What do you think?
Rate this book
Aufheben: The Theory of Decline or The Decline of Theory
‘The Theory of Decline or the Decline of Theory’ is perhaps one of the more well known and popular of Aufheben’s early articles that are now long out of print. But what was also particularly significant for us, when deciding what to include in the this volume, was that ‘The Theory of Decline or the Decline of Theory’ was our first attempt, in an extended ‘theoretical’ article, to develop many of the positions, which we had only been able to sketch out in the editorial of the first Aufheben, that define where we were coming from.
Independently published edition, with no listed ISBN and no listed publisher.
Independently published edition, with no listed ISBN and no listed publisher.
253 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2021
1 person is currently reading
43 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 24, 2025
Anyone who has ever been part of the non-Stalinist Marxist left (ie Trots, councilists, and leftcoms) will likely have come across the concept of decadence at some point. And even if you're not familiar with the concept itself, you're probably familiar with its slogans such as Luxemburg’s “socialism or barbarism” or Gramsci’s slightly garbled “Now is the time of monsters…”. The concept arose in the wake of the failure of the post WW1 revolutionary wave. That section of the working class movement that had broken off from the social democrats in the second international to form the communist third international had radically changed its politics by breaking with opportunism (allying with bourgeois forces in order to obtain reforms) and national chauvinism (supporting one's own country in WW1). So far, this was the expected end result of Marxist theory. The productive capacities of society had developed beyond the productive relations and the working class had therefore risen up to take the fruits of capitalist society which had become ripe. In Russia they were even successful and managed to have an imperfect soviet democracy for several years. Given that the counter revolution eventually succeeded and communists were relegated to the sidelines again as the 1920s dragged on, what was the retrospective status of the revolutionary wave? Had they been premature and the productive forces were not really developed enough to sustain a socialist revolution? (as believed by the Mensheviks and Marxist centrists such as Kautsky). Rather than explain the failure, decadence described the condition these intransigent members of the Marxist left found themselves in where the objective conditions for revolution were believed to be present, but where there was a subjective or political failure to sustain it. Linked to this there is the separate concept of “decline”. Given that capitalism has passed its usefulness as a historically progressive force that is able to develop the factors of production, “decline” as a concept states it can from now on only have deleterious effects on human society in the forms of war, poverty and economic crisis. And moreover that these consequences of capitalism in decline will lead to a radicalisation of workers that will eventually strengthen these same organisations on the Marxist left.
This book then is a critique, not of the various strategies that these anti stalinist communists pursued in attempting to relight the fire of revolution, but of the concepts of decadence and decline themselves, while still holding to some sort of defense of this tradition and its politics in terms of trying to bring about communism in historically unfavourable conditions.
Unfortunately for someone expecting a thorough critique that they may avail themselves of, they will not find it here. And the authors warn as much, calling their work overambitious and underwrought in the introduction written about a decade after the initial publication of the articles.
There is still much of interest in the book. Firstly the historical reconstruction of the debates within this milieu is interesting and serves as a reasonable introduction to the distinctive politics of these groups. Secondly it is of interest to fans of endnotes as a voyage into its prehistory. The issues that preoccupy them (changes to the labour process and how they affect proletarian subjectivity, the difference between formal and real subsumption of labour and its effect on the periodisation of capitalism, and the LAW OF VALUE) are all touched upon and one gets a good sense of what was motivating them to think about these things at the time.
I will now summarise the different perspectives included in the book regarding the issues covered.
Orthodox Trotskyism
Especially in a British context this is the most common variant of the decadence/decline thesis. Trotsky spent the rest of his life after leaving the USSR convinced that capitalism was nearing its end (though exactly why he didn't flesh out - given what was going on during the 20s and 30s it's not an unreasonable assumption). His views were summarised in “The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the 4th International” which became the founding document of orthodox Trotskyism. Its thesis was that “The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of the revolutionary leadership”, i.e. that revolution is still on the table, we just need proper leadership and then the working class will come under our banner. In contrast to other strains of the Marxist left, Trotskyism alone shares the second international view that planning and state ownership are historically progressive developments.
SoB
Thought that Keynesianism has softened the business cycle to such an extent that there would no longer be a “final crisis” that could objectively cause a revolution. As such they focused on the day to day struggles of workers outside the official channels rather than economic analyses that only existed above the heads of workers. Focusing on these struggles they devised a politics based on the de-alienation of workers' lives by the self-management of firms. But this is a degeneration of Marx's critique of capitalism which sees capital as not just an alien force to be rejected but as also our own activity and labour directed against us.
SI
Little political economy, but important in restating against scientific Marxists, the Althussarians, the Leninists etc that revolutionary practice is the self abolition of the proletariat.
Mattick - The fundamentalist left communist
Single handedly kept Grossman’s falling rate of profit leading to collapse view alive during and after the war. Analysed it in terms of Keynesian demand management and deduced that these policies only delay the inevitable collapse, out of which a real communist movement can grow.
Mandel - The urbane Trotskyist
Affirms that we are still in a decadent phase of imperialism/monopoly capitalism (hence “Late Capitalism”), however he adds Kondratiev waves of technological change to account for periods of up and down swings.
Regulation School (Aglietta)
Challenged the view that the post war period was one of decline. Characterised it as a new “regime of accumulation” instead. The change in mode of production from pre WW1 capitalism to post WW2 capitalism was a shift from a “regime of extensive accumulation and competitive regulation” to a “regime of intensive accumulation and monopolistic regulation”. Does not see terminal crises but periods of crisis of regimes of accumulation that can lead to new regimes of accumulation.
Autonomism
Critique of the reification of labour and technology in theory of official marxism. Linked to this was the concept of the social factory where capitalist relations (not just anarchy of the market but also planning) permeates all aspects of life. Postulated a “subjective” theory of capitalism where class struggle played an important role in the life of the system, pushing capitalists to develop new technologies when worker insubordination is high. This meant that they rejected the objective theory of decline in both ways. ie it was subjective and it was not a decline, rather the working class was the motor force behind the full development of social capital in its widest sense.
Radical Chains
Combines the idea that the working class forces changes on capital from the autonomists with the ideas of the trotskyist Hillel Ticktin that changes to the mode of production must be related to the conflict between the law of value and the law of planning. Thus they see the increasing power of the working class undermining the law of value. Specifically the recognition of needs beyond the wage such as public housing and health is a sort of form of “prevention of communism”. They also recognise however that these are national agreements which break up the global working class. At the same time this “partial suspension of the law of value” is causing capitalist decline.
Aufheben
The authors like Radical Chains ideas, especially the autonomist ones, but disagree that state involvement in the social reproduction of the working class is a deviation from pure capitalism. They also disagree with the view that planning as a capitalist response to working class militancy somehow presages the supersession of the law of value and the production of communism. Aufhebens view is/was that although capitalism is necessarily a transient system, it also cannot be separated into ascendant and descendant periods, rather the decadent phases that impoverish life and the ascendant phases that create a unified class in opposition are concurrent. With that unsatisfactory conclusion, the main section of the work ends.
This book then is a critique, not of the various strategies that these anti stalinist communists pursued in attempting to relight the fire of revolution, but of the concepts of decadence and decline themselves, while still holding to some sort of defense of this tradition and its politics in terms of trying to bring about communism in historically unfavourable conditions.
Unfortunately for someone expecting a thorough critique that they may avail themselves of, they will not find it here. And the authors warn as much, calling their work overambitious and underwrought in the introduction written about a decade after the initial publication of the articles.
There is still much of interest in the book. Firstly the historical reconstruction of the debates within this milieu is interesting and serves as a reasonable introduction to the distinctive politics of these groups. Secondly it is of interest to fans of endnotes as a voyage into its prehistory. The issues that preoccupy them (changes to the labour process and how they affect proletarian subjectivity, the difference between formal and real subsumption of labour and its effect on the periodisation of capitalism, and the LAW OF VALUE) are all touched upon and one gets a good sense of what was motivating them to think about these things at the time.
I will now summarise the different perspectives included in the book regarding the issues covered.
Orthodox Trotskyism
Especially in a British context this is the most common variant of the decadence/decline thesis. Trotsky spent the rest of his life after leaving the USSR convinced that capitalism was nearing its end (though exactly why he didn't flesh out - given what was going on during the 20s and 30s it's not an unreasonable assumption). His views were summarised in “The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the 4th International” which became the founding document of orthodox Trotskyism. Its thesis was that “The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of the revolutionary leadership”, i.e. that revolution is still on the table, we just need proper leadership and then the working class will come under our banner. In contrast to other strains of the Marxist left, Trotskyism alone shares the second international view that planning and state ownership are historically progressive developments.
SoB
Thought that Keynesianism has softened the business cycle to such an extent that there would no longer be a “final crisis” that could objectively cause a revolution. As such they focused on the day to day struggles of workers outside the official channels rather than economic analyses that only existed above the heads of workers. Focusing on these struggles they devised a politics based on the de-alienation of workers' lives by the self-management of firms. But this is a degeneration of Marx's critique of capitalism which sees capital as not just an alien force to be rejected but as also our own activity and labour directed against us.
SI
Little political economy, but important in restating against scientific Marxists, the Althussarians, the Leninists etc that revolutionary practice is the self abolition of the proletariat.
Mattick - The fundamentalist left communist
Single handedly kept Grossman’s falling rate of profit leading to collapse view alive during and after the war. Analysed it in terms of Keynesian demand management and deduced that these policies only delay the inevitable collapse, out of which a real communist movement can grow.
Mandel - The urbane Trotskyist
Affirms that we are still in a decadent phase of imperialism/monopoly capitalism (hence “Late Capitalism”), however he adds Kondratiev waves of technological change to account for periods of up and down swings.
Regulation School (Aglietta)
Challenged the view that the post war period was one of decline. Characterised it as a new “regime of accumulation” instead. The change in mode of production from pre WW1 capitalism to post WW2 capitalism was a shift from a “regime of extensive accumulation and competitive regulation” to a “regime of intensive accumulation and monopolistic regulation”. Does not see terminal crises but periods of crisis of regimes of accumulation that can lead to new regimes of accumulation.
Autonomism
Critique of the reification of labour and technology in theory of official marxism. Linked to this was the concept of the social factory where capitalist relations (not just anarchy of the market but also planning) permeates all aspects of life. Postulated a “subjective” theory of capitalism where class struggle played an important role in the life of the system, pushing capitalists to develop new technologies when worker insubordination is high. This meant that they rejected the objective theory of decline in both ways. ie it was subjective and it was not a decline, rather the working class was the motor force behind the full development of social capital in its widest sense.
Radical Chains
Combines the idea that the working class forces changes on capital from the autonomists with the ideas of the trotskyist Hillel Ticktin that changes to the mode of production must be related to the conflict between the law of value and the law of planning. Thus they see the increasing power of the working class undermining the law of value. Specifically the recognition of needs beyond the wage such as public housing and health is a sort of form of “prevention of communism”. They also recognise however that these are national agreements which break up the global working class. At the same time this “partial suspension of the law of value” is causing capitalist decline.
Aufheben
The authors like Radical Chains ideas, especially the autonomist ones, but disagree that state involvement in the social reproduction of the working class is a deviation from pure capitalism. They also disagree with the view that planning as a capitalist response to working class militancy somehow presages the supersession of the law of value and the production of communism. Aufhebens view is/was that although capitalism is necessarily a transient system, it also cannot be separated into ascendant and descendant periods, rather the decadent phases that impoverish life and the ascendant phases that create a unified class in opposition are concurrent. With that unsatisfactory conclusion, the main section of the work ends.
December 10, 2025
Disfruteino moito
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews