Food crisis: the price of capitalist greed that will kill us in hunger (report from the Philippines)
The article that we are publishing below has been sent to us by the comrades of the Internasyonalismo group in the Philippines. It shows us the true worth of the crocodile tears shed by the Filipino ruling class, both in power and in opposition, for the suffering of the population as a result of a food crisis which is the result, not of poor harvests but of the capitalist economy's insatiable thirst for profit no matter what the cost. And the cost is paid both in the immediate by the working class and the poverty stricken masses struck by the massive increase in food prices, but also in the long term as the cynical irresponsibility of the capitalist class increasingly ruins the ecological system on which humanity's food production depends.
The article's analysis concentrates on the role of bio-fuel production and the degradation of the rice producing areas by over-farming. One point should be added in our view: the role played by the diversion of speculative capital from the US and European housing markets into the commodities markets - and in particular the futures markets for food. According to Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, while the use of grain for bio-fuels is the major culprit in the rise in food prices, 30% of the rise can be directly attributed to speculation on the commodities markets.[1]
The world food crisis hit the center stage of media attention only very recently, but it is a phenomenon that has been building steadily for decades. The food riots from Haiti to Bangladesh, from Pakistan to Egypt may have brought forth the issue of the soaring costs of basic commodities to the forefront of the world's attention, but the fact remains that they were all direct result of years of accumulated ravages of capitalism. For a time, national governments like the Arroyo regime tried to ignore the signs of the looming crisis, even when the prices of rice in public markets have soared to a 34-year high in the Philippines. The Philippine president even quipped that there was no such thing as rice shortage because it is "a physical phenomenon where people line up on the streets to buy rice. Do you see lines today?".[2]
The world is in the midst of an unprecedented worldwide food price inflation that has driven prices to their highest levels in decades. The increases affect most kinds of food, particularly the most important staples like corn, rich and wheat. According to UN Food and Agriculture Organization, between March 2007 and March 2008 alone prices of grains increased 88%, oils and fats 106%, and dairy 48%. A World Bank report on the other hand pointed out that in the 36 months ending last February 2008, overall global food prices increased by 83% and it expects most food prices to remain well above 2004 levels until at least 2015.[3]
In Thailand, the most popular grade of rice that sold for $198 a ton five years ago was quoted at a record high of more than $1,000 per ton on April 24, 2008 and it is expected to continue to rise according to traders and exporters due to tight supply.[4] The same phenomenon is repeated all over the world. In the Philippines alone, from the retail price of 60 US cents a kilo a year ago, the price of rice rose up to 72 US cents a kilo today. And in a country where 68 million of its 90 million inhabitants live on or under US$2 a day,[5] this has become a nightmare of horrific proportions.
The world food crisis is the inevitable result of the permanent crisis of capitalism since the late 1960s. Various national economies battled to stay afloat in a world of intense competition and capitalist profiteering in an already saturated world market. As a result, governments adopted economic policies that are geared towards encouraging the growth of industries that will inject more dollars into their respective economy rather than meeting the needs of their people. Combine that with unsustainable use of natural resources and the onslaught of industrial production for profit that is aggravating pollution levels and the emission of green house gases worldwide, humanity is now faced with the accumulated concoction of capitalist recipe for its own destruction.
In the field of agricultural production, the use of nitrogen and the over-aeration of soils to boost capitalist agricultural productions have destroyed the total productivity of the once fertile centers of agricultural production. And while it is true that the application of advanced farming methods at the onset of green revolutions worldwide brought about initial increases in productivity, we have also seen the gradual drops of agricultural production in many parts of the world. According to a report by the London-based Institute of Science in Society:
"In India, grain yield per unit of fertilizer applied decreased by two-thirds during the Green Revolution years. And the same has happened elsewhere.
Between 1970 and 2000, the annual growth of fertilizer use on Asian rice has been 3 to 40 times the growth of rice yields [8]. In Central Luzon, Philippines, rice yield increased 13 percent during the 1980s, but came at the price of a 21 percent increase in fertilizer use. In the Central Plains, yield went up only 6.5 percent, while fertilizer use rose 24 percent and pesticides jumped by 53 percent. In West Java, a 23 percent yield increase was accomplished by 65 and 69 percent increases in fertilizers and pesticides respectively.
However, it is the absolute drop in yields despite high inputs of fertilizer that finally punctured the Green Revolution bubble. By the 1990s, after dramatic increases in the early stages of the Green Revolution, yields began falling. In Central Luzon, Philippines, rice yields rose steadily during the 1970s, peaked in the early 1980s, and have been dropping gradually since. Similar patterns emerged for rice-wheat systems in India and Nepal.
Where yields were not actually declining, the rate of growth has been slowing rapidly or leveling off, as documented in China, North Korea, Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.
Since 2000, yields have fallen further, to the extent that in six out of the past seven years, world grain production has fallen below consumption."[6]
The penchant for profit of a decadent system that is caught up with its own web of contradictions has resulted in the destruction of natural soil fertility to the point of exhaustion. While it is true that the world economy still produces more food than the world needs, a lot of what is produced and distributed through global capitalist trade perishes before it reaches the market and when it does arrive, millions of people just cannot afford to buy it anymore. In the final analysis, the endpoint of this crisis is the pauperization of the working class and the subjugation of the greater portion of humanity into abject poverty and destitution. Capitalism after all is primarily concern about accumulation of surplus value and never the satisfaction of the needs of society.
The "Rice crisis" in the Philippines
According to Arturo Yap, the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture of the Philippines, "We don't have a food crisis but, rather, a rice price crisis. All of us are looking for innovative solutions in our countries - how to address not only the issue of supply but also the issue of prices, how to [ensure] that poor families can eat." He said there are 5 five critical reasons behind the current "rice" situation in the Philippines that the government needs to address: First, there is a supply largely affected by an increased demand resulting from rising population; Second, the effects of climate change; Third, the booming demand for bio-fuels; Fourth, continuous conversion of agricultural lands to non-agriculture use; And finally, there is a neglect of irrigation facilities.
At first glance, one may find the so-called causes of the Philippine "rice" crisis as valid on its own. But the fact is behind it all is the undeniable truth that the very framework from which those enumerated causes arose is the ultimate caused of them all - the capitalist framework of production worldwide. First, the supply that is supposed-to-be affected by the increased of demand from rising population is but an excused of the fact that what has been produced by the world capitalist economy is more geared towards the production of surplus value than the satisfying of the needs of humanity. Second, the effect of climate change to agricultural production is by itself also a direct result of the capitalist framework of production. For instance, it is not industrialization itself that is responsible for changes in climate patterns, but "capitalism's overriding quest to maximize profits and its consequent disregard for human and ecological needs, except insofar as they coincide with the goal of wealth accumulation."[7] There is no doubt that there has been an appalling degradation of the environment at the hands of a world capitalist system driven by the relentless quest for profits and economic expansion. But the fact is, all bourgeois states, including the Philippine state that is recognizing the heavy costs of environmental degradation, are the same states that are protecting the profit motives of their respective national capitals and their political puppets to sabotage research and development of more environmentally friendly alternative fuel sources to power industrial production. Third, the so-called adverse effect of the booming demand for bio-fuels to agricultural production is by itself an outcome of all the states' policy, including Arroyo's government, to search for alternative fuels to ease the burden of the their industries' dependence on foreign oil supply. In addition to this, lowering the cost of oil expenses for "social" purposes also increases the capacity of each state for military production and war. It is not as much as environmental concerns that drives the policy of bio-fuels development, but the need of each national capital to insulate itself against the rising prices of crude oil in the world market and even to the extent of "aiding" the war efforts of all bourgeois states. It is interesting to note that as early as the Second World War, bio-fuels have already been used in the war efforts of both the Allied and Axis powers like the United States and Nazi Germany. In the case of the Philippines, logic of redirecting farm produce from the table to the needs of the bio-fuels industry is in consonance to the efforts of the Philippine government to produce more high value cash crops that can help sustain its own quest for additional sources of dollar revenues. Fourth, the continuous conversion of farmlands into subdivisions, golf courses, malls and industrial complex is also a direct result of government policies in agriculture, especially in the Philippines. The decades old Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the Philippine government was both a failure and a disaster. It is not only that CARP is a mystifying and reactionary program of the Filipino bourgeoisie that is supported by some Leftist organizations, but also because it is not an economically viable program. In the age and time where intense capitalist competition in the world market destroys small agricultural producers due to high cost of farming and rising debt, farmers are either forced to abandon their lands or submit themselves to precarious arrangements as contract growers of big corporations, a practice that is prevalent in Mindanao region of the Philippines.[8] As to the perennial problem of the utter neglect of irrigation systems in the Philippines, it is more a question of government mismanagement and corruption, an expression of the decomposition of ideological forms in capitalist decadence, where self-indulgence and the "every man for himself" mentality reigns supreme.
As what can be expected from a bourgeois state confronted with a crisis of great magnitude in stage of capitalist decadence, the Philippine state through the Arroyo regime responded to the crisis in the form of active state intervention - a move that is supported and fiercely advanced by all Leftist formations in the Philippines together with their effort to call for a legislated wage increase. As the pangs of the crisis intensifies, so as the mystifying efforts of the state to contain it. The Left and Right of the capital are one in raising the specter that "only the state" can save the workers and the poorest of the poor from the pangs of hunger and destitution. They completely ignore the fact that the state that they encourage to intervene more is the very organ that imposes the bourgeois dictatorship that is protecting the very source of enslavement and suffering - capitalism. In trying to be more "radical" in form and substance, various leftist currents pressed for the absolute and aggressive control of the state to society.
The Leftists "criticism" that what the state is doing is "not enough" - "raising" budget for agriculture, giving "rice subsidy" to the "poorest of the poor" and the state competing with private traders in buying and selling rice - and that it lacks "political will" clearly show that the former want absolute state control. They even go to up to the point of brandishing their age-old dogma of party dictatorship and totalitarianism - the complete and all encompassing control of the state like the so-called socialist countries that they defended as the "remnants" of the October Revolution.
There is no solution to the crisis within capitalist system
The Right and Left of the capital are one in advancing programs of mystification that hides the fact that there is no solution to the crisis within the system. The contradiction between the forces and the relations of production is already at its peak. No reformist and temporary interventions by the state can alter the fact that whatever solution it can formulate within the bulwarks of capitalism will only lead to more intense crisis and destruction of the environment. Every effective solution that it can formulate will only mean a much heavier burden to the working class and the toiling masses. Even if the state will exercise absolute control of the economic life of society, the crisis will continue to intensify as a result of the saturation of the world market and inability of the population to absorb the excessive production of commodities within a system that owes its life to competition and profit. History has already proven that state capitalism and totalitarianism are futile reaction of capital faced with permanent and intensifying crisis. The fall of USSR and Eastern Europe in 1990s bears witness to this fact.
The solution of the crisis is not within the dying system but outside of it. It is in the hands of the only revolutionary class bearing the seed of future communist society - the working class. The solution is not within the bulwarks of capitalism, nor is it in the path of reforms and peaceful transformation of capitalism to socialism. The solution is not within absolute control by the state of economic life of society, but in the destruction of capitalism itself along with the bourgeois state that serves as it machinery of domination.
In other words, the solution of the food crisis is destroying the system of production based on market and profit and establishing a system based on the absolute production for human needs. And the first step towards this direction and toward the revolutionary transformation of society is not in the legalistic and reformist approach of various leftist organizations, nor is it in the hands of an absolutist state intervention. It is not through the peaceful and "legalistic" road of "lakbayan" (protest caravans and long marches) popularized by Leftist formations in the Philippines. It is not through the road of trade unionism either. It is in the hands of the working class itself[9] that is confronting the attacks of the capital in its own terrain through its own unitary organs of struggle - the workers' assemblies, the prefiguration of the workers' councils.
Workers of the world, unite! It is only through this path of class unity that will usher in the inevitable culmination of the proletarian movement: the world proletarian revolution.
Internasyonalismo, 7th May 2008
[1] See the Environment News Service for a report in English, or the United Nations site for a report in French.
[2] Gil C. Cabacungan Jr., Arroyo warned on rice crisis, Philippine Daily Inquirer, March 24, 2008.
[3] "The rising trend in international food prices continued, and even accelerated, in 2008. U.S. wheat export prices rose from $375/ton in January to $440/ton in March, and Thai rice export prices increased from $365/ton to $562/ton. This came on top of a 181 percent increase in global wheat prices over the 36 months leading up to February 2008, and a 83 percent increase in overall global food prices over the same period.(...) The observed increase in food prices is not a temporary phenomenon, but likely to persist in the medium term. Food crop prices are expected to remain high in 2008 and 2009 and then begin to decline as supply and demand respond to high prices; however, they are likely to remain well above the 2004 levels through 2015 for most food crops" (Rising Food Prices: Policy Options and World Bank Response, p. 2, our emphasis).
[4] "Bangkok, April 24 - Benchmark Thai rice prices leapt more than 5 percent to a record high above $1,000 a tonne on Thursday, and traders in the world's top exporter warned of further gains if buyers Iran and Indonesia step into the market". (Reuters, Thai Rice Climbs to New Record Above $1,000 a Tonne, 24/04/2008 - posted on Flex News)
[5] National Statistics Office, 2006 Family Income and Expenditure Survey, Released Date: January 11, 2008.
[6] "Beware the New ‘Doubly Green Revolution'", ISIS Press Release 14/01/08
[7] Como, "Imperialist chaos, ecological disaster: Twin-track to capitalist oblivion", International Review n°129 - 2nd Quarter 2007, p.2
[8] "The Soyapa Farms Growers Association employs 360 contract workers, both adults and children. The association was formed at the initiative of Stanfilco six years ago, when it convinced members to grow bananas. It's not a cooperative-each grower retains ownership of their individual plot, and each has an individual contract to sell their bananas to Dole." (Banana War in the Philippines - Posted on July 8th, 1998 by Melissa Moore at www.foodfirst.org).
[9] "That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves, that the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule." (The International Workingmen's Association, General Rules, October 1864, our emphasis).
Comments
Rice Crises
FOOD CRISES IN THE PHILIPPINES?
DOES SUCH SITUATION REALLY EXIST? OR SUCH SITUATION IS JUST MADE TO EXIST?
The monopoly of the government here in the Philippines is so rotten that the system is self is trying to kill the people in hunger. We can recall before the food crises occurred. The President of this republic is having a great controversy. The ZTE (China)-RP (Republic of the Philippines) Contract, on which a direct point on the US-Arroyo regime on there involvement on the overprice approval on the said contract. A month after upon the climax of the issue of corruption people are in the streets of rally, banners are waved calling for the US-arroyo to resign of for impeachment. Thus the media is on the eye of this issue. How come instantly all the Medias attention was redirected on the issue or rice shortage? Upon the verge of the peoples rally on the streets the government tried of issue an emergency power for RICE shortage. Upon my question does this satiation really occur? We have surveyed the NFA (National Food Authority) and they are selling or letting there warehouses be BID for one single business buyer. 150,000 to 180,000 sacks of rice are sold to one individual for business proposes but can’t sell to people even 1 kilo of rice to those who are in great need. This government is making the people to suffer just for the sake that they will still be in there places. US-ARROYO CONSPIRATOR OF THE IMPERIALIST AMERICA US-ARROYO KILLING THE SOVEREIGNTY AND PATRIMONY OF THE PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC. US-ARROYO IS FEEDING HER POCKETS WILE PEOPLE ARE DYING IN HUNGER. THIS IS THE SITUATION OF THIS REPUBLIC.
Who gives a f*ck about the
Who gives a f*ck about the "sovereignty" of the Philippene Republic?
No swearing please
However much I may agree that the "sovereignty" of the Philippine Republic is no concern of the working class, it is not appropriate to use this kind of language in my view. If somebody takes the trouble to express his opinion - however much one disagrees with it - then the first response should be to dismantle the arguments not to use aggression. After all, these opinions may very well be the honestly held (however mistaken) opinions of a worker, and if communists merely react by swearing at him (or her) then they deserve to remain nothing more than a bunch of sects.
Apologies to both you and
Apologies to both you and Nationalista. I got carried away.
Apologies accepted for my part...
Let us hope that "Nationalista" will reply. The question - as you so rightly say - is not the sovereignty of the Philippine Republic, but the general crisis of the whole capitalist system.
It is perfectly correct that the "food crisis" is not something "natural" but is manufactured by the capitalist system as a whole. This is not a matter of US imperialism, but of an entire world economy which is increasingly incapable of answering the basic needs of its suffering populations while at the same time it sometimes seems almosy to be drowning in the overproduction of material and technical wealth. This is true everywhere - just look at the terrible earthquake in China, where the principle victims have been the children crushed under the ruins of 7000 schools built substandard because the officials of the so-called "communist" party there pocketed the construction money.
Even worse, it is only part
Even worse, it is only part of the generalized capitalist crisis, which cannot be solved except by generalized imperialist war or proletarian revolution. Of course, continuation of this crisis will lead to famine and depopulation, while imperialist war poses the threat of nuclear annihilation. Either way, if the crisis continues or the bourgeoisie attempts to solve it, humanity is imperiled.
Reply to the question
Yes. In general I can agree that it is a world wide struggle as it is stated here, in this site. But how can we change a great world if we can’t even change a small parcel of nation that this world have. How can we say and blame it all to the world. Simply saying is a world problem. Mother Philippines can provide for it self. We are a nation that is based on agriculture as a major livelihood. Problems never go away. But step by step we can make change. Surplus from great countries are being dump to third class nation like here in the Philippines. A dumpsite from the over produced commodities of others, simply for profit. Why do those imperialist nations manufacture beyond there consumption? Why do we say we are in great crisis? I know you already know the answer to this question. That is why we must take steps within rather than out.
Rice and Oil
Rice prices rose in tandem with that of petroleum products, leading to rationing and panic buying of the staple in some areas of Mindanao. On June 1, thousands of people rushed to Cagayan de Oro's biggest public market after hearing rumors that National Food Authority (NFA)-supplied rice selling at P18.25 per kilo would be replaced by a more expensive variety.
The price of "well-milled rice" ranges from P45 to P51 a kilo. In Davao Oriental, rice prices rose from P38 on May 29 to P40 on May 30 and P42 on May 31, or an increase of 10.5% over a two-day period. The price of premium grade corn staple has gone up to P31.50 a kilo while yellow corn sells at P18.50 per kilo. Prices of vegetables have likewise increased.
A recent Asian Development Bank (ADB) study showed that about 23 million Filipinos or 26% of the population earning P67 a day or less bear the brunt of oil and food price increases. The study also revealed that 2.3 million Filipinos are forced into poverty for every 10% increase in food prices.
Food crisis is real
Food crisis is real not only in the Philippines but also in the whole world. Capitalism cannot anymore feed the world. Capitalism reached its dead-end as a mode of production since the outbreak of WW I.
In the Philippines crop and land conversion is rampant that these deeply affect the rice production. If we add the soil erosion because of widespread logging ('legal' and 'illegal') and the use of chemical fertilizers that erode the fertility of soil and worst the natural calamities like typhoons, floods and drought, then it is more clear that rice production decrease year after year. And let us remember that these are ‘man-made’ (made by the capitalist class) factors.
Mindanao, the second biggest island in the Philippines and once upon a time one of the biggest rice producer in the country now is one of the highest price of rice in the country. The factors mention above can all be seen in Mindanao. A town like Compostela Valley that was long time ago a haven of rice production is now a haven of banana plantation for export. The Caraga region that was once has many virgin forest now one of the flood-proned regions. All of these are not just because of the US-Arroyo regime but of the world capitalist system in permanent crisis!
Let it be clear also that these factors are not only a ‘diversion’ or ‘maneuver’ of the current ruling faction of the Philippine ruling class, but a consequence of a rotten capitalist system. Land and crop conversion as well as the other factors mentioned above already in existent even before the ascendance of the Arroyo faction in power. It means that whatever faction of the capitalist class – Rightist or Leftist – controls the capitalist state; it cannot solve the problems and contradictions that inherent in the system.
If we isolate the Philippine situation in the world situation or just simply consider the world situation as an ‘external’ factor vis-à-vis the Philippine situation or just simply dismiss it as a conspiracy between the Arroyo faction and US imperialism, we could not really understand the present food crisis that wreck havoc world-wide.
Actually, agricultural speculation of the capitalist class (hoarding is one of this) only aggravates the present food crisis.
By denying that there is a real food crisis and insisting that it is only a maneuver of the ruling faction implicitly concluding that crisis of capitalism is also not real but just a conscious and plan maneuver of the most powerful cliques in order to ‘divert’ the attention of the population from the ‘real’ problems. What are these ‘real’ problems that stood above the systemic crisis of capitalism?
Nacionalista insinuates that corruption scandals like the ZTE contract and the electoral fraud are the ‘real’ problems of the Filipino working class and poor. The truth is these are only the consequences of a system in deep crisis and in addition, also a part of the inter-factional fight between the different factions of the ruling class.
Filipino workers are not poor just because of corruption, dirty election, bad governance, etc. They are poor because capitalism in deep crisis increasingly extracts more surplus value from them which immediately can be seen in the low wages, almost no benefits, job insecurity, high prices, and the likes.
‘Good governance’ under capitalism is a mystification and a real diversion to the real solution of the crisis – communist revolution.
Philippines is just a part of world capitalist system
To understand the real causes and solution in the Philippine problems we should understand that it is just a part of the prevailing world social system. The relation is not ‘internal’ (Philippine situation) and ‘external’ (world situation) but part and the whole. We should start from the concrete analysis of the world concrete conditions before we can comprehend the concrete Philippine conditions.
Imprisoning oneself in ‘internal-external’ concept is the reason behind why a question raise like “why imperialist (i.e. capitalist) countries produces more than the demands required?”. But by using the Marxist method – part-whole – we can discern why capitalism is the only social system that inherent in it the crisis of over-production.
Imperialism is not just a policy of a few advance capitalist countries as what the leftists of all colors assert. In decadent capitalism, imperialism is the policy of all nations (in varying degree) – big or small, advance or backward, strong or weak. Thus, Indonesia is imperialistic as well as the Philippines. And we can site many examples of the imperialistic appetites of the so-called ‘semi-colonial’ countries.
Food crisis and the other crisis capitalism is facing today come from the inherent contradictions of the system and not just a maneuver or diversion of US imperialism and its puppets.
The solution of the crisis cannot be found in the Philippine context alone but on the international context. That is why ‘socialism in one country’ is not only wrong but counter-revolutionary. It solves nothing but only aggravates the misery and poverty of humanity. The so-called socialist countries like the former USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc only showed us the worst image of state and totalitarian capitalism.
The solution cannot be found within the national and capitalist framework but outside from it – international socialist revolution.
I had a whole text typed and
I had a whole text typed and here internasyonalista goes and posts first. Good job I suppose.
nationalism the imperialist prison for the working class
The comments of comrade nasyonalista have raised a very good question that deserves further critique. Whilst he states that in his opinion the food crisis is an artificial construct of a sector of the bourgeois and its imperialism and is used as a means to divert attention away from its rule, he does raise an interesting point and in a sense he is correct. The Arroyo regime is using the rice crisis as a diversionary tactic. But in effect so is comrade nasyonalista!
But; The food crisis is a real crisis and a reflection of the crisis of the capitalist system itself, which Marx viewed as a worldwide system even then.
The crisis of overproduction (shortage, price hikes, speculation etc) of commodities including food is a real worldwide phenomenon, as with the crisis of liquidity and the generalised phenomena for the decline in the rate of profit of capitalism. Whilst capitalism is technically capable of feeding the world and providing the world with abundance, in reality it cannot.
If one is to isolate one nation - under capitalism - (if that could be achieved) that would not solve any of the problems of crisis inherent in the capitalist system itself. It affects every nation both advanced or backward as it is inherent in the system itself. It is bourgeois utopianism to believe that capitalism itself can solve its own problems. It is a dying system that must be removed as a cancer would be removed.
It is clear that comrade nasyonalista does not advocate the construction of a socialist society even within the context of one nation, but reforms of capitalism and the extention of state capitalism. The comrade reflects what is in fact the program of the left bourgeois, CPP/PMP/RWP/RGK/MLPP... a program that offers no solutiuon and no understanding of the true nature of capitalism.
By attempting to follow a utopian path of capitalist construction on national lines our comrade unfortunately falls into the trap laid down by the bourgeois themselves that whilst he is obviously a genuine individual that seeks social transformation he unfortuanately has been diverted from this historic task into the defence of a faction of national capital in the Philippines which in effect we may call the 'progressive' or 'left' sector of the bourgeois.
What the comrade also does by falling into this trap is to attempt to divert the attention of the Filipino working class away from the real causes of the rice crisis which is the crisis of the worldwide capitalist system itself. In effect to deny that capitalism is a spent system, and to defend capitalism itself and in turn place the blame for the crisis solely at the door of a competing section to his of the Philippine national Bourgeois.
Oh how the Philippine bourgeois play games with our lives - all the bourgeois!
I won’t take issue with
I won’t take issue with Nationalista’s statistics, as I don’t have better ones and they don’t have much bearing on an issue of principle anyway. However, there are five basic arguments that he makes before he presents his statistics, none of which is based off a Marxist or even a class analysis, and none of which can be allowed to stand if there is to be a principled class position taken on this issue. For purposes of clarity, and since Nationalista’s post has already been critiqued twice and is near the bottom of the page, while this one will be at the top until someone comes along with another post, I’ll reiterate the points he makes before arguing against them.
“Yes. In general I can agree that it is a world wide struggle as it is stated here, in this site. But how can we change a great world if we can’t even change a small parcel of nation that this world have? How can we say and blame it all to the world? Simply by saying is a world problem?”
This is what I call the “local struggles” argument, and it comes up quite a lot when arguing with Leftists who believe in revolution but have been trained by the bourgeois masters of their organizations to think, argue, and act in ways that actually undermine the revolution. I’m sure all of you ICC comrades know this argument, dislike it in the extreme, and are exasperated whenever it comes up. I know I am. Classically, the argument runs like this: premise, different locales have different prevailing conditions; premise, different locales with their different conditions produce different responses from the working class; premise, Marxists must analyze the conditions in which they operate and act accordingly; conclusion, world revolution is impossible because it would require similar conditions across different cultural and historical regions of the globe, which are incapable of acting together due to their differences. Infuriating, isn’t it?
The problem with this argument is not only that it is counterrevolutionary (if a revolution or any workers’ action is isolated it is doomed to fail, etc.), and not only that it attacks the very reason for the existence of international proletarian organizations beyond informal and infrequent meetings between national parties whose resolutions aren’t binding. The problem is that it is basically wrong. It ignores the fact that there exist no substantial pre-capitalist nations in the world, and while pre-capitalist formations do continue to exist within these nations (the bourgeoisie can’t afford to annihilate them completely, or it risks losing the basis for any sort of accumulation of capital), the ruling class is exclusively the bourgeoisie. Because the entire world is capitalist, and because the class structure that goes with capitalism is thus international, capitalism must be fought internationally by the only other class that can and has in the past organized itself internationally: the proletariat.
Nationalista’s argument, and all versions of the local struggles argument, is that it turns the question on its head. The question Nationalista asks is “if we can’t change a small parcel of the world, how can we change the whole thing?” I’ve answered this objection: revolutionary change must be international, and isolation means failure. But that is only a superficial treatment. Why must isolated struggle be doomed to failure? Because whenever the bourgeoisie is unchallenged, it remains strong, and strong bourgeoisies can come to the aid of weak ones due to the international nature of that class. We saw this in 1917, when English, French, German, American, and Japanese capital all came together to fight the Russian proletariat, successfully isolating it both by building small nationalist states around the proletarian bastion and by suppressing their own working classes, and thus dooming it to failure and Stalinist degradation.
But on the same principle, one national working class can aid another, and indeed when the entire international working class is in struggle, when the bourgeoisie has nobody to turn to for help because everyone’s tied up in combat, then the proletariat may be able to triumph. While isolation necessarily means defeat, in unity there is strength.
“Mother Philippines can provide for itself. We are a nation that is based on agriculture as a major livelihood.”
Economic autarky within capitalism is impossible. China tried it already, and let’s just say it didn’t work out too well. Autarky, because it cuts a nation off from the world market, leads only to further exploitation of the proletariat and especially whatever pre-capitalist formations exist within a nation, since the bourgeoisie isn’t able to turn to foreign pre-capitalist formations in order to gather the capital it needs to carry out accumulation. But this is not the only problem. Exploitation of the pre-capitalist formations of the intensity demanded by autarky puts too much pressure on the pre-capitalist formations for them to continue to exist. That is why we see, in countries that attempt autarky, famines caused by exhaustion of the soil, massacres of peasants who can’t meet the quotas demanded by the bourgeoisie in order to feed itself and the proletariat which it also needs, and mass peasant exodus to cities, where they quickly become proletarianized and thus unavailable as a source of accumulatory capital. The system can’t sustain itself, and must soon turn outside to seek other pre-capitalist formations as sources of accumulatory capital.
If you’re referring to economic autarky within socialism, you’re even more wrong, since you obviously believe that the Philippines can exist as a lonely proletarian bastion in a bourgeois world (see the local struggles point). Attempting to build socialism only in the bastion is simply inviting the degeneration of the revolution or foreign intervention by other undisturbed bourgeoisies.
“Problems never go away. But step by step we can make change.”
Do I detect reformism? I do, I do. What’s missing here is an analysis of capitalist decadence as part of its historic course. While the system was expanding, while there were numerous pre-capitalist formations upon which the bourgeoisie could prey, the bourgeoisie could divert some of the capital it accumulated into improving the lives of workers. It could afford limitations in the working day. It could afford to offer health, unemployment, and other types of insurance. It could afford high wages. However, with entry into the period of decadence, capitalism can no longer spare these things for the workers. The bourgeoisie isn’t accumulating enough. Therefore it constantly resorts to austerity attacks on the workers as a means to address both the falling rate of profit and the inability to gather enough from pre-capitalist formations. So no, workers can’t “make change” “step by step”; the bourgeoisie by virtue of economic necessity, can’t allow it. They can struggle, certainly, but there is little chance that they will achieve their purely economic ends.
In this failure lies the possible development of consciousness. If the workers see that there is nothing to be won from capitalism, they are more likely to want its overthrow rather than its continuation. Of course, in the absence of communist agitation, they are more likely to conclude that their struggles are entirely meaningless, but that’s an argument for organization and does not relate to this topic.
“Surplus from great countries are being dump to third class nation like here in the Philippines. A dumpsite from the over produced commodities of others, simply for profit”
This is a very superficial analysis of imperialism, derived from Lenin who derived his formulations from the bourgeois economist Hobson. Imperialism is not simply the export of capital by overproducing nations into the markets of other nations. It is an effort on the part of all nations to find more pre-capitalist formations from which to extract capital that may be accumulated, and to find new customers for the products they produce. Put more simply, it is an effort of all nations to expand their markets. Now, the first error you make is that you claim that there are some imperialist capitalist states and some non-imperalist capitalist states. However, all national bourgeoisies want to accumulate more than they can get out of their pre-capitalist formations. This includes the Philippine bourgeoisie. Your point that the Philippines is not imperialist falls right there.
“Why do those imperialist nations manufacture beyond their consumption? Why do we say we are in great crisis?”
Why is there overproduction? Because the objective for a capitalist is not that all his products get used, it’s that they all get sold. There is overproduction because capitalist production is commodity production, with exchange-values attached to goods. In capitalist exchange, exchange-values are the metric by which price is determined; use-values are ignored. Thus, capitalists produce more than people need, because they know that they can sell more than people need.
But that’s not the whole story. Capitalists overproduce not only because people will by more than they need, but because they must compete with other capitalists. Objectively, all products must be bought if capitalists are to realize a profit. However, subjectively, each capitalist wants people to buy more of his product than of others’ products so that he might make a bigger profit and put his competitors out of business, and thus capitalists, in an effort to outsell one another, produce more commodities than the already existing market can absorb. When there is an expanding market, new pre-capitalist elements can absorb this surplus. However, when there is no more venue for expansion, like now, there is nobody to buy the products and the products accumulate without buyers, hence, crisis. When the market can’t expand, again, like now, this crisis continues unabated until there is a world war in which trillions of dollars worth of commodities are destroyed and the displaced peoples constitute a new market. That is why we are in a crisis right now.
Or you could just read the first volume of “Das Kapital” and possibly “The Accumulation of Capital”. Marx and Luxemburg explain the problem much better than I.
Your conclusion “we must take steps from within rather than without” does not flow from your premises and sound Marxist argument disproves it anyway.
An excellent post from
An excellent post from Zimmerwald but one thing does require some further detail in my view.
.
The question of how the proletariat expresses its unity is vital. The best way to support a strike by other workers is to go on strike yourself. The best way for workers to support a revolution in another country is to push for insurrection in the country they find themselves in.
.
Understanding this is vital for the proletariat as it struggles to develop its combat - the great defeats in Spain were partly due to the failure of the working class to understand how to express solidarity.
Are my eyes open of will it open?
Thank You for giving answers to the questions I left in this blog. To your answer as you say based of Marx Ideology “Das Kapital” there must be a world struggle? Must course to direct action. Workers must act fast as you stated.
.
Dear Comrade Zimmerwald:
I am well aware of what you want to point out. In reality comrade the struggle of one nation to another nation into another, is there any organization on which you say as a medium to make that thing you say as international? Yes comrade this is a site for international struggle for the working class. I do well agree with it. But comrade have you neglected the passion that is in of us? Passion for the world is internationalism and for a nation in nationalism. Thus it is made my nick.
.
I take action to which I see fit and with in my capabilities. When would me my allies, my friends would act for change. Comrade we are just facing the problems on which we are “in reality we can solve.” This may sound a bit philosophical but also factual. “HOW CAN SPECIFICALLY ME MAKE CHANGES ON THE FOOD CRISIS IN INDIA? WOULD I FLY DIRECTLY INTO THERE NATION AND GIVE THEM FOOD?” Can it be possible as for a being like me? Course of action must be faced upon what can be solved and beneficial. I am simply implying that problems like this nation called PHILLIPINES need changes. People are in need of attention. Hope you understand what I am trying to point out.
.
As to your suggestion we must course ourselves to a world struggle breaking the chain of Imperialist Capitalist. YOU ARE RIGHT; STRONG CAPITALIST WOULD AID THE WEAK ONES. But be in mind the efficiency and achievability of it, fighting it internationally? Comrade if there is no one who would care in a simple manner of a national issue who would? IN THIS INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE AS A SEE IT IS REALLY A DREAM I WANT TO, A LIFE OF MY FAMILY. AND TO DIE FIGHTING. But were can I find such an organization that is helping nations to aid there problems? What organization that has there hands “literally” to solve the problem? And what kind of actions to take for that struggle be in effect? Can you kindly direct me on that struggle? I MYSELF AM MORE WILLING TO JOIN, TO BE PART OF SUCH SYSTEM NOT ONLY IN IDEAS TO HELP THE WORLD.
“Thank You for giving
“Thank You for giving answers to the questions I left in this blog.”
You’re welcome. I’m sure everyone else who answered your questions would respond in the same way.
“To your answer as you say based of Marx Ideology ‘Das Kapital’ there must be a world struggle? Must course to direct action. Workers must act fast as you stated.”
Well, Das Kapital (and the Accumulation for that matter) is more an analysis of capitalism as it exists than a guide to method of struggle. As I guide for struggle I personally look to the concepts of the political mass strike and the international revolutionary wage, developed by the German left and the Bolsheviks, enriched by the Italian left, and confirmed as valid tactics by decades of struggle. Marx himself didn’t write much about this; the most substantial guide to struggle he wrote was the Critique of the Gotha Programme, which, as its title implies, is more of a denunciation of wrongheaded Lassalleanism than an elucidation of a Marxist method of struggle.
“I am well aware of what you want to point out. In reality comrade the struggle of one nation to another nation into another, is there any organization on which you say as a medium to make that thing you say as international? Yes comrade this is a site for international struggle for the working class.”
As you yourself point out, the ICC exists to internationalize workers struggles, or, as its Basic Positions put it, to intervene in a manner “united and centralized on an international scale, in order to contribute to the process which leads to the revolutionary action of the proletariat.” It also exists as a precursor to the unified world party, as again stated in the Basic Positions. So no, there is no unified world communist party, and thus the task of revolutionaries is to develop a structure from which a party can develop and at the same time agitate the class so as to bring about the conditions that will allow for a world party to emerge. The condition that will make this possible is above all a feeling of international solidarity within the class, trumping nationalist loyalties. There is also the entire political milieu to consider; the ICC is not the only group of the Communist Left.
“But comrade have you neglected the passion that is in of us? Passion for the world is internationalism and for a nation in nationalism.”
Your argument boils down to an assertion that because a political position exists, it is valid, and should be taken up by revolutionaries so that they might “be with the masses”. This is an argument used a lot by the Trotskyists in order to justify a betrayal of revolutionary positions; “the workers don’t believe in this position yet, so we must abandon it in order to gain their support and perhaps bring them around to this position later.” The problem with that argument is that it shows that the group abandoning the position doesn’t have any real belief in the position’s validity. Even more, abandoning a position for tactical reasons rather than reasons of principle shows the working class that the group is opportunist, not to be trusted.
Instead of saying “both nationalism and internationalism can coexist and compliment each other”, Marxists must look at the two, see where each of them have led the working class, and pass a judgment of principle based on which helps and which hurts the class. Historically, nationalism has diverted workers away from the labor movement and into the arms of the bourgeoisie. Adopting nationalism has meant a surrender of the political independence that is so vital for the working class and for revolutionary organizations especially. Internationalism, on the other hand, has done more than any other principle to organize the working class, and if it had been followed more scrupulously in 1917-1923, we might be living in a very different world today.
Internationalism is a legitimate proletarian political position. Nationalism is not.
“I take action to which I see fit and with in my capabilities. When would me my allies, my friends would act for change. Comrade we are just facing the problems on which we are “in reality we can solve.” This may sound a bit philosophical but also factual. “HOW CAN SPECIFICALLY ME MAKE CHANGES ON THE FOOD CRISIS IN INDIA? WOULD I FLY DIRECTLY INTO THERE NATION AND GIVE THEM FOOD?” Can it be possible as for a being like me? Course of action must be faced upon what can be solved and beneficial. I am simply implying that problems like this nation called PHILLIPINES need changes. People are in need of attention. Hope you understand what I am trying to point out.”
The problem here is that you see yourself as the autonomous revolutionary actor. Of course one person cannot make revolution all on his own. That is an absurd statement, and while there are Leftists who believe this (the cults around Tony Cliff and Bob Avakian come to mind), no real revolutionary would ever take this position. Of course an individual must act where he or she is, in an individual capacity. However, what you are ignoring is the ability of individuals to come together, form an international group, for the centralized body of that group to issue resolutions and directives, and for individuals to act on those resolutions and directives. In short, you are arguing from the basis of the circle spirit, which eschews large centralized organizations in favor of small sect-like groups who, if they work together at all, do so in an informal, decentralized manner.
“As to your suggestion we must course ourselves to a world struggle breaking the chain of Imperialist Capitalist. YOU ARE RIGHT; STRONG CAPITALIST WOULD AID THE WEAK ONES. But be in mind the efficiency and achievability of it, fighting it internationally? Comrade if there is no one who would care in a simple manner of a national issue who would? IN THIS INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE AS A SEE IT IS REALLY A DREAM I WANT TO, A LIFE OF MY FAMILY. AND TO DIE FIGHTING. But were can I find such an organization that is helping nations to aid there problems? What organization that has there hands “literally” to solve the problem? And what kind of actions to take for that struggle be in effect? Can you kindly direct me on that struggle? I MYSELF AM MORE WILLING TO JOIN, TO BE PART OF SUCH SYSTEM NOT ONLY IN IDEAS TO HELP THE WORLD.”
Of course it’s hard. If international revolution were easy it would have been accomplished by now, by greater revolutionaries than those that exist today. But it’s not. It’s a long, difficult, tiring slog. And no organization has a blueprint for struggle, how it will develop, and how it will resolve. Those that pretend to do so are lying.
If you really do take to heart the positions of the communist left, then I would suggest gathering all the people you can find who defend the same positions, form a nucleus (make sure your name contains the word “international”; it usually helps), and begin correspondence with one or the other international organizations of the communist left. The ICC is one, and has historically been very receptive to new groups emerging. Just don’t expect to be accepted as a section; they’re holistic about such things. Other organizations you might want to contact include the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party (they have a bit of a running feud with the ICC and are weaker on some positions, but they are also open to new groups) or one of the many Bordigist International Communist Parties (I wouldn’t bother with these, as they are sectarian and kind of jerks, but you could always try).
Sorry; that was me.
Sorry; that was me.
Food Crisis
FOOD CRISIS IN THE PHILIPPINES!
To nationalista,
Hi comrad,
You have the point in saying that! There is a sabotage between the arroyo administration and the big businessman about the food crisis in the philippines!
The main reason why the Filipino people suffering food crisis in the Philippines because of the Land Conversion! Instead of planting rice they converted it into another crops! Like the pineapple, banana, papaya etc.. ect.. And we all know that the Filipino people, their staple food is the RICE they cannot live without rice in the meal! They eat three times a day!
And due to lack of rice production the filipino suffer food crisis. It is been studied in IRRI (Integrated Rice research institute) that it is the biggest factor or reason why we are know suffering rice crisis.
The great controversy of the Gloria Arroyo about the ZTE it is a just an effect of greediness of the official in the Philippines! They are just showing there greed in terms of money!! And after that time, the Food CRisis rallyist started shouting in the streets, waging thier banner etc. etc,, so that's the time the ARROYO administration make a sabotage between the bigbusinessman
agree!
I really agree to the statement of nationalista! how can we fight internationally or globally even in a small island of the philippines we CANNOT? We should first establish our own country before going to the other countries! their are step by step process! Even in a small country like Philippines we can hardly unite people living here! In the Philippines, we have a lot of culture and different languages even we, Filipino cannot communicate them well!! What about other country????
Dear Comrade Zimmerwald:
I challenge you to think about it!! how can you solve a big one if you cannot solve the small one!!!!
I answered this in depth
I answered this in depth already (and your fearless leader nationalista agreed with me to some extent), so this time I'll just parrot a slogan: the revolution will be international or it will be nothing.
its ok than nothing!
Im not yet resolve with your idea comrade even though you profound the reason why we should have an international revolution. But for me, it is very impossible to do that! Try to imagine even in a local scenario. We cant simply unite the people in our community because of the greed that is inside the human body! It is a human nature to greed! We live in a greedy place.... our leaders teaches us how voracity is..
However, its better to have revolution than nothing!!! as what you have said
the revolution will be international or it will be nothing.
But i prefer to do it in national first
You should think deeply....
Some points to remind the supporter of Nacionalista:
1. The point of Nacionalista’s main argument is “sabotage” by the present Arroyo government in the Philippines that is why there is skyrocketing of rice prices coupled with almost daily increase in fuel prices. But this argument of Nacionalista could easily be destroyed by simply studying the history of the Philippines. Your argument of land conversion is quiet right. But this is not only in the time of President Gloria Arroyo my friend. Land conversion is the policy even of the Marcos regime in the 70s up to the Estrada regime. So why not ask: why is it that all the regimes in the Philippines since 1970s have the same policy?
If your answer would be simplified to “because they are puppets of US imperialism and the latter dictates its puppet regimes to sabotage the rice prices”, then your answer is only half the truth and almost near to narrow-mindedness. With your line of argument, it seems that for you, there is no problem with the system; the problem lies in the leaders managing the system. In other words, capitalism in its decadent stage is not the main cause of the social problems we are facing today but how to find managers of the system who are with “big heart for the poor” and have “political will”.
Did you ever asked yourself why that even in Vietnam and Thailand, the main rice exporters in Asia there is also high prices of rice?
You cannot comprehend the real causes if your answer is simple “sabotage” my friend.
Every national state follow the laws of capitalism: amassed profits, competition, selling products to the world market and exploitation of labour-power. If there is food crisis today world-wide it is because of the accumulation of the internal contradictions of the world capitalist system itself that nobody can prevent it by reforming it but by destroying the system. Capitalism cannot feed the world anymore.
2. International proletarian revolution means destroying capitalism world-wide. As long as capitalism exists, there is no real emancipation from exploitation, poverty, misery and degradation of environment. Revolution means destroying the current decadent and rotten social system. Revolution my friend is not simply overthrowing a faction of the ruling class and let the other faction (opposition) replaced the other. That is why Edsa 1 and 2 is not a revolution nor the protracted guerrilla warfare of the CPP-NPA.
But it seems that you misunderstood the real meaning of internationalism and revolution. That is why you just simply argue that: “It’s OK than nothing” and “I prefer to do it national first”.
Internationalism means:
a. All the bourgeois (capitalist) factions – national or foreign – are enemies of the working class and the poor. Supporting any faction against the other means the continuation of exploitation and oppression. Fighting against foreign capitalists while supporting and allying with national capitalists is tantamount to defeating the revolution for social change my friend.
b. In times of imperialist war – world wars or local/nationalist wars – proletariat and the poor must not support or participate in these wars but instead advance the class war – working class against the entire capitalist class. We already know (I hope you also) what happened to the so-called anti-imperialist or national liberation wars since 1914 – they all only became an appendage of another imperialist power or became imperialist themselves like what happen to China vis-avis Nepal and in Africa, India vis-avis- to Pakistan (Kashmir), Indonesia vis-avis East Timor, Vitnam vis-a-vis Kampuchea and Laos. Imperialism is not only USA or the G-8 countries. Imperialism is the policy of every nation-states, even the Philippine capitalist state. Do I have to remind you what happen to our muslim brothers in Mindanao vis-a-vis the Philippine state? Do I have to remind you the issue of Sabah between the Philippines and Malaysia?
Internationalism does not mean that you are going to other countries and wage “revolution” there as what Che Guevarra did.
c. Of course, the proletariat will launch an uprising in its “own country” but not as nationalist but internationalist; not as separate from world revolution but part of it; not in support of any nationalist faction of capitalist class in its own country but against it, for the proletarian seizure of power. Any part of the world proletariat (let’s say, one nation or group of nations) that won first must understand that what they did is just the first step for the victory of world revolution. It or they should become a bastion/s for the extension and generalization of revolution until capitalism will be completely destroyed world-wide. And that’s the time the working class as a whole could declare VICTORY OF THE REVOLUTION.
But if what in your mind is a bourgeois or capitalist revolution – “people’s revolution”, “national revolution” – to liberate the country from “foreign control”, then you are not in line with Marxism but on bourgeois nationalism my friend. What you are waging is not really a revolution but a counter-revolution to save the dying capitalist system. That is why revolution is international or it is nothing.
3. You want revolution but you don’t know what is the real meaning of revolution (or maybe you “know”, an “anti-US imperialism revolution”). But how about the other imperialist nations? Will Philippines be really an independent nation after the overthrow of US imperialism? Maybe you should study well what happen to China and Vietnam to say the least. These countries won their “national revolution” against US imperialism only to go to the camp of Russian imperialism and today, back to the camp of USA.
In decadent capitalism, national independence is only a mystification, impossible to realize. A nation might be “independent” from a certain imperialist country but it cannot be independent from imperialism as a world policy of the whole bourgeois class.
You really want independence and freedom? Participate in the struggle of the proletariat to destroy world capitalism by destroying national capitalism. But after its destruction, the result is not the “liberation of nations” but the end of national frontiers. Independence and freedom after capitalism means the emancipation of the whole humanity from exploitation and oppression.
But you don’t believe in revolution anyway, you don’t believe that world capitalism will be destroyed. It’s not only because your line of thinking is “changing part by part, you can change the whole” but because for you, “greed is inside the human body”. Therefore, exploitation and oppression are natural, an Alpha and Omega. And you want social revolution????
You should be the one who think deeply my friend....
AFFIRMATION
On to this argument. Both parties are fighting for for a revolution on which “people”,”proletarian”,”masses” or what names we call those in need of a world based and or has a foundation that is naturally Humane and Just. That is the main point and main idea of this revolution. Equality of all. Hope I am right to my ideas and understanding of my fight, and as to yours.
.
And my I ask my supporter ______? What does your nick mean? A Line of confusion? Please pul some pen name so that I can address you formally.
Is a NATIONAL revolution possible?
"______" thinks that an international revolution is impossible. I agree that the task looks enormous. But does not the experience of the last 100 years show us that while an international revolution may be difficult (and I don't underestimate the task by any means) a NATIONAL revolution is simply impossible, a pure Utopia?
Communists' track record of
Communists' track record of preventing famines, much less not causing them, is poor to say the least:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famines_in_Russia_and_USSR
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
Here's a quote from the
Here's a quote from the ICC's Basic Positions. It explains adequately, I think, why your argument is bunk; the crimes of Stalinism and its decendents, Juche and Maoism, cannot be laid at the doorstep of communism, since Stalinisim and communism have nothing in common.
"* The statified regimes which arose in the USSR, eastern Europe, China, Cuba etc and were called ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ were just a particularly brutal form of the universal tendency towards state capitalism, itself a major characteristic of the period of decadence."
If you're interesting in a more in-depth approach to the ICC's position on the "socialist" countries, please click this link and read this document:
http://en.internationalism.org/node/610