Communism as a movement

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I'm interested in Karl Marx's quote:


Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. - Karl Marx. The German Ideology. 1845

Specifically:


"We call communism the real movement"

Implying that communism is the only possible movement that can abolish the state of affairs.

I have two questions. Is communism the only possible movement logically and irrefutably that can abolish the movement of capitalism and could someone provide me with their interpretation of the first quote? Preferably separated for simplicity's sake.

[subcp]

The communisation folks spent a lot of time articulating what Marx means in quotes like those.

The content of the 'movement' is communism: not the pre-conditions for communism (industrialization, centralization, socialization of labor), but proletarians immediately abolishing the bases of capital and in effect abolishing themselves as a class in the process. What he means is that communism has to be built by the active participation of millions, that their real movement (collective activity) must be on a trajectory of simultaneously abolishing capital (property, classes, states, value) and establishing communism (free access, communal self-organization, classless stateless etc.).



In our opinion, communisation will be the moment when struggle will make possible, as a means for its continuation, the immediate production of communism. By communism we mean a collective organisation that has got rid of all the mediations which, at present, serve society by linking individuals among them : money, the state, value, classes, etc. The only function of these mediations is to make exploitation possible. While they are imposed on everybody, they benefit only a few. Communism will thus be the moment when individuals will link together directly, without their inter-individual relations being superimposed by categories to which everyone owes obedience.



It goes without saying that this individual will not be the one we know now, that of capital’s society, but a different individual produced by a life taking different forms. To be clear, we should recall that the human individual is not an untouchable reality deriving from ‘human nature’, but a social product, and that every period in history has produced its own type of individual. The individual of capital is that which is determined by the share of social wealth it receives. This determination is subservient to the relation between the two large classes of the capitalist mode of production: the proletariat and the capitalist class. The relation between these classes comes first, the individual is produced by way of consequence – contrary to the all-too-frequent belief that classes are groupings of pre-existing individuals. The abolition of classes will thus be the abolition of the determinations that make the individual of capital what it is, i.e. one that enjoys individually and egoistically a share of the social wealth produced in common. Naturally, this is not the only difference between capitalism and communism – wealth created under communism will be qualitatively different from whatever capitalism is capable of creating. Communism is not a mode of production, in that social relations are not determined in it by the form of the process of producing the necessities of life, but it is rather communist social relations that determine the way in which these necessities are produced.


http://riff-raff.se/texts/en/sic1-what-is-communisation

[Nevsky]

Marx's quote underlines that communism is not what the bourgeois media and propagandists want to paint it as. Reactionaries like David Horowitz have this ignorant vision of communism as an eternal left wing dogma which would be "forced" on the people. For Marx, communism is mainly taking actual revolutionary action against capitalism's injustice, not dreaming of utopia. The revolutionary class of Marx's time was supposed to be the proletariat. Communism is the revolutionary theory of said revolutionary class. The theory by Marx & Engels is designed as a scientific base for the proletarian revolution.

[Fionnagáin]

Is communism the only possible movement logically and irrefutably that can abolish the movement of capitalism
For Marx, communism and the abolition of capitalism are identical. When he says that only communism can abolish capitalism, he does not simply mean that self-identified "communists" possess some unique set of powers by which they can abolish capitalism, but the very opposite, that the act of abolishing capitalism is itself a communist one regardless of the explicit politics of the actor.

Plausibly, capitalist social relations may also be "abolished" by some sort of cataclysm which reduces humanity to a barbarism incapable of sustaining commodity-production, so in that sense communism is not the only way that capitalism may come to an end, but such a cataclysm originates outside of human society (at least, in the sense that it is an environmental rather than social cause; that cause may itself owe something to human activity) and so outside of the historical process, while communism originates within it.


could someone provide me with their interpretation of the first quote? Preferably separated for simplicity's sake.
What Marx and Engels are claiming is that communism isn't a particular schematic to be drafted and enacted, but a social process that occurs prior to any theorisation of it. Communists are not advocates of communism as a principle or a program, but participants in a process of communisation; a communist is one who is engaged in the activity of making-communal. The communist party, it follows, is not an organisation intended for devising and implementing any particular body of theory, not a Communist Party, but simply that section of the communist movement which understands itself as an historical process.

[subcp]

The communist party, it follows, is not an organisation intended for devising and implementing any particular body of theory, not a Communist Party, but simply that section of the communist movement which understands itself as an historical process.

That's a good point.

Engels spells this out in a letter:


"Mr. Heinzen imagines communism to be a certain doctrine which springs from a definite theoretical principle as its nucleus and draws further consequences from it. Mr. Heinzen is very wrong. Communism is not a doctrine but a movement springing from facts rather than principles. Communists presuppose not such and such a philosophy but all past history and, above all, its actual and effective results in the civilized countries.... In so far as communism is a theory, it is the theoretical expression of the situation of the proletariat in its struggle and the theoretical summary of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat".

-F. Engels, "The communists and Karl Heinzen" Article 2, MEW 4, pp. 321-322."

It elaborates further the point Marx makes in quotes like the ones in the op.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

For Marx, communism and the abolition of capitalism are identical. When he says that only communism can abolish capitalism, he does not simply mean that self-identified "communists" possess some unique set of powers by which they can abolish capitalism, but the very opposite, that the act of abolishing capitalism is itself a communist one regardless of the explicit politics of the actor.

Plausibly, capitalist social relations may also be "abolished" by some sort of cataclysm which reduces humanity to a barbarism incapable of sustaining commodity-production, so in that sense communism is not the only way that capitalism may come to an end, but such a cataclysm originates outside of human society (at least, in the sense that it is an environmental rather than social cause; that cause may itself owe something to human activity) and so outside of the historical process, while communism originates within it.


What Marx and Engels are claiming is that communism isn't a particular schematic to be drafted and enacted, but a social process that occurs prior to any theorisation of it. Communists are not advocates of communism as a principle or a program, but participants in a process of communisation; a communist is one who is engaged in the activity of making-communal. The communist party, it follows, is not an organisation intended for devising and implementing any particular body of theory, not a Communist Party, but simply that section of the communist movement which understands itself as an historical process.

Where does this leave actual Communist Parties or vanguardists (apologies for reviving an old thread, but I feel that making a new one would be pointless)?

[G4b3n]

I can not think of any other movement that has even the theoretical potential to abolish the current state of things. Even the anarchist movement is essentially communist, sometimes explicitly in the case of syndicalist organization or sometimes implicitly in other forms be it mystified or scientific to whatever extent.

By the "premises now in existence", he means the contradictions between capital and labor. For Marx, this is the base of society from which all things extend outward and all fundamental changed extends from the radical shifts therein.

So yes, communism, i.e., the movement of the worker, is the only movement that can abolish the present state of things. The further away variations of this movement stray from the fundamentals of labor and proletarian class interests, the further mystified and ahistorical it becomes.

[Tim Cornelis]

Communism is not an abstract philosophical notion thought up by the minds of great thinkers and society having to adjust itself to, or adopt these ideals through the power of ideas and persuasion. Communism is not consciously designed policies that need to be enacted. Communism emerges, automatically and organically, from the social dynamics of capitalist society itself. How?


transformation of industry, at first be means of simple cooperation and manufacture. Concentration of the means of production, hitherto scattered, into great workshops. As a consequence, their transformation from individual to social means of production — a transformation which does not, on the whole, affect the form of exchange. The old forms of appropriation remain in force. The capitalist appears. In his capacity as owner of the means of production, he also appropriates the products and turns them into commodities. Production has become a social act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be individual acts, the acts of individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all the contradictions in which our present-day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

There is a fundamental primary contradiction of socialised production and capitalist or individual appropriation in capitalism through which all sorts of secondary contradictions emerge, such as " an antagonism between the organization of production in the individual workshop and the anarchy of production in society generally" and "The contradiction between socialized production and capitalistic appropriation manifested itself as the antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie." Capitalism prepares society for communism through its own development which accelerates these contradictions. These are "the premises now in existence". Communism emerges as the solution to these contradictions:


III. Proletarian Revolution Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

Communism is not an ideal it is a movement originating from capitalism's internal contradictions


Marx's quote underlines that communism is not what the bourgeois media and propagandists want to paint it as. Reactionaries like David Horowitz have this ignorant vision of communism as an eternal left wing dogma which would be "forced" on the people. For Marx, communism is mainly taking actual revolutionary action against capitalism's injustice, not dreaming of utopia. The revolutionary class of Marx's time was supposed to be the proletariat. Communism is the revolutionary theory of said revolutionary class. The theory by Marx & Engels is designed as a scientific base for the proletarian revolution.

I think this interpretation misses the point really.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

x

Most interesting. Thank you. By the way, what is your direct answer to my question posed above about vanguardism and party formation?

[Blake's Baby]

That depends what you mean by 'vanguard'. Marx of course said that the communists form no parties which are contrary to the interests of the proletariat as a whole, andd that the communists were the workers who had understood first the necessary 'line of march'.

So a recognition that 'communism' isn't a set of of principles that reality has to adjust to would lead the 'vanguard' (those who are self-proclaimed revolutionaries) to the conclusion that the primary task of a communist organisation must be to encourage the working class in its self-liberation, in becoming aware of its own interests and acting on them.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

That depends what you mean by 'vanguard'. Marx of course said that the communists form no parties which are contrary to the interests of the proletariat as a whole, andd that the communists were the workers who had understood first the necessary 'line of march'.

So a recognition that 'communism' isn't a set of of principles that reality has to adjust to would lead the 'vanguard' (those who are self-proclaimed revolutionaries) to the conclusion that the primary task of a communist organisation must be to encourage the working class in its self-liberation, in becoming aware of its own interests and acting on them.

Surely attempts to raise class consciousness are futile when not in a revolutionary period or at a point where local issues can be pushed further (i.e. opportunities that can be exploited, allowing for proletarian demands to be pushed further)? The mass media in its entirety bombards us each day with messages that change our way of thinking. Thus vanguards of any kind cannot raise class consciousness through agitation most of the time. They just have their messages recuperated at the end of the day.

[Blake's Baby]

They're not 'futile', I don't think, but they are hard. 'Most of the time' isn't the same as 'ever'.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

They're not 'futile', I don't think, but they are hard. 'Most of the time' isn't the same as 'ever'.

It seems to me that outside of a revolutionary period, agitation fights a battle that has already been lost due to the mass media's dominance in disseminating ideas that are really just distractions. In other words, ideas which prevent people from taking matters, such as the way our social relations are organised, seriously for a prolonged period of time. The only periods in which agitation seems to work adequately for desired goals is when the people on the receiving end are already conscious of bringing about some form of change. Thus 'most of the time', agitation only siphons off the people who are already like minded.

You are quite correct in saying that 'most of the time' isn't the same as 'ever', but I would attribute agitation going on at this very present moment as futile, as people are not preoccupied with notions of resistance. Agitation ought to coincide with, for example, moments such as strikes (especially wildcat strikes, which rarely seem to occur in the United Kingdom, or lack coverage) in order to convince workers to push their demands far enough to cause the bourgeoisie to bleed. Of course when I say the present moment, I mean the present moment, here in my local area. Perhaps in some other places workers are organising in large enough numbers to warrant no nonsense agitation. Another point which needs to be mentioned is the doing away of recuperated labels attached to agitation methods, e.g. leaflets and papers with the party name or the name of the group which incorporates buzzwords such as 'Socialist' or 'Communist', likely to push people away via connotation.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, perhaps to an extent your perspective is limited by the context you're in. Not everywhere are the terms 'communist' and 'socialist' quite so toxic as in the US, and not everywhere is class struggle so markedly absent.

But I think you're perhaps being 'over-sponteneist' about this. The working class doesn't dance to the tune of hyper-militants, surely; but neither is it an inert mass only to be called into life at the pokings of capitalists. The reality surely lies elsewhere - I'd argue that the working class does respond to attacks against, to an extent, and does respond to propaganda by communist minorities, to an extent, and also produces struggles without reference to what we are doing. As members of the working class we can make a difference in our 'local area' - at work and in our neighbourhoods. We can in small ways help to build solidarity and unity and confidence among workers, we can be an active factor in the process of the working class as a whole coming to consciousness of itself. Indeed, there's little else we can do; we certainly don't 'ignite' the revolution but we can at least help to prepare the conditions in which such an ignition can take place.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Well, perhaps to an extent your perspective is limited by the context you're in. Not everywhere are the terms 'communist' and 'socialist' quite so toxic as in the US, and not everywhere is class struggle so markedly absent.

When you say 'your', I assume you mean me personally? Would you mind elaborating on what you've said here for me (e.g. how this relates to connotations related to labels)?


But I think you're perhaps being 'over-sponteneist' about this. The working class doesn't dance to the tune of hyper-militants, surely; but neither is it an inert mass only to be called into life at the pokings of capitalists. The reality surely lies elsewhere - I'd argue that the working class does respond to attacks against, to an extent, and does respond to propaganda by communist minorities, to an extent, and also produces struggles without reference to what we are doing.

I can see how I said might give off such an impression, yet my post is expressing how in the current context of my own subjective life, Communist agitation is not producing any noticeable and localised effects. I agree that agitation works, just that the material conditions do not seem conducive to it at the present moment. Agitation is hampered in areas where people hold a misinformed understanding of Communism (I have made this conclusion from going ons in my area), thus shouldn't Communists be presenting their arguments without distracting labels? I certainly feel that when I bring up the notion of Communism, people of all ages and capabilities jump to a strawman. Using labels such as 'socialism' or 'Communism' to attract people's interest gives people the impression that fealty to an ideology, as opposed to taking part in a process, becomes important, and thus the drawing up of negative images of that ideology get in the way.

[Blake's Baby]

When you say 'your', I assume you mean me personally? Would you mind elaborating on what you've said here for me (e.g. how this relates to connotations related to labels)? ...

My fault. Re-reading your posts I see you're referring to the UK. I thought you were in the US.

My point is that the label 'communist' is regarded differently by people in different places. In the US it's viewed very negatively - much more negatively than in some other places (which is why I mentioned it particularly).



...
I can see how I said might give off such an impression, yet my post is expressing how in the current context of my own subjective life, Communist agitation is not producing any noticeable and localised effects. I agree that agitation works, just that the material conditions do not seem conducive to it at the present moment. Agitation is hampered in areas where people hold a misinformed understanding of Communism (I have made this conclusion from going ons in my area), thus shouldn't Communists be presenting their arguments without distracting labels? I certainly feel that when I bring up the notion of Communism, people of all ages and capabilities jump to a strawman. Using labels such as 'socialism' or 'Communism' to attract people's interest gives people the impression that fealty to an ideology, as opposed to taking part in a process, becomes important, and thus the drawing up of negative images of that ideology get in the way.

I agree with the basic thrust here but don't think that changing labels is the answer. Our ideological enemies will be able to say 'but these people are secretly communists' - and it will be true. In that case you've both left the term 'communist' as a term of abuse, and demonstrated that you're out to deceive people.

I think a better way forward is to demonstrate that it's their perception of communism and communists that's at fault - not by lecturing them, but by, as you put it, 'taking part in a process'.

[Rafiq]

The point is simple: Communism is not some kind of utilitarian dream, but a real movement which abolishes the present state of things, as humanism or liberalism was for the bourgeois class. We cannot conceptualize a future mode of production, and while we can speculate one given the circumstances (which would be incredibly difficult in that there does not exist a modern form of sophisticated class consciousness), we cannot attempt to truly know. As Marx recognized, history has already completed itself (in the sense that because history has not changed, history is over, until there is a historical totality, and history changes).

Therefore Communism is the positive affirmation of proletarian ideology, it is in itself an ideology emancipated from the interests of the bourgeois class, and thus the expansive will of capital.