robbo203
26th April 2009, 13:56
I am reproducing below part of a wider discussion in the worldincommon forum on the subject of prefigurative communistic relationships within capitalism. I would be interested to hear any comments on this "germs of communism" idea...
--- In [email protected] (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/post?postID=KLmzYXY_0PpHe2jC0U-9cdDpsCSKIfmiocgRSOQw0RmKdZ5oh2OILjZRY5xWgjomVIqL2 YW-x1EvOSYnl8-qm3uWLg), "Torgun Bullen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
Thats a very interesting discussion you posted , Torgun, thanks for that! I
think the key point was that raised by Raoul i.e.
"we must explain the absence of this class struggle and why the confrontations
of the 1970s didn't go further. This was because there was and is a lack of an
idea of what a non-capitalist society, of what the revolutionary project, could
be"
Struggle without a sense of direction, without a clear destination in mind is
merely a treadmill struggle. I think huge swathes of the left are basically
trapped in just such a treadmill going nowhere and offering no way out of
capitalism except to reform it and further statify it. In one way , it is
disheartening that, at time of severe economic crisis, when even capitalism itself is getting to be a bit of dirty word and people are even beginning totalk more favourably about "socialism", one just knows that the swing to the left which we have seen in several parts of the world recently can only signify the prospect of future disenchantments and disappointments . Unless we can break through this perpetual pendulum swing from right to left and back again from left to right, that is.
There has to be some shift in consciousness away from the dominant paradigm which visualises the future only in the narrowed-down terms of an endless oscillation between two complementary poles - the state and the market. We in the non-market anti-statist sector need to be seriously thinking of ways to facilitate this breakthrough in consciousness - a kind of lateral thinking approach.
The "germs of communism" idea is crucial in this regard, As Phillippe says in
this text non market activities help to refute "the "human nature" argument that says that humans won't do anything unless motivated by money, by a personal profit.".But there is a more positive reason for wanting to promote such activites - to gain confidence in our capacity to cooperate outside of the capitalist market. Without that confidence based on practical expereience, communism will remain simply a nice idea, an abstraction
We need therefore to develop some kind of strategic approach which charts a way forward that involves both practical experience and the direct transmission of communist ideas. Both these things need each other. Such an approach should enable us to distinguish between forms of activity - like cooperatives - that are highly vulnerable to co-option by capitalism and those - like free software- that can hold their own as prototypical communistic activities. Which is not to completely dismiss the former but to be aware of their limitations. I think
this is clear from the discussion below
Cheers
Robin
> All
>
> There has been a discussion on our forum recently about the emergence of
> socialistic relationships within capitalism (example: free software).
> I came across the following message among my saved emails, which is a
> contribution by Adam Buick on the WSM forum from 2003.
>
> By way of an introduction, Adam said:"...I also participate in another forum
> in French which has also discussed this issue as well as the question of
> whether "socialistic" economic forms can emerge within capitalism...."
> "...here's a translation of part of the minutes of a meeting of the members
> of the discussion group that took place on 18 January. Bear in mind that
> most members of the group are hard-line Marxists (former members of the ICC)
> and even Leninists (Robin Goodfellow)...."
> " For the record, I agree with the views expressed by the two Philippes.
> Adam".
>
> ****************
>
> Dom (introduction) . . . a new aspect arose with Raoul's texts on free
> software as an example of the emergence of germs of non-market
> relationships. For Raoul, the existence of an activity that is free and of
> means of production that are infinitely reproducible freely is evidence not
> only of the possibility of communism, but is itself an example of the
> presence of non-market germs within present-day society. In reply JC put
> forward the argument amongst others, that "free" software is not so free as
> that and re-situated the basic question as the problem of the change-over
> from the capitalist mode of production to communism. The Robin Goodfellow
> group also produced a reply on the question of free software, analysing the
> case of Microsoft: we were faced with an atypical case where competition was
> not leading to a fall in the monopoly price practised by the leading firm;
> the development of free software was more a question of a petty bourgeois
> response to a capitalist monopoly than evidence of communism already present
> in society.
>
> Adam: Marx said that workers' co-operatives and even limited liability
> companies were germs of socialism within capitalism because they involved
> the suppression of the individual capitalist (see Capital, Volume III,
> chapter 27). So Marx did not reject the idea that you could find germs of
> future society within capitalism, even if he was mistaken about the
> particular germs he thought he saw.
>
> Dom: At the same time Marx very firmly criticised co-operatives, rejecting
> the idea that they could be embryos of future society. This wasn't the case
> in previous societies, in which you could see the emergence of social
> relations which would later take over. Marx denied this possibility for
> communism, and there can be no argument about it.
>
> Raoul: Marx envisaged many times the role of co-operatives as an
> illustration of what certain aspects of communist society could be. But he
> always ended up by denouncing their limitations. There's a great difference
> between co-operatives and free software. Co-operatives are a microcosm
> within a commercial world which don't call into question the market logic of
> that world (see the example of the orange-producing co-operatives in
> Valencia during the Spanish Civil War) whereas the logic of free software
> does.
>
> FD: Co-operatives were an effect of the class struggle itself: an attempt by
> workers to respond by putting use-values in common. They were indeed
> co-opted by capitalism, but it was a class experience even if they could not
> have been extended to the big capitalist enterprises. The defence of
> use-values is something we share.
>
> JP (Robin Goodfellow): In our text we said that the bourgeoisie couldn't
> counter Microsoft and that the middle class had replied with Linux and free
> software. It was a response typical of the US university campus milieu.
>
> Christian: Raoul talks about non-market relations within capitalism and says
> that that's what we should be doing. I've the impression that, in the
> absence of the class struggle in the real and traditional sense, Raoul has
> latched on to something infinitely small which can give us some hope that
> we'll see something else than what exists now. I still think we need massive
> struggles.
>
> Domi: This discussion opens up for the first time an official questioning of
> Marxism.
>
> Dom: Behind this debate is indeed an abandoning of Marxism, and that's
> dramatic.
>
> FD: Free work is part of bourgeois ideology. I don't understand "free-ism"
> ("gratuitisme"). Is existing voluntary work "free-ism"? In Brussels I see a
> building which is called Troc International ("International Barter"). In
> parts of France they practise this kind of barter (LETS schemes). Do we
> consider this kind of practice as going in the direction of abolishing
> market relations? If yes, I ask: why don't we participate in them? This will
> sooner or later be co-opted, just like the idea of "direct democracy" at
> certain levels of the EU.
>
> Philippe: On free software, I'm still not convinced by the idea of a "germ
> of communism", but there is still an essential idea in what Roaul says that
> we can use in our arguments for another society being possible: free
> software is a shining example that, without the market, without wage-labour,
> we can collectively produce something important and of quality. It refutes
> the "human nature" argument that says that humans won't do anything unless
> motivated by money, by a personal profit.
>
> Raoul: I've already replied in a text to Christian who says I'm consoling
> myself for the absence of the class struggle. Precisely, we must explain the
> absence of this class struggle and why the confrontations of the 1970s
> didn't go further. This was because there was and is a lack of an idea of
> what a non-capitalist society, of what the revolutionary project, could be.
> I believe this is crucial and that the new technologies provide very
> positive elements on this. There are two aspects to this discussion: one
> concerns the subjective element, as the result of the activity of a certain
> number of professionals who have a consciousness and a desire to escape from
> some of the rules of property and exchange. The other concerns the objective
> aspect of free software: is there something fundamentally different in the
> product called "software"? Robin Goodfellow says "no": I say "yes". This
> product is freely reproducible, and it can take the form either of a means
> of production or of a means of consumption. Does that change the way of
> thinking about the possibility of communism? I think so. With software, it's
> easy to be generous: you can give without losing anything. On the basis of
> that fact, it is tempting to dream of a world based on it. There are two
> tendencies amongst the hackers which take material form as two types of
> licence for the free software: those called "open source", which insist on
> the positive aspects of free software for the development of capitalism, of
> trade, and which have a licence which allows "open software" to be
> commercialised; the other tendency, called "free software" whose licence,
> dating from 1984, forbids commercialisation and insists on the perpetuity of
> the free, non-market nature of the product. It has been said that free
> software is nothing new since it's like all science, to which access is
> free. But scientific theories are neither means of consumption nor means of
> production. Today there are as many (or more) music recordings, ie software
> as direct means of consumption, which circulate freely as are sold. Some
> "hackers" have arrived at the idea of a non-market society, without knowing
> Marx, indeed against what they know about him. It's a spectacular
> confirmation of Marxism and its dictum that "communism is not an ideal . . .
> but the real movement of society". For Marxists in general, there cannot be
> germs of a non-market society within market society. But, in history, humans
> have never gone over to a new type of society without having seen the germs
> of it, without having known in practical terms what it would be like. Yet,
> in the case of the proletarian revolution, this change is to take place
> without knowing what these new relationships will be in practice. Further,
> it is to be the work of the most ignorant and oppressed class. However, Marx
> also said, with regard to the change-over from one society to another, that
> humans don't throw away a tool without knowing what to replace it with. In
> that respect, the reality of free software is and will be a very positive
> element.
>
> Anne: So you are saying that free software both illustrates and contradicts
> Marxism?
>
> Raoul: It contradicts certain aspects of Marxism, but confirms other, more
> essential parts.
>
> Greg: These "discoveries" are very quickly co-opted by the system from a
> market point of view. In 1980-1 we had an explosion of "free" radios. 15-20
> years later the landscape has been entirely colonised by the commodity.
>
> Philippe B: The question has been presented in the form of germs (or
> premises). This question should not be confused with the objective and
> historical conditions of the new society. In Asiatic societies, for example
> China from the 10th to the 15th century, there were germs of capitalist
> society. When you speak of "germs" of communism within present-day society,
> you are suggesting that exchange-value is beginning to abolish itself. It is
> too easy to be fascinated by the "new technological society" and the
> Internet whereas this instrument has shortened the time and space of
> exchange without in any way abolishing it. Is there a tendency for things to
> become free? I'm skeptical. The fact that the software is free is counted in
> the final price of the product it is used to produce. Further, we live in a
> society where everything has to be paid for: there's talk about paying for
> water in certain countries, and why not air (as in Japan)?
>
> Dom: Exchange-value must be abolished, but Raoul speaks of free use-values.
> Can use-value being sufficiently independent so as not to be co-opted?
>
> Rose (summing up): it's not easy to sum up this discussion. The question of
> the technological revolution has joined up with the morning's discussion on
> how to envisage communism. How to integrate the idea of "germs" raises a
> fundamental problem as there is the need for a rupture at some point.
>
--- In [email protected] (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/post?postID=KLmzYXY_0PpHe2jC0U-9cdDpsCSKIfmiocgRSOQw0RmKdZ5oh2OILjZRY5xWgjomVIqL2 YW-x1EvOSYnl8-qm3uWLg), "Torgun Bullen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
Thats a very interesting discussion you posted , Torgun, thanks for that! I
think the key point was that raised by Raoul i.e.
"we must explain the absence of this class struggle and why the confrontations
of the 1970s didn't go further. This was because there was and is a lack of an
idea of what a non-capitalist society, of what the revolutionary project, could
be"
Struggle without a sense of direction, without a clear destination in mind is
merely a treadmill struggle. I think huge swathes of the left are basically
trapped in just such a treadmill going nowhere and offering no way out of
capitalism except to reform it and further statify it. In one way , it is
disheartening that, at time of severe economic crisis, when even capitalism itself is getting to be a bit of dirty word and people are even beginning totalk more favourably about "socialism", one just knows that the swing to the left which we have seen in several parts of the world recently can only signify the prospect of future disenchantments and disappointments . Unless we can break through this perpetual pendulum swing from right to left and back again from left to right, that is.
There has to be some shift in consciousness away from the dominant paradigm which visualises the future only in the narrowed-down terms of an endless oscillation between two complementary poles - the state and the market. We in the non-market anti-statist sector need to be seriously thinking of ways to facilitate this breakthrough in consciousness - a kind of lateral thinking approach.
The "germs of communism" idea is crucial in this regard, As Phillippe says in
this text non market activities help to refute "the "human nature" argument that says that humans won't do anything unless motivated by money, by a personal profit.".But there is a more positive reason for wanting to promote such activites - to gain confidence in our capacity to cooperate outside of the capitalist market. Without that confidence based on practical expereience, communism will remain simply a nice idea, an abstraction
We need therefore to develop some kind of strategic approach which charts a way forward that involves both practical experience and the direct transmission of communist ideas. Both these things need each other. Such an approach should enable us to distinguish between forms of activity - like cooperatives - that are highly vulnerable to co-option by capitalism and those - like free software- that can hold their own as prototypical communistic activities. Which is not to completely dismiss the former but to be aware of their limitations. I think
this is clear from the discussion below
Cheers
Robin
> All
>
> There has been a discussion on our forum recently about the emergence of
> socialistic relationships within capitalism (example: free software).
> I came across the following message among my saved emails, which is a
> contribution by Adam Buick on the WSM forum from 2003.
>
> By way of an introduction, Adam said:"...I also participate in another forum
> in French which has also discussed this issue as well as the question of
> whether "socialistic" economic forms can emerge within capitalism...."
> "...here's a translation of part of the minutes of a meeting of the members
> of the discussion group that took place on 18 January. Bear in mind that
> most members of the group are hard-line Marxists (former members of the ICC)
> and even Leninists (Robin Goodfellow)...."
> " For the record, I agree with the views expressed by the two Philippes.
> Adam".
>
> ****************
>
> Dom (introduction) . . . a new aspect arose with Raoul's texts on free
> software as an example of the emergence of germs of non-market
> relationships. For Raoul, the existence of an activity that is free and of
> means of production that are infinitely reproducible freely is evidence not
> only of the possibility of communism, but is itself an example of the
> presence of non-market germs within present-day society. In reply JC put
> forward the argument amongst others, that "free" software is not so free as
> that and re-situated the basic question as the problem of the change-over
> from the capitalist mode of production to communism. The Robin Goodfellow
> group also produced a reply on the question of free software, analysing the
> case of Microsoft: we were faced with an atypical case where competition was
> not leading to a fall in the monopoly price practised by the leading firm;
> the development of free software was more a question of a petty bourgeois
> response to a capitalist monopoly than evidence of communism already present
> in society.
>
> Adam: Marx said that workers' co-operatives and even limited liability
> companies were germs of socialism within capitalism because they involved
> the suppression of the individual capitalist (see Capital, Volume III,
> chapter 27). So Marx did not reject the idea that you could find germs of
> future society within capitalism, even if he was mistaken about the
> particular germs he thought he saw.
>
> Dom: At the same time Marx very firmly criticised co-operatives, rejecting
> the idea that they could be embryos of future society. This wasn't the case
> in previous societies, in which you could see the emergence of social
> relations which would later take over. Marx denied this possibility for
> communism, and there can be no argument about it.
>
> Raoul: Marx envisaged many times the role of co-operatives as an
> illustration of what certain aspects of communist society could be. But he
> always ended up by denouncing their limitations. There's a great difference
> between co-operatives and free software. Co-operatives are a microcosm
> within a commercial world which don't call into question the market logic of
> that world (see the example of the orange-producing co-operatives in
> Valencia during the Spanish Civil War) whereas the logic of free software
> does.
>
> FD: Co-operatives were an effect of the class struggle itself: an attempt by
> workers to respond by putting use-values in common. They were indeed
> co-opted by capitalism, but it was a class experience even if they could not
> have been extended to the big capitalist enterprises. The defence of
> use-values is something we share.
>
> JP (Robin Goodfellow): In our text we said that the bourgeoisie couldn't
> counter Microsoft and that the middle class had replied with Linux and free
> software. It was a response typical of the US university campus milieu.
>
> Christian: Raoul talks about non-market relations within capitalism and says
> that that's what we should be doing. I've the impression that, in the
> absence of the class struggle in the real and traditional sense, Raoul has
> latched on to something infinitely small which can give us some hope that
> we'll see something else than what exists now. I still think we need massive
> struggles.
>
> Domi: This discussion opens up for the first time an official questioning of
> Marxism.
>
> Dom: Behind this debate is indeed an abandoning of Marxism, and that's
> dramatic.
>
> FD: Free work is part of bourgeois ideology. I don't understand "free-ism"
> ("gratuitisme"). Is existing voluntary work "free-ism"? In Brussels I see a
> building which is called Troc International ("International Barter"). In
> parts of France they practise this kind of barter (LETS schemes). Do we
> consider this kind of practice as going in the direction of abolishing
> market relations? If yes, I ask: why don't we participate in them? This will
> sooner or later be co-opted, just like the idea of "direct democracy" at
> certain levels of the EU.
>
> Philippe: On free software, I'm still not convinced by the idea of a "germ
> of communism", but there is still an essential idea in what Roaul says that
> we can use in our arguments for another society being possible: free
> software is a shining example that, without the market, without wage-labour,
> we can collectively produce something important and of quality. It refutes
> the "human nature" argument that says that humans won't do anything unless
> motivated by money, by a personal profit.
>
> Raoul: I've already replied in a text to Christian who says I'm consoling
> myself for the absence of the class struggle. Precisely, we must explain the
> absence of this class struggle and why the confrontations of the 1970s
> didn't go further. This was because there was and is a lack of an idea of
> what a non-capitalist society, of what the revolutionary project, could be.
> I believe this is crucial and that the new technologies provide very
> positive elements on this. There are two aspects to this discussion: one
> concerns the subjective element, as the result of the activity of a certain
> number of professionals who have a consciousness and a desire to escape from
> some of the rules of property and exchange. The other concerns the objective
> aspect of free software: is there something fundamentally different in the
> product called "software"? Robin Goodfellow says "no": I say "yes". This
> product is freely reproducible, and it can take the form either of a means
> of production or of a means of consumption. Does that change the way of
> thinking about the possibility of communism? I think so. With software, it's
> easy to be generous: you can give without losing anything. On the basis of
> that fact, it is tempting to dream of a world based on it. There are two
> tendencies amongst the hackers which take material form as two types of
> licence for the free software: those called "open source", which insist on
> the positive aspects of free software for the development of capitalism, of
> trade, and which have a licence which allows "open software" to be
> commercialised; the other tendency, called "free software" whose licence,
> dating from 1984, forbids commercialisation and insists on the perpetuity of
> the free, non-market nature of the product. It has been said that free
> software is nothing new since it's like all science, to which access is
> free. But scientific theories are neither means of consumption nor means of
> production. Today there are as many (or more) music recordings, ie software
> as direct means of consumption, which circulate freely as are sold. Some
> "hackers" have arrived at the idea of a non-market society, without knowing
> Marx, indeed against what they know about him. It's a spectacular
> confirmation of Marxism and its dictum that "communism is not an ideal . . .
> but the real movement of society". For Marxists in general, there cannot be
> germs of a non-market society within market society. But, in history, humans
> have never gone over to a new type of society without having seen the germs
> of it, without having known in practical terms what it would be like. Yet,
> in the case of the proletarian revolution, this change is to take place
> without knowing what these new relationships will be in practice. Further,
> it is to be the work of the most ignorant and oppressed class. However, Marx
> also said, with regard to the change-over from one society to another, that
> humans don't throw away a tool without knowing what to replace it with. In
> that respect, the reality of free software is and will be a very positive
> element.
>
> Anne: So you are saying that free software both illustrates and contradicts
> Marxism?
>
> Raoul: It contradicts certain aspects of Marxism, but confirms other, more
> essential parts.
>
> Greg: These "discoveries" are very quickly co-opted by the system from a
> market point of view. In 1980-1 we had an explosion of "free" radios. 15-20
> years later the landscape has been entirely colonised by the commodity.
>
> Philippe B: The question has been presented in the form of germs (or
> premises). This question should not be confused with the objective and
> historical conditions of the new society. In Asiatic societies, for example
> China from the 10th to the 15th century, there were germs of capitalist
> society. When you speak of "germs" of communism within present-day society,
> you are suggesting that exchange-value is beginning to abolish itself. It is
> too easy to be fascinated by the "new technological society" and the
> Internet whereas this instrument has shortened the time and space of
> exchange without in any way abolishing it. Is there a tendency for things to
> become free? I'm skeptical. The fact that the software is free is counted in
> the final price of the product it is used to produce. Further, we live in a
> society where everything has to be paid for: there's talk about paying for
> water in certain countries, and why not air (as in Japan)?
>
> Dom: Exchange-value must be abolished, but Raoul speaks of free use-values.
> Can use-value being sufficiently independent so as not to be co-opted?
>
> Rose (summing up): it's not easy to sum up this discussion. The question of
> the technological revolution has joined up with the morning's discussion on
> how to envisage communism. How to integrate the idea of "germs" raises a
> fundamental problem as there is the need for a rupture at some point.
>