WELCOME TO DIRECT DEMOCRACY (COMMUNIST PARTY) WEB-SITE.

GENERAL CRISES OF CAPITALISM AND SOME “THEORIES”!

  1. General crises of capitalism begins with imperialism maturing. It is thus that its first period begins just before the IWW.

It is imperialism of monopoly capitalism that leads to the world wars amongst the imperialist powers.

Monopoly capitalism forces not only and simply imperialism upon the capitalist states, and thus the world wars amongst the imperial powers, it also give rise to the general crises of capitalism, which is the inevitable result of the fact that monopoly capitalism, imperialist capitalism is nothing but a transition to socialism, and so long as this transition does not happen crises in all spheres of life burst out.

All the crises of social life under monopoly capitalism are a result of the general crises of capitalism, and so are the proletarian revolutions! Proletarian revolutions just like all the crises of monopoly capitalism, are a necessity created by monopoly capitalism and its general crises. Monopoly capitalism leads to proletarian revolutions and to socialism.

And the proletarian revolutions in their turn further deepen the general crises of capitalism.

  1. All the crises of capitalism occur within and as a result of the General crises of capitalism. They cannot be understood one by one without the consideration of their connection to the general crises of capitalism. Without the understanding that they are part and parcel of the general crises of capitalism.

For example the periodic crises of economic life cannot be understood if the general crises of capitalism is not understood. Some people claim that these periodic economic crises follow the pattern of periodic economic crises of capitalism during Marx’s times, that is before monopoly capitalism and its general crises came to be. But already after the First World War these periodic crises changed. They occurred more often and one periodic crises led to yet another one before the previous one was over. Such occurrences could not be understood without understanding the general crises of capitalism nor could they be explained.

The crises of capitalism be it in economic sphere be it in political sphere, be it in military sphere, be it in cultural sphere can only be understood within the wider context of general crises of capitalism.

  1. Some “Theories” of General Crises of Capitalism

3.1) At the XX. Congress of CPSU, the Titoites (Trotskyites) who were planning the restoration of capitalism in the USSR attacked the views of Stalin regarding the general crises of capitalism, and thus the future development of capitalism. See “What’s in a priority” by N Sen and the documents at the section on Titoites of directdemocracy web site. All the consideration of general crises of capitalism after 1953 is directly bound up with these views and their further development by these Trotskyite collaborators of imperialist capitalism, these restorers of capitalism.

“Soviet supporting” part of the communist movement as Khrushchevites, as followers of Khrushchev and Brezhnev are thus born as distorters of the theory of general crises of capitalism and lived and continue to live as such.

3.2) There is also an “opposite” a “revolutionary” approach to the general crises of capitalism pushed forward by the so called “revolutionary” section of the movement that is the “Chinese” or Castroist section. These are also nothing but Titoite Trotskyites and thus compromisers with imperialism and restorers of capitalism. Well, to the extent that they claim to have built socialism!

This “revolutionary” approach to the general crises of capitalism and further development of capitalism declare that imperialism is in general crises and that means revolution is on the agenda.

So far it is correct. For imperialism, and thus its general crises does indeed mean that the imperialist system is ready for the proletarian revolution-all the talk of Kautskyites regarding a country not being ready for a proletarian revolution for its capitalism has not yet developed enough, that the workers are not yet the majority etc., etc., is an attempt to hide the fact the imperialism as a system is ready for proletarian revolution, relative backwardness of capitalism in one of the chains of the imperialist system cannot stop it having a proletarian revolution, if it is one of the week links of imperialism-such was the situation in Russia before and during October revolution!

But the problem is that these “revolutionary” sections of the movement, these opponents of Soviet section of the movement are not talking of this approach to the general crises of capitalism and thus to the weak link of imperialist chain.

They are declaring that imperialism is in general crises and thus one must start making “revolution” all over the imperialist chain. For everything is ready to make “revolution”.

In other words every link in the imperialist chain is the weak link, according to this “revolutionary theory”.

This “revolutionary theory” further divides into two.

According to one version all the countries are ready for the revolution that is all the countries are the weak link. Time for the revolution in all countries.

According to another version, although the whole world is ready for the revolution and all the countries are the weak link here and now, the backward countries, the countryside of the world, is more ready for revolution, or this can change as capitalistically developed countries are not yet ready for the revolution (are not yet the weakest link) but capitalistically not developed (the less developed the better) countries are ready for revolution, a revolutionary uprising must start here and now for they are all the weakest link of the imperialist chain! (one can of course also come up with the theory that capitalistically less developed part of a country has got better chance of making a “revolution” and thus one must go and start making revolution in the less developed part of the country.)

There is of course nothing new about these “theories” for they are very old and had already been exposed (Note 1)

(Note 1; “A NECESSARY CORRECTION

According to Bukharin, the imperialist front breaks where the national-economic system is weakest. That, of course, is untrue. If it were true, the proletarian revolution would have begun not in Russia, but somewhere in Central Africa. The “Introductory Essay on Leninism,” however, says something that is the very opposite of Bukharin’s thesis, namely, that the imperialist chain breaks where it (the chain) is weakest. And that is quite true. The chain of world imperialism breaks in a particular country precisely because it is in that country that it (the chain) is weakest at the particular moment. Otherwise, it would not break. Otherwise, the Mensheviks would be right in their fight against Leninism.

And what determines the weakness of the imperialist chain in a particular country? The existence of a certain minimum of industrial development and cultural level in that country. The existence in that country of a certain minimum of an industrial proletariat. The revolutionary spirit of the proletariat and of the proletarian vanguard in that country. The existence in

that country of a substantial ally of the proletariat (the peasantry, for example), an ally capable of following the proletariat in a determined struggle against imperialism. Hence, a combination of conditions which render the isolation and overthrow of imperialism in that country inevitable.

Pravda, No. 298, December 18, 1929

Signed: J. St)

3.3) We can thus see that both “wings” of the movement (Soviet and Chinese-and the Cheists) are distorters of our theory of general crises of capitalism and thus our theory of the weakest link of imperialism.

3.4) The latest contribution to the distortions of our theory as regards general crises of capitalism is as follows.

It claims that general crises of capitalism can only occur if there is a victorious proletarian revolution, and thus if there is socialism. No socialism, no general crises of capitalism. Since in 1956 revisionists took over USSR, and that meant bureaucrat bourgeois took over the running of USSR, and thus USSR became a state capitalist country in 1956 (this of course can be called “the 1956 version” of Trotskyites theorise of restoration of capitalism in the USSR) and thus and since there is no longer socialism in the world, there is also no longer a general crises of capitalism either.

This “theory” hides the fact that general crises of capitalism is a product of monopoly-imperialist capitalism, and it is imperialism with its general crises that leads to the proletarian revolutions. It is a distortion that is bound to lead its proponents to many other distortions of all our theories re imperialism, weakest link of imperialist chain, proletarian revolutions and thus building of socialism-communism. Well, it is itself actually one of the result of many a distortion in these areas that the proponents of this theory already propagate.

The creators of this “theory” may feel they have a “very good reason” for coming up with it. For it was most likely created to counter the “Maoists” “Chinese” line as regards general crises of capitalism, and thus the “theory of revolution” we have referred to at section 3.2.

It may be that what caused these comrades to come up with this theory of general crises of capitalism coming to an end in 1956, is mainly the desire to counter this Maoist theory of revolution and the reference to general crises of capitalism in this Maoist theory. But what ley at the root of it are their many and varied Titoite - Trotskyite distortions of our theory of proletarian revolution and building of socialism-communism which is part and parcel of our theory of proletarian revolution!