Class in "This Is Not a Program"?

Sorry for the most likely ignorant question, I've only just started reading it, so it might be explained in more detail later.

Why exactly do they say that the class struggle is no longer relevant? I understand that they're arguing more for a case-by-case basis upon the individual, but don't their relations to the means of production still remain?

Again, it's entirely possible that I'm just being ignorant. Apologies if that's the case.

Hopefully one of the better read people will respond. I think this question has multiple answers. I don't think they totally reject the idea of class struggle, at one point they seem to suggest that something like a class struggle is taking place in the mind of the individual living under empire. But I think the main reason they say things like this is that the class struggle as it is usually formulated, forces the individual into the role of a somewhat helpless worker struggling against the bourgeoisie, who because of his weakness must rely on revolutionary parties for liberation. The problem with this is that those parties trying to guide the class struggle are generally not interested in abolishing work and as a result will not be capable of putting an end to capitalism. Basically to accept a role in the classically defined class struggle is to doom oneself to be a worker forever, which is what they are really taking issue with.

Hopefully that makes sense and is not totally wrong. I wish we would get some kind of alert for when new discussions take place in user groups.

EG is getting at the point, in my opinion.

The worker, as a social identity is tied to empire, to be a worker, is to some degree, to be a citizen of empire, and if we don't reject the logic of empire we're reproducing it in some form.

I think I'm starting to see, a little bit. So, what it advocates then, is a rejection of the idea that our power is in our proletarian nature, rather than our relation to the means of production?

Suddenly, the revolutionary movement and the workers' movement were no longer identical, revealing theImaginary Party as an excess relative to the latter. The motto, 'class against class,' which from 1926 had become hegemonic, only reveals its latent content if we note that it predominated exactly at the moment when all classes began to disintegrate under the effect of the crisis. 'Class against class' actually means 'classes against the non-class'; it belies the determination to reabsorb, to to liquidate this evermore massive remainder, this floating, socially unaccountable element that threatens to undermine every substantialist interpretation of society, be it bourgeois or Marxist.

Does he give any examples of this 'remainder' consciousness, throughout the rest of the work? What I mean is, what are its characteristics, and how does it differ exactly from 'worker' consciousness?

So, what it advocates then, is a rejection of the idea that our power is in our proletarian nature, rather than our relation to the means of production?

I don't really get what you're asking here.

Does he give any examples of this 'remainder' consciousness, throughout the rest of the work? What I mean is, what are its characteristics, and how does it differ exactly from 'worker' consciousness?

That remainder is expressed throughout history in the communist opposition to the so-called "worker's movements" (uprisings against M-L regimes, struggles against social democratic parties, unions, and "Communist" Parties.

It differs from "worker consciousness" in that it is not rooted in production. Any outlook that has production or the economy as its base is reifying empire.

Ah, alrighty, I think I finally get it. For some reason I had come to the exact opposite conclusion, but reading it over again, I can see how I was wrong.

I think I'm starting to see, a little bit. So, what it advocates then, is a rejection of the idea that our power is in our proletarian nature, rather than our relation to the means of production?

This is pretty close to what they are saying in that part of This is Not a Program, but only if you understand their use of proletarian to not refer to a specific class, but, as they say, a "non-class." Their use of proletarian (which they actually stop using in later writings) doesnt refer to a specific economic or social class as such, but to those that find themselves, in some way or another, on the "outside" (read: fringes) of society.

this quote from marx may be useful, although its possible i am just obfuscating this even more, but...

"“Proletarian” must be understood to mean, economically speaking, nothing other than “wage-labourer”, the man who produces and valorises “capital”, and is thrown onto the street as soon as he becomes superfluous to the need for valorisation."

It is the last part of this quote that is relevant to the way Tiqqun used proletarian. It isn't about the wage-labourer but those that are pushed out, whether this is through a directly economic process, or a more social one (those that don't, can't, or won't fit in - who know that they are not of this world).

Does he give any examples of this 'remainder' consciousness, throughout the rest of the work? What I mean is, what are its characteristics, and how does it differ exactly from 'worker' consciousness?

The remainder isn't a consciousness, but the people that didn't want to be workers anymore. The most interesting aspect of May 68 is that while the unions were occupying their factories and shit, a large portion of workers just simply refused to show up at all. They spent time with their families, went on vacation, or fought the police or whatever.

This is the split they talk about between the revolutionary movement and the workers movement. The former being that which wished to destroy society, and the latter being that which wanted to manage it.


I know this is suuuper old at this point, but I felt like replying anyway. Sue me.