But how do we describe the decline of capitalist society? This does not mean that if the symptoms are the same, different individuals will have the same disease, unless they are of the same type or class. According to the nature of the decline of previous societies, is that the way we consider capitalism? Will the old symptoms and causes maintain their accuracy when applied to capitalism?
At the level of material production, the subjugation of the social system to the development of productive forces is a law that remains valid under capitalism. As long as humanity lives under the ‘reign of nesisity’, as long as it has not reached the stage of prosperity that will eliminate the problems of material sustenance or even put it in a secondary position - a stage far beyond humanity - the first function of an economic system is still the development of productive forces. Moreover, as competition in the market economy has become more general, capitalism (in this system the capital that will not grow will disappear or fall into other hands) has made developmental necessity.
So surely for capitalism, as in feudalism and slavery, the insufficient development of the productive forces represents, in a historical sense, a deadly cessation.
But when this condition comes, does it represent the uncontrollable stage of decline as other societies?
Capitalism was primarily, remained a society divided into classes; second, a society in which man continues to live under the domination of their economic needs, and is thus unconsciously subject to their social structures. We see in capitalism some essential traits in past societies, and in particular the traits that have shown that the stage of decline is unstoppable. These characteristics are summarized in the following: the collective consciousness of reality, the reliance on the power of the ruling class on the power of productive relations, the weight and pull of customs and customs acquired from the old society, the impossibility of reaching a new social form that has not been proven obsolete that the old, and before the new historical role begins to emerge within society. Like the societies that preceded it, capitalism had to go through a period of decline.
However, in addition to these characteristics common to all societies based on exploitation, capitalism also has characteristics that are very different from slavery and feudalism. First of all, the system that will replace capitalism is not a system of exploitation. Thus, the decline of capitalism contains a new specificity in relation to other systems.
Socialism is the first system in history that will not appear within the society it will replace . Feudal economic relations were born during the end of the Roman Empire, in large territories that were approximately independent of central power; capitalism was born within the burghs and then in the cities of feudal society. In both cases, the ruling class gradually replaces the former.
On the contrary, the proletariat has no possibility of forming a new society within capitalism. As an exploited class, which is the direct source of profit of the ruling class, it cannot push forward its own historical duty without total crushing the power of such class. In contrast to the past, the mutual existence of two systems is not possible. Because capitalism is the first system that connects the entire global production in the same direction towards the integrated world, socialism in one country is impossible. This means that decadent capitalism is a downward spiral that is obligatory to be clearer, more violent than in the past.
Feudalism in France lasted even under monarchical form, until the 18th century, thanks to the abundance of the bourgeoisie which provided partial satisfaction to the economic needs that feudalism itself could no longer provide. It is not the case with capitalism that he himself pushed himself to the grave. Its excavator is not a profitable competitor that it can tolerate, even temporarily, but a mortal enemy resulting from centuries of oppression in which all compromises are impossible. Society cannot control the violent and real consequences of decadent decadent capitalism. So, on the one hand its plummeting is more intense than in the past, and on the other hand, shorter: the larger evidence of its effects means a more sudden phase of reaction.
The proletariat
Contrary to other revolutionary classes in history, the proletariat did not appear at the time of the decline of the previous production system, but at its beginning. When capitalist society reached its peak, the proletariat fully developed as an economic class; when it began to enter its decadent stage, its excavator was already at the peak of its numerical strength. The end of capitalism did not occur, as in the past, when the architect in his crushing birth was born and grew in the mound of dirt of the plunging old world.
Two other factors helped to reduce decadent capitalism:
a - Less importance of ideological relationships. Under the wage system and capital there is no religious, political or personal relationship between exploitation relations (as opposed to the era of slavery and feudalism). A more direct relationship of social and economic life emerged. Thus, a faster reaction occurs at the social level to the economic poverty characteristic of the plunging-down stage.
b - Finally and above all, living only in competition (at the national and international level), capitalism will not exist if it does not develop.
It is true that no society in the past could continue without ensuring the development of productive forces. But in the past this development has not really been the basic character of existing production relations. The profits and privileges of the members of the ruling class do not directly depend on their capacity to secure their own economic expansion. The profit they made from the labor of the peasants or slaves was for their personal consumption and luxury. It just so happened that it served to improve production. When these systems began to collide with its economic contradictions, development slowed down and became stagnant if the ruling class did not easily weaken and suffer more,
Under capitalism, if the growth of capital accumulation is not guaranteed, the whole process of squeezing the pipe and the whole process of production itself, will be blocked. This is one of the essential characteristics of the capitalist system.
Today the principal feature of the system's downward spiral is the growing impossibility of society developing economies without abandoning existing production relations. So it is difficult to imagine the long period of decadent capitalism and it is clear that the downfall of a system is a historical phenomenon, the causes and its principal manifestations of which are properly laid out. The stage of the decadent capitalist system exhibited similar characteristics to the decadent stages of previous societies, but for various reasons, decadent capitalism was shorter and more intense than the stage of the collapse of other systems. Having said that, this analysis must now face the reality of capitalism.
The theory of decline and current capitalism
It can be said that we begin a study at this point. For various reasons, this is the right thing to do. The concept of decadent capitalism only gained interest among the revolutionaries at the beginning of the shocking outbreak of the First World War. Undoubtedly, the split between the Second and Third Internationals during the First World War took place in the context of the debate over the end of the advancing phase of capitalism and its entry into the 'war and revolution' era. However, since then over the more than fifty years of the victory of the counter-revolution, and indeed because of the counter-revolution, the revolutionary theory lacked the breadth and depth of perspective that would have been necessary to understand the changes that have taken place in world reality.
Today, at the end of this ideological tunnel, it is also unfortunate that often the various goals that claim to be part of the revolutionary proletarian movement remain divided between being overly carried away by 'new implications' or 'new realities' ( Marxism has been replaced) and those who remain religious cling to old texts and ideas in reaction to the first tendency (cf. the 'Bordigist' International Communist Party in their cry of 'nothing has changed'; their 'nothing has changed' in the revolutionary program from 1848). Between these two camps but at the same time falling into the same tendencies, we see Trotskyists clinging to Trotsky's' Transitional Program "but willing to follow every trendy theory, (self-governing, neo-capitalism, third worldism), seeing that such theories helped to get some recruits. The effect of this is that the concept of ‘plunge-down’, which Marx only made a sketchy outline, has remained a vague idea and surrounded by confusion so that we can avoid spelling out its meaning at the beginning of this study.
The super-structure
It may seem logical to start the ‘confrontation of reality’ by examining the super-structure of capitalism (ideology, politics, social conflict), and not the economy, the first, in the final analysis is only a product of the latter. But, let us use this method to make it easier to follow our argument. Undoubtedly, while it is generally easy to recognize in modern capitalism the manifestations in the super-structural of the decadent stage (every modern moralist obliged to periodically speak of the ‘crisis of civilization’, etc.), we rarely see a clear and logical analysis of economic processes. Thus, the majority of the explanations of our 'crisis of civilization' do not go beyond idealistic empiricism. By first examining the ‘super-structure’, we not only simplified the understanding of getting started on the simplest aspects; but in order to solve the economic problem of the latter, let us expand on the important argument here, thus achieving the relevance that is essential to any scientific study.
In the ideological field
We do not fully study here the relationship between the dominant ideology in the life of capitalism over the past decades. We can only establish the extent of the decay of the dominant ideology.
It is difficult to specify what constitutes capitalist ideology: first, because it absorbs the elements of ideological heritage that have been common in class societies for thousands of years. Second, under such a blind mechanical system, the reliance on social relations in relation to the means of production, the ideology as an instrument in the preservation of these relations does not play a central role as in the past even though it is very important. However, it is evident that 'work ethic', 'worship of social progress', 'trust and respect for institutions' or 'belief in capitalist future' constitute the foundations of dominant ideology. All of this has been violently eradicated over the past fifty years as a result of the brutality of capitalist life. It is increasingly difficult to sing praises and adore the principles of society where in fifty years 100 million people have been killed because of wars where vanity is becoming more apparent; a society that has shown itself to be incapable of providing the most basic livelihood for two out of three people; a society in which the two powerful economies spend on weapons equal to the income of one-third of humanity; a society where the most privileged areas in the world, the value of the right not to starve is a monster-like day-to-day life. It is increasingly difficult to sing praises and adore the principles of society where in fifty years 100 million people have been killed because of wars where vanity is becoming more apparent; a society that has shown itself to be incapable of providing the most basic livelihood for two out of three people; a society in which the two powerful economies spend on weapons equal to the income of one-third of humanity; a society where the most privileged areas in the world, the value of the right not to starve is a monster-like day-to-day life. It is increasingly difficult to sing praises and adore the principles of society where in fifty years 100 million people have been killed because of wars where vanity is becoming more apparent; a society that has shown itself to be incapable of providing the most basic livelihood for two out of three people; a society in which the two powerful economies spend on weapons equal to the income of one-third of humanity; a society where the most privileged areas in the world, the value of the right not to starve is a monster-like day-to-day life. a society that has shown itself to be incapable of providing the most basic livelihood for two out of three people; a society in which the two powerful economies spend on weapons equal to the income of one-third of humanity; a society where the most privileged areas in the world, the value of the right not to starve is a monster-like day-to-day life. a society that has shown itself to be incapable of providing the most basic livelihood for two out of three people; a society in which the two powerful economies spend on weapons equal to the income of one-third of humanity; a society where the most privileged areas in the world, the value of the right not to starve is a monster-like day-to-day life.
The great works of ideology such as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, and others ... (phenomena compared to the cults of the divinity of the Roman decadent emperors and the monarchies of the end of feudalism); the crisis of the Church; the difficulty of capitalism to abandon teaching methods that for a long time were incompatible with technical needs; including the university crisis, the main center of the ruling ideology (cf. 'Le mouvement etudiant' and 'Critique' in Revolution Internationale, old Series, no 3), all of which were fatal expressions of the first symptoms of slump : the decay of ideology.
This decay in the last twelve years or so has seen an extraordinary trend among the youth. The hatred of the current generation in the modern world, which has resulted in various attempts to avoid the ‘vanity’ or attitude of confrontation, is what thousands of newspapers and media say. This 'leap forward' came late, (more than fifty years after 1914 and in the revolutionary waves of 1917-23). And one reason for this is that there is always a gap between ideological forms and the evolution of socio-economic reality. We had to wait for the arrival of a generation that did not experience World War II or experienced a violent counter-revolutionary attack after the 1917-23 revolutionary wave. More, this last development can be explained by the economic stability enjoyed as a result of the reconstruction after World War II. The first signs of weakness are not felt if several years, specifically among the youth, are the first social strata affected by the problems of unemployment.
At the philosophical level, space for ideas that say society is more 'peaceful' is shrinking. Intellectuals today recognize themselves as revolutionary or demoralized, pessimistic and indifferent. Disbelief in new ideas and mysticism has once again become a trend (cf. Revolution Internationale, old Series, no 6).
In the field of art, the downward spiral is seen in a particularly violent way, and the discussion of the evolution of art in the face of the abnormal world will continue. As in previous stages of decline, art, if it does not stop endlessly going back and forth in previous forms, stands against existing order, or often an expression of gloom.
When the world of ideas went through such turmoil, it was a sign that something had happened at the level of material production.
At the social level
With the decline of capitalism, the conflicts of the ruling class factions are growing. Although the intensification of competition between the capitals within a country has at times been mitigated by concentration (which may reach the point where the state controls the entire production process), competition at the global market level is grew up to madness:
1914-18: 20 million dead 1939-45: 50 million dead.
Since World War II, through wars of national liberation, the war between the various capitalist blocs has not stopped and resulted in an extra million dead, sacrificed on the altar of global domination. Now the capitalists can no longer squeeze enough profit to divide the world on the basis of cooperation. The collapse of past societies has resulted in the destruction of entire nations; now, it is possible the whole world will melt.
Growing struggles of the exploited class
In the 19th century the struggles of the working class were generally reformist in nature, meaning seeking to improve the condition of the class within the system (the Commune in Paris, which was a revolutionary, was more of a ‘historical accident’ than a landmark of time). In the course of these struggles, in essence the proletariat acts and is almost alone as an exploited class. With the outbreak of World War I these conflicts underwent radical transformation both to their extent and to their flesh. The growing movement is no longer just tied to some factory or a city. The whole of Europe was on fire with the most powerful proletarian movement in history. His flesh is not to reform the system but to radically overthrow it.
After three years of war, capitalism proved its historical inability to continue ensuring human development. At the same time the proletariat changed its struggle from being an exploited class to a revolutionary struggle that for the first time in history, and to a large extent, represents the candidacy of the exploited class in the leadership of humanity. Since that time, everything has changed in the ‘social terrain’ of capitalism.
The revolutionary wave in 1917-23 was defeated and the Russian proletariat, isolated and alone, tied their hands to some of their own leaders. But, despite the weight of defeat and the confusion planted by decades of Soviet experience, the 'proletarian threat', rather than disappearing, remained a reality in the life of capitalist society. Insisting on the sporadic, isolated, proletarian uprisings, and in its day-to-day struggles, the working class represents a strong presence throughout fifty years of history: all the states of the world are became organs in the defense of the workers, in other words, organs to ensure the strict suppression of the revolutionary class. The old forms of the working class organization, the unions,
And if the ‘prosperity’ after World War II convinced some people that ‘the class struggle is over’, the new enthusiasm of the workers ’struggles following 1968 around the world effectively reminded everyone of the ongoing the existence of the revolutionary working class and declared that humanity is on the brink of the most important revolutionary wave in history.
In the political field
The rise of the state is one of the clearest manifestations of the decline of previous societies. It has also been one of the main characteristics of capitalism since 1914. State capitalism, the most ubiquitous form of the system, but capitalists and bureaucrats around the world are happy to call it 'socialism', is simply the last expression of this tendency.
The state played an important role in the early days of industrial capitalism during the primitive accumulation of capital. This has led some experts to insist that modern state capitalism, particularly in underdeveloped countries, is a sign of the new development of global capitalism. However, with a little historical knowledge it is possible to understand why the state-ism of our time is different from the timely intervention of the bourgeois state in the 18th and 19th centuries.
In today's century, state-ism is no longer just a supporting aspect of the system but an ongoing and unstoppable process. His basis is no longer rooted in the struggle against the remnants of non-capitalist, feudal relations but in the struggle of capitalism against its own internal contradictions. The direct causes of the rise of the state in our time are an expression of all the difficulties resulting from the lack of capacity of capitalist production relations to adapt to the development of the productive forces. In fact, the state has reached its power now because it is the only capitalist institution with the capacity to manage the bankrupt companies; on the realization of economic centralization and on 'rationalization' imposed by the intensification of international competition in the said market in each country; the wars that took place and the preparation for wars, which became the main necessity for the continued existence of each country; ensure the unity of social mechanisms that continue to threaten fragmentation.
In short, it is the duty of the state to prevent by force (which has a monopoly) the building that is rapidly collapsing.
With state capitalism in underdeveloped countries, there is no possibility that it is less of a ulyaning form of the system than in advanced countries. These countries are not 'young capitalism', but the weakest sector of global capital. So they felt the internal contradictions of global capitalism were more violent, and so they needed to produce a more standardized system faster and more forcefully.
The case of the Soviet Union was not in conflict with the decadent nature of standardized capitalism. Here, as elsewhere, the limitations imposed by capitalism are exhausted, and the brutal measures taken by each country to keep up with the global market. These are the forms that formed the basis of the strengthening of the state. Here, as elsewhere, the weakness or lack of private capital has become the principal accelerating process. The fact that these two principal factors, in the case of Russia, were the result of a situation resulting from the failure of the proletarian revolution did not change the main contents of the problem. Specificities explain only one thing: why the Soviet Union was the first to concretize what would be the general trend around the world.
The decay of ideology, in dominant principles; rivalry in social relations at all levels; antagonisms that reach the level of periodic convulsions within the ruling class and between the ruling class and the exploited class; strengthening of the machinery of intimidation, of state, and integration of whole social life under its direct control; we see in modern capitalism all the characteristics of decaying civilization, all the characteristics of a decadent system.
But what about infrastructure, at the level of material production? As we have shown, such a phenomenon of crisis does not appear to be without a simultaneous economic downturn. From a Marxist point of view, the problems that arose in the super-structure of society in the final analysis are only signs of the crisis in material production.
From 1914 to 1939 the statistics, as we shall see, were very clear and few would deny that it was a period of stagnation. However, since the end of World War II the course of history seems to have changed dramatically; the symptoms of ‘super-structural’ plummeting continue to grow but according to existing statistics capitalism has gone through an unprecedented stage of development.
Has Marxism disappeared with the barbarism of World War II? Do we live under 'neo-capitalism'? Or are these crisis manifestations warning that the downward spiral will continue?
