A CONFERENCE OF LEFT COMMUNISTS

Last May, at the invitation of Internationalist Perspective and Controversies, some left communists from six countries gathered in Brussels to talk and listen to each other.¹ Aside from IP, Controversies, and a few unaffiliated comrades, activists of the following were present:

Old Mole Collective

ex-FOR (Fomento Obrero Revolucionario)

Collectif Smolny

AAAP (Association Archives Anton Pannekoek)

AFRD (A Free Retriever Digest)

Bilan et Perspectives

Cercle de Discussion de sympathisants et sympathisantes de la Gauche Communiste de Paris,

Critiques Grand Large

For logistical reasons, we were not able to invite all those we would have liked to invite. Some whom we did invite were not able to come but sent written contributions (like the Spain-based group Barbaria). Some others declined our invitation, fearing that the debate would degenerate into hostile confrontation, or that the differences in positions would be too big to make meaningful discussion possible. Even some who did come to the conference had the same fears. Fortunately, among all the participants there was a willingness to hear what others had to say. Nobody tried to “win the debate”. Rather than a confrontation in which participants seek only to reinforce their own positions, there was exposure to different ideas. Nuances were expressed, not crushed. We all had the same questions and even though our answers to them varied, the general feeling was that we left this meeting “richer” than when we came.

During the past couple of years, most of us were only able to meet electronically. All of us keenly appreciated the benefits of meeting in person and the need to counter-act the general tendency toward individual isolation, from which the pro-revolutionary political milieu is not immune.

The main subject on the agenda of the first day was “the trajectory of capitalism” (the periodization of its history), not because of an academic interest in history, but because of the crucial question behind it: When are the conditions present for revolution? Revolutionaries, from Marx on, no doubt in part because of wishful thinking, have always been inclined to believe that the answer to this question was ‘now’, that their own time was the time in which capitalism had become senile, in which the necessity and possibility of its overthrow were finally there. This is also what the participants of this conference believe. But with the recognition of the presence of objective conditions for proletarian revolution comes the need to explain the absence so far of the subjective condition for revolution, to understand how capitalism manages to survive, how it has kept its grip on the minds of the proletariat and how this stranglehold can be broken.

In the past, several of the participants believed that capitalism’s decadent phase begins when it is no longer able to develop the productive forces. World war one was seen by many as the onset of that period. All at this meeting however, all recognized not only that the productive forces have continued to develop since then, but also that they did so at an accelerating pace. But they drew different conclusions.

For Mcl (Controversies) the growth of the productive forces, the rising productivity of labor, the expansion of capitalism in Asia, the increased longevity and real wages, show that the 20^th century still was a part of the ascendancy of capitalism with the implication that the conditions for revolution had not yet matured. The revolutionary subject, the international working class, like other productive forces, was still developing, still expanding and revolutionary consciousness was tempered by the globally rising living standards. Only in the present century, in his view, the period of decadence has begun. Capitalism is exhausted, it can no longer raise labor productivity, living standards are falling everywhere, it cannot find a way out of its crisis.

But most others rejected a periodization based on productivist criteria. While recognizing capitalism’s ‘progress’ in the 20^th century, they pointed to the terrible price the working class has paid for it. Yes, there was development of the forces of production but most of all, there was development of the forces of destruction. Destruction not only in the form of wars and repression but also in the degradation of our biosphere². As Victor of the Paris discussion group put it, there is no final point at which a permanent decline of capitalist production begins, accumulation is by its nature cyclical. By its own internal contradictions, contained in the value-form, capitalism is compelled to accelerated accumulation. Not a lack of growth but the ever-expanding growth of productive forces is a destructive threat to humanity and the planet itself, Link (Collective Old Moles) stated.

According to IP, it was the transition to Capital’s real domination which brought the internal contradictions of the mode of production to the surface. Others disagreed with IP’s expanded use of this concept of Marx. But for IP it is this process, which in essence is the penetration of the value-form, not only in the labor process but in the totality of society, which explains how the period changed into one of systemic crisis and destructive growth. It allows us to understand the integration of mass parties and trade unions into the fabric of capitalist society, the expansive role of the state, the subsumption and subjectivation of the working class. Others saw the transition to real domination as a process that was completed in the 19^th century, not relevant for the current period. Some questioned the need for periodization at all. It’s the same system, Pierre (ex-FOR) stated, the main change in his view being that in the 19^th century the capitalist class and the workers had a shared interest in opposing the feudal landed property, while in the 20^th century they no longer had common interests.

However all seemed to agree that 1914 was a decisive turning point, with a vastly expanded role of the state as one of its consquences. There was also agreement on the need to not look only at economic factors when analyzing capitalism’s history, but to take into account political factors, the class struggle and contingent factors as well.

The second day of the conference was devoted to the discussion of the current state of capitalism’s crisis and of the class struggle. Many issues came up, more than can be summarized here. All seemed to agree that the current systemic crisis would deepen with no way out and with devasting consequences, including interimperialist war, deteriorating living conditions, ‘natural’ catastrophies and mass migration. Comrades from France reported on the recent struggle against pension reform. While the manifestations of radicalization, including increasing denunciations of capitalism and the state, are an encouraging sign, the lack of autonomous organization is not. The unions did their usual sabotage but the failure of a general strike cannot be blamed simply on them. The working class is hesitant, fragmented, understandably afraid to take risks, confused by democratic mystifications and identity politics. In France as elsewhere. It was noted that strike activity has been going down generally since the late 1970’s. But there was no sense that the working class is defeated. One comrade pointed to theorists who question the revolutionary potential of the working class. But if the working class is not the revolutionary subject, which social force is?

The lack of strikes has not meant a lack of protest movements. Yet it is striking that almost none of the big protests of recent years was fought on a class basis. There was massive participation of proletarians in them but these struggles, even though they were about things that concern the working class, were not framed as class struggle. The Arab spring, the occupy movements, the climate protests, the Yellow Vests, the George Floyd and other anti-state repression movements, all suffered this weakness. The working class did not join these struggles as a class. One comrade thought the climate protest became so strong because of the absence of class struggle. Another pointed to the danger of frontism, because climate change affects everyone. Another warned against ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’. Indeed, it was felt that the shortage of a class war perspective of these movements should not lead us to turn away from them but rather to intervene in them, making clear that saving capitalism and saving the planet exclude each other. Is a green capitalism possible? If it’s profitable, yes, one comrade said. Another retorded: Green industries yes, green capitalism, no. For one thing, it cannot halt its addiction to fossil fuel.

Mcl pointed to the simultaneous rise of military spending, inflation and social austerity which makes the connection between crisis and war more visible. The link between climate calamities and capitalism will likewise become clearer. We must become clearer in articulating these connections and be honest about what we don’t know. But the need to intervene in struggles with solid critiques of democracy and identity politics (including nationalism) is as great as ever.

All participants thought it had been a useful meeting. We agreed that internationalist pro-revolutionary poltical groups and individuals need to break with sectarian and dogmatic attitudes, communicate better and support each other, both to sharpen our theoretical tools and to strenghten our voice. This meeting was a step in that direction. We agreed to keep contact and to organize a follow up meeting, to which more groups and individuals will be invited.

INTERNATIONALIST PERSPECTIVE

1The political criteria for participation were:

1. capitalism, from a working class point of view, is an obsolete system

2. all states and regimes are capitalist

3. trade unions are organs of the state

4. revolutionary parliamentism is empty

5. the rejection of any frontism with factions of the bourgoisie

6. the inter-imperialist nature of all wars and military conflicts

7. defense of self-organization of the working class

2 The book of the Old Mole Collective, Capitalism’s Endgame, is in this regard particularly instructive.