The Commie Commodity

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The Inspiration for this piece actually came from the comrade I quoted at the beginning of the entry. As the Spectacle of the Society becomes more thick and powerful and the cyber-world the place where most people spend their time, it is increasingly apparent, as it has been for some time, that basic leftist ideas (worker councils/Soviets) have become obstructed to newcomers who are absorbed in this culture of materialism.

Though this materialism is to be expected from capitalists and capitalist society at large, does the equation change any when it is leftist themed merchandise? Is it permissible to encourage the growth of such enterprises under such auspices?

In the entry I do not give much of my own opinion but this has been a topic that has fascinated me for a while. I would like to hear comrades thoughts on leftist commodity materialism, lifestylism, and such related concepts.




“It is true that once upon a time, "Soviet" had a different meaning. It was without the indication it has now. But as time grew onward, and the war against the old ways raged on, it took on a new meaning. This is the problem today. People don't understand what it means. Soviet doesn't mean specifically Russian. Soviet doesn't mean you were once a legal citizen of the USSR. It is a lifestyle. A culture. And a movement at the same time. To be a Soviet means you are a true, pure Marx Leninist who understands the dire situation and the need to form a Soviet Vanguard. That understands and credits the USSR for what it truly was. That seeks to re-establish the soviet system through workers revolution. Not many can call themselves soviet today. We have to search them out.” –Anonymous comrade on “Modern Soviets”.



In recent decades the idea of communism has become commoditized. Persons who advocate the destruction of the capitalist system eagerly purchase leftist themed T-shirts, stickers, coffee mugs, cell phone cases, jewelry, and anything else they can find. One will see not only teenagers wearing Che Guevara shirts but adults toting the beauty of their latest item if it has a revolutionary emblazoned on its body. Is this not the antithesis of what revolutionary Leftism is about; how did this happen?

A great reason for how this trend began when Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick cobbled together an image of Che Guevara based on Alberto Korda's famous 1960 photograph titled Guerrillero Heroico. Once this image was produced its popularity skyrocketed. Thanks to the iconic nature of the image, and it’s easy to copy interface, it was quickly slapped on everything from clothing to mouse pads. Since then comrade Che’s image has been used in ways which would have disgusted him had he been alive to see it.

As counterproductive this was such blatant misrepresentation only grew worse as time marched forward. With the introduction of websites (Zazzle, Café Press, etc) where persons can create generic custom made products, the production reached a frenzy pitch. Gone were the days where Che was canonized now we see everyone from Lenin to Chomsky on backpacks, key chains, hoodies, posters and more.

As sad as it seems there seems to be no end to the madness.

The reason for this turn of events lies in a concept many on the modern Left are not aware of: recuperation. Though it is a Situationist concept it is important for its use to the bourgeoisie. Simply phrased Recuperation is where the bourgeoisie integrates a once dangerous factor into its own system so as to render it harmless. The revolutionary anti-capitalist icons of the past that are now being used to make money for the exploiting class are a perfect example of such modern usage.

So the question for our generation is this: is this commoditization a positive thing? Could it be used by Leftists to further the revolution, could it be used to inspire others, is it incompatible with being “good” revolutionists, or would it make us revisionist bourgeois sympathizers? But most importantly, does the commodification of such figures constitute a lifestyle and if it does should we encourage its growth or work towards its destruction?
Source: http://thequeerproject.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/the-commie-commodity/

[citizen of industry]

So, to buy or not to buy "communist goods." I'd feel like a tool wearing a che t-shirt. I-phone covers with stars or whatever make me want to puke. None of the communists, anarchists or syndicalists I know wear anything that reflects their politics., all of them dress differently and yet more alike as they age. Who buys this stuff? The commodity I do buy is books, from a capitalist producer if it is available on the cheap, or from a lefty publisher if I can't find it.

Anyway, with symbology Trotsky made an interesting observation that as revolution is collective, individual acts make poor images. If I painted your picture, would it be romantic? And yet, revolutions are so powerful their symbology is still popular decades or centuries later.

[The Douche]

I can't get over the fact that the quoted individual presumes to tell us "nobody knows what a soviet is any more", but then when he attempts to inform us, he is wrong.

[citizen of industry]

I can't get over the fact that the quoted individual presumes to tell us "nobody knows what a soviet is any more", but then when he attempts to inform us, he is wrong.

The soviet as a "true, pure Marxist-Leninist vanguard." :laugh:

[Rusty Shackleford]

a soviet is a workers' council, not a lifestyle label.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

a soviet is a workers' council, not a lifestyle label.

Interestingly enough when I gave my response to his lifestyle mumbo-jumbo he never responded. Actually kinda a shame since I was looking forward to seeing how he could further degenerate leftist ideas.lol

[human strike]

I don't feel the OP goes far enough. Leftist ideologies themselves are commodified. Identities, tendencies, newspapers and lifestyles become products to be consumed. It is why in the past I have repeatedly called RevLeft the 'Ideological Supermarket'. Users browse these forums as if they were aisles and shelves in a virtual marketplace. Varying tendencies are offered as wares to be subcribed to, bought and sold. It is revolutionary consumerism. Roleplay revolution, if you like, where we watch struggle from the other side of a shop window wearing this or that costume we have bought, and by that I mean, yes, the actual T-shirts, flags and newspapers, but also the labels, lanuages, lifestyles and looks. The Situationists talked a lot about socialist militants in this context. The spectacle offers us these roles and identities and we all too willingly lap them up. It represents capital within anti-capitalism and, for me, a major problem.

[citizen of industry]

I don't feel the OP goes far enough. Leftist ideologies themselves are commodified. Identities, tendencies, newspapers and lifestyles become products to be consumed. It is why in the past I have repeatedly called RevLeft the 'Ideological Supermarket'. Users browse these forums as if they were aisles and shelves in a virtual marketplace. Varying tendencies are offered as wares to be subcribed to, bought and sold. It is revolutionary consumerism. Roleplay revolution, if you like, where we watch struggle from the other side of a shop window wearing this or that costume we have bought, and by that I mean, yes, the actual T-shirts, flags and newspapers, but also the labels, lanuages, lifestyles and looks. The Situationists talked a lot about socialist militants in this context. The spectacle offers us these roles and identities and we all too willingly lap them up. It represents capital within anti-capitalism and, for me, a major problem.

I see Revleft as more of a place I go when drunk to entertain myself than an "ideological supermarket." What are these languages, lifestyles and looks?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with GS's analysis. I think most people come here with their minds already made up about what they believe vis-a-vis politics. Some might come here to learn, or some might change their minds, but I don't think this site operates in the manner described above. I don't think ideology is a commodity, either. The trappings of ideology are certainly commodities, but thoughts themselves are not.

[Ostrinski]

I have a Che banner.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I have a Che shirt and an Anarchy shirt, though I bought them mostly to troll people(Especially the anarchy symbol as a lot of people actually think it means anti-christ lol:laugh:). It's always been "cool" to be rebellious, it's something that companies have always commodified. Rage Against the Machine sold millions of records decrying the capitalist imperialist system. Does it make them a bad band because they made it big, made it mainstream? I think it's all how the person involved interprets the product, some people see a shirt with Che's image on it and feel inspired, some people see a shirt with Che's image on it and think it's some cool fashion statement. I see a Che shirt and see neither but that's just me.

[cynicles]

I don't feel the OP goes far enough. Leftist ideologies themselves are commodified. Identities, tendencies, newspapers and lifestyles become products to be consumed. It is why in the past I have repeatedly called RevLeft the 'Ideological Supermarket'. Users browse these forums as if they were aisles and shelves in a virtual marketplace. Varying tendencies are offered as wares to be subcribed to, bought and sold. It is revolutionary consumerism. Roleplay revolution, if you like, where we watch struggle from the other side of a shop window wearing this or that costume we have bought, and by that I mean, yes, the actual T-shirts, flags and newspapers, but also the labels, lanuages, lifestyles and looks. The Situationists talked a lot about socialist militants in this context. The spectacle offers us these roles and identities and we all too willingly lap them up. It represents capital within anti-capitalism and, for me, a major problem.
Then why are you on these forums if you feel that way?

[human strike]

Then why are you on these forums if you feel that way?

Because I'm generalising. And anyway, the same is true in leftist movements off this forum. When it comes to problems in anti-capitalism one can either purge others, purge oneself, or work at another way of fixing the problem from within the movement.

[Mr. Natural]

Under the present system and ways of thinking, a "communist commodity" becomes a gross contradiction. Communist commodities would not be produced for profit, but for use, and you would not be able to "buy" Che Guevara and pose with his revolutionary character and politics by purchasing a tee shirt.

The OP refers to "Recuperation" as a Situationist concept and defines it as: "Recuperation is where the bourgeoisie integrates a once dangerous factor into its own system so as to render it harmless." I find this concept to be much too reliant on a ruling class human agency that has largely disappeared as The System increasingly makes all decisions.

Among other things, I'm a systems-complexity theorist, and The System and its values, practices, and institutions now rules the human species. Humanity has been mentally as well as physically captured within a global capitalism, and it is The System that is turning all aspects of our lives into commodities and commodity relations.

As The System has converted the proletariat into an instrument of its own destruction, the capitalist commodification of other revolutionary themes and persons shouldn't be a surprise.

Capitalism rules, and what is left of the left has become conservative and passive. Marx and Engels would be appallled at the present state of Marxism, and I believe they would have already engaged the new sciences of the organization of life (thus society), and Marxism and revolutionary processes would be alive and well today.

Marxism is not a museum piece. Marxism actively engages life, and the new sciences of life's organization would bring a moribund left back to life if "revolutionaries" could find some way to confront their retro conservativism and bring Marxism up to date.

Marx and Engels would approve. Engels: "Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force." My red-green best.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Mr. Natural I've asked you numerous times what you're talking about when you start talking about the "new sciences of life organization" and have asked you to expand on that only to be met with complete and utter silence. So please stop with this we're conservative and you're so open-minded game you play.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't feel the OP goes far enough. Leftist ideologies themselves are commodified. Identities, tendencies, newspapers and lifestyles become products to be consumed. It is why in the past I have repeatedly called RevLeft the 'Ideological Supermarket'. Users browse these forums as if they were aisles and shelves in a virtual marketplace. Varying tendencies are offered as wares to be subcribed to, bought and sold. It is revolutionary consumerism. Roleplay revolution, if you like, where we watch struggle from the other side of a shop window wearing this or that costume we have bought, and by that I mean, yes, the actual T-shirts, flags and newspapers, but also the labels, lanuages, lifestyles and looks. The Situationists talked a lot about socialist militants in this context. The spectacle offers us these roles and identities and we all too willingly lap them up. It represents capital within anti-capitalism and, for me, a major problem.

Except that "commodification" implies that things are being bought and sold. I'd warrant that most people who come to these forums haven't spent a thin dime on whatever ideology they've chosen. Certainly I haven't.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Except that "commodification" implies that things are being bought and sold. I'd warrant that most people who come to these forums haven't spent a thin dime on whatever ideology they've chosen. Certainly I haven't. What, never bought a book from Verso? AK press?

[Mr. Natural]

A Revolutionary Tool, We've tangled before on a thread where I was emphasizing the effect capitalist globalization and other developments have had on the prospects for a classic "proletariat vs. bourgeoisie" revolutionary process. I wrote that revolutionaries needed to merge Marxism and the new sciences of organization into new, effective revolutionary sensibilities and processes.

Our major beef in this thread was your rejection of my notion that the bourgeoisie now works for capitalism and that the human species in its entirety faces ruin and extinction. Well, it is obviously true to me that the ruling class now "rules" within capitalism's rules, is faced with extinction along with the rest of us, and is at the least qualitatively--humanly-- immiserated by capitalist relations.

I also noted that historically, revolutionary leaders have come from the upper echelons of society. Marx, Engels, Mao, Trotsky, Lenin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, were all from privileged backgrounds, but I'm not making a fetish of the upper classes replacing an outmoded working class revolution. I'm just looking at present realities in order to develop viable radical counters to capitalism, and the stark present reality is that we are all faced with imminent destruction.

I'm saying that the entire human species, with its minor and major divisions, now works for a capitalist system that is cashing us all in. Capitalism's globalization means that it has systemically enveloped Earth and all its life forms.

So what are these new sciences of organization you claimed I was pulling out of my ass in that earlier thread? I had mentioned systems-complexity science, but didn't go into further detail. This is in contrast to my usual posts, which are full of details of the new science(s) and insistently recommend reading Fritjof Capra's Web of Life (1996).

Science prior to the 19th century was a reductive science of separate things. This science even separated the mind from the body. Then came Darwin's evolutionary theory, which showed life had history, relations, and organization. Evolution was thus the first of the "new sciences of organization," and Marx and Engels jumped all over it.

The organizational relations of life and society were "in the 19th century air," and the relational, organizational sciences that followed evolution include the new physics with its mindblowing challenges to human comprehension, cosmology, cybernetics, general systems theory, chaos theory, and the culmination of these sciences: systems-complexity theory. The theoretical scientist, Fritjof Capra, then brought this science down to Earth for popular understanding in his masterwork, The Web of Life.

However, reductive science and minds still rule. For that matter, human perception/consciousness is inherently reductive and conservative. Humans can't see the critical organizational relations that underly life and society, and so we neglect them. And surely all of us know that new ideas always receive a chilly, conservative reception.

A prominent example of the reductive conservatism of modern science and minds is molecular biology, where the gene is the thing--the only thing. Yet a gene is nothing but a bit of dust unless organized into a genome.

Well, A Revolutionary Tool, are you a scientific socialist, as were Marx and Engels? If you are, read The Web of Life and apply life's organizational relations to human society as you go. Marx and Engels are unable to do this, and so it's up to those who call themselves Marxists to keep Marxism up to date and relevant to revolution.

The new sciences I insist Marxists must engage are not pulled from my ass. They have been laboriously pulled by scientists from the unseen organizational relations of life (thus society), and now it's time for Marxists to pull their heads out of their asses.

My red-green best.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What, never bought a book from Verso? AK press?

Nope, although I might have once or twice paid for one of those little black and white booklets they sell at the Anarchist Bookfair, which are basically bumper-size pamphlets. The stuff I learned about leftism I have acquired through free resources on the internet (marxists.org, anarchist websites and so on), library books, debating with others, and whatever other no-cost sources of information I may have accessed at any point.

Besides, I wouldn't really consider buying a book to constitute "commodification" unless it was bought simply to look good sitting on one's shelf.

Considering that under capitalism it is inevitable that money changes hands at some point, I don't think the accusation of "commodification" stands unless the buying and selling is being done for shallow reasons as I alluded to above.

[o well this is ok I guess]

although I might have once or twice paid for one of those little black and white booklets they sell at the Anarchist Bookfair, which are basically bumper-size pamphlets. Those don't count. Those are like at most two bucks, and the cost is usually as close as possible to the cost of production. So, congratulations, you've got more integrity than most people here (myself included). I am genuinely impressed.


Besides, I wouldn't really consider buying a book to constitute "commodification" unless it was bought simply to look good sitting on one's shelf.

Considering that under capitalism it is inevitable that money changes hands at some point, I don't think the accusation of "commodification" stands unless the buying and selling is being done for shallow reasons as I alluded to above. Books are not all created equal, nor are equal books priced equally.
For example, I have both "Society of the Spectacle" and "Comments on the Society of the Spectacle". The former is from Black & Red, and latter is from Verso. The first one costs 10 bucks, the second one costs 20. Another Verso book in my possession is "Revolution at the Gates", a selection of Lenin's writings from 1917 with a few essays from Slavoj Zizzy Mcbeardy. If I had paid for it, it would have set me back 32 bucks. Books put out for the sole purpose of being read are surprisingly cheap (no matter how much some may hate crimethinc, they can't deny they price their shit good). Books sold for profit, however, are much more expensive. And what makes Verso unique is that their prices are almost universally higher than your average run of the mill publishing company.
So either they've got some wicked overhead costs or they're making a killing off critical theory.

[Ocean Seal]

Except that "commodification" implies that things are being bought and sold. I'd warrant that most people who come to these forums haven't spent a thin dime on whatever ideology they've chosen. Certainly I haven't.
I've spent some money buying communist paraphernalia. But hey, I think its pretty cool to have it (not like the tankies who buy soviet era guns but I mean like Che shirts and red flags). I mean hey I need to wear clothes right, so why not commie clothes.

[o well this is ok I guess]

not like the tankies who buy soviet era gun yo what the fuck man
nothing wrong with buying soviet guns. Moist Nuggets are dirt cheap.

[Robocommie]

yo what the fuck man
nothing wrong with buying soviet guns. Moist Nuggets are dirt cheap.

Hell yeah, can't be a gangsta without my AK

http://www.lataco.com/taco/wp-content/uploads/ice-cube-AK47.jpg

[human strike]

The OP refers to "Recuperation" as a Situationist concept and defines it as: "Recuperation is where the bourgeoisie integrates a once dangerous factor into its own system so as to render it harmless." I find this concept to be much too reliant on a ruling class human agency... .

Debord describes recuperation as being led by the spectacle rather than a ruling class human agency.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Those don't count. Those are like at most two bucks, and the cost is usually as close as possible to the cost of production. So, congratulations, you've got more integrity than most people here (myself included). I am genuinely impressed.

I have integrity because I'm a cheapskate? How does that work?


Books are not all created equal, nor are equal books priced equally.
For example, I have both "Society of the Spectacle" and "Comments on the Society of the Spectacle". The former is from Black & Red, and latter is from Verso. The first one costs 10 bucks, the second one costs 20. Another Verso book in my possession is "Revolution at the Gates", a selection of Lenin's writings from 1917 with a few essays from Slavoj Zizzy Mcbeardy. If I had paid for it, it would have set me back 32 bucks. Books put out for the sole purpose of being read are surprisingly cheap (no matter how much some may hate crimethinc, they can't deny they price their shit good). Books sold for profit, however, are much more expensive. And what makes Verso unique is that their prices are almost universally higher than your average run of the mill publishing company.
So either they've got some wicked overhead costs or they're making a killing off critical theory.

Isn't it more expensive per book to print small runs of a work than it is to print warehouses full of the stuff? In other words, isn't the expense of niche (at least relatively speaking) leftist books down to economies of scale?


I've spent some money buying communist paraphernalia. But hey, I think its pretty cool to have it (not like the tankies who buy soviet era guns but I mean like Che shirts and red flags). I mean hey I need to wear clothes right, so why not commie clothes.

I bought a small bag of little metal Soviet pins once, but I've since lost them all (like what happens to an awful lot of the small bits of tat that I typically buy on impulse). I don't think I ever got around to wearing them much, but they were cheap and I would probably buy them again if I ever come across a place that sells them. If I remember correctly I got them during a visit to the Secret Nuclear Bunker (http://www.secretnuclearbunker.com/), a cool place which one should definitely visit if one has any interest in the Cold War or nuclear warfare.

[Mr. Natural]

General Strike, My grasp of the postmodernists and Situationism isn't what it probably should be. We seem to be in agreement, though, that the ruling class no longer makes the big decisions for a capitalism that is in systemic control of life and society.

And Guy Debord agrees with us: "The spectacle is the moment when the commodity has attained the total occupation of social life." (quoted in an essay by Steven Best and Douglas Kellner.)

Indeed, a global capitalism has systemically commodified human and nonhuman life on Earth, and anarchism/Marxism must revise antiquated theories and develop new revolutionary processes in response. This has not happened. That's our job, and it is well past time for us to go to work on this.

My red-green best.

[moves]

Mr Natural, could you translate all your posts in this thread to English? I and many other members of this forum don't speak postmodern academic masturbatory language.

Revolutionaries need to shun hermeticism, after all.

[citizen of industry]

General Strike, My grasp of the postmodernists and Situationism isn't what it probably should be. We seem to be in agreement, though, that the ruling class no longer makes the big decisions for a capitalism that is in systemic control of life and society.

And Guy Debord agrees with us: "The spectacle is the moment when the commodity has attained the total occupation of social life." (quoted in an essay by Steven Best and Douglas Kellner.)

Indeed, a global capitalism has systemically commodified human and nonhuman life on Earth, and anarchism/Marxism must revise antiquated theories and develop new revolutionary processes in response. This has not happened. That's our job, and it is well past time for us to go to work on this.

My red-green best.

Didn't some guy named Marx write something similar to that 160 years ago?

[Prometeo liberado]

I've spent some money buying communist paraphernalia. But hey, I think its pretty cool to have it (not like the tankies who buy soviet era guns but I mean like Che shirts and red flags). I mean hey I need to wear clothes right, so why not commie clothes.

I knew you had a Che t-shirt! I recently invested in a DPRK baseball shirt. More for kitsch purposes though.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I have integrity because I'm a cheapskate? How does that work? Well, yes. I don't see what's so complicated about this.


Isn't it more expensive per book to print small runs of a work than it is to print warehouses full of the stuff? In other words, isn't the expense of niche (at least relatively speaking) leftist books down to economies of scale? Shit from Zizek and Badiou and those guys are probably more likely to be sold than, say, a collection of the teachings of Diogenes and Humes "Discourses on Natural Religion", both of which are less than 15 brand new and from much bigger publishers.
If it's any indicator of how much dough verso is rolling in, They own a loft in New York. That shit ain't cheap.