The futility of political discussion

[cph_shawarma]

Here's a text about the futility of political discussion. What do you all think? I like it a lot.

http://spoknippet.blogspot.com/2005/02/fut...discussion.html (http://spoknippet.blogspot.com/2005/02/futility-of-political-discussion.html)

[Xvall]

I agree with it. Very few, if any, arguments that I witness result in anything other than people reaffirming their own views and possibly even strengthening their position on it.

What is a "Prussian bolshevik"? They guy gives off an aura of fascism, mainly because of the fascist logo in his profile.

[workersunity]

ya i was gonna say the same thing, whats with the fascist logo, bundle of sticks with an axe?

[redstar2000]

I was not favorably impressed...though I suppose if one limited oneself to what passes for "political debate" in the "mainstream" of bourgeois public life, he'd have a point.

He begins with a simple misunderstanding. The point of debate on a message board like this one is not to "convince one's opponent" but to convince the reader that one's own position makes more sense than one's opponent's.

It sometimes happens that one does convince one's opponent...or at least inspires a considerable modification of their views. But that's in the way of a "happy accident".

The suggestion that political debate "doesn't lead anywhere" is, I'm afraid, a particularly stupid one.

People act in the real world based on their "mental picture" of how the real world works. The better (more correct) that picture is, the more effective their acts will be.

What takes place on really good message boards (like this one!) is precisely the process of making better "mental pictures" of the real world.

It is occasionally argued (by fascist "thinkers") that understanding, knowledge, etc. "leads to" indecision, passivity, etc. This is obvious bullshit, in my opinion. The more one knows, the more one is able to act in such a way as to produce the desired outcome.

Action taken out of ignorance usually has either no effect at all or an outcome completely opposite to one's desires.

Some modern American neo-conservatives mock their academic critics by emphasizing the "vigorous spirit" of neo-conservatism that's "creating a new reality".

Well, we'll see. The neo-conservative "new reality" will, in my view, prove as lasting as Mussolini's triumph in Ethiopia.

Just as those who disparage the importance of vigorous political debate will end up prisoners of some hopelessly obsolete ideology.

Like, um, fascism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[cph_shawarma]

Xvall and workersunity: He has a somewhat fascist esthetics, but it is merely that. Of course, he takes influence from Schmitt, Jünger etc. but that can not be a criteria for fascism. He also has an interest in the history of fascism.

RS2K:
Well, I think that forums like these are a perfect example of the validity of his argument. This is one of the worst forums that I know, but I hang here because there are a few interesting debates, but I have seen much much better, most of all in my own country.

As Spöknippet says there might be an effect on the reader (listener) if there is real discussion between people that have shared axioms. How do you deal with the examples he's giving? How many would be convinced by the sense of an argument in a debate where you have to concentrate on founding your own axioms, which is impossible?

People don't simply act on "mental pictures". That claim would be truly idealistic and anti-marxian. Of course, the formation of revolutionary theory is a premise for a revolutionary movement (to paraphrase Lenin), but this does not mean that people without an "accurate mental picture" of the essence of capital are bereft of action. Hopefully a correct (but not necessarily rational) view of capital will be of use in practiques, but we can not consider the revolutionary theories of today without a relation to the really existing social movements of today (capital, communism etc.).

Well, Spöknippet isn't a fascist, and your attempt at guilt-by-association is just that, without any substance.


Action taken out of ignorance usually has either no effect at all or an outcome completely opposite to one's desires.
This is pure idealism, I won't even comment on it.


Just as those who disparage the importance of vigorous political debate will end up prisoners of some hopelessly obsolete ideology.
Well, Spöknippet does not want to do away with all discussion, but he proves the futility of political discussion. Politics (the state) is a capitalistic sphere per definition, and communism is anti-political (see Marx, "King of Prussia", Engels "On Authority" etc.). Real theoretical discussion is a need that can not be forsaken, but this discussion appears between equals, people with the same axioms. I have never had a fruitful debate with a liberal, nor with a reformist. This is because we have different presuppositions, which renders the discussion futile.

[enigma2517]

Liberals and reformists make up a significant majority of the working class.

It might be hard to talk to them now, given that current material conditions do not make them especially receptive to you. This, however, doesn't mean you should not attempt. How else are you going to raise class consciousness?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by cph_shawarma
Well, I think that forums like these are a perfect example of the validity of his argument. This is one of the worst forums that I know, but I hang here because there are a few interesting debates, but I have seen much much better, most of all in my own country.

Happy Sweden!

But as you will. I have seen a very large number of English-language political or quasi-political forums...and none of them even approach the level of this forum.

Feel free to correct me on this...with links.


As Spöknippet says there might be an effect on the reader (listener) if there is real discussion between people that have shared axioms. How do you deal with the examples he's giving?

Very well, how about the debate between the atheist and the believer?

Will the atheist convince the believer to give up on God? I'm under the impression that such has actually happened on this board. Have people "on the edge of unbelief" been firmly won over to atheism? Without a doubt! Have people uncertain in their new-born skepticism been reinforced and made more vigorous? Absolutely!

People who come to internet message boards are predominately young and, naturally, curious about the world around them. Rational arguments based on empirical evidence have a strong appeal to them.

They know that they've been lied to by most or all of the "authority-figures" in their lives.

I can only dream of what it would have been like to have such a resource as RevLeft when I was young...how much bullshit I would have avoided!!!

But I "take heart" in how much bullshit gets exposed here for what it is. A huge number of kids are never going to have to go through the crap I went through.


People don't simply act on "mental pictures". That claim would be truly idealistic and anti-Marxian.

Why? What else do you suppose motivates human actions? "Instincts"? "Sub-conscious drives"? "Genetic imperatives"?

To be sure, it is material reality that plays the major role (over time) in creating "mental pictures" of reality.

But is it not the case that the struggle over "ideas" (mental pictures of reality) plays a crucial role in the very process of coming to terms with material reality itself?

Humans think...for better or worse. To think "better" requires a more accurate understanding of material reality.

And it's precisely in the realm of "critical discourse" (or political debate) that people assist one another in gaining that more accurate understanding of material reality.

Understanding doesn't "fall out of the sky"...it's work and struggle.


...but this does not mean that people without an "accurate mental picture" of the essence of capital are bereft of action.

I did not say that. What I did say was that "Action taken out of ignorance usually has either no effect at all or an outcome completely opposite to one's desires."

History offers many examples of this so I don't think I need elaborate on this point.


Hopefully a correct (but not necessarily rational) view of capital will be of use in practiques...

An irrational view of capital will necessarily be "incorrect". Actions based on an inaccurate understanding of capital will most likely come to grief...except by "happy accident".

Of course there are "happy accidents" in history...but they are distressingly rare. Counting on them seems to me to be extraordinarily foolish.


Well, Spöknippet isn't a fascist, and your attempt at guilt-by-association is just that, without any substance.

Ok.

What I was suggesting is that he may be sympathetic to the fascist contempt for "intellectuals". There was the "smell" of fascism in his article.


This is pure idealism, I won't even comment on it.

Too busy trying to fly by rapidly flapping your arms?

You give me the impression of one who doesn't really grasp the nature of philosophical idealism or its distinction from philosophical materialism.

Materialism does not ignore the role of human thought and purposes; the human brain is part of material reality.

It is therefore possible, in principle, for humans to understand material reality and, of course, change it!


Well, Spöknippet does not want to do away with all discussion, but he proves the futility of political discussion.

Proves???

He asserts the "futility" of political discussion.

Perhaps because he's really not very good at it.


I have never had a fruitful debate with a liberal, nor with a reformist.

What "fruits" were you attempting to harvest?

Did you expect to "convert" them to revolution? Don't you know that people "convert themselves"? That our task as revolutionaries is not to "convert" people but rather to furnish the understanding that will make it easier for them to "convert" themselves if and when they desire to do so?

Was there an audience for your debates? Were there people there prepared to give a rational hearing to your views as well as those of your opponents? Did you "make a good case"?

I agree that private arguments with liberals and reformists are almost always exercises in futility. I don't even bother, myself.

But when "the masses" are listening? You bet I will argue with the bastards! At enormous length. It's not "too much trouble" for me to convince even one person not to get caught in the trap of reformism.

I think, in fact, that communists need to always be "on the offensive" against the folly of reformism. We should never say or do anything that gives any hint of "legitimacy" to the reformist perspective.

Of course we will be criticized for being "dogmatic", "rigidly Marxist", "anarchistic", etc.

Too bad.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[The Grey Blur]

Whoa, this should be in Philosophy, some of the stuff discussed in that link...whoa...there are are rainbows inside my eyelids...qzoink...

[cph_shawarma]

RS2K:
Well, I can agree that this is one of the best internet forums in English, but it's still much worse than even socialism.nu (a Swedish equivalent of this), which is full of internet trolls and confused individuals. All and all very few open forums have the possibility of positive, real discussions. Many of the discussions on this board are merely banging each other's theories and axioms in the head of each other. Where's the real discussion?

The examples you give are also included in Spöknippets essay: "To discussion belong shared convictions as premises, the willingness to be persuaded, independency of party ties, freedom of selfish interests." Maybe with the exception of "shared convictions", all of your examples will fit into the "template" of real discussion, where there is honest openness and willingness to listen to what your opponent actually is saying.

As Lenin said, there can be no revolutionary movement without revolutionary theory. But the foundation of this theory must be the revolutionary movement itself, and this is a social movement: certain practiques that are in opposition to the social movement capital, which is also a set of human practiques. Human actions are not merely rational actions. There is great irrationality in some human actions (and definitely some of the notions that are founded on these irrational actions), and one example is of course the communist revolution. Capital is a rational system and the destruction of capital is also the destruction of the rationality of capital.

I think a lot of our real discussion here comes from the fact that we define the term political in different ways. Both of us are apparently interested in what you call "critical discourse", ie. communist theory. However political debate (within capital's public sphere, polis or the state) is debate between people without common ground, without openness to be persuaded etc. Therefore there can be no real discussion.

Well, I don't know what you think went down in the open rebellions of past times, for example Petrograd 1917, Paris 1968 and so on. But as I have studied the practiques carried out by people in these open rebellions, most of them were ignorant of revolutionary theory, but they were still acting against capital. The restrains of these movements are obvious, but this is not because of lack of theoretical insight, but because they were part of a different cycle of class struggle, which was unable to produce communism. This is however off topic and I will not go into it further.

History offers many examples of people acting because of certain human practiques coming into existence and spreading, which have not been there before. I have not read of any examples where a large social movement against capital has come into existence because of propaganda or political debate.

Well, I might have slipped on the keys. What I meant was that irrationality is a definite part of the human mindset, as well as human activity as such. Rationalism and rationality are clear parts of the social relation which is capital. Communism can not be produced via rationality, but must be produced as a break with that exact rationality which is bound up with capital. The measurement of labour (value), the existence of labour (in a Marxian sense), the tautological movement of capital are all rational in essence and the break with them, must therefore also be a break with rationality in its bourgeois sense.

Furthermore, I am not counting on "happy accidents", I am no spontanist, but the interventions (or intraventions, one might call them) are clearly limited by the social movement of communism as it appears before our eyes. Only as part of this social (material) movement can we act, not from the outside as a party (even if the advancement of the communist movement necessarily must break with the confinements of self-organisation).

Well, philosophical idealism is originally the idea of an "ideal world" (Plato) where the ideas (original forms) of the real world exist. These are, according to Plato, more true than the real world, since they are unshattered by the fetters of reality. Philosophical materialism is the notion that the world is material in content.

However, this is of no significance in this discussion, since historical materialism is not a philosophical materialism (which presupposes the primate of matter), but a practical materialism, a materialism of change (which does not presuppose the original primate of matter). This materialism of change tells us that changes of ideas and notions are in fact changes of human practiques. Interested may read Hermann Gorter's "Historical Materialism". Thus, there is a difference between philosophical materialism (which Marx did not use in his post-Feuerbachian works, which includes the Paris manuscripts of 1844 in my opinion) and historical materialism.

Well, I have never in my later years said or done anything to legitimise reformism and I have certainly been quite criticized for being dogmatic, rigidly Marxist, anarchist, radicalist etc. However, I do not believe that you and I see eye-to-eye on certain fundamental notions of communism. For example I wonder if you have grasped the notion of communism as a social movement (that is as a certain set of practiques, rather than the expressions of "communism") or capital as an automatic, self-presupposing social process (Money into Goods into Money, and merry goes round).

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by cph_shawarma
...very few open forums have the possibility of positive, real discussions. Many of the discussions on this board are merely banging each other's theories and axioms in the head of each other. Where's the real discussion?

I would suggest that when theories and axioms "bang each other on the head" that damage results...and it is the "weaker" (less accurate) theory or axiom that suffers that damage.

Bad ideas don't just "go away"...they need to be struggled against and defeated.

It's true that material reality, as it changes, tends to strengthen "good" ideas and weaken "bad" ideas.

But the way that strengthening/weakening process manifests itself is through the clash of opposing viewpoints.


Human actions are not merely rational actions.

They are intended to be rational...with the exception of those humans who are afflicted with some form of mental illness.

To be sure, those intentions may involve pursuit of irrational goals ("salvation") or ignorance of material reality may result in the use of irrational methods.

But sane humans do not consciously or deliberately act in such a way as to prevent their desired outcomes from coming into existence.

They think that it's possible in the real world to achieve X and they choose, based on their understanding, to take such-and-such an action to achieve X.

That's what rational behavior means.


Capital is a rational system...

Well it was...especially when compared to the system that it supplanted.

It strikes me that capital has gradually become less rational...even in its own terms.

Look at the fog of godbabble in Washington these days...do these "captains of empire" sound like "sensible businessmen" to you?

They don't to me. Indeed, they seem to be almost deliberately undermining the "appeal" of empire...and even the appeal of capitalism itself.

That's not what they "rationally" want to do...but their folly has its roots in the built-in irrationality of capitalism itself.

Marx used a famous paraphrase to characterize the "wisdom" of capitalism: "Accumulate! Accumulate! Thus sayeth the Law and the prophets. All else is commentary."

But can one man "swallow the whole world"? And what happens to those who try?


Well, I don't know what you think went down in the open rebellions of past times, for example Petrograd 1917, Paris 1968 and so on. But as I have studied the practiques carried out by people in these open rebellions, most of them were ignorant of revolutionary theory, but they were still acting against capital.

Indeed they were "acting against capital" on an unprecedented scale. We honor them for precisely that.

But, sadly, they didn't really understand what they were really doing or what they needed to do next. And so they were defeated.

That's what always happens when your understanding is inadequate -- you end up being defeated.

Material reality is "a harsh mistress".


I have not read of any examples where a large social movement against capital has come into existence because of propaganda or political debate.

You haven't been paying attention. Furious discussion and debate has always preceded the emergence of a visible revolutionary movement...and, indeed, been characteristic of that movement as long as it had any vitality at all.

The only exceptions to this that I can think of are peasant guerrilla insurrections...and probably not even most of them.


Communism can not be produced via rationality, but must be produced as a break with that exact rationality which is bound up with capital.

I do not comprehend this statement at all. It seems to me that communism reclaims rationality from a capitalist society which has become irrational.


This materialism of change tells us that changes of ideas and notions are in fact changes of human practiques.

Well, yes...that's what's going on at the deepest level. But that's not how it normally appears to thinking humans. What we perceive is a struggle between "mental pictures" of material reality -- "what is to be done?"

We choose to do X and to reject Y. That choice may well be inevitable...under existing material conditions. But it doesn't "feel like that" to us.


For example I wonder if you have grasped the notion of communism as a social movement?

It will be a social movement at such time that a significant portion of the proletariat has appropriated the communist "world view" and proceeds to act as a "class for itself".

That is obviously something that is still in the future and possibly the distant future.

Right now, communism is just a set of ideas shared by a relatively small number of people...who do "whatever they can" to spread those ideas.

I won't deny that we live in a "discouraging" period.

But, if Marx was right, things will "look up" for us in time...and a surprising number of people will be very interested in what we have to say. Our "crazy ideas" will suddenly seem to be very rational indeed!

The very existence of a board like this one actually demonstrates that things are not as bleak as they might appear. There are kids who are interested...and some of them will become revolutionaries.

Now that's not so bad, is it? :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[drain.you]

If political discussion is futile then shouldn't every government grind to a halt or become a dictatorship?

[cph_shawarma]

RS2K:
I doubt that there will be significant damage and gain for the "stronger" or "weaker". I haven't seen any clear cases of this. And I would definitely say that bad ideas go away from time to other, as a consequence of the development of the world.

I would not agree that what you call strengthening/weakening process is manifested through clash of opposing viewpoints. When people do other things (which is exactly what this is about) they also think other things about what they are doing. And I think Glaberman said it: "The left tells us that you must change people and they will do a revolution, but Marx says no, you will do the revolution and people will change."

In the discussion of rationality I still claim that humans are not through-and-through rational creatures, we have computers, production lines, lean production, just-in-time-systems etc. All of them are capitalist inventions for the increase of rationality and productivity in labour, in order for the social movement capital to go even faster. This rationality is dichotomous to contemplation, geniuses and real progress. It's only goal is the expansion of value.

I think we put different meanings in the word irrational. For example, I definitely think that communism is an irrational (but correct) goal. It is in contradiction with capitalistic rationality, and not the bearer of new "productive forces". Therefore one must stop following a capitalistic rationale: the return to capitalist production, turning a factory occupation into a self-managed company. Both of these are rational ways for people to act and the opposite (not returning to capitalist production, abolishing the company as a unit and turning the factory occupation into a communisation process) are visavi rationality in fact irrational.

You also correctly state "They think that it's possible in the real world". They think it's possible. You can not found communism on capitalistic rationalism, but especially in reactionary times it must be based on a belief which is "deeper" than mere rational decisionmaking.

As I said in my last post, the defeat of the former revolutions (1917, 1968 and so on) can not be explained through a lack of comprehension. That inevitably leads to some form of voluntarism ("only if you want it enough can you get it"). I have instead adopted much of Théorie Communiste's conceptions of "cycles of class struggles", "formal and real subsumtion" etc. And according to this theory the last cycle of struggles was unable to produce communism, since the revolution was practiced as the affirmation of labour, the uplifting of the working class to dominance. It affirmed the working class as it was in capitalism. This has now faded away (with the last counter-revolution of the era of 'programmatism') and has given space for the development of a new type of struggle, the revolution as the dissolution of the working class as labour power and communism as immediate communisation.

I would definitely like some examples of these "[f]urious discussion[s] and debate[s]". As I said I haven't heard of them. Rather there have been furious discussion and debate during and after the movement.

Rationality is in my opinion historically bound up with a specific mode of production (capitalism). Neither feudalism, slavery nor communism (which really isn't a mode of production, but that's another discussion) have been/will be rational. This is also explanatory of the fact that rationalism was strongest during the Enlightenment, when capitalism was on the way to glory. The "has become irrational" sounds to me like decadence theory, the idea that capitalism by its own movement magically will create communism. Capitalism will definitely crash sometime, but decadence theory is more often used to assert one self that the revolution is around the corner. Aufheben published a trilogy in the early 90's critiquing decadence theory (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/), but they dribble with a somewhat odd notion of subject-object, which Giaccamo Marramao critiqued in the 70's ("Crisis theory and the problem of constitution", I believe it was called).

I would say that communism as a movement (de-valorization) exists widely over the world almost all the time, but that communisation; the creation of communism as community, appears only now and then. Here I use "communism as movement" in the sense presented in German Ideology.

I believe the basic disagreement we have is different notions of class consciousness, class action and the existence of a social movement against capital today. I will not deny that we live in a discouraging period, either. But I have become more and more optimistic for a while now, not necessarily because of more open rebellions, but because there are more "hidden" rebellions than normal (faceless resistance).

drain.you:
Government (politics) is to be abolished in the communisation process.

[gilhyle]

THe idea that political debate can lead anyone to develop their political ideas or change their actions is both naive and potentially true.

When I was young and politics was fiery, I debated, listened and I changed.

When I am old and feel politics to be leaden, the debate leaves me unmoved. Again and again I check debates, throw in some comments in the hope of being disturbed out of my complacency.

Occasionally I read posts by people which I come to respect. SO far that is as good as it gets.

Trying to develop your own political understanding by posting on a message board feels like climbing up a very steep hill, very slowly.

[redstar2000]

May I say that you express an interesting "constellation" of views -- ones that are, by and large, unfamiliar to me. I expect that western Europeans like yourself are far more informed in modern variants of Marxist theory than Americans like myself...even when English translations exist, they are often simply unobtainable in much of "our" sprawling empire.


Originally posted by cph_shawarma
When people do other things (which is exactly what this is about) they also think other things about what they are doing.

I have no problem with putting it this way...but one must ask oneself how it happened that people decided to "do other things"?

How did material reality impact on their "mental pictures" of material reality in such a way as to suggest "doing other things" would be better?

When a peasant hears about "city life", what makes him/her decide to move to a city?

Perhaps he or she will talk it over with their family and argue the advantages and disadvantages of such an idea.

Perhaps he/she already knows someone who is living in a city...perhaps he/she has already heard the argument that "city life is better" (as the old Germans put it: Stadtluft macht frei.)


And I think Glaberman said it: "The left tells us that you must change people and they will do a revolution, but Marx says no, you will do the revolution and people will change."

Well, I think that's a misinterpretation of Marx's view. If I were to "summarize" Marx, I would say "it is because capitalism changes people that they decide to do the revolution."


In the discussion of rationality I still claim that humans are not through-and-through rational creatures...

Of course they're not! We have a very long way to go before we can ever speak in a realistic way of the triumph of reason.

But that is our goal...or should be! To understand objective material reality so well that we can shape the world to please us is the ultimate purpose of intelligent life.

What else could we or should we be doing?


You can not found communism on capitalistic rationalism, but especially in reactionary times it must be based on a belief which is "deeper" than mere rational decision making.

I disagree. Yes, the limits of "capitalist rationality" are indeed obvious and become more so with every passing decade. But the solution is not "belief in communism" -- what's the difference between that and "belief in the second coming of Christ"?

What we need is communist rationality...a way of understanding material reality that breaks the chains of bourgeois ideology.

And those chains are very strong. That is why I spend my time hammering on them. It's why I think that the time I've spent on this board is the most important thing that I've done in my whole life.


As I said in my last post, the defeat of the former revolutions (1917, 1968 and so on) can not be explained through a lack of comprehension.

Yes. Behind the lack of comprehension is, as always, material reality.

Proletarian revolution as Marx conceived of it was simply out of the question in 1917 Petrograd -- the material basis of communism was simply not present at all.

The great French General Strike of May 1968 is more interesting. I don't know (and I don't think anyone knows) if communism was possible then...but there were certainly elements (like the Situationists) who were far closer to a communist outlook than anything found in 1917 Petrograd.

It seems to have been the failure of the French proletariat to grasp the Situationist outlook that resulted in defeat. And there are likely to be found material reasons underlying that failure.

It was just "too soon".


And according to this theory, the last cycle of struggles was unable to produce communism, since the revolution was practiced as the affirmation of labour, the uplifting of the working class to dominance.

An interesting hypothesis...perhaps the next "cycle" of class struggle will produce some evidence on behalf of a different approach.


I would definitely like some examples of these "[f]urious discussion[s] and debate[s]". As I said I haven't heard of them. Rather there have been furious discussion and debate during and after the movement.

To be sure, when a movement "breaks into" the arena of public discourse we become aware of the controversies that permeate it.

But long before that happens, there are small groups of people who want there to be "a movement" and who vehemently seek to shape that proposed movement in accordance with their own perspectives.

An obvious example familiar to most people on this board is Lenin's early polemics written at a time when his "Russian Social Democratic Party" had no more than a few hundred or perhaps a few thousand members and was completely unknown to 99.99% of all the Russian people. And make no mistake about it, Lenin's views were vigorously disputed by others in that tiny group...we tend to forget that because Lenin was "history's winner" and "who cares" what the "losers" said. But Lenin actually quotes his critics at considerable length...and it's pretty obvious that they often thought he was full of shit and were not at all shy about saying so.


This is also explanatory of the fact that rationalism was strongest during the Enlightenment, when capitalism was on the way to glory.

Quite so. It is significant to me that in our own era the "Enlightenment" has suffered a "diminished" reputation and "rationality" is increasingly denounced by capitalist ideologues.

What can one say about the future of a class that seemingly finds it more and more "necessary" to surround itself with delusions?


The "has become irrational" sounds to me like decadence theory, the idea that capitalism by its own movement magically will create communism.

There's nothing "magical" about it. A class grows unfit to rule and is replaced by a new class. It's happened an enormous number of times in history...why should it "stop" with the capitalist class?


Capitalism will definitely crash sometime, but decadence theory is more often used to assert one self that the revolution is around the corner.

Not by me. People are often fascinated by "when" the revolution will "happen". My "boilerplate answer" (pure speculation!) is 2050 for western Europe and 2100 for North America. I would be delighted to be proved "too pessimistic". :lol:


But I have become more and more optimistic for a while now, not necessarily because of more open rebellions, but because there are more "hidden" rebellions than normal (faceless resistance).

I do not understand how we could hope to "measure" the number of "hidden" rebellions and say with any certainty that there are "more" or "less" than there "used to be".

But I hope you are right. Every act of resistance to the despotism of capital brings the revolution "that much closer."

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[cph_shawarma]

Well, there is a quite vigorous theoretical debate in Western Europe, with several different groups. Théorie Communiste (http://www.theoriecommuniste.org), Aufheben (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/), Wildcat (http://www.wildcat-www.de/index.htm), Troploin (http://troploin0.free.fr/) are all west european groups, with somewhat different perspectives on communism today, but all are interesting. In Northern America you have Collective Action Notes (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/), Loren Goldner (http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/) & Red & Black Notes (http://ca.geocities.com/red_black_ca/). Of these three I am only familiar with Loren Goldner. In Sweden there is a group called riff-raff (http://www.riff-raff.se/en/ for English section) which I would say is in some aspects even more advanced than certain groups I mentioned above, but in some aspects not. One text in particular I found fundamental is Gilles Dauvé's "Capitalism and Communism" (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3909/ecapcom1.html) Enough of the overview of interesting theoretical groups. Hope you find the reading interesting. :)

People's decisions are quite intricate, and not rational in the sense that they are always thought through in a "logical" manner. Often they are based on feeling, belief etc. Their "mental pictures" as you wish to call them are bound by the practiques they are performing. For some extraordinary reason, however, they will end up doing some things that are in opposition to what they are doing everyday. Why we do this is quite an intricate question, that can not be answered by reducing it to merely rational reflections and decisions, or even that they ought to be rational. We do things we know are not "good" for us (smoke, eat lots of sugar etc.), we do things we know might make it more difficult to get a job (eg. strike, steal stuff from work places, produce communist theory etc.), we do things because we believe they are correct. The latter two are examples of irrational moments of working people's actions that are in somewhat opposition with their own capitalistic needs and desires (which are rational to follow if we suppose that capitalism isn't about to end the day after tomorrow), but are on the other hand an expression of other needs and desires than those produced under capital. For example the desire for a world outside "cold calculation" to paraphrase Marx.

I think you do not escape a problem, when you say that "capitalism changes people [so] that they decide to do the revolution". The problem is you claim a revolutionary essence of the proletariat, that it is somehow bound up with its position in capital. This sort of thinking (which Marx also did) was bound with the last cycle of struggle, where communism as practice was "programmatism". Today we must understand communism as the negation of what the proletariat is in capital, the abandonment of any revolutionary essence of the proletariat. The proletariat acts revolutionary when it acts revolutionary and this ability is given to them through their position as labourers, but they can not act as labourers in the revolution, since labour is capital, and the negation of capital also must mean the negation of (wage-)labour as such. I hope you don't find my reasoning to "irrational". :) If you want me to develop it further please ask, because I haven't expressed this in English before, so it my be somewhat incomprehensive...

Communist revolution as Marx conceived of it is simply out of the question for today's world. Since also he was bound by his time, he had a notion of the revolution that is not applicable to the world of today. In fact the revolution which was possible in 1917, and still in Paris 1968, bore (past tense bear?) the counter-revolution in their own movement: the affirmation of labour (in Paris '68 this is somewhat difficult to see at first hand, since these were the times of "work refusal" and such, but instead of negating labour, they inverted labour, to say it short).

We are already in the next cycle of class struggle, and some of Théorie Communiste's evidence for the fundamental change of revolutionary practice is found in the struggles at Cellatex and Moulinex (http://www.wildcat-www.de/en/zirkular/61/z61e_mou.htm), some aspects of El Argentinazo 2001 and some other struggles. TC have published much of this conception here: http://meeting.senonevero.net/article.php3...=72%E2%8C%A9=en (http://meeting.senonevero.net/article.php3?id_article=72%E2%8C%A9=en)

I have a hard time noticing the importance of the theoretical discussions in small groups for the coming-to-be of large social movements, even though it is obvious (which I haven't argued against either) that theoretical discussion is lively even in times of class "peace" (there is of course never total tranquillity, since capital is class struggle).

Rationality is in fact practiced by capital, when they introduce toyotism, lean production etc. What capitalist ideologues say isn't always a mirror reflection of what they do (rather it's an apology of what they do). The fact that God is used in the White House has nothing to do with the coming "irrationality of capital", but is instead a way for capital to maintain its hold even in times of a great offensive against the proletariat.

When you say that a class is "replaced by a new class", I would say that you misinterpret the radically different situation which capital presents us with: the possibility for an abolition of classes. There are no analogies to be made between bourgeois insurrections and those of the proletariat. Capital in itself is self-presupposing, it builds its own foundation within its own movement, therefore we can not shift focus of power from capitalists to labourers and thereby be rid of the problem. Capital is more than that, it is an impersonal, historic subject which has become independent of historical individuals. It will only be thrown on the litter bin of history when labour is abolished and the mode of production is crushed. Its replacement, communism, is rather an infinite activity (abolishment of separation of production-consumption-reproduction, abolishment of the separation between labour and free time etc.) which in itself is a goal.

I have seen more and more public and anonymous descriptions of faceless (hidden) resistance in work places and I have practiced it myself at a "higher level" for each year that has passed since I set my foot in a work place (right now I'm back in school, however).

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by cph_shawarma
People's decisions are quite intricate, and not rational in the sense that they are always thought through in a "logical" manner.

Very true.

But you seem to "accept" this and even "celebrate" it...as if revolution itself was inherently "irrational" and "illogical".

And that just makes no sense to me at all.


Communist revolution as Marx conceived of it is simply out of the question for today's world. Since also he was bound by his time, he had a notion of the revolution that is not applicable to the world of today.

Marx lived in the era of bourgeois revolutions and there's no question that his own outlook was shaped by what he saw taking place around him.

I have no doubt at all that the "next cycle" of proletarian revolutions will display features that were not anticipated by either Marx or myself.

In fact, you might very well be right...I simply have no evidence to decide the matter.

What I have learned from history to this point is that reaction has always celebrated the irrational. Indeed, those who've "celebrated the irrational" with the greatest enthusiasm have been fascists.

Thus your call for "communist irrationality" fills me with the deepest skepticism...I can't even begin to comprehend such a strange notion.

It's as if I encountered a discussion of the "properties" of "dry water".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[cph_shawarma]

But you seem to "accept" this and even "celebrate" it...as if revolution itself was inherently "irrational" and "illogical".

Well, I am somewhat provocative, but there is truth in the fact that the revolution can not be rational in the historical-concrete manner which it manifests itself today. Nor can it of course be through-and-through irrational. However, we live in a disenchanted world, a world without true fun, without spontaneity etc. All in opposition to extreme rationalism. Therefore I celebrate irrationality to some extent (and because the communist revolution is a break with capitalist rationality).


In fact, you might very well be right...I simply have no evidence to decide the matter.
Some evidence is presented in Théorie Communiste's above mentioned article.


It's as if I encountered a discussion of the "properties" of "dry water".
Well, ice is in fact "dry" water. :)

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:39 PM
I was not favorably impressed...though I suppose if one limited oneself to what passes for "political debate" in the "mainstream" of bourgeois public life, he'd have a point.

He begins with a simple misunderstanding. The point of debate on a message board like this one is not to "convince one's opponent" but to convince the reader that one's own position makes more sense than one's opponent's.

It sometimes happens that one does convince one's opponent...or at least inspires a considerable modification of their views. But that's in the way of a "happy accident".

The suggestion that political debate "doesn't lead anywhere" is, I'm afraid, a particularly stupid one.

People act in the real world based on their "mental picture" of how the real world works. The better (more correct) that picture is, the more effective their acts will be.

What takes place on really good message boards (like this one!) is precisely the process of making better "mental pictures" of the real world.

It is occasionally argued (by fascist "thinkers") that understanding, knowledge, etc. "leads to" indecision, passivity, etc. This is obvious bullshit, in my opinion. The more one knows, the more one is able to act in such a way as to produce the desired outcome.

Action taken out of ignorance usually has either no effect at all or an outcome completely opposite to one's desires.

Some modern American neo-conservatives mock their academic critics by emphasizing the "vigorous spirit" of neo-conservatism that's "creating a new reality".

Well, we'll see. The neo-conservative "new reality" will, in my view, prove as lasting as Mussolini's triumph in Ethiopia.

Just as those who disparage the importance of vigorous political debate will end up prisoners of some hopelessly obsolete ideology.

Like, um, fascism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Agreed. I was an agnostic stalinist before coming on this board. After constantly reading debates from intelligent members, I've become an athiest, and ultra-left marxist. I really do give most of my credit to rs2k on this one. I think when I first saw his posts I simply denounced it as 'ultra-left' bullshit, but after a while, the whole logic thing got to me :P