Discussion Contributions on the Question of Capitalism’s Decadence

Capitalism is coming to an end. But how?
(Fredo Corvo)

Does China’s further integration into capitalism lead to its “obsolescence”?

This question is partly related to the interpretation of a quote on the development of China and India from Anton Pannekoek’s The Workers’ Councils, written during World War II. For the quote, see the online reply by C.Mcl. of November 15, 2021(1) The latter thinks that we are now experiencing this process described by Pannekoek, that capitalism is slowly entering its period of “obsolescence”; C.Mcl. prefers to use this term rather than that of the “decline” of capitalism. In my online comment of November 16, 2021 I have remarked on this:

  • that C.Mcl. ignores the fact that Pannekoek thought that capitalism would run aground if it could no longer draw on an industrial reserve army;
  • that C.Mcl. has neither examined the indications that the “surplus population”, the population dispossessed of its means of subsistence, is increasing in certain regions and possibly worldwide, rather than decreasing as Pannekoek predicted.

Did Pannekoek indeed mean that capitalism would come to an end with the integration of the many hundreds of millions, who populate the fertile river plains of East and South Asia, as wage laborers in capitalist production? In the aforementioned comment, I have referred to other texts for a further explanation of my interpretation. In particular, it is about the following excerpt: … there must also be a sufficient reservoir of humans so that, as the number of workers continues to increase, no shortage will occur. It also goes without saying that a capitalist society, which already includes all people, cannot expand any further. (2)

It seems clear to me that Pannekoek presupposes for the survival of capitalism a continuous growth of job-seeking proletarians, for which Marx at the time used the notion of an “industrial reserve army” or “surplus population”. (3) This growth is today ensured by legal and especially by illegal migration, or by the expansion of capitalist production to India and China, within the latter countries by rural-to-urban migration and the relocation of production from China to Southeast Asia, Indonesia and Ethiopia. The key question – which C.Mcl. does not ask – is therefore whether this growth in unemployed population is assured. My answer to this question, contrary to what Pannekoek thought, is: ‘yes’, there is a growing “surplus population”. The demand for a proof of my thesis of a growing surplus population is now placed upon me. For this, after some searching on the Internet – I am not an economist or a statistician – I can only refer to some sources that explain how ‘difficult’ it is to measure unemployment, how unemployment figures are distorted on a global scale by extremely narrow definitions, and finally to some statistical data. (4)

The phenomenon of surplus-population, precarity, and migratory-labor is part of the current “condition of the working class”, both regionally and globally, and deserves further examination from a historical-materialist perspective, from the science of the proletariat, in the service of – as I have noted – the vast masses who have lost their means of subsistence without finding work in capitalism, from Iraq to Chile and from Pennsylvania to South Africa” and who “cannot be satisfied with an analysis centered around the old industrial centers of world capitalism. Nor will unemployed miners and steelworkers in the U.S. be satisfied with the proposition that there has been no net loss of jobs due to the relocation of their industries to Asia.” (5)

Obviously, the current situation of the working class cannot be examined with just a few quotes from Pannekoek in 1916 and 1946. For a critique of the theory of the decadence of capitalism, Pannekoek is important because he always opposed the view that capitalism would automatically and irreparably collapse. In The Economic Necessity of Imperialism, he summarizes his critique of Luxemburg’s underpinning of the saturation of markets at the hand of Marx’s reproduction diagrams. We will not go into this further, but do point out that the ICC’s theory of decadence relies on Luxemburg’s argument. Further, Pannekoek has taken down the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as the theoretical underpinning of Grossman’s and Mattick’s crises theory as well. Instead of an automatic and irreparable collapse of capitalism, Pannekoek argues that periodic crises arise from the imbalance of economic factors inherent in capitalism. Instead of an economic necessity of imperialism, he posits a social and political necessity that follows from the power of big business. Only at the periphery of his reflections does Pannekoek speak of an end to capitalism in a then – in 1916 and 1946 respectively – distant future: by the exhaustion of the “material” conditions for the expansion of production. In 1916 these are unlimited quantitiesof raw materials in nature, in 1946 he already speaks of the raw adventurous methods of capital – which on all continents are in the process of destroying the fertility of the earth(6) Not unimportant, and even highly topical in the light of the current environmental and health crises. But here it is about the second material condition mentioned by Pannekoek that capitalism would no longer be able to fulfill, that of a labor force in “sufficient” quantities to expand production.

In the following contribution to the discussion of the decadence of capitalism, I will elaborate on the notion of the development of productive forces with Marx and Engels, with social democracy, with Bolshevism, and finally answer the question of what remains theoretically of the theory of the decadence of capitalism.

The development of productive forces with Marx and Engels

The question I have raised is whether it is true that capitalism, like all historical modes of production before it, develops according to a curve with rise, summit, and downfall? As far as I know, Marx and Engels never said anything like that. I would therefore like to see quotes from Marx and Engels that prove me wrong. What quotes from Marx and Engels are cited for this purpose relate to the further development of productive forces and their slowing down in periodic crisis. Indeed, statements can be found that capitalism would have outlived itself historically, statements … which they then have to come back to later. These mistakes of Marx and Engels, are only the counterpart of a constant in their activity, namely that from their beginnings, Marx and Engels encouraged the working class at every historical opening that presented itself (especially the revolutions of 1848, and the ‘premature’ Commune of 1871) to carry through their independent struggles as a class to the maximum, and thereby accelerate historical development, given that any ‘natural’ development of capitalism causes untold human suffering. By further development of productive forces Marx and Engels understood the development from small to large business, further industrialization and the beneficial effects this would have on the workers’ struggle. This is quite different from assuming that capitalism as a whole, as a historical mode of production, would enter into a period of irreversible decline after reaching a peak, as several theorists believed during and immediately after World War I.

As supposed evidence that Marx and Engels already spoke of a decadent period of capitalism, one often refers to Marx’s Preface to ‘Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’ (7) and to quotes from Engels’ ‘Anti-Dühring’. On closer reading, these text excerpts only articulate that the proletarian revolution, like previous revolutions, presupposes that existing class relations, instead of being conducive to the development of productive forces, become an obstacle to them, mind you …in periodic crises.

Marx explains in the Preface that after the revolutions of 1848 he had taken up his study of political economy again because of the new stage of development which this [bourgeois] society seemed to have entered with the discovery of gold in California and Australia, induced me to start again from the very beginning and to work carefully through the new material. Note that Marx is speaking here of an ascending conjuncture.

Furthermore, by saying: We abandoned the manuscript to the gnawing criticism of the mice all the more willingly since we had achieved our main purpose – self-clarification”, Marx is unmistakably referring to The German Ideology. In it, in 1845-1846, Marx and Engels summarized their view – historical materialism – much more extensively, including, not by coincidence, as the first point of their conclusions:

In the development of productive forces there comes a stage when productive forces and means of intercourse are brought into being which, under the existing relationships, only cause mischief, and are no longer productive but destructive forces (machinery and money) and connected with this a class is called forth, which has to bear all the burdens of society without enjoying its advantages, which, ousted from society, is forced into the most decided antagonism to all other classes; a class which forms the majority of all members of society, and from which emanates the consciousness of the necessity of a fundamental revolution, the communist consciousness, which may, of course, arise among the other classes too through the contemplation of the situation of this class.” (8)

Here the ‘decadence’ of capitalism or, if one wishes, its ‘obsolescence’ thus does not develop in the future, but from its inception, simultaneously with the emergence of the working class. While C.Mcl. and also Anibal situate the decadence of capitalism in the future, I hold – also for reasons which I will explain later – that it is clearer not to speak of a “period of decadence” of capitalism at all.

The development of productive forces according to social democracy

The theory of the decadence of capitalism understands the concept of “productive forces” only in a technical sense, i.e. as machines, installations, etc. If we examine, for example, the prefaces of Marx and Engels to various editions of the Communist Manifesto, we see that by productive forces they also mean the people who operate these technical means of production, the workers, and that they are particularly interested in the advantages that a further development of industry, the development from small business to large enterprises, had for the organization and consciousness of the working class. In “The Economic Necessity…” Pannekoek pointed out:

  • That this one-sidedly technical view of the development of productive forces and of a supposed slowing down thereof in a coming historical collapse of capitalism goes back to Kautsky and the Erfurt Program of the SPD.
  • That Kautsky bases this on the Depression that began 1875, even though it had been succeeded by a new blooming period since 1894. The latter was considered by revisionism – especially by Bernstein – to be perpetually crisis-free and thus a refutation of Marx’s crises theory. (9)
  • That the goal of the workers’ movement is not the development of productive forces through capitalist accumulation, the benefits of which accrue almost entirely to capital. Neither is it the concentration and awareness of the workers, because a class does not consciously impose on itself more inhuman relations in order to better cope with its future tasks.

Pannekoek’s latter statement from 1916 was directed mainly against the “social-imperialist” wing of the SPD that justified participation in World War I on the grounds that this … benefited the development of productive forces and thus prepared socialism.

The development of productive forces according to Bolshevism

It is ironic to realize that Bolshevism used the same one-sidedly technical conception of the development of productive forces to ideologically justify the party-led extreme exploitation and oppression of the Russian working class as a ‘step towards communism’. While the Russian revisionists and social-imperialists (Mensheviks) considered the development of the productive forces in Russia insufficient for a social revolution, and therefore left it to the liberal bourgeoisie, the Bolsheviks took the plunge. When the revolution in Russia became isolated, they decided to continue their governmental responsibility and to further pursue state capitalist development along the lines of … the German war economy. This, by the way, is in contrast to the views of Marx and Engels in the bourgeois revolution of 1848 in Germany, as Willy Huhn has shown. (10)

Bolshevism in all its varieties (Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism) confined the concept of capitalism to the stage of private or liberal capitalism. (11) This stage had been superseded around 1900 by the development of monopoly capitalism, the rise of Finanzkapital, by the intertwining of business with the imperialist state, in short by what was called state capitalism. (12) State capitalism – contrary to Engels’ warnings – was embraced by various currents of Bolshevism either as the economic basis of socialism (with the party dictatorship providing the political basis), as the first stage of socialism or simply as socialism. The socialism” or the bureaucratized workers states” of the Soviet Union, the countries of the Eastern Bloc, China, North Korea, (North) Vietnam, Cuba, in fact weak state capitalisms, were presented as superior to (private) “capitalism”. While “socialism” would allow for a progressive development of the technical forces of production, and thus bring full communism closer, Western (private) “capitalism” was considered in Bolshevik propaganda as an outdated system “in decline” that would exert an ever-increasing brake on the development of the forces of production.

Current groups such as the ICC, the IGCL, Emancipación’, and various organizations that consider themselves direct successors of the Italian Communist Left reject the identification of state capitalism with socialism, and endorse that state capitalism is a tendency within the capitalist mode of production as a whole. (13) By contrast, all of the aforementioned organizations adhere unabatedly to a theory of the decadence of capitalism, as proclaimed by the Comintern.

<Where they differ is in the economic explanation of this decadence, whereby they fall back on the various explanations Marx gave for the periodic or cyclical economic crises. Here for instance the CWO and the ICC compete with each other – and individuals within them – by explanations based on the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, respectively the problems of markets, which they both link in their own way to the First and Second World War, the Cold War and the proxy wars and regional wars that have been waged since then. I believe I have been clear on this point, agreeing that both explanations of the economic crisis phenomena in capitalism are “one-factor explanations while Marx, in each of his analyses of various recessions, underlined a different factor as the main cause and that all factors are interrelated.” (14) Linked to this is the demonstration by C.Mcl. of “the reality of productive orders of capitalism as determining the continued survival of capitalism.” (15)>

The background of these theories of decadence outlined above (the assumed historical superiority of state capitalism over private capitalism), in addition to holding on to the idea of bourgeois revolution, entails that interest in differences between proletarian and bourgeois revolution declined, respectively were left to Otto Rühle and his followers, such as Wagner, Brendel, and Simon. (16)

Differences between the proletarian and bourgeois revolutions

In my critique of C.Mcl. I defend a third view in addition to that of decadence since 1914, or that of a decadence in a near or distant future, namely the non-existence of a decadent period of capitalism. To this end, I point to the neglected subject of the differences between the proletarian and bourgeois revolutions.

The working class, as a non-possessing and non-exploiting class, cannot gradually develop its communist mode of production within the existing social relations. This is in contrast to the bourgeoisie, which developed the commodity society and wage labor within feudal relations. A supposed “decline” of capitalism, therefore, cannot be accompanied by a “rise” of socialism. Looking back over the more than 100 years that have passed since 1914, we must conclude that the need for accumulation has forced capital to seek a way out of multiple economic crises in new resurgences. In a decadence since 1914, humanity would have perished long ago.

As the Paris Commune showed, the working class cannot take over the bourgeois state and use it for its own purposes the way the bourgeoisie in its bourgeois revolution conquered the feudal state, transformed it according to its needs and used it for its class purposes. The same applies to taking over the top personnel of the bourgeois state, the high officials, the generals, the top bankers and their financial and (war) economic institutions as the Bolsheviks did after the October Revolution.

The separation between economics and politics of the period of private capitalism, which in the period of monopoly capitalism only continues in appearance, as well as the separation between economic and political struggles of the working class, and between economic and political organizations, is obsolete. The proletarian revolution destroys the bourgeois state and replaces production and distribution for profit purposes under wage labor by the goal of satisfying social needs through the association of free and equal producers in workers’ councils. These councils exercise an economic-political dictatorship of the proletarian masses over what remains of the exploiting and oppressive classes and all that which identifies with the restoration of capitalism. (17)

In the proletarian revolution, it is the struggling working masses who themselves determine their means of struggle and the ends of their struggle. This is in contrast to the bourgeois revolutions – or the class struggles modeled after them – in which a bourgeois minority manipulated the proletarian masses for their own ends. Bolshevism, following the example of German social democracy, assumed that without external leadership, the workers would only be capable of an ‘economic’ struggle of interests. This included the idea that social development would be the result of ‘natural’ economic laws ‘of necessity’ of capitalism, which would lead to both crises and imperialist war.

Pannekoek rejects both this mechanistic idea and that of the ‘ethical’ necessity of socialism propagated by the revisionists in favor of a view in which the revolutionary subjectivity of the proletariat is highlighted. In “The Economic Necessity …” he states material distress, worry, misery, the uncertainty of life, that compels them to struggle. Capitalist development awakens in the proletariat the desire and the will for socialism, just as it awakens in the bourgeoisie the desire and the will to preserve the existing”. And: (…) socialism will not be imposed by the fantastic big final crisis, in which capitalist production gets hopelessly stuck forever; it is nevertheless prepared for and built up a bit at a time by the real temporary crises, in which this production gets stuck every time. Each crisis gives the workers a jolt, makes them feel the unsustainability more strongly, forces them into stronger resistance and arouses a stronger will to fight. These crises are no accidental disturbances, but are part of the very mechanism of capitalist production. If they grow into a long hopeless depression, a revolutionary era with fierce class struggle will begin, which will continue to have an effect on the political transformations of later years.” (18)

In a similar way, Pannekoek argues that imperialist politics does not follow from economic necessity, but from the power that big capital of coal and steel, with its Finanzkapital, exercises over the bourgeoisie and society as a whole. On the basis of this analysis, he declares the social-pacifist policy of the party center around Kautsky to be outdated and incorrect. (19)

What remains of the decadence of capitalism?

The theory of decadence was developed in the context of World War I and the revolutions that followed. World War I was the first of several inter-imperialist wars that followed the colonialist conquest of the world market. The imperialist cycle ‘crisis–war–reconstruction–crisis’ has been linked to the cyclical crisis of capitalism in several theories. In addition, the notions of the replacement of private capitalism by “monopoly capitalism”; of Finanzkapital, of the tendency toward state capitalism, of the unification of all fractions of capital into a national capital, and into imperialist blocs, are all part of a theory of imperialism that I still consider of value to any serious Marxist analysis of economic development. The inter-imperialist war leads to important changes in the redistribution of the surplus labor that capital extorts from the international working class. War, along with the crisis and issues of environment and health, is an important part of the life of the proletariat around the world.

In his responses to various criticisms of his rejection of the decadence of capitalism since 1914, C.Mcl. states that he recognizes 1914 as an important turning point and that he understands the importance of the imperialist wars in the development of capitalism, but that he has not yet dealt with it. (20) This is unfortunately evident in a recent reflection in which he addresses Vietnam’s economic growth. (21) Vietnam’s economic growth of 5% per year since 1988 does indeed provide ammunition for combating the stupidities of the ICC. But how do we explain this growth? C.Mcl. emphasizes that this economic growth of Vietnam occurs after the devastation of the inter-imperialist war in this region only one or two generations ago. Therefor this happened in a reconstruction period, which from a quasi-zero point is generally accompanied by hefty growth rates and increases in consumption. This seems to me to confirm the imperialist cycle crisis–war–reconstruction–crisis. This cycle is also important because of Vietnam’s impending involvement in an open conflict between Chinese and U.S. imperialism. In his aforementioned reply to criticisms, C.Mcl. speaks of a new imperialist dichotomy between China and the United States, which [poses] the danger of a third world war if the proletariat [fails] to stop the armed wing of the bourgeoisie. This poses questions such as: What is meant by the armed wing of the bourgeoisie? Is there also an unarmed wing? Can the working class form a front with this unarmed wing?, etc. In Vietnam there are tensions within the bourgeoisie and the Stalinist Party over the growing Chinese influence, and at the same time strikes by Vietnamese workers in Chinese factories have taken on a partly nationalist-racist character. (22) Vagueness and ambiguity do not seem to me of any service to the workers and revolutionaries in Vietnam and elsewhere. The question of the imperialist war needs to be clarified quickly.

For all the criticism, let me emphasize again that I believe that the theory of the ‘productive orders’, mentioned only briefly in this article, and the multi-causal explanation of the economic crises [also] defended by C.Mcl. have proved themselves to be an important addition to previous achievements in the theoretical arsenal of the working class. But a theory of decadence no longer has a place in it, because it is not only contrary to reality but, in my opinion, also to the theoretical foundations of Marxism.

Fredo Corvo, January/March 2021

Source: Er komt een einde aan het kapitalisme. Maar hoe? First version published at ‘Arbeidersstemmen’, January 29, 2021.

Translation by the author (Version of March 1, 2021). Proofreading and corrections: H.C., March 11, 2021. Last edited: March 14, 2021.

Notes:

1 Also in ‘A Free Retriever’s Digest’ Vol.5 #1 (January – March 2021): Has Capitalism entered its Decadence since 1914? A Blog Discussion (November 2020), page 15 ff.

2 Anton Pannekoek, The economic necessity of imperialism (‘De Nieuwe Tijd’, 1916), Section III [Two mistakes by Luxemburg]. Also in: AFRD Vol.5 #1, page 30 ff.

3 Karl Marx, Capital Vol. 1, Ch. 25: The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. Section 3, Progressive Production of a Relative surplus population or Industrial Reserve Army.

4 Wikipedia, Reserve army of labour. In it, among other things, the statement “The ILO reports that the proportion of jobless has been steadily increasing since the beginning of the financial crisis of 2007–2008.” For statistical information see in various contributions by Jehu (whose views I do not share), in particular Jeremy Roos’ failed critique of 20th century communism , Labor Theory for (Marxist) Dummies: Part 4,and: Tracking the collapse of wage slavery in real time.

6 Translated from the Dutch language edition: P. Aartsz (Anton Pannekoek), De arbeidersraden, Amsterdam 1946, p. 81. (facsimile scan in pdf)

7 An extract from this Preface that is often seen as Marx’s synthesis of historical materialism can be found here.

8 Marx/Engels, The German Ideology, Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook. D. Proletarians and Communism, under the editorially added inter-title ‘The Necessity of the Communist Revolution’.

9 For an introduction to Rosa Luxemburg’s critique of Bernstein, see  Fasen in de ontwikkeling van het kapitalisme. In this 2016 text (Dutch language only) I do not address Pannekoek’s rebuttal of Luxemburg and still hold to a decadence of capitalism.

10 In particular, see Willy Huhn (1961), On the doctrine of the revolutionary party (1st part), also in ‘A Free Retriever’s Digest’ Vol.3 #3 (July – September 2019) p. 17 ff.

11 Today’s Trotskyists, Stalinists and even the Putin regime maintain this practice to oppose “neo-liberalism”, see, e.g., Lavrov’s remarks in response to the Navalny case on 18-1-2021.

12 Huhn has analyzed this as far as Trotskyism is concerned in Trotzki – der gescheiterte Stalin”Kap. Zur Theorie des „Arbeiterstaates“ in Rußland, § III ff. (German language)

13 But we also sometimes see that in their ‘understanding’ of the politics of the Bolsheviks, after having shown state capitalism and/or the party dictatorship to the door, they are letting them back in through the window, like the IGCL; see “Back to a State Capitalist Program. How a non-discussion reveals Bordigist positions” in: ‘A Free Retriever’s Digest’ Vol.4 #4 (October – December 2020), p.21 ff.

14 Cf.: M.R., ‘La crise qui vient’ (Spring 2016, with an actualization of 2019), available at Capitalisme & Crises Économiques. (French).

16 The trouble with these theories that assumed at the time (1917-1923) and later the wholly or partially bourgeois character of the revolutions in Russia is that they did not include in their argument the fact that after the failure of the European revolutions of 1848 Marx no longer spoke of bourgeois revolutions and that he considered Russia to be dominated by the Asian mode of production. In addition, the idea of a bourgeois revolution in Russia at the outset of the 20th Century contradicted those explanations of imperialism that emphasized the completion of the world market and the idea of slowing down the development of the productive forces, respectively, the end of the rise and flowering of capitalism. Finally, this idea can only explain the Bolsheviks’ struggle against the imperialist war from a Machiavellianism attributed to them. See: The Fatal Myth of the Bourgeois Revolution in Russia. A critique of Wagner’s ‘Theses on Bolshevism’ on the Left-wing communism website.

17 This is not only the position of the G.I.C. in ‘Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution’, but also that of Marx in his ‘Critique of the Gotha Program’ and in his ‘First Draft of The Civil War in France’. Read: 150th Anniversary of the Paris Commune – How Marx characterized the transitional period and its economic laws of motion during the Commune uprising of 1871 (‘Left-wing Communism’ site, March 14, 2021).

18 Anton Pannekoek, The Economic Necessity of Imperialism (‘De Nieuwe Tijd’, 1916), Section V [Origins of the ‘natural necessity’ of socialism and the emphasis on productive forces].

19 For Pannekoek’s complete argument, I refer the reader to the recent first English translation: The Economic Necessity of Imperialism (‘De Nieuwe Tijd’, 1916) (pdf edition available for free download at ‘Left-dis’).

21 C.Mcl., 6 November 2020: Les quatre malédictions du CCI sur la question nationale. (French language; 3rd chapter of “The Falsehoods of the ICC”)

22 See Libcom, 19 June 2018: Ongoing Struggles in Vietnam.

1 thought on “Discussion Contributions on the Question of Capitalism’s Decadence”

  1. A first reply to Fredo
    We welcome the foregoing exposition of his point of view by Fredo, partly on our request, and the first English translation of Pannekoek’s 1916 article on “the economic necessity of imperialism”, by a joint effort, as contributions to the discussion on these pages apropos of C.Mcl.’s analysis and critiques of certain conceptions of capitalism’s decadence.
    In the first place, they clarify what is meant by the rather sibylline and defiant comments we initially received from Fredo, together with a historic text that, to our knowledge, has hitherto remained unknown to readers outside of the Dutch language area.
    Having said this, we think this contribution, in a way, “surpasses” any controversy about the precise criteria and characteristics of capitalism’s decadence, and thereby supersedes the question this discussion has departed from: whether the First World War (1914 – 1918) can and must be seen as its first and irreversible historic manifestation, as its author considers any “theory of decadence (…) not only contrary to reality but (..) also to the theoretical foundations of Marxism”.
    On our part, we think the comrade is profoundly mistaken in this respect and, as a consequence, takes a departure by himself from the “theoretical foundations of Marxism” he intends to defend. To substantiate this, our first reply consists in recalling these foundations by means of some extracts from the ‘Anti-Dühring’ that, in our opinion, quite explicitly show that the founders of ‘historical materialism’ indeed considered the course of any historical mode of production as characterized by an ascending and a descending branch (see Classics of Marxism – Famous Quotes and Extracts on this site). We think this provides at least one instance, and not a minor one, that “proves [the comrade] wrong”.
    Far from considering this primordial issue, or indeed Fredo’s other and very interesting considerations and objections, as being exhausted, we reflect on a more elaborate reply.
    Henry Cinnamon, May 2021.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s