I was wondering when you would come here.
Results 1 to 20 of 27
WHOSE CLASS STRUGGLE?
October 1, 2005 by Floyce White
The struggle over semantics is one facet of the overall struggle against capitalism. The conflict over wording does not "go away" no matter what well-intentioned temporary truce you make before a meeting. Pro-capitalists treat your acquiescence as gullibility, and redouble their efforts to impose their terminology. To "play politics" with what you believe to be true is to tell a lie.
In response to the previous article in this series, Against Anarchism--For Communism, many anarchists say that those who use the word "anarchism" as I describe are abusing the term. They insist that its "true meaning" is something else. Most define the term according to its etymology--"no ruler"--and assert that "anarchism means no state." Hah! The concept of "true meaning," as with all versions of "absolute truth," originates from class society and serves to support class society. There is no single definition of any political term that is true to both poor and rich, or among all factions of the rich. Interpretations are prejudiced by property interests or the lack thereof. Without a doubt, all upper-class reasoning defends exploitation. Regardless of how they say it, anarchism means a state.
Some anarchists respond by quoting authority figures such as Proudhon, and cite his 1840 essay What Is Property? This bourgeois social reformer approved of claims of ownership of things of personal use, while he condemned claims of ownership of things used by others. His semantics exaggerated subtle differences between the meanings of the words "possession" and "property." Nonsense! Personal possession is just as odious as any other form of property. A "claim" is something you make to other people; property is a method of interacting with others. In the hypothetical absence of any conflict, to say that "I own my shirt," "you own your shirt," and "we own our shirts" is not interaction, therefore it is the trivial case--as in mathematics when all variables are set to zero. The claim to own some things used by only you and your kin would be entirely unnecessary--and the implied threat of violence to enforce that claim would be anti-social--if not for the need to put up a passive defense against the system of accumulation of wealth and its encroaching dispossession that does not distinguish between things used by one or by many. Personal property is a method of struggle on terms set by the oppressors. Bourgeois radicals such as Proudhon are like college students who become professors without any experience in their fields. They are unaware of this way of putting the question because the point of view of the lower class is not in the books they read. Proudhon saw only an abstract "people" who throughout history all tried to get personal property, so he deduced the false conclusion that personal property must be a cornerstone of every society. In the language of the capitalist, anti-feudal revolution, ownership was a "right" or a "natural law" of which violation was "theft." The production and distribution of goods and services were not envisioned as sharing, but as "exchange of personal possessions." In this way, Proudhon created a legalistic loophole for "personal" business properties as well as their association as limited partnerships, co-ops, syndicates, and "employee ownership."
Proudhon opposed big business and the vast state-owned properties because these are not forms of personal property. Proudhon also opposed the state because police protect claims of non-personal property. Hah! Do a little semantical struggle here. Replace the idea of "exchange of personal possessions" with the phrase "small business," and it is clear that Proudhon's interpretation of "anarchism" is a political movement in the interests of petty capitalists. Since almost all capitalists are small capitalists, his words were not rebellion but apologetics. In the years to follow, the many contradicting definitions of "anarchism" by upper-class authorities mirrored the many competing property interests.
As long as there are capitalists, they will recruit working-class activists to do political labor. Many lower-class anarchists, socialists, and radical liberals struggle to raise broad anti-property demands instead of the intrigues of petty-capitalist interests. This is one form of the struggle for communism. The existence of communist struggle within the anarchist movement does not prove that "anarchism is communism" any more than the existence of lower-class struggle within the radical-liberal movement proves that "radical liberalism is communism." In conflict with the idea that anarchism is a form of capitalism, a few comrades counterpose the expression "anarcho-communism." This phrasing does not work--precisely because it defines "anarchism" as meaning "no state." Along with its corollary, "state capitalism," these terms induce the pair of false opposites "stateless capitalism" and "state communism." False opposite proves false posit. Anyone can compound words as a rhetorical device, but it does not imply any reasoning.
A few comrades make the argument that the self-aware struggle of lower-class activists within the anarchist movement is not different from or inferior to struggle that calls itself "communist." They correctly point out that bourgeois definitions of "communism" are not the meanings used by lower-class activists who call themselves "communists." They insist that quibbling about labels is sectarian divisiveness, so they continue to call themselves "anarchists." No. Speaking up is honest; the refusal to discuss differences is divisive. Activists frequently work out disagreements about events, and often resolve conflicts over semantics. Words have meanings that are defined by the social and political movements of property classes--not by dictionary authors. The worldwide dispossessed class has no factions with property interests; therefore, the poor can build overwhelming unity in speech and action. It is sheer nihilism to suggest that, for the lower class, "communism" and "anarchism" and "socialism" and "liberalism" and any number of other words all have similar, overlapping meanings, or to suggest that one single word can not and must not have the unique definition of "the struggle of the poor against the rich." "Communism" has this meaning--that is why upper-class repression of this struggle is called "anti-communism."
Some comrades say that "socialism" is the name of the rebellion of the poor, but never show me the leaflets they mass distribute denouncing comrades of capitalist family origins as "the living counterrevolution within revolutionary organizations." Some comrades say that "anarchism is a method" of opposing the violence that upholds property claims, but never show me where they write that employers, landlords, merchants, and investors are incapable of this method and "must step aside and become sympathizers without voice and vote." What I call "communism" cannot be achieved by fighting only the external oppressor while surrendering the "struggle within the struggle." Communism cannot be achieved through a populist appeal to "class struggle" in general that does not differentiate itself from the intra-class struggle within the upper class. Communism can be achieved only when lower-class people unite in action, in organization, and in diction. The principle of preference is exclusion is forever used to divide and conquer us; now we must use it to prefer association with fellow poor people, to organize independent of exploiters big and small, and to reject their excuses for being exploiters.
This article is the eleventh in a series, available at http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty
I was wondering when you would come here.
We are not afraid of ruins. Workers built the palaces and cities of Spain and America. We can do it again. The bourgeoisie can destroy their world before abandoning history's stage but we have a new world in our hearts......a world that is growing every moment. It's growing while I talk to you.
You only get what you're Organized to take.
Somebody mentioned this message board elsewhere. I'm not a leftist and I don't think workers who are critical of leftism will come here. But I still have the responsibility to inform fellow comrades and activists of these well-distributed writings that critique leftism. And I have the responsibility to defend them.
You don't consider communism to be leftist?
Please elaborate.
(I was the one who gave you the link on the flag.blackened forums; I did it because there is more diveristy of thought here, and I felt your ideas need to be put to the test)
We are not afraid of ruins. Workers built the palaces and cities of Spain and America. We can do it again. The bourgeoisie can destroy their world before abandoning history's stage but we have a new world in our hearts......a world that is growing every moment. It's growing while I talk to you.
You only get what you're Organized to take.
JKP: "You don't consider communism to be leftist. Please elaborate."
Who is arguing that communism is a form of leftism? I haven't read any arguments that seriously attempt to define leftism, define communism, and then make a logical proof that communism must be a form of leftism and cannot be anything other than a form of leftism. On the other hand, I've heard thousands of assertions to that effect. The argument is totally by assertion--something to be taken for granted and to be repeated to show your unquestioning conformity. In other words, it's "Political Correctness."
The burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim. No one has to disprove any and all assertions made by anybody anywhere. It is an unfounded claim. It is not proven, therefore it must be treated as if it is false.
Leftists have had generations to develop an argument. Their unwillingness or inability to do so is glaring evidence that such an argument cannot be made. This is coincidental or circumstantial evidence that can be used as a quick and informal check up on any thesis that defines communism as not a form of leftism.
However, for me in particular, I do say that communism is not a form of leftism. I am fully prepared to defend my opinion.
Bourgeois definitions are references to authoritative expert opinion, dogma, or are self-styled for the needs of the moment. Working-class definitions are the usages by masses in political action. Among working-class activists, the term "left" is virtually always used to refer to liberals, radical liberals, socialists, or other liberal-oriented movements, but is virtually never used to refer to conservatives, radical conservatives, fascists, or other conservative-oriented movements. The term "right" is virtually always used to refer to conservatives, radical conservatives, fascists, or other conservative-oriented movements, but is virtually never used to refer to liberals, radical liberals, socialists, or other liberal-oriented movements.
"The left" is the totality of liberal-oriented movements. "The right" is the totality of conservative-oriented movements. Their goals vary according to current events, and their compositions vary according to the particulars of families' and business partners' interests and associations, or the lack thereof. The alternation of liberal and conservative regimes is the main and preferred method of administering state violence, but at some times and for some capitalists--especially for many petty proprietors--other methods are more useful. Thus the need for movements that are liberal-oriented but not the main liberal groupings, and that are conservative-oriented but not the main conservative groupings. They do not bear the responsibities for current governmental policies, and can struggle for goals and perform tasks beyond the scope of the ordinary liberal and conservative parties. As their atypical tasks are completed, demands are satisfied, conditions are changed, and support for further atypical action dwindles. Capitalism then returns to its usual alternation.
Then of course is "the center." Opportunists, careerists, and apolitical types asked for political opinions always aver to moderation and against "extremeism." Centrists carefully word all their statements in the least-offensive way possible. They use slogans from both left and right--whatever seems more popular at the time. Other terms for "centrism" include "moderate," "middle-of-the-road," "independent," "neoliberal," and "new conservative." When applied to the discussion of reforms, it is something akin to the military concept of "centrists" who have not yet or might never take a side for or against revolution or counterrevolution. Centrism is the hybrid of pro-capitalist politics: an artificial creature with traits from both sides, vigorous and abundant, but sterile.
So far, this is pretty basic stuff. If I had just said "'left' means 'liberal' and 'right' means 'conservative,'" it would have been rough and crude, but essentially correct. So even at this point, it is apparent that to prove that communism is a form of leftism, you'd have to prove that communism is basically the same as liberalism. And that's really the point, isn't it? Are you trying to prove to working-class activists that liberalism is communism, and therefore they should join liberal-oriented groups and support liberal-oriented solutions?
You don't have to prove anything to capitalist-class activists. They already have business interests that indicate what political actions they need to take.
To the upper class, there is nothing but the further development of property relations. The concept of the absence of class society is the negation of their existence, and that is impossible for them to admit. To them, "communism" cannot mean "struggle to abolish property." Nothing can have that meaning in the here-and-now. To the upper class, the accumulation of property is the goal of all human endeavors. With all persons said to be in struggle for the same goal, the "lower class" is just the less-propertied individuals. The very meaning of "class" is annihilated--it becomes a swear word. The lower class is defined away, arbitrarily pigeonholed according to income, occupation, or beliefs, divisively propagandized as pseudo-classes such as "middle class" and "underclass," and so on.
To the upper class, all struggles are non-class abstractions of "us against them." The parliamentary farce behind the terms "left" and "right" is not the key. It could just as well be phrased as "progress" and "reaction," or "yin" and "yang." The upper class has no problem with their false dilemma being worded as "rich" and "poor" or "upper class" and "lower class." It could even be phrased as "propertied" and "dispossessed"--as long as there is some inconsistency or exception or undefined area that makes the theory plausibly congruent to the idea of property accumulation by both sides.
Family property, state property, personal property, companies, cooperatives, worker management: same thing, different institution. "Communism" that favors one or more of these is just another version of accumulation of property. Communism is leftist? Why not? Communism is rightist? Sure, that too. "Communists are really just capitalists anyway" and vice versa. To support property as a method of human interaction is to support violence as the basis of social behavior. Such a lie does not need to justify its definitions.
To the lower class, there is such a thing as antiproperty struggle, it is their struggle against the upper class, it is called "communism," and it is not a form of leftism.
To the upper class, there is no such thing as antiproperty struggle, and communism is a form of leftism. Advocacy of antiproperty struggle must be naivete, sophistry, or some morality play in a grab for "leadership."
I'm guessing a simplified version of what you are saying is this:
Too many people think in the frame that this is an ideological struggle, when it really is a class struggle. A "Marxist" or "Anarchist" Revolution is incorrect, rather a "Working Class" Revolution is the correct term.
And the term 'left' ascribes to political ideology, while Communism is material struggle between the proletariat and the burgeoisie, and has no place in being called apart of the "left".
Right? If so, then I completely agree with you.
Could not agree with you more.... with that intended on FW
<span style=\'color:blue\'><u>Political Statement:</u> "The Free people of the World, I ask you today that you unite under one strengh and flex your muscles by standing shoulder to shoulder, and joining hand in hand to once and for all introduce Real Social Justice and once more, give power to the Poor and Working Class, in Which the Capitalist world has denied our people. Ave' Somalia."</span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>Warsame Mohamed
Member of the People's Front For Somalia</span>
<u>Ave' Africa</u>
<span style=\'color:blue\'>Ave' Somalia</span>
Down with Capital Profits, Down with Social Classes.
<u>Ave' Africa</u>
Zingu, I'm a materialist. Communism and capitalism are the actions of people, not mere beliefs that anyone can hold. "Communist ideology" or "working-class ideology" is the history of the ideas spoken by lower-class people in struggle. For the son of the landlord to repeat these ideas--is just putting on a play.
I couldn't agree more, this is a frustrating problem I have found on this board.
Thank you AfricanSocialCommunist and Zingu.
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!
Miles
I've read this post about three times, and I am still confused about what you said (stated above).
How do we start to resolve the intra-struggle within the struggle?
Do we abolish old-semantics?
Semantics limits understanding and it used like an easy way out of explaination, but if your trying to smash the limits, there will be many more different types of ists in our world.
As a communist, how I am to explain that the USSR became state-capitalist?
Sure I could say "and such and such wasn't really communist because communism is this".
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]"We can do anything by working with eachother!"[/FONT]
Preference is exclusion means that if you prefer something, it is generally to the exclusion of all others. If you prefer chicken over beef, for example, you will generally not order both, but only one of them. In class terms, it means that if you prefer to fight for the liberation of working people, then that should be done to the exclusion of the class interests and desires of non-proletarians. In other words, if you're a communist, you really shouldn't give a whit whether the petty bourgeoisie is "liberated" or not. It's not our job to see that they are or are not.
The rest of the statement, "we must ... prefer association with fellow [proletarians],... organize independent of the [bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie], and ... reject their excuses for being exploiters [and not rejecting their existing class relations]", is a decent summation of the League's membership policy.
Miles
So pretty much focus on helping fellow prolitarians recognize their historical tasks, than arguing with the bourgoeisie that capitalism wrong, because they will be overthrown anyways if we organize and take action.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]"We can do anything by working with eachother!"[/FONT]
Comrade White, I have read all the anti-property articles. Even though I disagree with some thing's you say (EG Lumping Nationalism into one lump, Anti-Leninism), I must say, I approve of alot of what you say. Do you have any other work's online ?
Join the CPC !
Communist Party
Join The YCL !
Young Communist League of Canada
</div><table border=\'0\' align=\'center\' width=\'95%\' cellpadding=\'3\' cellspacing=\'1\'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Comrade Om"</td></tr><tr><td id=\'QUOTE\'>People always write off the proletariat. They are the perpetual underdogs. I’m sure there were plenty in the Tsar’s court who believed that the workers were inferior or unfit to rule. The Petrograd proletariat proved them wrong. This is how it will always be. The proletariat may not feel ready or capable to destroy the bourgeoisie but they will and they will do so simply because they have no choice in the matter.</td></tr></table><div class=\'signature\'>
yeah, I am with you guys on this one, of Leftism being a poor choice to classify the idea of Communism, it is a much to weak term to use.
a leftist is what a liberal calls himself when trying to kiss up to a socialist, now a utilitarian or a materialist, those are real concepts!
This line that calls for proletarian organization, independent of other class forces, is very exciting to me. I've recently read the original Communist League thread on this board and was also following the recent thread debating the CL's membership policy until it went back into the CC.
Years ago I "supported" a communist organization that was mostly petite bourgeois, thinking that they would attract more proletarians as time went by. But that never happened because this group was inherently unattractive to the working class. The theoreticians "got all the respect" and the cadre weren't really trained in theory. I was a Marxist, a left communist actually, before I supported this group and I analyzed my experience according to class backgrounds. It never occurred to me that the problem was the mere presence of petite bourgeois types in the organization. I guess I thought that proletarian ideas made these people into proletarians.
Nowadays, I'm seeing more clearly that communism had been hijacked for most of the 20th century by non-proletarian forces. And that now the whole agenda of proletarian revolution is still on the table. Raise class consciousness, organize as a class, seize power, abolish wage labor and (bourgeois) property and finally abolish the proletariat to create a classless society. Only propertyless proles are going to be able to see this through. All other classes are going to want to stop at some point. So proletarian only organizations make complete sense to me.
Also, it has always seemed to me that a proletarian revolution would bust right through a left-right political spectrum. Many of the proles that I know, while not revolutionaries (yet) think that most politicians are complete assholes, no matter what side of the politcal spectrum they are on.
It was not 'a question what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. As Marx later explained, it was a question 'of what the proletariat is and what, in accordance with this being , it will historically be compelled to do'. -- Gareth Steadman Jones quoting Marx and Engels from "The Holy Family"
Emphasis added.
I completely agree and this is why the Free People's Movement was formed 3 years ago. It was more of a neccessity than a choice.
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
If people ... from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should wholeheartedly adopt the proletarian point of view [which is only possible by joining the proletariat]. But these gentlemen ... are stuffed and crammed with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas.... If these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. (Marx and Engels, Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke, et al., Sept. 15-18, 1879 -- emphasis added)
We are not afraid of ruins. Workers built the palaces and cities of Spain and America. We can do it again. The bourgeoisie can destroy their world before abandoning history's stage but we have a new world in our hearts......a world that is growing every moment. It's growing while I talk to you.
You only get what you're Organized to take.
El Kablamo: "Do we abolish old-semantics?"
Yes! 1) Stop using terms you have partial disagreements with. Use the terms you don't have any disagreements with or very minor differences. 2) Politely but firmly tell others when you don't agree with the way they are phrasing things, and suggest a better alternative.
El Kablamo: "As a communist, how I am to explain that the USSR became state-capitalist?"
My opinions on the USSR are in my Antiproperty series. The link is above.
Red Powers: "Years ago I 'supported' a communist organization that was mostly petite bourgeois..."
We've all been there.
Red Powers: "I guess I thought that proletarian ideas made these people into proletarians."
Yeah--because they keep repeating it.
JC1: "Do you have any other works online?"
Only one. I've hardly written anything but activity flyers and the like. During the Yugo War, a few of us were disgusted with the local coalition and we put out an irregular newsletter. I did most of the writing. Pretty bad, and lots of mistakes. But I wrote a piece on "What We Stand For" that I liked so much, when 911 happened, I used it again. It became about 40% of the first article in my Antiproperty series.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/stopthewar/
