Communising Measures

42 posts / 0 new
Last post
wob4lyf
Offline
Joined: 30-12-14
Jan 7 2015 14:46
Adé wrote:
jojo wrote :
Quote:
The trouble with capitalism is that in this system production is for exchange not consumption

No it's not this way, just have a look the level of consumption in the all world since, the 1960's, take a look to China or to india...In fact, capitalism needs a high level of consumption and this is not opposite with the very fact that production is for exchange. Of course, many people are actually excluded of a high level of consumption, and it's also a need for a capitalist society in order to maintain a "reserve army" of superfluous prols, so the wages remain low, and so this superfluous mass have no desire but to be include in the system, and those who are already included (the real workers) fear to become superfluous and want to be part of this society, they want to be recognized as "real workers"...and so they affirm their utlity in the system that exploit them and exclude them when superfluous. That's the situation today.

I think you are blended two not-directly-related points here. I don't disagree with the latter part of what you wrote, but I don't think it necessarily supports the first part that well.

I do definitely agree with Jojo that capitalists don't really care what gets produced, as long as it can be sold at a net profit to increase their capital at the end of the day. They don't care if the food is nutritious or not, if workers/consumers live a meaningful life or not, if species go extinct, if there is partial ecological collapse, etc. only that the overall economic activity, whatever it is, is making them richer, so that they can stay on top of the dung heap.

jojo
Offline
Joined: 30-06-12
Jan 8 2015 05:21

Production is consumption and consumption is production. The two are inseparable.

When I consume food; or consume, that is to say read an interesting post on libcom; consume a fascinating film on tv by watching it and so on, I am in the process of producing what I call myself. Consumption is production.

When a train produces movement and speed and thus the transportation of goods and passengers, it does so by consuming an energy source, oil or electric, the railway line itself and its own mechanical parts which wear out as they are consumed.

There could be no consumption without production, and no production of anything. Including all of us and life itself, without consumption. This will still apply under communism. There's no escape. Under capitalism both production and consumption are restricted because of the need to sell commodities for the realization of surplus value and this is a disaster for humanity.

Adé
Offline
Joined: 16-04-13
Jan 8 2015 11:37

http://malaga.cnt.es/IMG/pdf_emisiones_anarquistas.pdf

Capitulo 3 (chapter 3)
image N°823 Contribute to victory working without break
Image N° 830 Work is source of life, intensify it you will triumph.

Leo's picture
Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Jan 8 2015 16:33

I think this thread seems to be very good in it has demonstrated the premises and the substance of the idea of communization.

I will try to offer my humble comments on what's been said by Jura, Joseph Kay and Ade.

Jura said:

Quote:
My knowledge of the communisation current is very limited, but I think that "communising measures" are those that disrupt commodity production and circulation and the domination of capital: e.g., direct distribution of goods (including looting), damage to economic infrastructure, the ousting of company cops from the workplace or state cops from the community, burning of property documentation, the opening of borders to migrants etc. My understanding is that the less probable they make the return to the "normality" of commodity production, and the more generalized and widespread these measures are, the better. The execution of such measures is "the production of communism". So, according to the communisation doctrine, it is not that the measures are taken by a victorious working class; it is precisely such measures which can secure the victory of the working class, by creating and nurturing "ruptures" in capitalist society. Struggles can then be evaluated as more or less mature by the extent to which they take communising measures.

I think there are several points here. First is that from what I've understood from this thread, I don't think the communization current generally sees these measures in any direct relation to the working class (there may be exceptions). It would in a way be contradictory for them to do so, because the idea seems to be that these measures are directly oriented towards communism, which is by definition classless. For example, while obviously they wouldn't be against the ousting of company cops from the workplace (quite possibly they'd support it even), they would see state cops being expelled from the community as something more classless, so more of a communizing nature.

The first problem which comes to my mind is that none of these measures are necessarily against capitalism. Looting, for instance, has an important place in the economic history of the Turkish and Kurdish bourgeoisies, many among whom based their riches on the looted property of the Armenians and other victims of genocide. Any given national liberation organization would aim to, and sometimes succeed in ousting cops from their communities. Destruction of property documention also takes place in various sorts of situations, ranging from genocide to natural disasters. As for the borders, many American countries were based on open borders initially, and an open border policy can be well in line with a capitalist government. A recent example would be Uruguay.

I'm not saying that such measures can't be against capitalism, however they aren't against capitalism by definition. How they can be against capitalism is I think related to the questions of class and consciousness.

Quote:
I think all of this is a rather fancy way of saying that various aspects of struggles have the potential, to various degrees, to transform capitalist social relations, even though they are not thought of as such at first, and that it is through struggles that a future society can only emerge.

I think there is a difference between saying that various aspects of struggles have the potential, to various degrees, to transform capitalist social relations and that various forms of struggles will transform social relations if practiced on a wide-enough level.

They way you put it, though, makes another question more apparent. Even in cases where these forms of action are actually distruptive of capitalist relations, can they actually transform them? The idea seems to be that we're seeing communism in action whenever capitalism is distrupted. I think this is true only in a metaphorical sense. The alternative ultimately opens the door to some variety of socialism in one country, socialism in one village or, as I personally experienced growing up, socialism in a single household. If communism is in action whenever measures against property are practices, moving into a commune the mountains is not such a bad idea.

This is not to say that I'm dismissing the idea entirely. Communist is a big word to describe anything going on in this world but I wouldn't dismiss the idea that communal practices do emerge in struggles. Oddly enough, I've seen them in workers struggles and mass movements rather than I've seen them in moments of looting.

Joseph Kay said:

Quote:
communisation theory (although not a homogenous body of thought), is broadly oriented in opposition to two things; the 'transitional phase' of traditional socialism and the self-management of capitalist relations... So rather than a transitional phase of state managed non-communism, or a self-management of capitalist relations, communisation theorists would say communisation is revolution, not a programme of measures to be implemented 'after the revolution'.

This seems coherent with the general framework of communization but to be honest it sounds a bit like a radical - anarchistic even - version of the concept of permanenet revolution. So far it can be concluded that it is because of the political traditions people in the communization millieu came from which prevents this current from supporting all sorts of capitalist movements rather than the theory itself. The next point by Joseph Kay would falsify this conclusion but only partially:

Quote:
I think the most useful way to think about communising measures is a way Endnotes put it, that 'communisation is a movement at the level of the totality'. So it's not a question of particular acts being communising, and enough of them adding up to communism/revolution, but that acts take on a communising character depending on the movement of which they're a part.

This obviously answers the most immediate objections I've just made about seeing communism in genocidal lootings or natural disasters. Nevertheless, the criteria is still pretty subjective. Here, for example, the attitude of the communizationists towards the PYD regime in Rojava is quite ambiguous (http://peaceinkurdistancampaign.com/2014/12/22/a-revolution-in-daily-life/).

Ade wrote:

Quote:
Abolition of both gender and class is communizing, abolition of private property, of separation beetween domestic (reproductiv) work and productiv work, abolition of every mean of exploitation and domination, including domination of nature...

I think here is why communization became so popular. Certainly, the communization current, being the first in the left communist / councilist circles to theoretically take the questions of gender and the domination of nature into account much more seriously and at least for that I think they deserve credit.

I also think all talk of abolishing gender or class within capitalism, along with private property, the separation between domestic and productive work and exploitation is a fantasy. However, for example on the question of gender, communization does manage to give an answer to the feminist criticism against communism that it waits until after the revolution to solve these questions. I don't think this is the only possible answer but there are ways it is inspiring.

I personally hold a much more class-based approach but I would say that patriarchy, for instance, has to start to break within the working class for its struggles to succeed. (An example of the sort of thing I mean would be the recent film Pride).

Quote:
Communising is fighting WITH communists measures AGAINST the present society UNTILL the abolition of gender and classes and the UNIFICATION of Human society, "Naturalisation of mankind, humanisation of Nature".

I think the inspiration for the last quote came from Marx when he said: "communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man ".

I'm not sure one can draw the humanization of nature from this: What Marx is saying here is that the resolution of the conflict between human beings among each other and between humanity and nature are tied.

Quote:
Working class is not "bearer" of communism. Working class is a class of capitalist society, it's a part of this society, without capitalists and exploitation what's working class?

Everyone, including me, you, all the posters on this website and others, are parts of this society. We were born in this society, we grew up in this society, our mentality was shaped in this society. Capitalism rules the whole planet: it will be overthrown down from within, or it won't be overthrown at all.

Quote:
In this way : 1st, working class defeats capital; 2nd, builds communism, so "communist society" is a kind of program already invented. Communization is another way : revolution is communization.
Of course this is only possible with " a succesful" and massive participation of proletariat.
This participation needs for the "working class" to abolish itself, the abolition of proletariat by proletariat is achieved by communist measures. Communist measures are the way for proletariat to superseed the division of society, fighting against all capitalist determinations with "measures" that prevent the capitalist class and the middl-class to stop their abolition.

I think the problem here rises because you perhaps misunderstand the concept of class. Being working class is not something which can, though any measure practiced within the capitalist society, abolish itself and cease to be what it is. Why? Because being a part of the working class is not a choice: it is a condition imposed on individuals to survive. No matter how communal various practices emerging in a movement might be and no matter how large the totality of this movement is, so long as the state exists, so will property and so long as property exists, so will the capitalists. Workers don't stop living in a capitalist world when they become a part of a movement: they might survive for a while without working with measures such as the direct distribution of goods but essentially they have lives which alternative measures within the totality of a capitalist world simply can't maintain.

To me, the point about the proletariat being a revolutionary class is that it is potentially revolutionary, not intrinsically. The proletariat comes into conflict with capitalism because its interests clash with the interests of the ruling class, not because it consciously chooses to clash with capitalism. Rather, revolutionary and eventually communist consciousness itself emerges from these struggles.

I don't think communist relations can emerge within the capitalist society - simply because I think we are all children of capitalism, carrying incurable traumas of our haunting pasts. Ultimately, I don't think any of these measures can have an effect in transforming the social relations of the world we live in directly, because until an actual revolution - that is an actual overthrow of the state and capitalism, they will eventually, necessarily revert to normal. I do, however, see communal practices emerging in class struggles as valuable experiences both politically and culturally, and think they will contribute to the future revolution.

I find the rejection of a transitional period dangerous because it makes any sort of future revolutionary process vulnarable to the possibility of degeneration. Yet I don't think rejecting the model of communization equals saying communism is a program already invented. Communism has always had a definition based on what it isn't rather than what it is, which is hardly something already invented.

Quote:
The very point in my opinion is "Can a class of this society abolish all classes of this society?"

Only a class of this society can abolish all classes of this society. Certainly a class of another society won't do it.

Quote:
this never happened, but another situation never happened : a global society ruled by one "system", this is the situation now. It's not a guarantee of anything.

Because it is a global society ruled by one system it can't be abolished from the outside, because there can be no outside until it is abolished.

Quote:
To conclude that comment i'll say the working class need to abolish itself as "working class", and this abolition is not merely a self-abolition (negation of a negation) but the unification of human society.

Yes, indeed it needs to: yet it can only do it when it is able to which means, well, after the revolution. Its struggles now, its communal practices, its efforts to break the hold of social forces like patriarchy, concepts like gender and ideologies like nationalism are important in that their totality forms the prequisite of the working class making a revolution, destroying capitalism, abolishing classes and gender and creating a communist world. However until the revolution, the all that is transformed is the consciousness, not the social relations.

Your expectations seem to be rather unrealistic of a class for whom living with full stomachs is often too much to ask.

Quote:
If and when "working class" act as "working class" with the affirmation of itself (affirmation of labour), then the need of a capitalist class able to exploit them as "working class" is also affirmed.

I'd like to hear some examples of this idea. You seem to be saying that when the workers act as a class, that is together and against the bosses, the capitalist class is able to exploit them. Did I misunderstand you?

Anyway, if I haven't then I think you got this very wrong.

It is when the workers don't act as a class but as atomized, classless individuals that the capitalist class is able to economically exploit and politically manipulate them.

Quote:
If"the working class alone is bearer of communism"(jojo), why don't we live in a communist society, right now? Working class exists at last since 200 years, so why the "bearer" doesn't give what it "bears"?

Again, because the working class bears the communist world as a potentiality, not as an actuality. Being a worker doesn't necessarily mean one is a communist, just that it is in one's interests to be one. Yet human beings are quite complicated in that they don't always act according to their interests, especially when such large mechanisms are putting so much effort into preventing them from doing so.

Quote:
To be exploited and/or dominated need to be two : the dominant AND the dominated, or not? So, the dominated/exploited must have some compensations, or not?

You seem to be implying here that being a worker is a choice. Overwhelmingly it isn't. Working is called wage slavery for a reason.

Quote:
This "compensations" implies the submission and the affirmation to posit the role of dominated

Actually the gains workers have made in their living and working conditions often don't imply submission. Quite the contrary, when the workers actually struggle and win, they are much less submissive in the workplace because they've seen that they can struggle and win.

Quote:
Yes, i know all this stuff is just " To go on babbling..." and i'm petit-bourgeois, o course, not a real worker, and right, i'm not a real worker, i'm only pretty superfluous french-spanish translator with no wage since two years, so a real worker, for example a docker (I live in a habour) lives just like a middle-class member (home owner, big cars,so on), what does he "bear"?

Actually, sorry but you are a worker. Unemployed workers are proletarians too. I think the definition of workers as only the blue-collar workers is a distortion of marxism. Your neighbour is also a worker though, and I don't think you should be pissed off at him for having better living conditions. The blue-collar sectors of the working class fought and won: other sectors need to follow their example.

And I'm saying this as someone who knows too well the poverty a job like being a translator involves.

Quote:
Capitulo 3 (chapter 3)
image N°823 Contribute to victory working without break
Image N° 830 Work is source of life, intensify it you will triumph.

I find these to be quite disgraceful slogans.

The abolition of labor and thus its division too is a central part of communism.

Adé
Offline
Joined: 16-04-13
Jan 8 2015 18:28
Quote:
I also think all talk of abolishing gender or class within capitalism, along with private property, the separation between domestic and productive work and exploitation is a fantasy.

Don't let me be misunderstood...Communization measures take place in a revolution, in fact they're the revolution. This "measures" take place in the struggle against the capitalist class and their allies. There'll be no revolution without this measures, and there'll be no revolution without a large participation of the workers. But, the workers, or the others participants of the communizing don't remain workers. They'll participe not to be and to remain workers, they'll form a communizing "class". That implies the abolition of gender and of private property. It's why i wrote communizing measures are'nt "full communism", i mean this measures are taken to fight against capitalist class and capitalists relations -and not for communism-, this measures are taken because workers cannot and don't want to remain so, because men and women involved in the processus cannot and don't wan't to remain so.

Quote:
I'd like to hear some examples of this idea. You seem to be saying that when the workers act as a class, that is together and against the bosses, the capitalist class is able to exploit them. Did I misunderstand you?

If the workers acting as a class demand better wage, or better work conditions, or more social justice, then yes the capitalist class is able to exploit them. And that's what ever happens. No?
When the working class want to remain working class, yes the capitalist class is able to exploit them. It's a kind of game (or a dance), if you (working class) play the game then the capitalist class is ALWAYS winning. Only when you don't play this bloody game, i.e, when you don't demand social justice or a better place in the society you a have a -very little- chance to win. The rules of this game are made by the capitalists rulers.
In fact much improvements of the working class situation (see this class now and in the 1900's) don't result of the workers struggle and demands. The capitalist class may need a well educated workers, a wellfare, social security, and so on. And that it is what happened. Also the rulers may need more consummers, more schools, and more hospitals, and it's what happened.
I insist on this : capitalists owners are opportunists, so are those who sell their work (working class), for this reason i can't say the working class is "bearer", even "potentially" of nothing.
At our time, right now, we can see that the interest of the working class is to remain working, and i don't known if this situation can be overtake. See Spain, Greece, Portugal...the situation of workers is getting worse and worse since 7 or 8 years, their reactions were very weak, or not?
Of course it's depressive, but it's what happens.

Quote:
Actually, sorry but you are a worker. Unemployed workers are proletarians too

Proletarian, yes but not "real worker"

Superfluous... In fact "real workers", as the dockers i wrote about don't like superfluous prols, real workers ( a lot of them anyway) feel unhappy because they think this superfluous prols are a weight for them, and they scare because the mass of superfluous represent a danger for them, unemployed are at their eyes the living nightmare of their own future, or the future of their own kids.
I don't piss on them, but i known that.
And i known another thing about them, until now they didn't move a single finger for no one but for themselves. For instance i saw them struggling against others dockers for keeping their own job, and yes it's really sad.
Salut from France.

Leo's picture
Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Jan 8 2015 21:15
Quote:
Don't let me be misunderstood...Communization measures take place in a revolution, in fact they're the revolution. This "measures" take place in the struggle against the capitalist class and their allies. There'll be no revolution without this measures

I'm sorry, I simply don't understand this style. Sometimes, when I read communization theorists, I feel like I'm reading post-modernists talking about deconstruction.

Communization measures can't take place in a revolution and be the revolution by themselves at the same time. These two statements contradict each other. If they are measures which take place in a revolution, this means there are other aspects of the revolution, so they are not the revolution in themselves. If, on the other hand, they are the revolution by themselves, then you're saying there is nothing to the revolutionary process except these measures.

You say they take place in the struggle against the capitalist class and their allies. If so, I presume the capitalist class and their allies are excluded from this class. Who conducts this struggle? The people? "Humanity", that is to say all other classes except the capitalists? What is the content of this struggle within which these measures take place, other then these measures themselves? If there is no other content, then they by themselves are the struggle, so it doesn't take place within anything other than itself.

Quote:
and there'll be no revolution without a large participation of the workers.

As individuals though, right? Only because they form the majority of the population?

Quote:
But, the workers, or the others participants of the communizing don't remain workers... they'll form a communizing "class".

Let me get this straight. You think those participating in communization measures will cease to be works and for a communizing class under capitalism? A non-exploited and non-exploiting strata aside from the working class?

I think what this conception misses is that you can't will your way out of a capitalist world.

Quote:
They'll participe not to be and to remain workers

Proletarian struggle always carries the desire not to be and remain workers: working is a torment for most workers. They can't stop being workers just by wanting though.

Quote:
That implies the abolition of gender and of private property.

Similarly, you can't abolish gender and private property just by willing it. This is not just a question of wanting a world without gender and private property and thinking practical ways of building little practices without them: these are doomed to be insufficient by themselves to abolish gender and private property because they won't change the consciousness of the proletariat let alone the rest of the human population. The proletarian masses tend to learn from struggles involving their own lives and living experience and this is never a pure or a purely communistic process. It's a process towards communism. The development of working class consciousness is a strange and difficult process but I don't think there is a short cut.

Quote:
It's why i wrote communizing measures are'nt "full communism", i mean this measures are taken to fight against capitalist class and capitalists relations -and not for communism-, this measures are taken because workers cannot and don't want to remain so, because men and women involved in the processus cannot and don't wan't to remain so.

So the men and women involved in the processes of communization can't remain workers? Do you really think the idea of building a sociological commune of unrecorded looters under the nose of the capitalist state? Do you think any experiment like this is sustainable in the medium term? If not, what will they do when they can no longer live like that? If you think it can be sustained, how so exactly? By street clashes, barricades and riots?

Quote:
If the workers acting as a class demand better wage, or better work conditions, or more social justice, then yes the capitalist class is able to exploit them. And that's what ever happens. No?

No. If the workers don't demand better wages or better working conditions, the capitalist class is able to exploit them, more and more horribly the more the working class doesn't resist. What happens in the end? Well, in Turkey Soma happened: the official figures said 300 miners died and we've heard figures as high as over 700.

Better wages and better working conditions, in the absolute sense, is a question of life and death for the working class. Winning these demands isn't the abolition of capitalism, no. But it's the struggle to win these demands through which the working class can develop class consciousness and a culture of struggle. Ultimately though, if you look at the world as a whole, it's very easy to see that capitalism is not a system capable of giving the workers the life they want. This causes two things: 1) Serious working class struggles very quickly find themselves confronting the state itself. A recent example from Europe is Belgium. 2) Struggling workers always find them in need of the expansion of the struggle, which produces organs like workers' mass assemblies, strike committees and eventually workers councils.

Quote:
When the working class want to remain working class, yes the capitalist class is able to exploit them. It's a kind of game (or a dance), if you (working class) play the game then the capitalist class is ALWAYS winning.

Just because you think workers who demand better living and working conditions want to remain as workers, doesn't mean they actually want to remain workers. Workers do not demand better living and working conditions because of how and where they see themselves consciously or sociologically. They do so because they need to, because it directly affects their actual lives.

Quote:
In fact much improvements of the working class situation (see this class now and in the 1900's) don't result of the workers struggle and demands. The capitalist class may need a well educated workers, a wellfare, social security, and so on. And that it is what happened.

Uh... no it isn't. I think you are referring to a singular example, which is the post-war boom which, regardless of how you analyze it, was something of an exceptional situation.

Quote:
Also the rulers may need more consummers, more schools, and more hospitals, and it's what happened.

Capitalists don't increase the wages if you need more consumers. Schools do not mean better conditions and hospitals are a big sector. I think you're reading these events in the past very wrongly.

Quote:
I insist on this : capitalists owners are opportunists, so are those who sell their work (working class), for this reason i can't say the working class is "bearer", even "potentially" of nothing.

Then who is? The petty-bougeoisie? The lumpenproletariat? The peasants? The people? Humanity?

I'm sorry but behind the radical terminology, I'm starting to see a very moralistic mentality behind communization.

Quote:
At our time, right now, we can see that the interest of the working class is to remain working, and i don't known if this situation can be overtake. See Spain, Greece, Portugal...the situation of workers is getting worse and worse since 7 or 8 years, their reactions were very weak, or not?

Their reactions were very weak because they were weak. Again the more I read it, the more I see a moralistic aspect to the whole thing condemning the working class for not struggling enough.

Quote:
Of course it's depressive, but it's what happens.

It may be depressive if you look at it in itself, without looking at the history of the current period. I was only growing up in the 90'ies so I never experienced what it was like to be a communist then, but I hear it was pretty bad.

Quote:
In fact "real workers", as the dockers i wrote about don't like superfluous prols, real workers ( a lot of them anyway) feel unhappy because they think this superfluous prols are a weight for them

You don't seem to be too fond of the people you call the "real workers" either. Capitalists always try to pit sectors of the working class against each other.

Quote:
and they scare because the mass of superfluous represent a danger for them, unemployed are at their eyes the living nightmare of their own future, or the future of their own kids.

I don't think the precarious workers represent any danger whatsoever to the blue collars, and I don't think blue colors see it that way at all. You say you are a translator, there's no way you're gonna steal a porter's job and I have no doubt the porter knows that, apparently better than you do.

Quote:
And i known another thing about them, until now they didn't move a single finger for no one but for themselves. For instance i saw them struggling against others dockers for keeping their own job, and yes it's really sad.

Again, the same moralism. I think what you need to understand is that you can't judge the characteristics of a class by looking at single individuals, or just the port in your neighborhood. Just like you can't estimate the characteristics of a forest by looking at a single tree. You have to look at the working class historically, internationally and when it's acting as a class.

Adé
Offline
Joined: 16-04-13
Jan 8 2015 22:32


Quote:
Communism would entail not only the (re)naturalization of humanity, but perhaps first and foremost the humanization of nature. Or as Marx wrote:

Kommunismus ist als vollendeter Naturalismus Humanismus, als vollendeter Humanismus Naturalismus, er ist die wahrhafte Auflösung des Widerstreites zwischen dem Menschen mit der Natur und mit dem Menschen, die wahre Auflosung des Streits zwischen Existenz und Wesen, zwischen Vergegenständlichung und Selbstbestätigung, zwischen Freiheit und Notwendigkeit, zwischen Individuum und Gattung. Er ist das aufgelöste Rätsel der Geschichte und weiß sich als diese Lösung.

— Karl Marx, Ökonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte

I'm not moralistic and i see no reaction from the working class to help the unemployed, not in my neighborhood, in ALL EUROPE...
If you think it's moralism to think that working class doesn't fight "enough", or at all, and this is the case in Europe, USA... do you think we're very near a communist revolution?

Quote:
Proletarian struggle always carries the desire not to be and remain workers

No it's not rigth : workers can struggle an be proud to be workers, this is what actually happens.

sorry i'm tired, i'll come back tomorrow and answer more...
Salut

Adé
Offline
Joined: 16-04-13
Jan 9 2015 19:09

Merde in France...

Quote:
Communization measures can't take place in a revolution and be the revolution by themselves at the same time. These two statements contradict each other. If they are measures which take place in a revolution, this means there are other aspects of the revolution, so they are not the revolution in themselves. If, on the other hand, they are the revolution by themselves, then you're saying there is nothing to the revolutionary process except these measures.

Yes you're right, it's difficult to explain.
What i can say it's communizing measures take place in a revolutionnary situation, this situation implies many attempts including self-managment, self-organisation, looting and destruction of private property of the meanings of production,etc...but without communizing measures all this attemps will fail. They will fail because of the state and simply because they mean a stop of the revolution, a stabilization. Without this measures the whole society is not endanger so the capitalist class can find a solution to survive even "making concessions" about democraty, self-managment, etc...
Communizing measures means for the participants, for the proletarians involved to create the conditions of the complete fall of all the capitalist social relations. This is for the workers to not remain workers, because no workers are needed for this purpose.
When you have a look at the economy today, you easily can see that it's impossible to rule it by sel-managing. See the need of import, the specialization of work, the need of an international "cooperation" for making almost anything. It's the job of capitalist class, and i believe a revolution is not merely a substitution of "the Capitalist. Boss" by "the Comrade Boss".
And i think that's why (may be) it's so difficult to just think about a real social change, because every body can see the very strong implications of the rupture needed.

Quote:
Who conducts this struggle?

I don't known. Do you mean who is the boss of the struggle? Do you mean a conscious "avant-garde", or in some ways the conscious prols? I have no answer because i think the question have no meaning.

Quote:
Their reactions were very weak because they were weak

.
Yes.
The conflictuality is low in the production centers in Europe and in the countries where the workers are "well" integrated. See the restructuration of cars industry : the workers did accept low wages, and lower wage for the new contracts, from USA to Italy and Spain or France.
It's the fact, you're right "they're weak".

Quote:
Struggling workers always find them in need of the expansion of the struggle, which produces organs like workers' mass assemblies, strike committees and eventually workers councils.

You speaking about the past, this kind of things will never come back, when have you heard about "councils" the last time? Please tell us.

Quote:
the working class can develop class consciousness and a culture of struggle

Again speaking about the "Old worker's movement".

You should know that the sociological composition of the working class (in Europe, USA, Japan.) is not the same it was, say 50 years ago, almost the majority of them are actually working in the services sector (trucks, waiter-waitress delivery...etc) Do you exept them to remain workers in this sectors?
I don't believe in "class consciouness" , a class is a relation not a being. Only individuals can have a consciouness, same way there's no "collective inconscient", but an individual inconscient.

I

Quote:
don't think the precarious workers represent any danger whatsoever to the blue collars, and I don't think blue colors see it that way at all.

You dont...ok, but i tell you one thing : how do you interpret the rise of the vote for the National Front, in France ( about 25% of the workers actually vote for this shit...), some unionists belong to this party. This party you know is nationalist, and want the " national preference" for workers, also this party ( and UMP and even Socialist party) tell the superfluous are too lazy people, even parasits, etc...

I must add something : i don't belong to any group, i'm only an individual who grasp something here and something there. I known T.C, Endnotes and also The invisible commitee, etc, but i dn't need, and i avoid to belong to any group. I can't answer at every question, instead i pose questions.

Salut everyone.

jojo
Offline
Joined: 30-06-12
Jan 10 2015 02:49

Ade summed up his position nicely when he wrote;

Quote:
I don't believe in "class consciouness" , a class is a relation not a being. Only individuals can have a consciouness...

That only an individual can have the possibility of consciousness is true. But most individuals in capitalist society are trapped in the false consciousness of bourgeois ideology, which is at root a pack of lies and upside down nonsense about freedom, democracy, the glories of individualistic success and so on. Escaping from all this, after having made some considerable effort towards the critique of ideology, an individual finds herself released at last from the shackles of bourgeois propaganda and starts to see capitalist society as it really is. This is the beginning of the dawn of consciousness.

But one of the first effects of dawning consciousness is the realization that as individuals we are not alone but depend utterly on others for our existence. And that our consciousness is not our own product but is a social product, the product of living in a society, and in a quite definite set of circumstances. And further, that our consciousness, as opposed to the ideology we have critiqued and abandoned as bourgeois nonsense, relates to the exploited class of the proletariat.

Because It is the very exploitation of the working class that renders it revolutionary, and in it's search for emancipation, and for the necessary critique of the system that exploits it, it finds itself also the embodiment of something new for humanity. This is an emerging and developing class consciousness. This supersedes the minimum consciousness that an individual might attain in isolation and constitutes, or will constitute an evolutionary break- through for humanity.

For the class is more than the sum of its parts. Class consciousness embraces and transcends the individual, and serves to develop and "fructify", as Luxemburg put it, even the dullest of persons identifying with and being part of the class acting as a class. Isolated individuals, no matter how clever, or how conscious, can achieve little alone. But the class, the working class, the proletariat when it thinks consciously and collectively as a class becomes the motor force for change and the clearing house for revolutionary ideas.

It was the working class that provided by its very existence the astounding ideas for "The Communist Manifesto" Marx just brilliantly wrote them down. But it was a class production at heart.

Adé
Offline
Joined: 16-04-13
Jan 10 2015 11:33

Jojo wrote:

Quote:
But most individuals in capitalist society are trapped in But most individuals in capitalist society are trapped in the false consciousness of bourgeois ideology, which is at root a pack of lies and upside down nonsense about freedom, democracy, the glories of individualistic success and so on. of bourgeois ideology, which is at root a pack of lies and upside down nonsense about freedom, democracy, the glories of individualistic success and so on.

There's no such thing " the false consciousness". Consciousness is always "consciouness" of the actual and present situation. K.Marx wrote something like this : Mankind always ask the questions that can be answer. Further more, consciousness is always ideological and cannot but be expressed in ideological terms.

It seems to me that the council ideology belongs to the past. Now there's no such thing, no ground for a " working-class empowerment", many reasons for that. The most evident reason is the loss of the "worker indentity" since the 1970's restructuration. End of the ability of a "working-class program" (for T.C : programmatism).

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 13 2015 19:06
jura wrote:
Some of the texts view "use value" as somehow related to or tainted with "value" and state that there would be no "use values" (and hence no "concrete labor", i.e., production) in communism, just "things". (I think this is based on a misinterpretation of Capital.)

^^^ this. For example I just read this piece:

Anna O'Lory wrote:
Current technology’s ‘emancipatory potential’ or ‘function’, however, is not merely something mechanical. It is evidently grounded on its use value today, since the whole point in maintaining a ‘function’ is its utility. But the emphasis on the very question of keeping a useful function is a holding on to how we live today that sets limits on its criticism. Following the example of antivirals, why should we assume today that, in the future, survival from illness would have to involve medicine as it exists today? And even if this is the case, how is it possible to extricate this ‘function’ from its system of production, the complex, oppressively hierarchical divisions of labour and power relations (between the ‘specialist’ knowledge-producer and the human ‘objects’ of medical science; between the researcher and the factory workers) on which today depend the production of medical knowledge as well as the commodities based on it? Further, is it conceivable to extricate this ‘function’ and its social usefulness from the very definitions of ‘health’ and ‘illness’ and the social hierarchies they imply? The use value this argument attempts to extract as an ‘emancipatory potential’ from within capitalist commodities cannot exist as a mere mechanical or biological functionality that can be separated from the social, the capitalist mode of relating in the process of its production and consumption, even less so from its subjection to exchange value. This is the fetishism that reduces a commodity to the natural or mechanical properties of a thing, blanking out the social relations and processes its existence depends on. Antivirals (and other medicine and medical techniques and technologies) are, today, produced as commodities, and this shapes both their social and material aspects, because use value is the other side of exchange value, which drives the production of commodities. Taken as far as it can go, this criticism of use value is the condition of possibility for the production of new forms of knowledge or technology, which are not guided by value, nor by labour as the universal quality of humanity, but by an entirely different logic of relating.

It seems like there's a number of claims run together here (with just enough caveats to avoid being pinned down as some year zero shit). E.g. that because use values are shaped by their production as commodities, it doesn't necessarily follow that those use values (or decommodified variants thereof) are only of use in capitalism*, nor does it necessarily follow that they can only be produced in a capitalist manner.**

* I'll go out on a limb and say that anti-virals will still combat viruses in communism, that lenses will still help poorly sighted people see, that hyperdermic needles will still allow diabetics to live etc, even while massive social changes may reduce the lifestyle and work-related components of these ailments.

** Rejecting complex divisions of labour as necessarily hierarchical and capitalist seems to leave what... back to the land?