Why such a title today? Isn't it just a bit anachronistic? Here we are, after all, in the 21st century. Aren't women's rights, the equality of women, recognised in a plethora of conventions and solemn declarations throughout the world?

In reality, the question of woman's suffering in a society which to this day remains fundamentally patriarchal, continues to be of the greatest importance.1 Around the world, marital violence, ritual genital mutilation, reactionary and outdated ideologies like religious fundamentalism, continue to reign and even to develop.2

What the socialists of the 19th century called "the woman question" thus remains posed to this day: how to create a society where women no longer suffer from this particular oppression? And what should be the attitude of communist revolutionaries towards "women's struggles"?

One thing we should say from the outset: capitalist society has laid the foundation for the most radical change that human society has ever seen. All previous societies, without exception, were based on the sexual division of labour. Whatever their class nature, and whether the situation of women in them was more or less favourable, it went without saying that certain occupations were reserved for men, others for women. Men's and women's occupations might vary from one society to another, but the fact of this division was universal. We cannot study why this should have been the case in depth here: suffice to say that the division probably goes back to the dawn of mankind, and originated in the constraints of childbirth. For the first time in history, capitalism tends to eliminate this division. From the outset, capitalism transforms labour into abstract labour. Where before there was the concrete labour of the peasant or artisan, regulated by the guilds or customary law, now there is nothing but labour power, accounted by the hour or by piecework: who actually does the job is immaterial. Since women were paid less, they replaced male labour in the factories – this was the case, for example, of the weavers in the 18th century. With the development of machinery, work demands less and less physical strength, since human labour power is replaced by the vastly greater power of the machine. Today, the number of jobs still requiring male physical strength is extremely limited, and more and more women are entering domains once reserved for men. The old prejudices about women's supposed "irrationality" are dying away almost of themselves, and more and more women are to be found in the scientific and medical professions once thought only suitable for supposedly more "rational" men.

Women's massive entry into the world of associated labour3 has two potentially revolutionary consequences:

• The first, is that by putting an end to the sexual division of labour, capitalism has opened the way towards a world where men and women will no longer be limited to sexually determined occupations, but will be able to realise their talents as full human beings. This in turn opens up the possibility of establishing the relations between the sexes on an entirely new basis.

• The second, is that women gain an economic independence. A woman wage worker is no longer dependent on her husband for survival, and this for the first time opens up the possibility for the mass of women workers to take part in public and political life.

Under capitalism, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the demand to participate in public life was not limited to working women. Women of the upper and middle classes also put forward the demand for equal rights, and the right to vote in particular. This posed the problem for the workers' movement of the attitude to adopt towards the feminist movements. Whereas the workers' movement was opposed to all oppression of women, the feminist movements – because they posed the question from the standpoint of sex not class – denied the need for a revolutionary overthrow of the existing order by a social class made up of men and women: the proletariat. Mutatis mutandis, the same question is posed today: what attitude should revolutionaries adopt towards the women's liberation movement?

In an article on the struggle for women's suffrage published in 1912, the revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg made a clear distinction between women of the ruling class, and women proletarians: "Most of those bourgeois women who act like lionesses in the struggle against 'male prerogatives' would trot like docile lambs in the camp of conservative and clerical reaction if they had suffrage (…) Economically and socially, the women of the exploiting classes are not an independent segment of the population.. Their only social function is to be tools of the natural propagation of the ruling classes. By contrast, the women of the proletariat are economically independent. They are productive for society like the men".4 Luxemburg thus makes a clear distinction between working class women's struggle for the vote, and that of bourgeois women. She insists, moreover, that the struggle for women's rights is a matter for the whole working class: "Women’s suffrage is the goal. But the mass movement to bring it about is not a job for women alone, but is a common class concern for women and men of the proletariat."

The rejection of bourgeois feminism was equally clear for the Bolshevik Alexandra Kollontai, who in 1908 published The social basis of the woman question: "Class instinct – whatever the feminists say – always shows itself to be more powerful than the noble enthusiasms of 'above-class' politics. So long as the bourgeois women and their 'younger sisters' are equal in their inequality, the former can, with complete sincerity, make great efforts to defend the general interests of women. But once the barrier is down and the bourgeois women have received access to political activity, the recent defenders of the 'rights of all women' become enthusiastic defenders of the privileges of their class (...) Thus, when the feminists talk to working women about the need for a common struggle to realise some 'general women’s' principle, women of the working class are naturally distrustful".5

World War I was to demonstrate that this distrust described by Luxemburg and Kollontai was wholly justified. At the outbreak of war, the suffragette movement (movement for women's voting rights) in Britain split in two: on one side were the feminists led by Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel who gave their wholehearted support to the war and the government; on the other were Sylvia Pankhurst in Britain and her sister Adeline in Australia, who split from the feminist movement to defend an internationalist position. During the war, Sylvia Pankhurst abandoned little by little any reference to feminism: her "Women's Suffrage Federation" became the "Workers' Suffrage Federation" in 1916, and in 1917 her paper the Women's Dreadnought changed its name to become the Workers' Dreadnought.6

Luxemburg and Kollontai accept that the struggles of feminists and women workers may from time to time find themselves sharing a common ground, but not that women workers should dissolve their struggles into the feminist movement purely on the basis of "women's rights". It seems to us that revolutionaries should adopt the same attitude today, adapted of course to the conditions of our own epoch.

We want to conclude with some thoughts about "equality" as a demand for women. Because capitalism treats labour power as a book-keeping abstraction, its vision of equality is also a book-keeping abstraction: "equal rights". But because every person is different, equality in law quickly becomes inequality in fact,7 and this is why ever since Marx, communists have never demanded "social equality". On the contrary, the slogan of communist society is: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". And women have one need which men will never have: to bear children.

Every woman should therefore have the possibility of bringing her children into the world, and of caring for them during their first years, without this contradicting either her independence or her full participation in every aspect of social life. This is a need, a physical need, that society must support; it is a capacity of women whose expression a society has every interest in encouraging, since society's future depends on it.8 It is thus easy enough to see that a truly human society, a communist society, will not try to impose an abstract "equality" on women, which would only be an inequality in fact. It will try on the contrary to integrate this specific capacity of women into social activity as a whole, at the same time as it completes a process that capitalism could do no more than begin, and put an end for the first time in history to the sexual division of labour.

Jens

ICC Day of Discussion, 23 June 2012-07-25

This is a summary of the discussion that took place after the presentation on art. The full version of this can be found here: https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201206/4977/notes-toward-history-art-ascendant-and-decadent-capitalism [9]

Presentation

The presentation introduced the online text and summarised its main points.

Art and culture are closely related to the widening discussions in the ICC on questions of ethics, science, etc., and in particular to the deepening of our understanding of decadence. The effect of decadence on art and culture tells us more about the nature and evolution of decadence.

The text started as a personal attempt to understand modern art. It doesn’t answer questions on ‘what is art?’, the role of art, or art in previous class societies. It also became clear that artistic movements cannot be defined or judged in the same way as political movements.

Bourgeois art history is completely mystified about modern art ‘modernism’ because it lacks an understanding of decadence – the key piece of the puzzle. It’s necessary to go back to Marx and Engels and particularly Trotsky who is an important point of departure on art in decadence.

A summary of key points from the text:

• Bourgeois modern art comes very late in capitalism, c 1870s. Impressionism emerges only c 30 years before onset of decadence.
• Trotsky says that art is the most ‘sensitive’ and ‘vulnerable’, part of culture, and it therefore acts as a ‘weather vane’ or harbinger of decadence.
• The onset of decadence can be seen early in art, eg. Munch’s ‘The Scream’ (used on the Decadence pamphlet cover), 1893.
• Artistic movements pre-1914 (post-impressionism, cubism, expressionism) are ambivalent, containing both progressive and reactionary elements. 
• Dada is an early response to war and decadence (1915). It veers towards anarchism – wants to demolish culture and abolish art.
• Once the proletariat moves, then art moves towards it. Despite the ‘avant garde’ in art, it’s the proletariat which is the dynamic  factor (especially in Germany and Russia).
• Situationists identify the 1920s as the ‘end of modern art’, eg. James Joyce Finnigan’s Wake,  Malevich’s ‘White square on a white background’ – representing a breakdown of traditional forms of bourgeois art.
• Russia is the highest point of modern art - artists are involved with the revolution, abandoning ‘pure’  art to work in industrial production to transform the lives of the exploited.
• But the revolution is defeated. Stalinism = socialist realism. All further art tends to reflect decadence – ‘development as decay’ (Marx) – the development of art is a good illustration of decadence.
• In 68, there are radical art movements but not as significant as you might expect. Recuperated. The Situationists say it’s all a spectacle. Can there be a future revolutionary art?
• The Dadaists are wrong to abolish all art and start again. The proletariat needs to appropriate the best of bourgeois culture and that of earlier times – eg. the Renaissance. What is there in decadence to build on? (Shouts of surrealism, jazz ‘death metal’!)

Discussion

The discussion recognised that this can only be an introduction to the subject but underlined the importance of art and literature to the workers’ movement. Art enhances the appreciation of life, eg. the cave paintings of Lascaux. It is the externalisation of our inner life, our humanity.

We need to go back to the beginning to revive the Marxist view of art, as with religion. The Second International was able to devote more time to this but its work is not easily available. With the revolutionary wave and decadence and the ensuing fragmentation revolutionaries have not had the time to devote to the question. It has taken the ICC time to get round to these questions.

Some of the limitations of the text were highlighted, eg. it doesn’t mention female artists or folk art or art outside Europe.  Art is a global historical phenomenon. We also need to recognise that the activity of ‘artists’ in class society is based on the suppression of the ability of others.

There is no such thing as Marxist art or ‘socialist realism’. Marxism provides an historical framework for understanding the different phases of artistic expression and critical judgement of artistic representation.

Decadence is not a total halt to the ‘creative forces’, eg. James Joyce’s Ulysses was important for the development of literature. Artistic creativity didn’t die in decadence but it changes the historical context it takes place in.

Can we talk of ‘bourgeois art’? What makes it bourgeois? There is no corresponding ‘proletarian art’. Also, can we generalise about the meaning of individual artistic works or do they remain personal?  eg. Munch’s ‘Scream’.

 ‘Retro’ popular culture is a symptom of culture in decadence. Historically this was also a sign of the onset of decadence, eg. Russia in 1905, harking back to an earlier, more stable and comforting epoch, at the same time as experiments in theatre flowered in the revolution.

Since the beginning of 20thc the visual arts have been regurgitating Dada. There has been very little new since then; even progressive developments like Surrealism could only have come from Dada. Surrealism is arguably the most significant artistic development in decadence, owing a huge debt to Dada. It tried to develop a theoretical understanding of art and human revolution taking on Marxism and psychoanalysis but this was unachievable with the revolution in decline.

We need to understand the extent of state control of art in decadence and its complete commodification, not just by fascism and Stalinism: it was most pernicious in the west – eg USA and the rise of cinema, with funding of different art movements as a tool of imperialism.

Cultural developments are related to massive social struggles, eg in the 60s music was a harbinger of the class struggle but the connection is not mechanical.

‘Postmodernism’ seems to be acknowledgement by bourgeois academia that they have run out of ideas – everything is just another story. But this also gives people liberty to do anything as nothing matters any more. 

The working class is arguably the driving force of art in last 1-200 years but it is hijacked by bourgeoisie, eg. hip hop. The split between ‘high’ and ‘low’ art leads to a kind of workerism which rejects certain forms of art, eg. opera.

Capitalism has the technological capability to create new forms of art but it also means the legal fetters of copyright to ‘own’ and therefore restrict access to it, ie. a form of censorship.

The summing up accepted the point that there is no ‘bourgeois modern art’ but rather ‘modern art movements in bourgeois society’. The best tendencies in art always tends to go beyond the limitations of the ideology of the society where they emerge.

The text does not pretend to be a history of global art but we need to understand the most advanced tendencies in the capitalist system, which are clearest in the heartlands of Europe and USA.

While movements like jazz, Bauhaus etc., have their roots in the revolutionary wave, art in the post-war period is much more characterised by decadence. Munch’s ‘The Scream’ illustrates the point that while the subject matter may be personal, the expression of alienation as a valid subject for art was a sign of the onset of decadence.

The discussion has only begun. There is a lot more to say about the culture industry and the way capitalism developed after the post-war boom - Adorno and others have written a huge amount on this. The capitalist state’s ideological apparatus has a huge effect on cultural production. Finally, we have not really said anything about art in the specific phase of decomposition.

MH 7/12

Since last April, a tempest of the same nature as the one initiated by the “Arab Spring”, which itself encouraged a multitude of mobilisations of  “indignant” populations all over the world (Spain, Greece, United States, Canada, etc.) blew over the Japanese archipelago. And as in a good number of these movements, we again see a real blackout of the bourgeoisie and its media. In Japan itself, outside of the areas where the discontent took place, there's an identical silence. Thus, for example, a demonstration of more than 60,000 people in Tokyo, has been completely hidden from the eyes of the general public. According to the very words of an “independent” Japanese journalist, M. Uesugi, “in Japan , control of the media is worse than China and similar to Egypt”[1] .

These demonstrations, of some hundreds of people in April, rapidly growing into thousands, unfolded on a real wave of anger which got bigger and bigger. Thus, by the beginning of July, crowds from different regions (Tohoku-north-east, Island of Kyushu-south, Shikoku-south-east, Hokkaido-north, Honsu-centre-west) converged  in great numbers close to the Yoyogi Park in Tokyo in order to take over the streets. Very quickly the “monster demonstration” reached close to 170,000 protesters. We've not seen such a demonstration against conditions of life in Japan since the 1970's: the last one of comparable size was against the war in Iraq in 2003.

The factor that unleashed this discontent is linked to the trauma of Fukushima, to the strong indignation faced with the lies of the Japanese authorities and their willingness to pursue a suicidal nuclear programme. The latest national plan envisages the construction of 14 new reactors from now to 2030! Following the catastrophe of Fukushima, the government has no better way of “reassuring” the population than saying: “You will not be immediately affected.. (…) It's not that serious, just like going on an aeroplane or going through an X-ray”. What cynicism! It's not surprising that the angry population asks for a “nuclear halt”, beginning with the station of Hamaoka, 120km from Nagoya,  situated in a zone of considerable seismic activity.

 Outside of the large numbers, which have taken the organisers themselves by surprise, we see the same dynamic role played by the internet, twitter and the new generation, particularly students and school pupils. For a good number, these are their first demonstrations. Among the almost daily protests, some have been organised by the schoolkids of Nagoya via the social networks and by a collection of anti-nuclear groups[2]. Criticism broke out throughout the web, videos spread and alternative sites swelled. A little in the image of the blog of an old worker from the Hamaoka station, denouncing the lies of the so-called “security” of the nuclear installations, spirits became animated. A student of Sendai (north-east), Mayumi Ishida, wanted  a “social movement with strikes”[3]. This movement expressed in depth the accumulation of social frustrations linked to the economic crisis and brutal austerity. In this respect, the movement in Japan well and truly connects up with the other expressions of the international movement of the “indignant”.

Some very angry people didn't hesitate to speak at the assemblies, even if it's difficult to give much of an account because of the lack of precise information.

But, as in many places, this movement shows great weaknesses, notably democratic illusions and marked nationalist preconceptions. The anger rests largely channelled and hemmed in by the unions and above all, in the circumstances, by the official anti-nuclear organisations. Some locally elected critics, through their demagogy and lies, often succeeded in playing on people’s dissatisfaction, isolating them one from the other, and pushing them into sterile actions, solely focussed against such and such a project of the nuclear industry and above all against the “fusible” Prime Minister, Naoto Kan.

Despite these numerous weaknesses, this movement in Japan is symbolically very important. It not only shows that the Japanese proletariat’s relative isolation from other fractions of the class (linked to historic, geographical and cultural factors) is beginning to be overcome[4], but also that all the nauseous propaganda of the bourgeois media about the so-called “docility” of the Japanese workers rests on prejudices which are used to hold back the internationalism of the exploited.

The workers of the whole world are slowly beginning to glimpse the social force it can be in the future. Little by little, it is learning that the street is a political space that it can take over to struggle and express solidarity. In Japan as elsewhere, these are the foundations for building an international revolutionary force that can destroy capitalism and construct a society free from exploitation and its barbarities. It's a long, a very long road, but it's the only one that leads to the reign of liberty.

WH 21/7/12

The "post war boom" came to an end in 1967; this brief period of relative economic prosperity came in the wake of the horrors of the First World War, the Great Depression and World War II. The spectre of the economic crisis reappeared in that year. During the first half of the year, Europe fell into recession, in the second half there was a crisis in the international monetary system. Since then, unemployment, insecurity, deteriorating living and working conditions have become the daily lot of the exploited. Just a quick survey of the major events of the twentieth century, one of the most catastrophic and barbaric in the history of mankind, is enough to understand that capitalism has become, like slavery or feudalism before it, an obsolete and decadent system.

But this historic crisis of capitalism was partly obscured, buried under a load of propaganda and lies. In each decade, it was the same old tune: one country, one part of the planet or one economic sector that was doing a little better than the others, was given prominence to create a false impression that the crisis was not fatal, that it was sufficient to carry out effective "structural reforms" to capitalism for it to revive and bring growth and prosperity. In 1980-1990, Argentina and the "Asian Tigers" were  brandished as models of success, then after the start of 2000 it was the turn of Ireland and Spain ... Invariably, of course, these "miracles" would turn out to be "mirages": in 1997 the "Asian Tigers" proved to be paper tigers, in the late 1990s, Argentina was declared bankrupt and now Ireland and Spain are on the brink of bankruptcy ... On each occasion, "the incredible growth" was funded by a resort to credit and each time the false hopes were eventually sunk by the burden of debt. But, banking on the short memories of the majority of us, the same charlatans are at it again. To believe them, Europe's sickness is due to specific reasons of its own making: difficulties carrying out reforms and  'mutualising' (i.e. sharing the burden of) its debts between its members; a lack of unity and solidarity between the countries; a central bank unable to boost the economy because it can't print money at will. But these arguments don’t stand up to much scrutiny. The crisis has hit Europe because there's a lack of reform and competition and we have to learn from Asia? Nonsense, these countries are also in trouble. The recovery is not sufficiently under the European Central Bank's control and the answer lies in printing money? That's crazy: the United States and its central bank have championed every kind of money creation since 2007, but they are also in bad shape.

A great discovery: BRICs don't float

The acronym "BRICs" refers to the four countries whose economies have been most successful in recent years: Brazil, Russia, India and China. But as with Eldorado, this good health is more myth than reality.  All these "booms" are financed largely by debt and end up, like their predecessors, sinking into the horror of recession. Furthermore, that ill wind is upon us right now.

In Brazil, consumer credit has exploded over the past decade. But as in the United States during the 2000s,  "households" are less and less able to keep up their repayments. The scale of "consumer defaults" has beaten all the records this time around. Worse still, the housing bubble looks identical to what was experienced by Spain before it exploded: large newly built housing complexes stand desperately empty.

In Russia, inflation is getting out of control: it's officially 6%, but it’s more like 7.5% say independent analysts. And prices of fruits and vegetables have literally shot up in June and July, increasingly by almost 40%!

In India, the budget deficit is widening dangerously (it's estimated to be 5.8% of GDP for 2012); the industrial sector is in recession (- 0.3% in the first quarter of this year), consumption is slowing sharply, inflation is very strong (7.2% in April, last October the soaring food prices had risen almost 10%). The financial world now considers India a risky country to invest in: it is rated triple B (the lowest rating in the "below average quality" category). It is under threat of soon being be ranked with countries that are considered bad investments.

China's economy continues to slow and there are growing danger signals. Manufacturing activity contracted in June for the eighth consecutive month. The prices of apartments have collapsed and the sectors associated with construction are less and less busy. A very clear example: the city of Beijing alone, has 50% of it dwellings vacant - more than in the entire U.S. (3.8 million homes are empty in Beijing compared with 2.5 million across America). But the most worrying thing without any doubt is the state budget for the provinces. For if the state is not officially collapsing under the debt, it is only due to the fact the burden of debt is all at the local level. Many provinces are on the verge of bankruptcy. Investors are well aware of the poor health of the BRICs, which is why they avoid these four currencies – the real, the ruble, the rupee and the yuan - like the plague; they have been falling continuously for months.

In the U.S., the time bomb of debt

The city of Stockton, California filed for bankruptcy Tuesday, June 26th as did Jefferson County, Alabama and Harrisburg in Pennsylvania before it. Yet for three years, the 300,000 inhabitants of this city have endured every "sacrifice necessary for the recovery": budget cuts of $90 million, 30% of fire-fighters laid off along with 40% of other municipal employees, a cut of $11.2 million to the salaries for municipal employees, a drastic reduction of the  retirement pension funds.

This concrete example shows the real state of decay of the U.S. economy. Households, businesses, banks, cities, states and the federal government, every sector is literally buried under mounds of debt that will never be repaid. In this context, the future negotiation between the Republicans and Democrats when the debt ceiling is raised this autumn is very likely to turn into a psychodrama as it did last summer. We can say that the American bourgeoisie is facing an insoluble problem: it must generate ever more debt to revive the economy while it must reduce debt to avoid bankruptcy.

Each indebted part of the economy is a potential time-bomb: here's a bank close to bankruptcy, there's a city or a company almost bankrupt ... and if a bomb explodes, just watch the chain reaction. Today the "student loans bubble" is a concern to the financial world. The cost of studying is more and more expensive and young people find less and less work on leaving their university courses. In other words, student loans are becoming increasingly essential and the risk of default ever more likely. To be more specific:

- after their university studies, American students are on average in debt to the tune of 25,000 dollars;

- their outstanding loans exceeds that of all consumer loans in the country and is $904 billion (it has almost doubled over the last five years) and corresponds to 6% of GDP;

- the scale of unemployment for university graduates under 25 years is more than 9%;

- 14% of graduate students who have taken out loans have defaulted three years after graduating.

This example is very significant of what capitalism has become: a sick system that can only sign away (literally as well as metaphorically) its future. Young people today must live in debt and "spend" the future salary ...they're not going to see. It is no coincidence that in the Balkans, in England and in Quebec, the new generation has mounted powerful demonstrations in the last two years at the increased costs of enrolling for university courses: drowning in debt for 20 years and facing the prospect of unemployment and falling pay in future years, this is the perfect symbol of the "no future" that capitalism has to offer.

The United States, like Europe, like every country in the world, is sick; and there will be no real and lasting respite under capitalism because this system of exploitation is the source of the infection. After reading this article, can anyone continue to want to hope and believe that an "economic miracle" is still possible? If you are one of these people ... please note that the budget of the Vatican is in the red.

Pawel, 6/7/12

This is a leaflet produced by our section in Spain to denounce the ruthless attacks on working class living conditions now underway in that country. It’s also an analysis of the situation which tries to make proposals to take the struggle forward.

The worst attacks on our living conditions (up till now): How far will they go? How can we respond?

In 1984, the PSOE (Socialist Party) government brought in the first Labour Reform. Just three months ago, the present PP government (the right wing Popular Party) brought in the most serious Labour Reforms up till now. In 1985, the PSOE government brought in the first Pensions Reform; in 2011, a different PSOE government brought in another. When will the next one be? For more than 30 years, the living conditions of the workers have gradually got worse and worse, but since 2010 the deterioration has speeded up at a dizzying rate and with the new measures by the PP government, it has reached levels which, unfortunately, are already low compared to what lies in store. There has also been a sharpening of police repression: violence against the students in Valencia last February, savage beating of the miners and the use of rubber bullets which injured children among others. Meanwhile, Congress has been explicitly protected by the police in the face of the spontaneous demonstrations which have been developing since July.

We, the IMMENSE MAJORITY, exploited and oppressed, but also indignant, we workers of the public and private sectors, the unemployed, students, pensioners, immigrants...we are posing a lot of questions about everything that’s going on. We need to pose these questions collectively, in the streets, on the squares, in the workplaces, so that we can come up with answers together and make a massive, powerful and sustained response.

The collapse of capitalism

Governments change, but the crisis keeps on getting worse and we keep getting hit harder. Each summit meeting of the EU, of the G20 etc is presented as the ‘definite solution’...and the next day it’s revealed as a total failure. We are told that the blows aimed at us will reduce the risks to the economy, and the next day we find that the exact opposite is true. After so much bloodletting in our living standards, the IMF recognises that we will have to wait until 2025 (!) to get back to the living standards we had in 2007. The crisis advances implacably and inexorably, leaving in its wake millions of broken lives.   

Of course, some countries are doing better than others, but we have to look at the world as a whole. The problem is not limited to Spain, Greece, or Italy, nor can it be reduced to the ‘euro crisis’. Germany is on the edge of recession and has 7 million mini-jobs (with wages around 400 euro a month). In the USA, unemployment is soaring at the same speed as house repossessions. In China, the economy has been slowing down for 7 months, despite a crazy construction bubble which has meant that in Beijing alone there are 2 million empty apartments. We are experiencing in our bones the world-wide and historic crisis of the capitalist system which is pulling in every state, regardless of its official ideology, whether ‘communist’ as in China or Cuba, ‘21st century socialism’ as in Ecuador or Venezuela, ‘socialist’ in France’ ‘democratic’ in the US, ‘liberal’ in Spain and Germany. Capitalism, having created the world market, has for a century been a reactionary system which has plunged humanity into the worse kind of barbarism: two world wars, innumerable regional wars, the destruction of the environment....and, having benefited from moments of artificial economic growth, based on financial and speculative bubbles of all kinds, today, since 2007, it is crashing into the worst crisis in its history with firms, banks and states sinking into bankruptcy. The result of such a debacle is a gigantic humanitarian disaster. While famine and poverty spread throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America, in the ‘rich’ countries millions of people are losing their jobs, hundreds of thousands are being evicted from their homes, the majority have nothing left at the end of the month, the increasing cost and reduced availability of social services are making life increasingly precarious, and on top of all this is the crushing weight of direct or indirect taxation.

The democratic state is the dictatorship of the capitalist class

Capitalism divides society into two poles: the minority pole of the capitalist class which possesses everything and produces nothing; and the majority pole of the exploited classes which produce everything and receive less and less. The capitalist class, the 1% of the population as the Occupy movement in the US put it, appears to be more and more corrupt, arrogant and insulting. It is piling up riches with indecent cheek; it shows itself to be quite unfeeling towards the suffering of the majority and everywhere it demands that we put up with austerity. So why, despite all the big movements of social indignation which unfolded in 2011 (Spain, Greece, USA, Egypt, Chile, etc) is it able to apply policies which go against the interests of the majority? Why is our struggle, despite the precious experience it has brought us, so far below what is necessary? 

An initial answer can be found in the fraud of the democratic state. This is presented as the emanation of all citizens, but in reality it is the exclusive and excluding organ of the capitalist class. It serves the latter’s interests entirely, and to do this it has two hands: the right hand made up of the police, the prisons, the courts, the laws, the bureaucracy, which it uses to repress us and crush any attempt at revolt. And a left hand made up of parties based on all kinds of ideology, of trade unions which are apparently independent, of social cohesion services supposedly there to protect us....in sum, of illusions to deceive us, divide us and demoralise us.

What has been the result of all the votes cast every four years? Has any government emerged from the election and carried out one of its promises? Whatever their ideology, whose side have they been on? The electors, or Capital? What has been the result of the countless reforms and changes they have made in education, social security, economics, politics, etc? Haven’t they really been a real expression of the principle that ‘everything must change in order to stay the same’? As the 15 May movement said at the time: “they call it democracy and it’s not, it’s a dictatorship and we don’t see it”.

Faced with worldwide misery, worldwide revolution against misery!

Capitalism is leading us into generalised misery. But we should not see only misery in misery! In the entrails of this system is the principal exploited class, the proletariat, which, with its associated labour – labour not limited to industry and agriculture but including education, health, social services etc – ensures that the whole of this society functions. And by the same token, this class has the capacity to paralyse the capitalist machine and open the door to the creation of a society where life is not sacrificed on the altar of capitalist profit, where the economy of competition is replaced by production founded on solidarity and aiming at the full satisfaction of human need. The way of life in this society, by contrast, is based on competition, on the struggle of each against all, on atomisation and division.

An understanding of these problems, open and fraternal debate about them, the critical re-appropriation of the experience of over two centuries of struggle, all that can give us the means to go beyond this situation, to respond to the attacks.   The very day (11 July) that prime minister Rajoy announced the new measures we saw was the beginning of a response. Many people went to Madrid to express their solidarity with the miners. This experience of unity and solidarity was concretised in the days that followed with spontaneous demonstrations organised through social networks. It was an initiative by public sector workers, outside the unions. The question is how to do we carry on with it, knowing that the struggle will be long and difficult? Here are some proposals:

United struggle: unemployed, public and private sector workers, apprentices and employees, pensioners, students, immigrants: TOGETHER, WE CAN. No sector must remain isolated and imprisoned in its own corner. Faced with a society of division and atomisation, we have to show the power of solidarity.

Open general assemblies: capital will remain strong as long as we leave everything in the hands of professional politicians and specialists in trade union representation, who always betray us. Assemblies to reflect, discuss and decide together. So that we become responsible for what has been agreed, so that we experience the satisfaction of being united, so that we can break the barriers of solitude and isolation and cultivate empathy and confidence. 

Look for international solidarity: defending the nation makes us cannon fodder in wars; xenophobia and racism divide us, set us against the workers of the whole world when they are the only ones we can trust to create the force capable of pushing back the attacks of capital.

Group together in the workplaces, in the neighbourhoods, in the collectives, on the internet, to reflect on everything that’s going on, to organise meetings and debates which will prepare the struggles to come. It’s not enough just to fight! We have to fight with the clearest possible consciousness of where we are going, of what are our real weapons, of who are our friends and who are our enemies!

Every social change is inseparable from an individual change. Our struggle cannot be limited to a simple change in the political and economic structures. It’s a change in the social system and thus in our own lives, in our way of seeing things, in our aspirations. This is the only way we can develop the strength to resist the innumerable traps we will meet along the way, the physical and moral blows that will be aimed at us. A change of mentality in the direction of solidarity, collective consciousness, which will cement our unity today, but will also be the pillar of a future society free from the ferocious competition and commercialism of capitalist society

International Communist Current 16/7/12

If you want to contact us, collaborate, work together, you can find us as [email protected] [25] or via es.internationalism.org.

This leaflet is available as a PDF so it can be reproduced and distributed.

Day of study, London June 2012

Aim of the discussion

The day of study decided to take up the question of Islam because it is an important issue in today’s world. On the one hand it is presented as the bogey man threatening to destroy civilisation, political Islam has become synonymous with terrorism and oppression, but on the other hand it is a source of inspiration for a huge proportion of the world’s population.

In order to get to grips with what Islam represents today, the discussion looked at its origins and the role it has played in history (specifically its contribution to the Renaissance), situating it within the context of the social significance of religion generally. These are enormous questions that merit time and reflection and the day of study could obviously do no more than make a beginning by providing a basis and raising relevant questions to be developed in subsequent discussions.

Questions raised

There was general agreement among those who spoke that religion cannot provide a solution to today’s social problems but the question was raised as to whether or not Islam arose initially as a revolutionary movement. Various hypotheses were put forward as to the historical situation and the factors that gave rise to it; these points could not be adequately dealt with at the day of study and are well worth deepening in future debates. Supporting the idea that it did in fact begin as a revolutionary movement, it was stated that, even though it did not have a position against trade, money or class (as early Christianity did), it too began as a movement of the oppressed classes against their oppression but that the revolutionary message was watered down from very early on in its history – from the Roman period in fact.

Another question raised was the significance of  the historical development from a mystical, religious view of the world to the attempt to interpret it scientifically.

Certain interventions insisted on the importance of the scientific method and the social significance of the Enlightenment as an important step forward, saying that one of the benefits of capitalism was the overcoming of religious superstition through rationalism and that Marxism is able to take this evolution even further.

Other interventions warned of the danger of deifying science, noting that rationalism begins with capitalism and expresses the bourgeois world view and that there are aspects of previous societies that it rejects out of hand, unable to integrate their knowledge into its own vision; aspects such as the celebration of  society and its cohesion through shared beliefs and religious rites, the practice of linking up with the whole of humanity by means of meditation techniques (the ‘species being’ that Marx talks about in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts).

In response to this, the point was made that the going beyond the individual self towards the development of a true, shared humanity cannot be achieved individually; it can only be undertaken collectively by means of a social movement and that the religious framework creates a false, idealist consciousness. The search for our ‘species being’, a sense of unity with the rest of humanity, against the moral and emotional barrenness of society today, is very valid but to seek it through any form of religion is to look in the wrong place. The religious world view externalises our shared humanity, calls it god and worships it, we are alienated  from it. To the working class’ need to reflect, question and discuss, it opposes the injunction to ‘have faith’; to the need for a real human morality, it opposes blind obedience to a higher power. As such, religious authority today is a means of social control and oppression, it aims to act as a brake on the development of proletarian consciousness, which needs free and open discussion and a fearless analysis of the society in which we live.

Another question raised was on how to address Islamic workers.

One suggestion was that we point out the revolutionary origins of religion and the prophetic tradition, that we show that the working class and its revolution are heir to the early religious movements (Islam, Christianity) and are able to realise their aspirations for a society free of oppression.

Many who spoke said that we do not in fact speak to Islamic workers as such, we address workers as a whole; our message is the same whether they are Christian, Muslim, non-believers. First of all we have to discuss what unites us – the fact that we are all exploited and have to defend ourselves against the attacks and how to do so. Religious belief, on the other hand, tends to be divisive; it unites ‘us of the true faith’ against all the rest, who are unrighteous: discussion about it often gives rise to tensions and defensiveness because it is felt as key to the individual’s sense of worth and security. An open discussion involving the whole of the working class on the nature of religion will be possible only late in the revolutionary development of consciousness when the class has sufficient confidence in itself as a class to confront such differences openly and frankly.

Conclusion

A discussion that stimulated a great deal of interest and reflection. It is important to pursue it.

VJ

Report on the ICP’s meeting on the historical need for communism, Liverpool, 23 June 2012

This was the first meeting in Britain of the International Communist Party which publishes Communist Left in Britain and Il Partito Comunista in Italy. They announced it as their opportunity to “introduce themselves to the British proletariat”, and, gathered in front of a very smart and probably brand new red ICP banner resplendent with the hammer and sickle, they laid out their wares. This report will not attempt to dissect the ICP’s presentation on the ‘The Historical Need for Communism’, a six and a half page text that was delivered by the presidium following a brief introduction. It may eventually be published on the ICP’s website for readers to devour at their leisure and those who defend an internationalist perspective will find much to agree with. They have also written their own report of the meeting which, again, readers will find provides much food for thought[1]. Rather, the focus of this report is on what we think was missing from the meeting: discussion, which for us is central to the communist project. It is the lifeblood of the workers' movement as it struggles to clarify the many questions thrown up by the class struggle and in its fight for communism.

The ICP’s report makes much of the contributions from the floor following their presentation and as they describe these gave valuable examples of the hardships suffered by workers who have been, or still are, struggling to defend their interests. But as the report infers these contributions were perceived as and responded to, as questions, to be answered individually, one to one, by the presidium, all of which prevented a deeper exploration of the different positions held by those present. While no one was actually prevented from speaking, this ‘method’ effectively stifled discussion. There was no opportunity, or desire, to challenge alternative positions, no clash of ideas, so the meeting descended into a sterile ‘question and answer’ session ending far too quickly. If, like on many websites, we had been provided with some FAQs at the door the meeting need never have taken place. We could have digested the ‘correct’ position in the comfort of our own homes.  

This attitude was most clearly demonstrated in the response to ‘questions’ on the Occupy movement, not worthy of a mention in their report, and on the need for those organisations who defend the communist left to discuss with each other. On Occupy, despite the article, ‘From Occupy Wall Street Movement to the blockade of the West Coast ports’, in Communist Left No. 31/2,  which puts forward many of the same criticisms the ICC has made of the Occupy movement, the ICP’s response to our ‘question’ demonstrated a very different method in attempting to understand and respond to this phenomenon. The Occupy Movement, argued the ICP, is infected, watered down, by other, particularly petit bourgeois, class interests. It is not a progressive movement. It is an inter-classist movement. Full stop, question answered. On the communist left they were just as unequivocal, no discussion, 'we are the party': “The rebirth of the Party in 1952 on firm and clear foundations, after the period of elation that followed World War II, meant a neat and definitive separation from the ‘Internationalists’[2] and from their positions. To talk now of mergers or joint actions is therefore deprived of any historical significance. But, of course, any revolutionary who sees in the International Communist Party the party of the revolution can join as an individual basis”.

It is this ‘method’, which finds its justification in the idea that Marxist theory is one invariant block and expressed in statements and texts, often written in capital letters to emphasise their importance, like, “we represent the continuity of Marxism”, ‘The unitary and invariant body of party theses’ and “we represent the views of the Communist Left” that reinforces the commonly held view that the organisations who historically defend the Italian left, especially those in the Bordigist tradition, are sectarian, sclerotic parodies of what a communist organisation should be. ‘We are right you are wrong’ – there is no space, for example, for a shared agreement on the fundamental class line of internationalism – appears to be the rallying cry of the ICP. So much for Marx’s useful reminder to ‘question everything’. They could, without irony, adopt Millwall FC’s infamous terrace chant: ‘nobody likes us but we don’t care’.

More seriously, swimming against the tide of bourgeois ideology, communist organisations, especially those like the ICP who have never betrayed internationalism, don’t, of course, exist to be ‘liked’. But this attitude, a consequence of the invariance they so proudly defend, is hardly the way to convince those interested in discussing the communist programme or building the future party. You need to engage with what's been said by others; their questions, hesitations and misunderstandings, not demand that they engage with you solely on your terms. We have to dispel the image of the monolithic party. Unless, of course, you see yourself as the teacher, the guru, the only one competent to impart knowledge. Workers will only be convinced of the need for, and the possibility of creating, a future world communist party by the words and deeds of the current revolutionary minorities. A key part of this process is the ability of different tendencies to discuss differences - capital letters are no substitute for this.

So, what does this meeting tell us? As Alf, for the ICC, put it on a recent post on libcom, the ICP are “a current which - for all its weaknesses, especially on the national question - has not abandoned the principles of internationalism” and “that's why we have to approach this meeting from a standpoint of solidarity - even though this may not be reciprocated by the [ICP]”[3]. It wasn’t but Alf was correct. Over the last ten years the ICC has had to learn some hard lessons about the way it is perceived by, and responds to, others, especially in the ‘Internet age’. We are concerned about the need to improve relations, to create a culture of debate, within the internationalist milieu, of which, at least in our eyes, the ICP is a member, and approached this meeting from a standpoint of solidarity with this in mind.

Given the positions defended by the ICP their attitude didn’t surprise us - invariance, after all, suggests a certain stagnation, an inflexibility, which was clearly demonstrated at this meeting – but it did disappoint us. In a period where the crisis of capitalism is deeper and more evident than ever and the challenge facing the working class greater than ever, it is imperative that revolutionaries, i.e. those that intransigently defend internationalism, find a way to, at the very least, talk to each other and those interested in the positions they defend. We are not talking about mergers here, just the absolute basics of proletarian debate and solidarity. The ICP’s ‘method of discussion’ at this meeting prevents this. The same goes for their method of intervention on web forums like Libcom and Red Marx, where they simply upload recent articles or historic texts and make no attempt whatever to respond to the comments and criticisms that they may provoke.

Although we doubt they’ll listen we encourage the ICP to stop building an ever higher wall around themselves and lower their trowels and buckets of cement, or at least turn the caps lock off, just long enough to start engaging with those who want to discuss with them, help build a culture of debate amongst revolutionaries, before it’s too late and they’re completely walled in.

Kino 1/8/12