BNB, hpwombat etc., split from communisation

What is this bullshit about BNB? Perhaps this deserves a separate thread, since you brought it up?

Take your pick of threads w/ BNB involved and if you don't see what I mean then no amount of discussion could explain it on this thread or any other. Stuff like a situationist history of the American grain elevator sums it up well.

Back on topic, could you rephrase this because I'm not quite sure what you're getting at?

Quote:

There is not necessarily the world of tomorrow in what we do today, so a future leaning interpretation on the potential of communism just doesn't do it for me.

How about no? I don't see what you mean and you will have to explain it. I've never banned BNB for anything because it is easy to ignore him instead of antagonize him, like was obviously done here.

Next point.

What don't you understand? The future doesn't exist, only its potential. To say "communization" is to imply that something is like communism, which doesn't exist. How could someone's actions be like anything? Couldn't it be said they are like Jesus? Jesusization? Yes, this is ridiculous, just like the implications that we should believe something is moving towards communism or like communism when there isn't any such thing as communism. Why lie to ourselves that something is something else?

Well, it sounds like you do know what I'm getting at if you understand there is a need to at the very least ignore BNB. I was using BNB as an example of the absurdity of certain ultra-situ devotees (situationist history of grain elevators, over-the-top denunciations--up to and including slander--of anyone who doesn't see Debord as the 2nd coming, or even denigrating people for not speaking French). This is what I was referring to and thought "cf. BNB" was a good shorthand for this kind of behavior. I really don't want to derail this thread any further; go ahead and start a new thread if you want, but I really don't have much more to say on the subject.

hpwombat wrote:

What don't you understand? The future doesn't exist, only its potential. To say "communization" is to imply that something is like communism, which doesn't exist. How could someone's actions be like anything? Couldn't it be said they are like Jesus? Jesusization? Yes, this is ridiculous, just like the implications that we should believe something is moving towards communism or like communism when there isn't any such thing as communism. Why lie to ourselves that something is something else?

Thank you for the clarification. Your previous comment was a bit unclear to me, but now I understand where you're coming from. Fair enough that communism doesn't exist, but I think that's the purpose of the theory of communisation: to explain the process of creating communism as well as identifying the areas in which the potential currently does exist. Call the potential what you'd like, but I tend to think of this as a form of communisation (though I am certainly aware this probably isn't the intended use of the word.)

[not well thought out speculation]
I do think this potential exists in the here and now to various degrees. I'm aware I'm way out on a limb with this, but I think that relationships capital has yet to commodify represent this kind of potential. If you accept that communism=community then I think things like being neighborly or helping friends, family and coworkers (especially when organized organically with other friends, family, and coworkers) is a form of this potential.

This is simply my personal take on it and one I haven't put a whole lot of thought into, but it seems to me if one were looking--as many do in dumpsters and other idiotic places--for a "communist lifestyle" this is where he or she could find real opportunities. By this I mean actively engaging in communist-like behavior and encouraging it amongst others. Of course, this in and of itself has no revolutionary potential; however, as with much of the work we do, this kind of activity can help lay the groundwork by continuing to build class confidence.[/not well thought out speculation]

Well I guess you shouldn't of brought it up. BNB is just another theorist and isn't someone that thinks Debord is god. BNB is a defender of a pro-situ position in the face of culture jammers who have appropriated the situationist approach. Dauve's father, Copaut's (or whatever) father isn't an issue. What is an issue is people that grab on to these criticisms as if they were more substantial than they were. Whatever the policies here are, BNB was antagonized into a ban rather than banned because he was attempting to fuck with the forum.

Back on.

I call the potential "potential", perhaps "proletarianization" or perhaps not. Depends on the context of discussion. It would be difficult to explain communization if communism never happened nor will ever happen. There is no need to pretend the future is becoming. Marx said the Paris Commune was the dictatorship of the proletariat or something. I find the dictatorship of the proletariat to be more convincing than communization because the future can't exist until the present is destroyed.

Did the Paris Commune attempt to destroy their present? Well, they spent a lot of time trying to free Blanqui and talking about baked bread...so perhaps Marx was trying to stay relevant more than accurately applying analysis? I guess I'll look into it more to give a more proper response as far as Marx is concerned.

Still though, we can talk about the strategy of destruction and how we'd like to see the social order broken down. These things may or may not occur, but we can make the attempts, while attempts to make communism exist within capitalism are laughable and bad propaganda. Why claim communization when those group can also be ripped asunder by a powerful revolt? If the dictatorship of the proletariat destroys communization, was it ever like communism?

Jesus, you're persistent. I don't understand; if this is so important and you insist on continuing to bring it up why won't you just start a new thread? I guess that doesn't help with your attempts at a dust-up. Meanwhile you continue to derail the thread.

There's no reason I shouldn't have brought it up. I've defended, successfully I think, my use of BNB as an example. Just to be clear, all of the examples I used above were instances that preceded any antagonism which was well deserved by that point. If you're going to call people stupid for not speaking French and accuse, with absolutely no evidence and armed only with guilt by association, a well-known communist theorist of being an anti-semite and crypto-fascist you should expect to get some shit for that. If anything, he should have been banned sooner for his outrageous behavior. This is the last time I will respond to BNB related stuff on this thread. I'm right about this, your several attempts to do so have finally riled me up, and so on principle I will engage with you on a new thread if it means so much to you. Really I don't think it does and instead you're looking to score a few points, but you're choosing a losing battle on this one.

As for your on-topic points, I am not an advocate for trying to make communism exist within capitalism. You can't drop out of capitalism so I don't have a disagreement with you on that point. I do, however, think that areas in which commodification has not occurred collective behavior should be encouraged and defended against attacks.

I'm not derailing the thread, further comments about dragging this thread into a different direction will not receive a response. You did not start a separate thread, as I asked, so I chose to continue as you did. Don't start framing discussion to make me into some bad guy, you are the one that brought it up to attack a friend of mine, so I will respond and continue to until you make a separate thread or there isn't anything further to say.

No you didn't use BNB as a proper example of anything. Bill has consistently presented a strong case that the theory and practice of the situationists are important since the motherfucking 80s. This is, again, versus the pro-situ milieu that chose to take some of the approaches of the situationists and turn it towards simple anti-consumer activism. Why you'd dismiss this with some juvenile turn of words to make him seem like a fanatic rather than just another asshole on the web is insulting, so I will challenge it because it isn't true.

Also, your attempts to frame the discussion as if you were "winning" is nonsense. I am challenging an attack on someone and you are acting like it was fair game. It is not. Bill Brown's translation of some attacks on fathers is interpreted by you and perhaps others as an attack on Dauve and Coupat. I see it as a translation to give food for thought. I happen to believe sons rebel against their fathers, especially if they take a radical turn, so I would disagree with Bill beyond asking how much influence these fathers had on their sons.

We all do it, you clearly decided that Bill has deified Debord. Some say that Nietzsche's love interest, a female nihilist, had more influence on him than any thinker. These things have been and will continue to be brought up to understand the origin and trajectory of thought. How much does the apple fall from the tree? In the case of both, I'd think pretty far.