there different “periods” in a counter-revolution? Clb’s answer, that the 70s and 80s were marked merely by “money militancy” seems to me beside the point. If the working class is to recover its class identity and self-confidence, which are preconditions for a revolutionary consciousness, how do you suppose it is going to do this if not by the collective defence of its material interests, its living conditions, ie through “money militancy” (though more often “job militancy” these days, except in China perhaps)? And please, can we get away from this purely mythical idea that the theory of decomposition was invented by the ICC merely to avoid admitting our own mistakes? For those who’ve forgotten, the ICC said at the time the Berlin Wall came down that this meant the end not just of the Russian bloc but of the USSR itself, and that we were in for a bad time as far as the class struggle was concerned. Here, is what Battaglia was writing in December 1989: "Russian Perestroika involves an abandonment of the old policy towards the satellite countries, and has the objective of transforming the latter. The USSR must open up to western technologies, and COMECON must do the same, not — as certain people think — in a process of the disintegration of the east bloc and of the total disengagement of the USSR from the European countries, but in order to facilitate, through reviving the COMECON economies, the revival of the soviet economy." Bullet points… if only Powerpoint had been invented when Marx was alive, he could have written the whole of Capital in bullet points. Think how much ink would have been saved! Sorry about the double post, I got in trouble with the formatting. Could an admin please delete the one just above?

Lonelondoner you just don't get it at all.

The way the ICC poses the question is what we reject and we leave to you your meanderings re the course of history. For us the beginning of a new cycle of accumulation wiped the slate clean in 1945. Talk of a defeated or undefeated class ended then. Physically as a class we entered a new period. What has not changed though is the ideological weight of the counter-revolution on the working class. This has existed throughout the whole period (and not just after the fall of the USSR) and continues today. This is a major factor in explaining why the communist left groups remain small.

I can see why you don't want to talk about the real class consciousness of the working class when you dismiss what I said about the money militancy of the 1970s when referring to Britain. But you seem to forget that "the greatest strike in history" in France was bought off with a 10% wage rise (soon to be swallowed in inflation). But you cannot accept this material view of what was going on because you had the fantasy that the working class was on course towards revolution, holding back war and all the rest of it. And we are not making up the fact that "decomposition" and "chaos" represents a volte face from this over optimistic scenario. What happened to the "years of truth"? It is plain to see that you altered the direction of your perspectives but found a formulae to sweeten this bitter realisation. I am very touched by your lecture that the daily material struggles of the class are part of the process of its coming to consciousness but you miss the point again here - the struggles were massive and bitter but with no political content, no vision beyond the immediate. There were moments when things looked like tipping into something more significant (the Pentonville Dockers in 1971 saw the state on the rack) but these crises passed and the opportunity vanished.

Your quotation without reference from Battaglia says little. As every Prometeo at the time (and I have just spent the morning reading them all again) clearly analyses the capitalist crisis of the USSR showing the seriousness of the impasse the USSR was in (from 1986 on) I assume that the passage above is a summary of the intentions of the policy of perestroika not BC's position on it. If I remember correctly this comes from and article in your International Review which also states that the CWO was the only organisation to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union (but ... wait for it) as a result of ... a piece of lucky empiricism! In fact although we did not translate so much from each other at the time the analyses of the CWO and BC were very similar (explaining that all the main categories of capitalism existed under "really exisiting socialism" and ergo that it shared the same crisis as in the West.) BC even added in two articles Prometeo that the backwardness of the USSR made it even more vulnerable.

On bullet points I agree here with LoneLondoner. As to the loss of formatting/text I have already asked the webmaster to look at this.

Hey, cut me some slack there Cleish! I'm trying to "get it", I really am.

First of all, I'm not trying to "avoid" anything. As you know, the ICC can talk and write till the cows come home about our own ideas. I'm quite prepared to come back on the "years of truth" later, but what I am trying to do here is to understand better what the ICT really thinks,and to be honest it is still not clear to me.

What on earth does it mean for example, to say that "Physically as a class we entered a new period"? I would say that physically the workers in 1945 were the same as the ones who had just fought and lost a revolution, suffered a decade of debilitating crisis and counter-revolution (the 1930s), and been through the catastrophe of WWII (which left tens of millions of them dead). I quite agree that the 1970s, and indeed the whole period right up to now, was and is marked by the "ideological weight of the counter-revolution" (you may have noticed for example that we go on endlessly about the "organic break" in the revolutionary movement, ie the fact that the immense majority of the revolutionaries from the period of the revolutionary wave were either dead or had betrayed). That is an important and true point. I would also agree that, in a broad sense, the working class in the 1970s (and perhaps to a lesser extent in the 1980s) was marked by very profound illusions in the possibility of simply resisting the attacks of capital and returning to the status quo ante of the post-war boom.

However, that still leaves some major questions unanswered, and in particular this: was the situation in the 1970s THE SAME as in the 1930s from the point of view of the class struggle and class consciousness? And if it was not the same, then how was it different? And is the situation now the same as in the 1930s, or 70s, and if not, then how is it different? This is what I am trying to get at, and this is what I would like to understand your viewpoint on.

On May 68, we can come back to this in more detail later, but you seriously underestimate its importance (continuing to this day) if you think of it as just "another strike" (albeit a big one). It is also simply untrue (or at the very least an enormous over-simplification) to say that the workers were "bought off" by a 10% wage rise.

You are right about the provenance of the quote from BC - I took it from our article. In principle, if it appears in quotes that means it is just that: a quote, and judging from our article I would say it comes from the December 1989 issue of Battaglia Comunista, not from Prometeo (very regrettable that there is not an explicit provenance given, I agree).

Lonelondoner

Stevein7 has already answered the question about the ideological shadow of the counterrevolution stretching down to our own times. When you ask abut how the 1930s were different from the 1970s I could answer with Marx that the historical specificivity of each period has to be our starting point. But in reality to do this you have to look at the 1950s and 1960s. There never was a period of class quiet so fondly imagined in the ICC scenario. I remember Joe Jacobs in Solidarity days showing me his scrapbooks of workers occupations of factories right through the 1950s, and the 1960s were full of mass strikes that went on for weeks (not token one day actions as today). And most of these were very successful in economic terms (at least in the short run). Why? Because capitalism was in the upward part of a cycle (what we call the third cycle) of accumulation. They could concede to militant workers without it being a problem. It was only when the cycle of the falling rate of profit entered its period of decline that our demands caused problems. This was the background to the 1968-74 wave of strugle. The communist left in Britain and elsewhere was produced on the back of the resistance to the decline of the cycle (unfortunately so was the Trotskyism revival given their implantation in the unions). Trotskyism throve on what I called before "money militancy" and where we were successful it as just in greeting "sparks of consciousness". In general the situation was not a political challenge to the system and its faliure to even minimally go to that level meant that the communist left that was produced remained very small.

In Britain WR got it right by aiming at other political minorities (of educated beings) whilst RP and later the CWO spent all its time at factory gates giving out a thousand leaflets per member (and that is a minimum) in a failed effort to generalise class consciousness. I put it to you that such an effort in the 1930s would have been several times more successful. We frequently tried to start debates on the real natrue of the USSR etc at 6.00 a.m outside shipyards but without success.

By December 1976 we recognised that such efforts were futile (we gave out a leaflet called "Is the worst over?" - it was rejected (I will never forget looking down the road into Swann Hunters shipyard as they threw them away - their jobs were thrown away within three years) hence the CWO humourless joke "was this the worst ever". It led to the departure of of our working class base (although that story is more complicated). At the time you were still calling for ever onwards and upwards which made us think you were as our Italian comrades say "fuorimondo" - out of this world. Idealist.

In Britain when we wrote that the miners strike of 1984-5 was an absolute crossroads for the working class (all our agitation at the time was based on the "the Miners strike is our strike" despite the craft arrogance of the "coal not dole" slogan which made it hard to bring out solidarity support) WR dismissed it as "a corporate struggle" of no real significance (although I notice a change of tone since).

I don't know if this answers your question or even "cuts enough slack" (I am not sure what that means) but I hope it makes some sense in the quest to broaden the appeal of the communist left.

P.s I also find that paragraphing etc gets mangled on my posts (but I have the privilege of being able to sort them!). Hopefully we can get it sorted