On “The law of value in it’s simplest terms” thread I tried to explore the usefulness of Marx’s categories of absolute and relative surplus value and formal and real subsumption of labor because, as I see it, they are critical aspects of the law of value as defined by Marx.
I did not have my own answer to the problems I set, only a doubt as to what real effects in the real world – in terms of political perspectives in particular – these categories (all 5) might have.
The discussion on that thread, and the subsequent one on “That’s not how that [communization] shit works…” thread, have been really useful for me because they have confirmed to me that my doubts about these categories do have validity.
My perspectives have been formed, as much as I know, through the traditions of anarchism, left communism/ultra-leftism, particularly in both of their analyses of the Russian Revolution, and the amazingly rich writing of Marx himself (and Engels, everyone forgets Engels…). Also through my involvement in workplace struggles; strikes; union committees; rank and filism 'led' by members of the Direct Action Movement; I have even for a short time, and kind of against my principles, reluctantly served as a union rep; community struggles; political groups; and Indigenous activism.
But what I have had confirmed for me in recent discussion here is the suspicion that Marx’s categories of the materialist conception of history (historical materialism) and the law of value feed into the phenomenon of leftism in its various shades, and will probably continue to do so because his categories (like any scientific undertaking) are a product of their time and they are trapped within the discourse of productivity and capitalism itself. Just as we are.
The only categories identified by Marx that do seem to be useful in thinking about society, particularly as they have been taken up by figures such as Camatte, are the categories of the formal and real subsumption of labor. But these categories do not, tellingly serve much use within leftist and reformist discourse.
I think that the relationship Marx describes between humans, labor, alienation (alienation from labor), and productivity – relationships that underpin the method of historical materialism, modes of production, etc – are possibly ill-conceived.
They are built upon the Hegelian dialectic in relation to history; that is itself built upon the materialist formulations of the radical and democratic wing of the Enlightenment (beginning with the remarkable Spinoza); that were, again, derived from the radical social and material transformations evident from the 15th century in Europe.
This in itself, of course, does not invalidate Marx’s categories, but they are brought into question if one takes seriously another of Marx’s formulations: that the times people live in are not of their making, and the chances they have of changing things are not for them to choose. Why is that 'revolutionaries' can know the truth before, in advance, of everyone else. There is something wrong with the idea that we can think outside the box of the world.
But what the recent ‘discussions’ I have been involved in here have confirmed to me, on top of this, is that Marxist categories can only function as the basis of leftism that ultimately always returns to Leninism.
Therefore, with an eye on history, it would seem advisable to attempt to abandon his categories and his method.
Why might it be advisable to abandon Marxism and Leftism?
Perhaps because of the lessons and experience of the Russian Revolution.
One of the most concise and beautiful books on these lessons is the History of the Makhnovist Movement 1918-1921, by a participant, Peter Arshinov.
In the preface Volin describes one of the key messages of the book and backs it up with an anecdote of his own:
The attitude of Bolshevism and the Soviet Government toward the Makhnovshchina are firmly and precisely established. A shattering blow is dealt to all the inventions and justifications of the Bolsheviks. All their criminal machinations, all their lies, their entire counter-revolutionary essence, are thoroughly exposed. An appropriate inscription to this part of the book would be the words which once escaped from the director of the secret-operations section of the V. Ch. K. [Supreme Cheka], Samsonov (in prison, when I was called for questioning by this "investigator"). When I remarked to him that I considered the behaviour of the Bolsheviks toward Makhno, at the time of their treaty with him, treacherous, Samsonov promptly responded: "You consider this treacherous? This simply proves that we are skilful statesmen: when we needed Makhno, we knew how to use him; now that we no longer need him, we know how to liquidate him."
We should note that the Red Army was set up by Trotsky in 1917, (following his successful involvement in the Military Revolutionary Committee in the Petrograd Soviet) ostensibly to fight ‘the counter-revolution’. And the above anecdote comes from early 1919. It was clearly not a long period of time, if any at all, before the Makhnoschina were classed by the Bolsheviks as counter-revolutionary. They were even, in a foreshadowing of the dekulakization of Stalin’s time, smeared with the label kulak.
In chapter one Peter Arshinov writes:
Our Russian revolution is, without a doubt, a political revolution which uses the forces of the people to serve interests foreign to the people. The fundamental fact of this revolution, with a background of enormous sacrifices, sufferings and revolutionary efforts of workers and peasants, is the seizure of political power by an intermediary group, the so-called socialist revolutionary intelligentsia, the Social Democrats.
Chapter five:
Makhno and the staff of the insurrectionary army were perfectly aware that the arrival of Communist authority was a new threat to the liberty of the region; they saw it as an omen of a civil war of a new kind. But neither Makhno nor the staff of the army nor the Regional Council wanted this war, which might well have a fatal effect on the whole Ukrainian revolution. They did not lose sight of the open and well organized counter-revolution which was approaching from the Don and the Kuban, and with which there was only one possible relationship: that of armed conflict. This danger increased from day to day. The insurgents retained some hope that the struggle with the Bolsheviks could be confined to the realm of ideas, in which case they could feel perfectly secure about their region, for the vigour of the revolutionary ideas together with the revolutionary common sense of the peasants and their defiance of elements foreign to their free movement were the best guarantee of the region's freedom. According to the general opinion of the leaders of the insurrection, it was necessary for the movement to concentrate all forces against the monarchist counter-revolution, and not to be concerned with ideological disagreements with the Bolsheviks until that was liquidated. It was in this context that the union between the Makhnovists and the Red Army took place. We will see later that the leaders of the Makhnovshchina were mistaken in their hope to find in the Bolsheviks only ideological adversaries. They failed to take into account the fact that they were dealing with accomplished and violent statists.
And
At first the Bolsheviks hoped to absorb the Makhnovists into the ranks of Bolshevism. This was a vain hope. The insurgent masses obstinately followed their own path. They wanted nothing to do with the governmental organs of the Bolsheviks. In certain places armed peasants drove the "Extraordinary Commissions" (Chekas) out of their villages, and at Gulyai-Pole the Communists did not even dare to establish such an institution. Elsewhere the attempts to implant Communist institutions resulted in bloody collisions between the population and the authorities, whose situation became very difficult.
It was then that the Bolsheviks began an organized struggle against the Makhnovshchina, both as an idea and as a social movement.
They began the campaign in the press. The Communist press began to treat the Makhnovist movement as a kulak (wealthy peasant) movement, its slogans as counter-revolutionary, and its activity as harmful to the revolution.
Direct threats to the guides of the movement were made by the newspapers and by the central authorities. The region was definitively blockaded. All the revolutionary militants leaving Gulyai-Pole or returning to it were arrested. Supplies of ammunition and cartridges were reduced considerably. All this was a bad omen.
Why is a transitional state needed?
Firstly, in Marx’s time particularly, to ramp up production (to provide global abundance). But today we would need it to ramp up infrastructure and distribution.
Secondly, to ensure that the people become sufficiently communist. This then is a question of consciousness. See here, second reply to ‘Kivie’:
https://libcom.org/blog/thoughts-david-graeber%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98debt-first-5000-years%E2%80%99-03012012?page=2
And here, my second post:
https://libcom.org/blog/universal-basic-income-freedom-workers-13122016
and particularly here:
https://libcom.org/forums/theory/that%E2%80%99s-not-how-communization-shit-works%E2%80%A6-06072017?page=1#comment-595649
The problem is that, for the communizers, because the question always comes down to class consciousness and communist consciousness, the transitional state cannot be discarded in reality.
That is, it has always been needed in history, and the intelligent Marx also decided that this would be the case.
The problem for the anarchists is that they are in the same position as the communizers who have at last caught up with them. Both not only have not extinguished the need for a transitional state, they will also end up, as usual, being shot by the more practical Leninists.
It is about consciousness, it is about the establishment by capitalism of the real subsumption of labor.
How do we change our consciousness before our circumstances have changed?
Lenin did not intend the tragedy that he helped cause. But he had no choice but to help make it happen. Lenin was right. He was always right.
The Makhnovschina were wrong, they were always doomed. The tragedy of the Ukraine was unavoidable, but Kronstadt could have been avoided with more diplomacy from Trotsky and the later executions of key participants who may not have shut up.
How do we escape the Leninist loop? How do we escape the ineluctable return to Lenin inherent in all our politics?
Edit:
The line:
How do we change our consciousness before we change our circumstances?
Should read:
How do we change our consciousness before our circumstances have changed?