communization theory

[black magick hustla]

First let me post two links.

For an introduction to communization from a more insurrectionist bent, read this

http://libcom.org/library/invisible-politics-introduction-contemporary-communisation-john-cunningham

for a more "marxist" viewpoint of communization read this,

http://endnotes.org.uk/texts/endnotes_1/introduction.xhtml


i havent seen a thread about communization theory. basically communization theory has two main subtexts - one is that the question of communism is a question of content, not form. and the other is that there is no such thing as a "transitional state", a communist revolution would have to start establishing communist measures from almost day one. i find the first subtext more interesting than the second, so I want to explore that a bit.

my main criticism of the left and a lot of groupings of the "pro-rev" millieu is that a lot of them are obsessed with forms. the form of the trade union, the form of the workers' council, the form of the "vanguard party", the form of "democracy" etc. but there is not enough questioning about whether this forms are contingent to specific eras and struggle cycles that do not exist anymore. i think this is problematic and one of the reasons why a lot of left groupuscules become ahistorical sects. they are obsessed with a laundry list of demands that are overtly formalistic (i.e. trotskyists calling for a confederation of socialist states in palestine lol).

i think communism is a matter of content in the sense that modes of productions contain within themselves invariant laws (i.e. the law of value for capitalism) but can take different forms. To me, the USSR and the US both fundamentally obeyed the law of value and therefore, the covenant that keeps the social order together was wage labor. However they took different forms. Or another example, while the stalinists in the USSR called themselves Communists, the insurretions of east berlin in 1953 represented more the vanguard of communism than the fossils in the politburo.

sometimes, those who get caught in forms are the counterrevolution. in october, when the anarchists tried to storm parliament and the KKE and its trade unions blocked them and made themselves seem like the vanguards of the working class because they dominate segments of the trade union and the rotting corpse of laborism, the anarchists embodied more the form of communism than they did etc.

discuss

[Die Neue Zeit]

This should be in the Theory forum.

As I said to another poster, there's organizational fetishism, and then there's organizational focus. Pardon my secular evangelism on the subject, but without organizational focus, you will never see a revolutionary period for the working class.

Before your nihilist turn, by the way, your organizational fetish was for the workers council.

Organizational focus demands a synthesis of the best elements each lesser "form" has to offer:

- Immediate trade unions were formed in opposition to craft unions, organizing active skilled and unskilled workers on the basis of industry.

- Alternative culture (including mutual aid societies) were formed primarily because of the economic and cultural conditions of the working class in the past, though they could also serve as supplementary vehicles for political education ("propaganda") and agitation.

- "Parliamentary parties" were formed on the basis of satisfying the need for class-for-itself action through working-class political (or "politico-political") representation beyond the capabilities of mere lobby groups, pressure groups, etc.

- Raw syndicates were practically formed more on the basis of how to better organize broader strike action (general strikes, mass strikes, and political strikes) than "interest aggregation of multiple non-competitive categorised units to negotiate and manage an economy" (wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism).

- "Vanguard parties," from the formation of the Comintern to Lars Lih's profoundly true and important rediscovery, formed on the basis of organizing "proletarians who stand out due to their intellectual development, and these then bring [modern socialism] into the class struggle of the proletariat where conditions allow" (Kautsky).

- Factory, other workplace committees, and federations/confederations of such organizations were formed in order to exercise supervision over management (beyond Marx and Guesde's calls for "workers statistical commissions" to be performed by trade unions), counter lockouts and/or sabotage by capitalists, planning production at the micro level (as opposed to syndicalist planning at the macro level), etc.

- Workers councils based on geographic constituency and not workplaces were formed on the need for radicalized institutions of skilled and unskilled workers to be inclusive of pensioners, disabled persons, etc.

- "Social movements" were/are formed upon mass disillusionment in existing institutions to address societal grievances.

That's where the mass party-movement comes in, on the premise that real parties are real movements and vice versa. Only it can:

- Organize in general economically active workers in skilled and unskilled occupations
- Perform key functions and perhaps all functions of a "workers statistical commission"
- Improve the culture of the working class
- Satisfy the need for class-for-itself action through independent working-class political (or "politico-political") representation
- Organize broader strike action
- Organize "proletarians who stand out due to their intellectual development, and these then bring [modern socialism] into the class struggle of the proletariat where conditions allow" and all that "Educate! Agitate! Organize!" jazz
- Exercise supervision over political and economic management
- Be inclusive of pensioners, long-term disabled persons, in addition to the usual, economically active workers in skilled and unskilled occupations
- Be based on mass disillusionment in existing institutions (outside the party-movement) to address societal grievances

PLUS

- Acknowledge in-house bureaucracy-as-process (http://www.revleft.com/vb/principled-opposition-not-t163773/index.html?p=2291339) as a means of preparatory organization, as an alternative to existing bureaucratic organs of state administration and inevitable spontaneist reliance upon specific coordinator individuals from smashed state bureaucracies

Simultaneously.


sometimes, those who get caught in forms are the counterrevolution. in october, when the anarchists tried to storm parliament and the KKE and its trade unions blocked them and made themselves seem like the vanguards of the working class because they dominate segments of the trade union and the rotting corpse of laborism, the anarchists embodied more the form of communism than they did etc.

Others pointed out problems with the KKE historically, but there's also the difference between calling people "Sellouts!" for actually selling out during a properly understood, actual revolutionary period for the working class (http://www.revleft.com/vb/kkes-actions-october-t163088/index.html?p=2277389), and calling people "Sellouts!" all the same for doing similar things even with a wrong understanding of what an actual revolutionary period for the working class is. Since you're a budding physicist, statistically speaking I am referring to Type II and Type I errors, respectively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors#Type_I_error).

I still stand by my supposed "sellout" position on May 1968 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html).

[RED DAVE]

I still stand by my supposed "sellout" position on May 1968 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html).Of course you do, and you manged to turn black magic hustla's critique into a defense of reformism.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's not a defense of reformism or vulgar "centrism," but of revolutionary centrism.

Let me put things in a very concrete US perspective: Without a mass party-movement counting 5 million US workers, and preferrably much more, as party citizens / voting members (60 million people in pre-WWI Germany vs. 300 million Americans today, so multiply the pre-WWI SPD's one million members or so by five) - among other criteria for revolutionary periods - there won't be a revolutionary period for the US working class. At best you'll see mere "regime change" scenarios.

[Savage]

The emphasis of communism as a question of content rather than form is very important, although this is certainly not something that can be attributed to the communization school alone. Produced by capital as its antithesis, communism's invariance is in that the ultimate task of abolishing value relations remains the same for the proletariat, whose condition as wage laborers is universal. Whilst the task remains the same, the specific situation and conditions of struggle will differ across the world and throughout history. This means that we can't uphold any specific form of organization to a matter of sectarian principle, with our modes of organizations determined by materiality rather than the ahistorical fetishizing of such forms.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This means that we can't uphold any specific form of organization to a matter of sectarian principle

Defending the premise of "mass party" is hardly sectarian. :closedeyes:

[Искра]

Defending the premise of "mass party" is hardly sectarian. :closedeyes:
In 21st cenutry it's utopian.

[bricolage]

Without a mass party-movement counting 5 million US workers...
More quantitative nonsense detached from any kind of social forces or material conditions. When the 'mass party-movement' gets to 4,999,999 here's hoping they can find the magic one that suddenly turns them revolutionary.

[promethean]

First let me post two links.

For an introduction to communization from a more insurrectionist bent, read this

http://libcom.org/library/invisible-politics-introduction-contemporary-communisation-john-cunningham

for a more "marxist" viewpoint of communization read this,

http://endnotes.org.uk/texts/endnotes_1/introduction.xhtml


i havent seen a thread about communization theory. basically communization theory has two main subtexts - one is that the question of communism is a question of content, not form. and the other is that there is no such thing as a "transitional state", a communist revolution would have to start establishing communist measures from almost day one. i find the first subtext more interesting than the second, so I want to explore that a bit.

my main criticism of the left and a lot of groupings of the "pro-rev" millieu is that a lot of them are obsessed with forms. the form of the trade union, the form of the workers' council, the form of the "vanguard party", the form of "democracy" etc. but there is not enough questioning about whether this forms are contingent to specific eras and struggle cycles that do not exist anymore. i think this is problematic and one of the reasons why a lot of left groupuscules become ahistorical sects. they are obsessed with a laundry list of demands that are overtly formalistic (i.e. trotskyists calling for a confederation of socialist states in palestine lol).

i think communism is a matter of content in the sense that modes of productions contain within themselves invariant laws (i.e. the law of value for capitalism) but can take different forms. To me, the USSR and the US both fundamentally obeyed the law of value and therefore, the covenant that keeps the social order together was wage labor. However they took different forms. Or another example, while the stalinists in the USSR called themselves Communists, the insurretions of east berlin in 1953 represented more the vanguard of communism than the fossils in the politburo.

sometimes, those who get caught in forms are the counterrevolution. in october, when the anarchists tried to storm parliament and the KKE and its trade unions blocked them and made themselves seem like the vanguards of the working class because they dominate segments of the trade union and the rotting corpse of laborism, the anarchists embodied more the form of communism than they did etc.

discuss
Though it is true that for communism, content matters over form, it is not clear how capitalism been restructured since the first world war to make the party or workers councils non-entities. About the transition period, the idea that communist measures can be enacted from day one is very similar to attempts at building islands of socialism within capitalism. Utopian communes and cooperatives fall in this category. To me, it seems more likely that the transition will involve a form of capitalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In 21st cenutry it's utopian.

Literally speaking "utopian" means "going nowhere." All the individual forms I criticized are more "utopian" than what I've suggested.


More quantitative nonsense detached from any kind of social forces or material conditions. When the 'mass party-movement' gets to 4,999,999 here's hoping they can find the magic one that suddenly turns them revolutionary.

Not at all. I stated "preferrably much more" afterwards. Perhaps I should have stressed "much more than 5 million workers" instead?

Anyway, you ignore quantitative and qualitative measures of political support. I don't.

[black magick hustla]

Though it is true that for communism, content matters over form, it is not clear how capitalism been restructured since the first world war to make the party or workers councils non-entities.

i do believe in the party, but it is a more naunced and flexible concept than the bordigist centralized world party






About the transition period, the idea that communist measures can be enacted from day one is very similar to attempts at building islands of socialism within capitalism. Utopian communes and cooperatives fall in this category. To me, it seems more likely that the transition will involve a form of capitalism.
not really. the viewpoint is more naunced than that. self managed cooperatives are not communist measures. the viewpoint is that direct communist measures will be part of a worldwide communizing impulse. some sort of protracted communization if you will.

[black magick hustla]

i like communization because it stresses communism as immanent to the proletariat. i think if communism will become real, it will not be because evangelists make it an appealing idea, but because it is a necessity. for example, if the economy crashes and people cannot pay for rent, they cwill probably start barricading around the apt building and communizing the place. same if capital cannot afford to keep certain jobs and industries afloat, people will have to enact communizing measures.

[Искра]

Literally speaking "utopian" means "going nowhere." All the individual forms I criticized are more "utopian" than what I've suggested.
Thank you for this definition of utopian. Now, do you realize that we don’t live in 19th century Germany where communist/socialists and working class people are just forming SPD? To create mass party today is impossible and not recognizing that fact is just playing stupid. Advocating creation of mass party means that you are just blind to present day conditions. Of course, we would all want to create mass parties and organizations, but we can’t because of conditions in which we live, because working class is more and more skeptical towards political action and more and more apathical. So, to live in 19th century instead of 21st and advocating Katusky’s SPD is utopian – it’s going nowhere.

[bricolage]

i like communization because it stresses communism as immanent to the proletariat. i think if communism will become real, it will not be because evangelists make it an appealing idea, but because it is a necessity. for example, if the economy crashes and people cannot pay for rent, they cwill probably start barricading around the apt building and communizing the place. same if capital cannot afford to keep certain jobs and industries afloat, people will have to enact communizing measures.
I agree with you that if there is to be a meaningful communist movement it will come from workers revolting against their immediate social conditions simply to secure their material interests and not because of mass socialist proselytising. That being said I'm not sure we have to wait for collapse in order for this to happen and that the process can take place in any situation. The problem with relying on economic crashes and such like is that you end up waiting and waiting for each collapse, all the while subordinating class agency to the endless march of time. History (and the present day) shows that revolts tend to accelerate when conditions are worsen but I'm not sure this has to be the only way.

[bricolage]

Not at all. I stated "preferrably much more" afterwards. Perhaps I should have stressed "much more than 5 million workers" instead?
I don't mind, it's still number games divorced from actual social dynamics.

Anyway, you ignore quantitative and qualitative measures of political support. I don't.I don't necessarily ignore them, numbers on strike for example is a meaningful way of analysing class strength. I do however ignore the idea that abstract numbers for hypothetical parties are a way of judging when to kick start a revolution.

[black magick hustla]

I agree with you that if there is to be a meaningful communist movement it will come from workers revolting against their immediate social conditions simply to secure their material interests and not because of mass socialist proselytising. That being said I'm not sure we have to wait for collapse in order for this to happen and that the process can take place in any situation. The problem with relying on economic crashes and such like is that you end up waiting and waiting for each collapse, all the while subordinating class agency to the endless march of time. History (and the present day) shows that revolts tend to accelerate when conditions are worsen but I'm not sure this has to be the only way.

i agree. that was just an example though.

[Savage]

i like communization because it stresses communism as immanent to the proletariat. i think if communism will become real, it will not be because evangelists make it an appealing idea, but because it is a necessity. for example, if the economy crashes and people cannot pay for rent, they cwill probably start barricading around the apt building and communizing the place. same if capital cannot afford to keep certain jobs and industries afloat, people will have to enact communizing measures.

Would you say then that you also uphold the second point of communization (about the transitional state) as well as the first?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thank you for this definition of utopian.

You're welcome.


Now, do you realize that we don’t live in 19th century Germany where communist/socialists and working class people are just forming SPD?

I know that.


To create mass party today is impossible and not recognizing that fact is just playing stupid. Advocating creation of mass party means that you are just blind to present day conditions. Of course, we would all want to create mass parties and organizations, but we can’t because of conditions in which we live, because working class is more and more skeptical towards political action and more and more apathical. So, to live in 19th century instead of 21st and advocating Katusky’s SPD is utopian – it’s going nowhere.

That's where I simply disagree with you. The working class cannot act as a class-for-itself save through a party-movement.

All the excuses here for ignoring forms are typical council-sympathetic, but what they really suggest is this incredulous notion that organs for "immediate revolution," if they can overcome PCF- or KKE-style obstacles, are capable of administering society. The Russian working class discovered this mistake the hard way, through continued economic inefficiencies before one-man management.

Apathy and skepticism towards political action should be overcome. If not, then genuine class struggle simply cannot arise, I'm afraid.


I don't necessarily ignore them, numbers on strike for example is a meaningful way of analysing class strength. I do however ignore the idea that abstract numbers for hypothetical parties are a way of judging when to kick start a revolution.

You downplay numbers, while I don't, because this is the difference between a popular workers revolution and an anti-democratic, minoritarian coup (just check out Insurrection's posts on "revolution" made by "essential workers," which still amounts to a mere coup).


I agree with you that if there is to be a meaningful communist movement it will come from workers revolting against their immediate social conditions simply to secure their material interests and not because of mass socialist proselytising.

Which material interests? Some can be tied to "proselytising," while others can't.


That being said I'm not sure we have to wait for collapse in order for this to happen and that the process can take place in any situation. The problem with relying on economic crashes and such like is that you end up waiting and waiting for each collapse, all the while subordinating class agency to the endless march of time. History (and the present day) shows that revolts tend to accelerate when conditions are worsen but I'm not sure this has to be the only way.

You're only partially right. Relying on economic crashes gives rise to the far-right. Revolts happen when improving conditions are much, much slower than popular expectations, not when conditions worsen (Anatomy of Revolution). The Long Depression propelled worker-class movements, while the Great Depression didn't.