New forms of community
Apr 10 2009 17:49
Traditional Marxist theology considers capitalist development as foundation for building socialism. The more advanced and total capital is the closer is social revolution. But reality doesn’t approve this conception. We see that large scale industrial enterprises are not the prototype of communism. Vise versa, the most revolutionary uprisings were there, where capitalism had just started to expand, where community («non-class dimension of proletariat» Dauve) of pre-capitalist epochs’ still existed. Being separated by environment in primitive communism, this community becomes separated by partitioned spheres of life: work and everyday life, factory and district – in class societies. That is why this community couldn’t become actual basis of revolutionary transformations. Capital’s entrance into the stage of real domination means the end of the old revolutionary movement. It is logical that appearance of the new one is connected with new community.
So, how you see it? Is it connected with pauperization of 1-st world proletarians? Or is it internet-community?
Excuse me for my English)
privet
Apr 10 2009 23:09
#2
Quote:
I think you're right to say that there is a kind of Marxism that sees capitalist development leading toward socialism, because it basically sees socialism as workers taking over factories and managing capital collectively. We can all see how this is both determinist and not a threat to capitalism.
Actually, I would say that seeing capitalism progressing towards socialism and seeing workers taking over factories and doing what amounts to managing capitalist society collectively are fairly independent approaches. Neither necessarily implies the other even if those who embrace the first might use it to argue for the second. Certainly, many versions of Marxism make this argument. But many versions of syndicalism embrace the second without the first and perspectives like the Situationists embrace the first without embracing the second.
I think that Camatte believed in a kind of progressivism, he just came to the conclusion that all the progress necessary had already taken place in the 19th century - as valid a perspective as any, I'd say. Indeed, a logical conclusion of the ordinary Marxian progressivism would have to be that capitalism only needs to progress so far and then it is no longer necessary. This is the ICC's approach - which I know many find ridiculous but which I again think is as logical as many perspectives.
I suppose that main group I have little sympathy with is those interested in creating a world that seems little from the present one - see various other bitter threads.
Apr 11 2009 08:34
#3
Quote:
Actually, I would say that seeing capitalism progressing towards socialism and seeing workers taking over factories and doing what amounts to managing capitalist society collectively are fairly independent approaches.
Hm. I think that the view that socialism = self-managed capitalism and the view that socialism will develop out of the progress of capitalism are far from unconnected, if you see what I mean. If socialism is a further development of capitalism then the fact of its being similar to capitalism is pretty likely. Likewise, if socialism is basically identical to capitalism then it makes sense for it to evolve from capitalism, whereas if it is something external to capitalism that creates itself in opposition to capitalism and overcomes it, as I believe, it's not so easy to explain how the progress of capitalism leads on to socialism.
~J.
Apr 11 2009 10:14
#4
quint wrote:
The core of the argument isn't about technological progress but about the spreading of a proletarian class. Everywhere capital develops it necessarily creates workers who have no property (hence no special rights to defend) and whose work is increasingly stripped of meaning, factory-like. This is the sense in which capitalist development could be said to lead in the direction of socialism...
but there is no correlation or even a negative one between capitalist development and proletarian insurrections.
quint wrote:
The community from which communism could arise isn't just the poor, or the workers, and it's definitely not the internet. It's the kind of community that is formed by struggling workers.
To my mind, everything is likely other way. The community forms workers' struggles. Struggle potential doesn't depend on condition of capitalist system, but only on subjectivity of proletariat.
I see no collective struggle here, in russia. From where could it arise? Economic problems had no influence on it during 90's, why they would affect now? The destruction of revulutionary potential was completed in modern russian (soviet) town by building khrushchyovkas, i.e. destruction of any community out of work.
quint wrote:
The community from which communism could arise isn't just the poor, or the workers, and it's definitely not the internet.
internet is not just a technological thing. people communicate and produce content on libertarian principles, so it is a community. maybe it's even a new mode of production..
Apr 11 2009 21:31
#5
I wrote:
Quote:
...there is a kind of Marxism that sees capitalist development leading toward socialism, because it basically sees socialism as workers taking over factories and managing capital collectively.
Red, you're probably right that "because" is too strong a word. In the kind of determinist Marxism that kotob was talking about, the two go together though. In any case, that's sort of peripheral to the main question.
kotob wrote:
Quote:
The community forms workers' struggles. Struggle potential doesn't depend on condition of capitalist system, but only on subjectivity of proletariat.
It doesn't depend in a simple way like: when there's a recession, we struggle more, when there's growth in the economy, we struggle less. There's constant low-level class struggle going on everywhere all the time. When and where that breaks out into a large collective struggle is not simply a matter of hard work and strategy on the part of workers (although that's part of it). It has to do with conditions in society as well, economic crisis, political crisis, the kinds of technology being used to exploit us, and especially the ways that we are brought together at work (and outside of work).
I have never been to Russia and am not very familiar with what's going on there, so I can't make any comment on where there is potential for new collective struggles to come from. But that's still a better hope than looking to pre-capitalist community or to the internet. If you view pre-capitalist community as the only launching point for struggle then you're going to be in trouble, because there isn't much precapitalist community left.
Sure the internet is not JUST technology. People use the technology and relate to each other using it. I, in Canada, can have a theoretical discussion with someone in Russia and someone in the US. That's all good. (But I think it's just as easy to argue that the kinds of "community" that are created on the internet are isolating and destructive of people's ability to talk to real people as well.) In either case, free distribution of things on internet "communities" are not a mode of production. You can write something or record a song and distribute it for free on the internet. You can't build someone a house, make them clothes, or feed them with the internet.
May 5 2009 16:32
#6
Sorry for late response.
Translating dauve's "to work or not to work" gave me some "food for brain".
Gilles Dauve wrote:
Looking for what would force the proletarian, in his confrontation with capital, to attack his own existence as a wage-earner, is tantamount to trying to solve in advance and through theory a problem which can only be solved - if it ever is - in practice
So, my point is against this thesis. Such "subjectivism" places proletarian revolution outside of history.
Gilles Dauve wrote:
History does not prove any direct causal link between a degree of capitalist development, and specific proletarian behaviour.
Quite questionable point (not to mention Dauve's own contribution to understanding of revolutionary dynamics). As I said before, revolutionary waves 17-21 and 68 could have definite explanation.
If even general conditions (program) of struggle are invariable, definitely, the revolutionary movement is not.
quint wrote:
It has to do with conditions in society as well, economic crisis, political crisis, the kinds of technology being used to exploit us, and especially the ways that we are brought together at work (and outside of work).
I agree. All that could be called “subjective factors”. The last factor is what I term “form of community”. The others don’t relate directly with proletarians’ behaviour.
quint wrote:
. If you view pre-capitalist community as the only launching point for struggle then you're going to be in trouble, because there isn't much precapitalist community left.
Sure, it is pessimistic view. But isn’t it a problem of non-revolutionary reality, not of my theory?
quint wrote:
You can't build someone a house, make them clothes, or feed them with the internet.
So what? Steam engine couldn’t grow crops or milk a cow for the first time too))
May 5 2009 17:30
#7
Privet, i agree with main idea of kotob's message and i think that "new forms of community" can be created (and are created even now) by internet and new forms of communication (social networks) and production (opensource communities with their "gift economy (communist)'' ethics).
May 6 2009 04:21
#8
How does the quote from Dauvé place "the proletarian revolution outside history" ? He is saying that at no point will the proletariat simply be forced to create communism. It takes a subjective act. If you disagree with this aren't you just falling back into the orthodox Marxist approach you were criticizing earlier that sees capitalist development as simply developing towards communism... ?
I still don't see how the internet is a mode of production or a subversive community. Capitalist technological development is always re-arranging the amount of labor time necessary to reproduce different things. Yes, distributing things for free can come into conflict with certain aspects of capitalist property relations (like copyright). But the things that are distributed for free are only things that can be copied without any human labor, so they have no value in capitalist terms. The only kind of price they can have is a monopoly price. I personally am happy that I can now get most music or movies I want on the internet for free. It doesn't in any way change the fact that the things I need to survive are commodities, and I therefore have to sell my labor power. (I don't see how the steam engine has anything to do with this. No one is arguing that the steam engine created a subversive community.)
I have to admit that I'm a bit confused by your argument at this point though. Criticizing the Dauvé quote, you seem to be saying that capitalism will force a communist revolution on the proletariat. In the first post, you seemed to be criticizing this position as orthodox marxist. And then you also seem to be arguing that the only thing that could have overthrown capitalism was pre-capitalist communities, which are largely gone.
May 6 2009 15:54
#9
ok, i admit it's my fault. i didn't articulate my ideas.
i don't see the problem of orthodox marxism in search of force that will push proles to do the revolution. i see it in regarding industrial factory as a prototype of the human commune.
quint wrote:
How does the quote from Dauvé place "the proletarian revolution outside history"?
he almost says that revolution is not determined in any way. it may happen tomorrow or a century later. but i do know that it won't start tomorrow. there must happen great structural changes in capitalist system that will influence people to act, to think completely different. yes, revolution is a subjective, spontaneous act. but spontaneity doesn't mean an absence of factors, but their uncertainty.
the task of theory consist right in understanding of its factors.
I think you're right to say that there is a kind of Marxism that sees capitalist development leading toward socialism, because it basically sees socialism as workers taking over factories and managing capital collectively. We can all see how this is both determinist and not a threat to capitalism.
On the other hand, that's far from the only way to interpret Marx. The core of the argument isn't about technological progress but about the spreading of a proletarian class. Everywhere capital develops it necessarily creates workers who have no property (hence no special rights to defend) and whose work is increasingly stripped of meaning, factory-like. This is the sense in which capitalist development could be said to lead in the direction of socialism...
I'm quite sure that Dauvé is NOT arguing that the only places that capitalism can be challenged from are those where some pre-capitalist community is being destroyed. Although he, and Marx, would be interested in ways that proletarian struggles might link up with forms of community not completely taken over by capitalism.
The community from which communism could arise isn't just the poor, or the workers, and it's definitely not the internet. It's the kind of community that is formed by struggling workers. Various kinds of technological and developmental changes definitely affect how workers are brought together in workplaces or neighborhoods, which affects the possibilities and forms of struggle.