Communisation Theory

[The Feral Underclass]

Are there any people who know what communisation theory is?

[Sasha]

just getting into it, not enough time to really immerse myself. user Ravachol is the one to speak too, i'll send him your way...

[The Feral Underclass]

I've become really influenced by Communisation Theory over the last 8 months having read the SIC Journal. The association I am with published a commentary on Leon DeMattis' What is Communisation? article, specifically from a social anarchist perspective.

Would be interested to know what others thought of the theory and how it relates to their day-to-day struggles.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I've been looking at the SIC Journal recently as well. I think that it is a very interesting theory. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it is a very well developed theory nonetheless.

Do you have a link to that commentary? I think that would be an interesting read.

[The Feral Underclass]

I've been looking at the SIC Journal recently as well. I think that it is a very interesting theory. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it is a very well developed theory nonetheless.

Do you have a link to that commentary? I think that would be an interesting read.

Sure: Terrain for an Encounter: Social Anarchism and Communisation (http://libcom.org/blog/terrain-encounter-social-anarchism-communisation-08112012)

[Ravachol]

Communisation (http://libcom.org/tags/communisation) theory describes a theoretical and practical sphere involved in re-theorising the communist tendency. Historically, it originated within the French ultraleft with the likes of Gilles Dauve and Dominique Blanc and those around the magazine La Banquise as well as the members of the group Theorie Communiste. These currents, as described by Dauve here (http://libcom.org/library/the-story-of-our-origins-dauve), broke with the historical communist left (ie. those standing in the tradition of the Dutch/German and Italian communist left and their current heirs ICC/ICP/ICT) and drew upon and further developed influences from the situationist international, italian autonomia, etc. A classic of the current is 'The eclipse and re-emergence of the communist movement' (http://libcom.org/library/eclipse-re-emergence-communist-movement) by Gilles Dauve and François Martin.

In a nutshell the notion of communisation is summed up by Gilles Dauve and Karl Nesic (http://libcom.org/library/communisation):



The idea is fairly simple, but simplicity is often one of the most difficult goals to achieve. It means that a revolution is only communist if it changes all social relationships into communist relationships, and this can only be done if the process starts in the very early days of the revolutionary upheaval. Money, wage-labour, the enterprise as a separate unit and a value-accumulating pole, work-time as cut off from the rest of our life, production for value, private property, State agencies as mediators of social life and conflicts, the separation between learning and doing, the quest for maximum and fastest circulation of everything, all of these have to be done away with, and not just be run by collectives or turned over to public ownership: they have to be replaced by communal, moneyless, profitless, Stateless, forms of life. The process will take time to be completed, but it will start at the beginning of the revolution, which will not create the preconditions of communism: it will create communism.

"Those who developed the theory of communisation rejected this posing of revolution in terms of forms of organisation, and instead aimed to grasp the revolution in terms of its content. Communisation implied a rejection of the view of revolution as an event where workers take power followed by a period of transition: instead it was to be seen as a movement characterised by immediate communist measures (such as the free distribution of goods) both for their own merit, and as a way of destroying the material basis of the counter-revolution. 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. By contrast, the revolution as a communising movement would destroy - by ceasing to constitute and reproduce them - all capitalist categories: exchange, money, commodities, the existence of separate enterprises, the State and - most fundamentally - wage labour and the working class itself."


This perspective had already been elaborated by the likes of Jacques Camatte in the wandering of humanity:



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.


Furthermore, there's a good introduction by Benjamin Noys (http://libcom.org/library/fabric-struggles) in the book 'communization and its discontents', which has a few good articles (and a few not so good ones).

Broadly speaking, the communisation milieu can be divided in two strands, though this isn't a black-and-white issue and there's a lot of grey there (among which i'd count myself): the more 'voluntarist' current (associated with Tiqqun (https://tiqqun.jottit.com/), the swedish Batko group (http://www.motarbetaren.se/batko/en_index.php), the authors of L'appel (anti-politics.net/distro/2009/call-read.pdf), elements within the California student milieu (http://1000littlehammers.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/dispatches-from-the-ruins/), etc.) and the more 'determinist' current (associated with Theorie Communiste (www.theoriecommuniste.org), Endnotes (http://endnotes.org.uk/), etc.) and then there's the grey area which would be groups like Blaumachen (GR), Troploin (FR), Riff-Raff (SE), Eis-Zeit (DE), etc.

Though united by a few key elements (including a complete break with socialism (including its "anarchist" variants in the form of orthodox syndicalist 'self-management') and any notion of a transitional state), there's tons of discussions within that current about the meaning of communisation, whether it is a an immanent, almost transhistorical possiblity or whether it has only become possible by the stage-ist opening up of the current period of capital's real subsumption and the limits inherent to the current phase of restructuring.

Instead of a clear-cut current such as 'Marxism-Leninism', 'Anarcho-Syndicalism', etc. I think it's best to see it as a complete reconceptualisation of what revolution and the communist tendency mean, as a prism through which to look at the revolutionary riddle rather than a blueprint to its answer.

There's also a discussion in the Imaginary party group here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&gmid=54365) and there's a communisation theory group here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=747).

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Anthony Pancake lives.

[Comrade Jandar]

I'm not sure if my understanding is lacking some nuance but it seems like communisation theory contends that socialism can be built in one area while global capitalism still reigns?

[black magick hustla]

Personally I am fond of almost all approaches of communisation theory but what I found more interesting about them is not so much what they theorize will happen during a revolutionary situation, but how, especially the groups that orbit Theorie Communiste (i.e. Sic, and Endnotes) attempt to historicize why do struggles change. For example, there is a lot of what is called "formalistic" thinking in radical groups, in the sense that radicals are obsessed with specific forms of struggle - i.e. the workers' council, the mass strike, the union, etc. and see them as the unearthed organs and tactics of the working class rather than forms that were specific to certain historical periods. What TC/Endnotes/Sic/Blaunchemen attempts to create is a framework wherein this things can be explained as part of specific periods of struggle. They also theorize about why mass parties and elaborate programs before could rally a lot of workers behind them and why they don't exist anymore (they call this programmatism). This is relevant to me because it gave me some clarity to why Trotskyists/ortho leftcommunists/etc sound so outdated when they go on about their unions and their councils.

There is also the discussion about formal vs real subsumption - i.e. the periods of capitalism where capitalists simply added a price to other social formations that existed before capitalism viz capitalism recreating the world in its own image and creating capitalist social formations. Which begs the question that before the working class could act as a class against capital maybe because they hadn't been completely recreated as cogs of capital yet by the revolutionaizing of nthe means of production. this sort of stuff gets a bit sketchier and iffier but its interesting nonethless.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Would be interested to know what others thought of the theory and how it relates to their day-to-day struggles.

Neo-Proudhonism with French philosophical mumbo-jumbo? :confused:

At least the likes of Kojin Karatani have more relevant political insights.

[black magick hustla]

Neo-Proudhonism with French philosophical mumbo-jumbo? :confused:

lol

[Ravachol]

Neo-Proudhonism with French philosophical mumbo-jumbo? :confused:

At least the likes of Kojin Karatani have more relevant political insights.

Don't make a fool out of yourself or stay out of threads like these if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Either read up or stop trolling.

[Thirsty Crow]

There is also the discussion about formal vs real subsumption - i.e. the periods of capitalism where capitalists simply added a price to other social formations that existed before capitalism viz capitalism recreating the world in its own image and creating capitalist social formations.
Umm, I always thought that formal subsumption refers to the way capitalists extract surplus value - by lenghtening the working day for instance but not through a reorganization of the labour process and technological change (real subsumption; in other words, formal subsumption refers to domination over artisan-like labour). Is this what you had in mind?

[black magick hustla]

Umm, I always thought that formal subsumption refers to the way capitalists extract surplus value - by lenghtening the working day for instance but not through a reorganization of the labour process and technological change (real subsumption; in other words, formal subsumption refers to domination over artisan-like labour). Is this what you had in mind?

its the same terminology because its related. the extraction of absolute surplus value was basically adding a price to artisan like labor, while real subsumption, relative surplus value, actually touches the base, and therefore alters the superstructure into a capitalist superstructure.

[The Feral Underclass]

Neo-Proudhonism with French philosophical mumbo-jumbo? :confused:

At least the likes of Kojin Karatani have more relevant political insights.

That doesn't really provide a fair analysis of communisation theory. Neo-Proudhonism? No...

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ They have a weird view of politics, are skeptical of organization, and their movement emphasis could easily be hamstrung into Bernstein's notorious "the movement is everything, the end goal nothing" mantra. Strategically, if you want to criticize something, you damn well better cough up a positive alternative, which communization theory doesn't.

[The Feral Underclass]

^^^ They have a weird view of politics, are skeptical of organization, and their movement emphasis could easily be hamstrung into Bernstein's notorious "the movement is everything, the end goal nothing" mantra. Strategically, if you want to criticize something, you damn well better cough up a positive alternative, which communization theory doesn't.

But you don't seem to understand what communisation theory is...

[Die Neue Zeit]

On the contrary, TAT, I have engaged with the literature. Unlike left-coms who stubbornly don't engage with direct criticisms of their (non-)strategy, I actually take the time to read this stuff to form nothing less than an informed opinion. Note to Ravachol: informed short posts don't constitute "trolling."

[The Feral Underclass]

Engaging with the literature and understanding its content are two different things. The idea that communisation theory has to provide a "positive alternative" in the first place betrays an understanding of what it attempts to do.

Your lack of nuance notwithstanding, I would like to know, when you say "if you want to criticize something, you damn well better cough up a positive alternative" why this is the case? Why do you have to come up with a "positive" alternative in order to criticise something? And what is a "positive alternative" anyway?

[Ravachol]

and their movement emphasis could easily be hamstrung into Bernstein's notorious "the movement is everything, the end goal nothing" mantra.


No it does not. Read up before you post instead of spewing nonsense.



Strategically, if you want to criticize something, you damn well better cough up a positive alternative, which communization theory doesn't.

Only if you buy into the 'movementist' blueprint crap you buy into.


On the contrary, TAT, I have engaged with the literature. Unlike left-coms who stubbornly don't engage with direct criticisms of their (non-)strategy, I actually take the time to read this stuff to form nothing less than an informed opinion. Note to Ravachol: informed short posts don't constitute "trolling."

You're not informed, you have no idea what you're talking about. You throw around bullshit like 'neo-proudhonism' and 'philosophical mumbo-jumbo' just because there's people who don't buy into your weird fantasy schemes with arbeiterfuhrers and 'real movements and real parties' and so on.

That being said: either you engage with the content of communisation theory in this thread (as opposed to crippelingly misinformed one-liners) or you stay out of it.

[Thirsty Crow]

^^^ They have a weird view of politics, are skeptical of organization, and their movement emphasis could easily be hamstrung into Bernstein's notorious "the movement is everything, the end goal nothing" mantra. Strategically, if you want to criticize something, you damn well better cough up a positive alternative, which communization theory doesn't.
..and that makes it fucking neo-Proudhonist.

The brilliance will never cease to amaze me.

[subcp]

Like you it's been about a year since I first started reading communisation texts, and over the last few months I've been reading as much as I can. Been writing a little as well about how elements of communisation theory complement rather than contradict traditional left communist conceptions and theory.

Ex. They say there is no transitional period, there is no semi-state (what the Bordigists call the 'proletarian state'). Though in the same text, there's reference to the development of a "para-state" in the process of integrating non-proletarians into the free/solidarity economy (which is the same as the semi-state conception they say they are against).

Lately I've been working on the hole in the theory (I'm talking about non-Tiqqun communisation theory) regarding the role of the people who write their texts and read their texts- the pro-revolutionary communist minority. It's linked to similar ideas from Nihilist Communism- both Dupont and texts like Sic say that we have a role to play in revolutionary crisis, they leave out what that is likely to be. That's the biggest weakness in my view; not that there is no blueprint, but both nihcom and communisation discount the organization of the communist minority in non-revolutionary times, or leave it ambiguous on purpose.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The idea is fairly simple, but simplicity is often one of the most difficult goals to achieve. It means that a revolution is only communist if it changes all social relationships into communist relationships

I've read all this before, but isn't that obvious?


and this can only be done if the process starts in the very early days of the revolutionary upheaval.

This evokes a figure of someone trying to do a gymnastics split, only to get a sprain or worse because of not being conditioned properly. What aspects should be done, and when?

Certain things cannot be done prematurely because of the economic conditions of the working class, "whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor" (Engels).

On the other hand, certain things must be done well before the "very early days of the revolutionary upheaval."

I've explained both of these aspects in sufficient detail elsewhere. Let's turn to their example for criticism:


Money, wage-labour, the enterprise as a separate unit and a value-accumulating pole, work-time as cut off from the rest of our life, production for value, private property, State agencies as mediators of social life and conflicts, the separation between learning and doing, the quest for maximum and fastest circulation of everything, all of these have to be done away with, and not just be run by collectives or turned over to public ownership: they have to be replaced by communal, moneyless, profitless, Stateless, forms of life. The process will take time to be completed, but it will start at the beginning of the revolution, which will not create the preconditions of communism: it will create communism.

1) Here we have a bit of a fetish for the gift economy, but I can see it as more understandable now (stripped of the fetishes) because of the wonders of the Internet.
2) "State agencies" is a very poor caricuture of what is called politics, from which class politics, a.k.a. genuine class struggle, is derived.
3) Separation between learning and doing? I appreciate the criticism against learning for learning's sake, but nothing is said to criticize doing for doing's sake? What about the balance between "career" training for functional divisions in labour (Pat Devine) and learning for the purpose of developing critical thinking?
4) "Fastest circulation of everything"? Whatever happened to effective and efficient production of use-values, or does "communisation theory" imply some sort of minimalism?


instead it was to be seen as a movement characterised by immediate communist measures (such as the free distribution of goods) both for their own merit, and as a way of destroying the material basis of the counter-revolution

Again, what I said above about doing things prematurely applies, hence my "neo-Proudhonism" remark. Leaving aside politics for a moment, the working class cannot carry out a "social" revolution like the bourgeoisie did by building their wealth within late feudalism.


Communism is not a new mode of production ; it is the affirmation of a new community.

What's the difference between "the affirmation of a new community" and communitarianism. A mode of production is not the same as communitarianism.

[Ostrinski]

I'm not sure if my understanding is lacking some nuance but it seems like communisation theory contends that socialism can be built in one area while global capitalism still reigns?Socialism in One Community :D?