Pre-revolutionary Consciousness

So, "Nihilist Communism" opposes attempts to spread pre-revolutionary class consciousness, arguing that they can't transcend the spectacular form of consciousness under capitalism and that they are useless at best, destructive at worst. But the critique of consciousness put forth by 'nihilist communism' seems to assume that economic conditions will inevitably compel workers to seize the means of production. Hasn't history proved time and time again that capitalism can use ideology to channel workers' discontent, leading them to act against their own self-interest -- even in severe crises? Is the assumption that economic conditions combined with pure self-interest will force the widescale occupation of factories really a solid foundation for a revolutionary model?

Moreover, 'nihilist communism' assumes that once this crisis has been reached, workers will be able to establish the "consciousness" necessary to decisively smash capitalism and replace it with something else -- presumably communism. But without an established revolutionary movement, how is this going to happen? Will workers spontaneously decide to abolish capitalism? If we learned anything from May 1968 and similar events, isn't it that just occupying the factories isn't enough to move the revolution to the next stage?

Finally, the practical implications of 'nihilist communism' worry me. The ultimate conclusion seems to be that the best way to make revolution is to sit back and wait for it to happen, maybe writing a few critiques of the pro-revolutionary milieu in the meantime. Is 'nihilist communism' more than a theoretical justification for passivity?

But the critique of consciousness put forth by 'nihilist communism' seems to assume that economic conditions will inevitably compel workers to seize the means of production. Hasn't history proved time and time again that capitalism can use ideology to channel workers' discontent, leading them to act against their own self-interest -- even in severe crises? Is the assumption that economic conditions combined with pure self-interest will force the widescale occupation of factories really a solid foundation for a revolutionary model?

i think monsieur dupont would argue that history has equally proven time and time again that "socialist consciousness" is not enough to destroy the capitalist productive process. if anything, it has only aided in smoothing out that production process and removing the baggage of tradition that has slowed productivity. their argument is essentially rooted in marx and so, if we accept the analysis that class struggle is the basis of history, then the proletarian overcoming the bourgeoisie is simply an economic act and not an ideological one, just as the shift from primitive communism to feudalism or from feudalism to capitalism was determined by material necessity and not ideological struggle. certainly the capitalists have been able to figure out ways to diminish class struggle in periods of crisis, but ultimately it has to come to a head because capitalists and workers have fundamentally oppositional aims.

Moreover, 'nihilist communism' assumes that once this crisis has been reached, workers will be able to establish the "consciousness" necessary to decisively smash capitalism and replace it with something else -- presumably communism. But without an established revolutionary movement, how is this going to happen? Will workers spontaneously decide to abolish capitalism?

well, do we believe that consciousness is a result of material conditions, or evangelism on the part of revolutionaries? if it is the latter, which consciousness is the correct one for the working class? i think their argument here is related to the more spontaneist councilists who view the workers council as the primary form worker self-organization takes, arguing that this can be seen in many proletarian uprisings: russia 1905 and 1917, italy 1920-21, spain 1936, east germany 1953, hungary 1956, etc, etc. despite the failure of these events, what we see in them is that the working class (largely lacking "socialist consciousness" in the pro-revolutionary sense) organized themselves into the council form. while md doesn't explicitly argue for councils, i think their argument is basically the same- the material conditions that prevail once the capitalist economy has been halted will give rise ideas appropriate to the now collectively controlled productive apparatus.

as for '68, i would take a guess (and only that) that their argument would be centered around the fact that it was primarily an ideas-led revolt and not one precipitated by strong enough contradictions- this is why the beach was more appealing than the occupations to the students and a wage increase more appealing that collectivization to the workers.

Finally, the practical implications of 'nihilist communism' worry me. The ultimate conclusion seems to be that the best way to make revolution is to sit back and wait for it to happen, maybe writing a few critiques of the pro-revolutionary milieu in the meantime. Is 'nihilist communism' more than a theoretical justification for passivity?

i think its easier to just offer a few quotations here...

from nihilist communism:
"It is not the role of pro-revolutionaries to take up a political position
on prejudice, it is not for us to improve life conditions within the
capitalist form and obscure with side issues the tyranny of the
commodity which goes unchallenged in the competition of identity
markets for funding. However, as individuals, of course it is our
ethical responsibility as human being to oppose bigotry whenever
we encounter it. but we must not confuse our personal ethics with
revolutionary 'movements'."

"We think pro-revolutionaries do have a role but it is not
generally the role they award themselves (for example, waving
flags, masking their faces, traveling to international cities,
exhibiting the most extreme gestures in the parade of gestures that
are political demonstrations);we see one of our task as to inhibit
those who would lead a revolution, especially those who are
closest to us and claim not to want to lead; other tasks we have set
ourselves are the creation of tools, tactics and perspectives for use
by others in various critical events, for which we claim no
intellectual property rights."

a personal statement of some interest, related to letters journal:
"Communism is not the preservation of, reading about, or expertise within a defined political tradition so much as it is the inclusion of as wide a range of human activities as possible within the project of establishing the human community.

I am interested in including diverse theories of human liberation within the communist perspective, which has lately become so theoretically depleted. My present interests include cybernetics/systems theory, psychoanalysis, radical constructivism, evolutionary biology.

I am always interested in corresponding with others on the nature of our project."

I don't really know exactly what "nihilist communism" is

well the text is linked in the description. or, if you're lazy.

but I don't think there's a point in distinguishing between a pre-revolutionary consciousness and a revolutionary consciousness. I think a developed class consciousness is what can give a situation it's revolutionary impulse.

how would you define consciousness?

I don't think we can expect workers to "spontaneously" assert the means of production, at least not in the strict definition of the word, because I think class consciousness is key in determining how the revolution will play out.

i think spontaneous is the wrong word to use. the argument of the nihilist communists is that the essential proletariat will seize control of the means of production purely by acting in their own self-interest in the particular events of a crisis. so it will not be "conscious" in the political sense, but merely a self-interested struggle and at this point will the development of communism begin.

There have been plenty of populist movements throughout history that show us how quickly something once thought of as revolutionary can turn reactionary. Of course material conditions are at play here in shaping these events, but you also can't ignore the role of ideas, which in many cases descend into realpolitik, thus salvaging capital, often with reactionary intent.

actually, i think this is basically their point as well, though from another angle. the development of consciousness in the proletariat has been used by different sections of the bourgeoisie to exert control and reorganize the management of capital for greater productivity.

I think part of the revolutionary's role lies in developing an effective proletarian class consciousness, which consists of a negation of the prior consciousness.

but what does that mean, exactly?

as an aside, can i assume you would agree that communism is in the self-interest of the working class?

Of course consciousness develops in response to the material conditions of the day, but I don't think we can disregard the role of individuals, already possessing a revolutionary class consciousness, in forming opinion through social dialogue.

pro-revolutionaries have been engaging in social dialogue for the past 150 years and developed even more refine techniques in the past 50, but this has had no measurable impact. if we look at the most volatile struggles in recent decades, they have been undertaken by the working class purely out of self-interest with the pro-revolutionary milieu tagging along at their heels, trying to tell them about consciousness. i think this suggests something about how future events will unfold.

Ultimately, I think class consciousness serves as a sort of "guiding hand" or a motive will that directs the dialectical nature of history.

historically it has served as a guiding hand, but generally away from revolutionary change. consistently we're left with the absurdity of those possessing "consciousness" telling workers acting in self-interest to be more moderate, less revolutionary, etc. which leads directly into this...

"the proletariat and only the proletariat can discern in the correct understanding of the nature of society a power-factor of the first, and perhaps decisive importance." I think this "power-factor of the first" is a realization, and later an assertion, of the historical potential of the proletariat, something that's key if they ever expect to make a revolution for their own benefit.

so why is it that so few who advocate socialist politics are proletarian and so few who are proletarian give a shit about socialist politics? nevermind even getting into the 400 odd versions of socialist consciousness that exist and conflict with each other so desperately for the attention of proletarians. i think if the working class develops any sort of consciousness of their role, it is through their own struggles, not through pro-revolutionaries telling them about it.

I don't think I agree with this idea, largely because I think it reduces itself to a biological determinism, which I don't find to be a useful tool when looking at human history.

i don't think its purely deterministic. self-interest has to be realized, and the will to fight for it to the point of rupture built, but i think this happens organically through self-interested struggles of workers, not from any evangelical activity by the left.

While acting in one's self-interest is of course critical in a revolutionary struggle, I think a larger understanding of the totality and a consciosness regarding what you are doing is necessary for any sort of protracted, international struggle. If we sit and wait for these occasional wild-cat strikes and autonomous actions to eventually accumulate to produce a revolutionary situation, I think we'll be waiting forever, while we'll see potentially mass revolutionary consciousnesses get hijacked by all varieties of nationalism, fascism, and populism.

i don't see why it always comes back to sitting around and waiting. as i understand md's perspective, they remain active within the left but their critique is aimed at understanding the weaknesses of our position in society and not over inflating the role we play. i think we can obviously still struggle as self-interested workers and there is nothing harmful in sharing our ideas, but i don't think they will be of any real importance until the essential proletariat have already acted without our intervention.

Could you clarify what you mean when you say "pro-revolutionary"? I'm not sure if you're speaking of the so-called "professional" revolutionaries or just those who advocate revolution, perhaps a bit ahead of their time.

"those who are, like us, for communist revolution"