Communisation

[Capitalist Octopus]

For my Radical Political Thought Class we've got to the Insurrection quarter of the class. This was one of the readings this week, and I found it very interesting. Maybe because of how it was written, or because it was written recently, but I enjoyed it.

http://www.troploin.fr/textes/60-communisation-uk


What kind of tendency does this fall in to? Does anywhere here match up with it? What are some further readings in this sort of stuff? Thoughts? My professor will help of course to, but I figured I'd bounce some knowledge on here as well.

[Rooster]

Probably some left communist party supports that. I actually thought this thread would be something about this though:


Originally posted by Engels

Thus, the products now produced socially were not appropriated by those who had actually set in motion the means of production and actually produced the commodities, but by the capitalists. The means of production, and production itself, had become in essence socialized.

[...]

This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its capitalistic character, contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonisms of today. The greater the mastery obtained by the new mode of production over all important fields of production and in all manufacturing countries, the more it reduced individual production to an insignificant residuum, the more clearly was brought out the incompatibility of socialized production with capitalistic appropriation.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

[Ravachol]

Communisation is a conceptualisation of the revolutionary process opposed to a period of transition or any instantaneous idea of 'the capture of power'. It rejects, so to say, the idea that there is a 'storming of the winter palace' after which society will not yet be communist but will no longer be Capitalist either, ie. it opposes socialism, one could argue.

Communisation states that the self-emancipation of the proletariat is the collapse of Capitalism and that Capitalism is abolished BY Communism and not FOR Communism following Marx' dictum that Communism is "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence".

As such, it is proposed that the task for revolutionaries lies with taking Communist measures in the process of the class struggle at every turn, negating wage labour, the state, markets and profit to the fullest degree possible, ie. building communism through replacing all capitalist social relations with communist social relations. It is sort of a 'revolution within the revolution'.

There's links between the communisation milieu and insurrectionary thought, autonomist theory and classic anarcho-communist positions. Tiqqun, the 'invisible committee' and other such groups are exponents of communisation positions (though criticized by other parts of the milieu) as are groups like Theorie Communiste, Endnotes, Troploin, Blaumachen, etc.

Resources of interest are:

A great introduction by Troploin (http://libcom.org/library/communisation), the collective Gilles Dauve and Karl Nesic are in.

The SIC Journal (http://communisation.net/), which emerged out of a series of debates in the international 'communisation current'.

The book Communization and it's discontents (http://libcom.org/library/communization-its-discontents-contestation-critique-contemporary-struggles)

[Capitalist Octopus]

Wow, that was a great post! Thank you.

[The Douche]

Ravachol nailed it. And his reading suggestions are exactly what I was going to put up.

As for tendencies that adhere to communization theory, here in the states its got some popularity in insurrectionary anarchist circles, though I'm under the impression that some people consider themselves to have moved from insurrectionary anarchism to communization theory. But, I prefer to think of the two as complementing theories, which should be used together.

Regarding posters here who consider themselves adherents to communization theory, I would consider myself close to that school if not within it, and I don't want to speak for others, but there are a number of posters here who I would say come very close to it if they don't self-identify with it.

[Ravachol]

Ravachol nailed it. And his reading suggestions are exactly what I was going to put up.

As for tendencies that adhere to communization theory, here in the states its got some popularity in insurrectionary anarchist circles, though I'm under the impression that some people consider themselves to have moved from insurrectionary anarchism to communization theory. But, I prefer to think of the two as complementing theories, which should be used together.

Regarding posters here who consider themselves adherents to communization theory, I would consider myself close to that school if not within it, and I don't want to speak for others, but there are a number of posters here who I would say come very close to it if they don't self-identify with it.

Yeah, I'd consider myself very, very close to the communization current even though I'm active in an anarcho-syndicalist group (though it's praxis isn't very orthodox syndicalist, luckily). I'd consider it more as an overall approach to the revolutionary question suggesting a general paradigm to apply on the strategical as well as the tactical level of the struggle, rather than a mapped out, calcified 'ideology' which often comes with a form-over-content fetish (informalism in the insurrectionary case, sectorialist and workerist formalism in the syndicalist case,etc.).

[Capitalist Octopus]

Question, do you guys think it's worth reading that sort of stuff before reading some of the basic things? I mean I'm taking the course I've mentioned, I've read the Manifesto, What is to be Done, a decent amount of Luxembourg, etc. But should I wait to read that stuff in depth? Will it fly over my head without a more grounded basis?

[The Douche]

Personally, I think you're actually better off reading that stuff and then getting into the older texts. Its essentially an interpretation of Marx (relying heavily on young Marx), and the language is often easier to grasp (unless you go further into Tiqqun or TIC).

So if you read SIC journal or Dauve and then read Marx, you'll be able to see where and how they came to those conclusions from Marx.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Personally, I think you're actually better off reading that stuff and then getting into the older texts. Its essentially an interpretation of Marx (relying heavily on young Marx), and the language is often easier to grasp (unless you go further into Tiqqun or TIC).

So if you read SIC journal or Dauve and then read Marx, you'll be able to see where and how they came to those conclusions from Marx.

Interesting, sounds like a plan perhaps.
We're actually reading Tiqqun Civil War for the class right now as well.

[The Douche]

Interesting, sounds like a plan perhaps.
We're actually reading Tiqqun Civil War for the class right now as well.

Thats cool, civil war is sitting behind me at my desk right now, I've tried reading it a few times but I can't get into it.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Thats cool, civil war is sitting behind me at my desk right now, I've tried reading it a few times but I can't get into it.

The format of it is very different for sure.

In terms of communisation though, would you guys say this is the newest, and most recent trend in the far left?

[The Douche]

The format of it is very different for sure.

In terms of communisation though, would you guys say this is the newest, and most recent trend in the far left?

I'd say it has a basis in things that have gone on in the left before. I mean, it goes all the way back to Marx, but I think it mainly builds on the autonomist movements of southern europe and situationism.

I would say that it is the "cool thing" on the communist left right now though.

[The Idler]

Seems to be closely related to autonomism as stated in post above.

[human strike]

Yep, very closely related to autonomism as well as insurrectionary anarchism (though I second what Ravachol said about those two currents being complimentary). One problem is that autonomists don't always use this word 'communisation'. Personally I almost never do because as a student of history I've always associated it with the collectives of the Spanish Revolution, something slightly different. So when looking for theory and works that use the idea of communisation you have to look wider than that word - especially in a European context. I could name a number of writers you might be interested in, but one that stands out for me is John Holloway, especially his book 'Change the World Without Taking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today'. It's also interesting how situationist theory plays into it, hence the reference to the "revolution of everyday life" mentioned in the link you posted.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Yep, very closely related to autonomism as well as insurrectionary anarchism (though I second what Ravachol said about those two currents being complimentary). One problem is that autonomists don't always use this word 'communisation'. Personally I almost never do because as a student of history I've always associated it with the collectives of the Spanish Revolution, something slightly different. So when looking for theory and works that use the idea of communisation you have to look wider than that word - especially in a European context. I could name a number of writers you might be interested in, but one that stands out for me is John Holloway, especially his book 'Change the World Without Taking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today'. It's also interesting how situationist theory plays into it, hence the reference to the "revolution of everyday life" mentioned in the link you posted.

Very interesting thank you.
I actually have that book as a required reading for this class (I unfortunately haven't read it yet though). So can you provide anything more?

[human strike]

It's worth reading up on the operaismo movement in Italy and theorists like Antonio Negri. I'd also recommend 'The Revolution of Everyday Life' by Raoul Vaneigem which is not an autonomist text (it's situationist) but is an important inspiration.

[Ravachol]

It's worth reading up on the operaismo movement in Italy and theorists like Antonio Negri. I'd also recommend 'The Revolution of Everyday Life' by Raoul Vaneigem which is not an autonomist text (it's situationist) but is an important inspiration.

Yes, though it's important to point out that Operaismo started out as a left-leninist current formed in opposition to the PCI and trade-unionism. They maintained their Leninist (and, obviously, workerist) characteristics for a very long time (with the whole galaxy of groups like Lotta Continua, Potere Operaio, Avanguardia Operaia, Movemento Studentesco, etc. operating as leninist groups though with a more anti-authoritarian and theoretically different basis).

The emergence of 'autonomism' isn't as clear cut as it seems, mainly because it denotes the diffuse theoretical milieu emerging from what was termed the 'area of autonomy', consisting of various groups, collectives, squats, social centers and urban guerilla cells all identifying as 'Autonomia' or 'Autonomia Operaia'. When the galaxy of operaist groups liquidated, they either went on to join the Red Brigades or it's minor-though-still-pretty-big cousins (like Prima Linea) or they submerged in Autonomia, which gave rise to the various currents within autonomia such as Autonomia Organizatta (esentially a leninist approach to autonomy), Autonomia Diffusa, Autonomia Sociale, Autonomia Creativa or Autonomia Armata, which weren't mutually exclusive at all.

The praxis and grounding of communisation shows most correspondence to the principles of the non-leninist, more 'immediatist' currents within Autonomia who focussed on autoreduction (proletarian shopping, ticket machine sabotage,rent strikes), squatting, etc. The praxis of "living communism in the here and now" is opposed to the programmatic, leninist politics that still haunted operaismo. Negri comes close to some of these positions in "Domination and Sabotage" but completely lost track of the path later on, becoming the blablabla reformist he is today.

Vaneigem's work is indeed theoretically close, especially the concept of the 'revolution of everyday life'. Other authors who arrived at similar conclusions are people like the former Bordigist Jacques Camatte:



Communism is not a new mode of production [21] ; it is the affirmation of a new community. It is a question of being, of life, if only because there is a fundamental displacement: from generated activity to the living being who produced it. Until now men and women have been alienated by this production. They will not gain mastery over production, but will create new relations among themselves which will determine an entirely different activity.


Though he went on to become a rather depressed and cynical primitivist who retreated to a survivalist commune in the French mountains.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah a lot of people mistakenly view Italian automonism as being the same thing as, say, actions such as "proletarian shopping", but in reality a lot of it was a theoretical and reformist movement within Leninism, and many of them were uncomfortable with other forces within the Italian radical scene at that time (such as the "Metropolitan Indians" for example).

[Capitalist Octopus]

Ravachol you are incredible, thank you so much.

[human strike]

You might also find The Coming Insurrection by the Invisible Committee to be of interest.

[The Douche]

Yes, though it's important to point out that Operaismo started out as a left-leninist current formed in opposition to the PCI and trade-unionism. They maintained their Leninist (and, obviously, workerist) characteristics for a very long time (with the whole galaxy of groups like Lotta Continua, Potere Operaio, Avanguardia Operaia, Movemento Studentesco, etc. operating as leninist groups though with a more anti-authoritarian and theoretically different basis).

The emergence of 'autonomism' isn't as clear cut as it seems, mainly because it denotes the diffuse theoretical milieu emerging from what was termed the 'area of autonomy', consisting of various groups, collectives, squats, social centers and urban guerilla cells all identifying as 'Autonomia' or 'Autonomia Operaia'. When the galaxy of operaist groups liquidated, they either went on to join the Red Brigades or it's minor-though-still-pretty-big cousins (like Prima Linea) or they submerged in Autonomia, which gave rise to the various currents within autonomia such as Autonomia Organizatta (esentially a leninist approach to autonomy), Autonomia Diffusa, Autonomia Sociale, Autonomia Creativa or Autonomia Armata, which weren't mutually exclusive at all.

The praxis and grounding of communisation shows most correspondence to the principles of the non-leninist, more 'immediatist' currents within Autonomia who focussed on autoreduction (proletarian shopping, ticket machine sabotage,rent strikes), squatting, etc. The praxis of "living communism in the here and now" is opposed to the programmatic, leninist politics that still haunted operaismo. Negri comes close to some of these positions in "Domination and Sabotage" but completely lost track of the path later on, becoming the blablabla reformist he is today.

Vaneigem's work is indeed theoretically close, especially the concept of the 'revolution of everyday life'. Other authors who arrived at similar conclusions are people like the former Bordigist Jacques Camatte:



Though he went on to become a rather depressed and cynical primitivist who retreated to a survivalist commune in the French mountains.

"Wandering..." is Camatte, post-Bordiga, though.

[Thirsty Crow]

How would you say these communization currents view their own role (if any) in broader class struggle? Also, do they conceive of a definite and possible way the power of capital and the state might be broken? And connected to the first question, in what way do they think about the organizational aspects of their activity?

To be honest, I must say that fro little what I read (Blaumachen, Riff Raff etc.) it seems as if these strands of revolutionary thought tend to neglect the very real necessity of confronting the bourgeois state and tear it down (which in itself necessarily implies a transition - since the borugeois state is territorial), which also implies some thought on the basic structures of political power which could replace that of this old social order.

Though, to repeat, this is just a little impression of mine, and not a claim about the whole of this current.

[black magick hustla]

who the fuck gets paid to teach dauve. more importantly who pays to get taught dauve

[black magick hustla]

To be honest, I must say that fro little what I read (Blaumachen, Riff Raff etc.) it seems as if these strands of revolutionary thought tend to neglect the very real necessity of confronting the bourgeois state and tear it down (which in itself necessarily implies a transition - since the borugeois state is territorial), which also implies some thought on the basic structures of political power which could replace that of this old social order.
.

i think the point of communisation is not so much that they don't want to "tear the bourgeois state down" which they do, but that they don't revolution as a sort of "political coup" (even when the storming of the winter palace was sanctioned by soviets, it still was a sort of political coup). i.e., the working class can't wrestle control of the state, it has to negate it immediatedly.

[Thirsty Crow]

i think the point of communisation is not so much that they don't want to "tear the bourgeois state down" which they do, but that they don't revolution as a sort of "political coup" (even when the storming of the winter palace was sanctioned by soviets, it still was a sort of political coup). i.e., the working class can't wrestle control of the state, it has to negate it immediatedly.
Which actually implies a simultaneous construction (in laco of a better word...) of new political structures. That's my point precisely, and the question is directly related to this (I didn't wish to imply that communisation currents do not think it's necessary to destroy the bourgeois state, but rather that they seem a bit vague on all these issues).

[Book O'Dead]

For my Radical Political Thought Class we've got to the Insurrection quarter of the class.[...]




If, after a revolution, the bourgeoisie is expropriated but workers remain workers, producing in separate enterprises, dependent on their relation to that workplace for their subsistence, and exchanging with other enterprises, then whether that exchange is self-organised by the workers or given central direction by a "workers' state" means very little: the capitalist content remains, and sooner or later the distinct role or function of the capitalist will reassert itself.As if by magic.

Or maybe viral infection.

Yes, the answer to the "riddle" lies in virology and genetics!

Or maybe, quite possibly, surely or absolutely NOT.

Unless I've badly misread his/her prose, I am left with the uncomfortable impression that the author of that essay believes that by some as of yet undiscovered process, there is always the danger of capitalism and it's social evils suddenly erupting and overthrowing our lives, much like a viral contagion could in actuality.

Or maybe, since the whole thing appears a "riddle to be solved" we can imagine it to be like a bad charm flowing out a mummy's tomb when unsealed: "The Curse of The Capitalist Mummy!"[ghostly noise: Oooooooh!]

Once overthrown and replaced by the integrated socialist industrial unions o[f] the Land (SIU's, for shirt), capitalism, or what's left of it, will be reverently laid and elegantly displayed in the Reliquary of the People. Condolences and funeral reefs are always welcome there!

IOW, and to put it in a "nutshell", when was the last time anyone heard of a 'virus' escaping a museum?

[Thirsty Crow]

Unless I've badly misread his/her prose, I am left with the uncomfortable impression that the author of that essay believes that by some as of yet undiscovered process, there is always the danger of capitalism and it's social evils suddenly erupting and overthrowing our lives, much like a viral contagion could in actuality.

Well, it seems to me that you've indeed misread the quote you presented.
It's about what capital is and what are the necessary conditions and outcomes of its abolition, not about the everpresent threat of supposed capitalist restoration (once communism is achieved).

For instance, do notice the notion of the separate enteprise, which in itself implies both value production and exchange. In other words, the contention here is that expropriation of individuals does not amount to the abolition of capital. At least I think so.

[Book O'Dead]

Well, it seems to me that you've indeed misread the quote you presented.
It's about what capital is and what are the necessary conditions and outcomes of its abolition, not about the everpresent threat of supposed capitalist restoration (once communism is achieved).

For instance, do notice the notion of the separate enteprise, which in itself implies both value production and exchange. In other words, the contention here is that expropriation of individuals does not amount to the abolition of capital. At least I think so.

A contradiction in terms if capitalism is already overthrown by the working class.

However, if the article intends to critique the concept of autonomous or semi-autonomous enterprises post-socialist revolution that way, we'll all have to wait and see 'till after the revolution.

That's because autonomous worker-run enterprises, such as the exist today, will likely not survive a capitalist collapse and overthrow. In fact, I'll wager they won't even make it past the insurrectionary phase.

Capitalism will never be overthrown without an all-industry, all-working class organization that unites every classconscious worker and org. into one great, enormous, titanic, motherfucking-badass GIANT UNION, willing from the get-go & capable of wresting control and ownership of the economy from the irresponsible, suicidally selfish hands of the capitalist class and placing it square into the hands of a democratically united proletariat.

That will require that any autonomous or semi-autonomous working class organization that wants to jump into the revolutionary bandwagon (revolutionary lifeboat, depending on your metaphorical bent) will have to leave their "autos" and "semi-autos" at the door.

Comprende, amigo?

Also, by "economy" please read whatever organization of production and distribution set up by the producers to democratically govern their activities at the workplace.

[svenne]

I've also always found the views of the communization current (which i've met exclusively through the journal Riff-Raff, which is mostly influenced by Theorie Communiste) on the subject of the revolution and the post-revolutionary society kinda vague. My understanding corresponds to black magic hustla; the working class mustn't storm the winter palace, but begin the negation of the state and the capital; which implies that it must start with the communization directly - as, building communism. Instead of a transitionary society, we get the permanent revolution in a non-Trotsky way. But, the destruction (or negation, maybe) of the society as we know it is incredibly vaguely formulated, and some people's been accusing the current of primitivism.

I found the article from TC, which in swedish is called "Självorganisering och kommunisering" (self-organizing and communization) a good introduction, but i can't seem to find an english version, and the link from Riff-Raff's article is broken.

[Capitalist Octopus]

who the fuck gets paid to teach dauve. more importantly who pays to get taught dauve

Lol chill out.
There's always at least 2 readings per week, one main current one, and then a couple of other ones just for shits and giggles.

The main one has been Tiqqun the last 2/3 weeks.

[Capitalist Octopus]

i think the point of communisation is not so much that they don't want to "tear the bourgeois state down" which they do, but that they don't revolution as a sort of "political coup" (even when the storming of the winter palace was sanctioned by soviets, it still was a sort of political coup). i.e., the working class can't wrestle control of the state, it has to negate it immediatedly.

This seems pretty accurate and a good way to put it.