Primitivism and Left Communism

Sorry cph but that just means you're taking a word in common everyday usage, and changing it so no one can understand what you're saying. Which is fine I suppose, if that's what you want to do. Thanks for the clarification.

cph_shawarma, i think you give capital too much credit. insofar as "technology is a social relation, it is the form of a social relation: capital", like capital it is a relation of struggle. but the relation is not closed, it is an 'open dialectic' (to use felton shorthall's term) in that it contains the possibility of it's own sublation; under capitalism, capital seeks to recuperate our desires (for health, comfort, enjoyment ...) with certain technologies, and we seek to detourn those technologies to our own ends.

This detournment would be a neccessary component of the kind of 'communization' Dauve envisions, i.e. in order to immediately communize production beyond the capitalistic boundaries of firms and industries, all sorts of networking and information flows would be needed - and no doubt the ingenuity of 'the general intellect' could appropriate 'capitalist' technologies like computers, fibre-optic cable networks/exchanges, databases etc to this end.

I'm not sure if you're using dramatic rhetoric for effect ("destroy" etc), but i get the impression of a certain millenerian year-zeroism in your posts, that does remind me of primitivism. maybe i just don't understand? :?

I am not a primitivist, but i am not a technologist either. Communisms must be diverse and in my honest opinion there will most likely be people living out in the woods by themselves with very little contact with the rest of the world. And why would that be a problem? What I oppose is the moralism that states that people who live outside "civilization" are primitivist nuts. Primitivists and technologists are all alike, they come up with The Answer and then just claims that everyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

My radical response is that there is no answer! Communism will probably bear with it technically advanced items as well as people living in tree huts, and neither is "more" communist than the other.

And computers, fibre-optics etc. will have to be transformed along the same lines as the factory. No aspect of our life is neutral.

PS. Yes, capital is a relation of struggle, but this relation of struggle is reciprocal, ie. it does not contain a "rational kernel" (the proletariat) which will burst through the "shell" and suddenly appear as communism. DS.

if it doesn't contain a kernel of something worth preserving/sublating, how can we transform 'capitalist' technology "along the same lines as the factory"?

this is what i don't get about the idea of 'clean break' communization, what does it actually mean on the morning after the army has mutineed, the police stations are in flames and the workplaces are in our hands? what do we actually do that constitutes an immediate rupture with capital? How do we extract ourselves from history?

I mean i know there is no singular 'answer' to hypothetical 'post-revolutionary' scenarios, and i'm not having a go, but i can't see what communization theory actually offers beyond more-revolutionary-than-thou rhetoric

(and i don't really object to people living in the woods if they want. my bleeding heart would probably be ok letting them use our hosptials when they realise what a romantic-but-shit idea it was too )

cph_shawarma is actually perfectly illustrating where ultra leftism falls right back into itself and gives birth to this kind of "primmitivist" shite.

Capital is everything and therefore everything must be destroyed in order to stop it. This is the most childish idiotic shit i've ever heard, the fact it comes from someone obviously well read compounds the idiocy.

He spouts about ahistorical perspectives yet his idea of communism being a complete rupture with all previous morality, relations, and technology is the most ahistorical absurdity i've ever read. Capitalism did not destroy aquaducts, ships, the wheel, the printing press, paper, mathmatics, nor did it even wipe out all previous social relations, it did not destroy sexuality. Capitalism came out of feudalism, it was not some break, though when we look back at history we articulate this transformation in a series of historical events, the French Revolution etc. But if we want to look at the genesis of capitalism we have to look back to the growth of burghers, city states, merchants, to the reformation and the peasant wars. We can see in these events the seeds of capitalism even if they were still stuck within Feudalism, even if in so many ways they were used in ways to strengthen feudalism, to iniate much needed reform or to curtail the ambitions of the aristocracy against the Monarch.

The reading of history as literally seperate epochs is a crude marxism we all thought had been put in the past.

The fact you talk about Althusser is quite telling, his reading of capital is a pretentious reworking of historical determinism, coupled with a crude ideology/science binary which essentially reaffirms the "trade union conciousness" of class struggle and hence the need for a party vanguard of socialist scientists.

Though I think Althusser is possibly the worst Marxist since Stalin, I doubt even his argument about technology being social relations is as unnuanced and blunt as yours. Yes, on a deep level technology is fundamentally social relations, afterall it doesn't drop from the sky, but to flatten all technologies as being essentially capitalist is the reasoning of a gnat. The wheel was invented thousands of years ago, it pasted through many epochs and social systems, but did the feudal lord and the capitalist actually have to reinvent it? Will the proletariat have to? How about paper?

cph_shawarma has complained about ahistorical attitudes but his concept of being historical is the positivist shite of Althusser that informed much of Foucaults analysis. We cannot understand history from a neutral position, we cannot study it's truth claims and discourses from some objective place outside our own, rather to do so is to be ahistorical. Hence our concept of labour colours our understanding of feudalism and antiquity. Just as the human antamony illuminates the anatamony of the ape, so does the present illuminate the past. Again the highlights the Althusserian contradiction between ideology and science, we must live in ideology, there is no escaping it, yet there is the plane of science which stands above this life, that understands in a cold, dispassionate manner the ebbs and flows of history. So whilst we look at the past from our own ideological standpoint, understanding labour to be the transhistorical basis of all societies, the "scientist" is there to tut at our sillyness "Oh don't be so niave, we can't just impose our concepts onto the past". Quite, how silly of us if we were to claim that the earth was never flat, that the earth always revolved around the sun, no to do so would be ahistorical.

revol68: I am not an ultraleftist, if you would remember the discussion on unions, for instance... But maybe it's convenient just to label someone as a "primitivist" and then barf up some bullshit... I am not going to answer you, since you clearly is not up for any kind of discussion. (PS. This is not due to the fact that "I can't answer", I would very well like to answer this crock of shite, but I've learned enough about these kinds of discussions to stay away from them past a certain point. DS.)

you could ignore revol and answer me though?

thank you

okay so your not an ultra leftist, I never claimed you were, i was just saying you illustrate how ultra leftism can fold back on itself. You aren't an ultra leftist on the unions because ultimately you think no self organisation of the proletariat in the class struggle can escape capitalism, so in away your so ultra left in the abstract that you see the ultra leftist criticisms of unions as superflous, rather like a misanthrope see's little point in racism.

Now perhaps you could reply to some of the points made by both me and Joseph K instead of this theatrical indignance.

I think that one point here that relates to the original discussion is that a lot of these people who end up moving towards primitivism are not actually 'left communists' as the left communists understand the term, and wouldn't claim to be left communists themselves.
What this discussion original developed from is that people lumped in together what they termed 'ultra-left', which is a very vague political insult, and left communism, which is a specific term, which applies to definite organisations.
Of course if you used the communist party's definition of ultra-left, it includes everyone nearly.
Devrim

Let's see what we can do then...

First, I agree with Devrim and Leo's response to Joeblack on the supposed similarities between primitivism and left communism. There supposed similarities are nothing of the sort. The discussion has also taken up the question of insurrectionalism, which to me also has nothing in common with marxism. I'll try to back this assertion up with a slight diversion. Bear with me!

I too have participated on the anti-politics discussion forum and as a result I've been trying to get my head around the whole question of anarchist insurrectionalism for a while now. I recently came across the text 'The Anarchist Tension' by Alfredo Bonanno, which summed this approach up quite well really.

He begins by stressing the need for anarchists to develop 'strong ideas' (such as Freedom and Justice), and that anarchists should be motivated to act because they feel guilty that these eternal truths haven't been achieved.

Anyway, from this idealist beginning things get even worse. He moves on to take a pop at the anarcho-syndicalists for being stuck in the 19th century - "things have moved on" - and then the obligatory knock of the Marxists for their insistence on the centrality of the working class.

Then we have this gem...

Here we have it: complete lack of confidence in the working class and its nature as the revolutionary subject. And we also have something similar to the approach put forward by cph_shawarma: a fetish with 'destruction', and in particular a distrust of modern technology.

And what alternative is posed by Bonanno? The usual guff about affinity groups and informal structures, whose main focus should be 'permanent conflict, autonomy and facing problems one-by-one'.

So, we have:
- Impatient activism driven by guilt vs. militancy based on a historic confidence in the working class
- Local individualism vs. international centralisation
- Blind destruction vs. development of the productive forces under radically changed social relations.

It seems clear that anarchism offers nothing to the working class, and the only healthy basis for the proletariat is marxism.

B.

Beltov, I thought it was an excellent post until:

This does not really follow from the quotes of Bonnano, for all that the posts demonstrate is the inanity of insurrectionalism specifically, not anarchism generally. In fact Bonnano attacks anarcho-syndicalism (on the basis of its orientation to the working-class), and not marxism. So the most we can draw out of this is that:

It seems clear that [insurrectionalism] offers nothing to the working class, and the only healthy basis for the proletariat is [revolutionary class solidarity].

The comparison of anarchism to marxism will have to wait.

Beltov, good try.

That the vast majority of anarchists have probably never read Bonanno and many wouldn't agree with him seems to have escaped you. Insurrectionalism is a very specific trend, it's like using autonomism or Marxist Humanism to speak for all Marxists (although they're probably more comparatively influential even). Lumping in cph shawarma with Bonanno, you also miss cph shawarma's earlier assertion I remember from one thread that he's a "Leninist" (with some caveats).

Hi

Good job it's inevitable then, no one would put up with it otherwise.

Love

LR

lest we forget many marxist thinkers (adorno, horkheimer, gorz, holloway, negri) have also disavowed the central role of the proletariat in any revolutionary change.

Your argument, facile and featherlight, is tantamount to quoting marcuse then declaring to the world marxism offers nothing to the working class.

For further reading i recommend bonanno's 'workers autonomy'. Unlike the text you quoted (which was in fact a talk bonanno gave) it offers a more coherent analysis.

Yes, but you fail to mention what position Bonnano started out from: A workerist critique of unions as destoying the autonomy of the working class:

from A Critique of Syndicalist Methods, originally published in the mid 70s.
http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/ioaa/critsynd.html

... not alot, except expose your own hack mentality.
I tend to ignore the ICC now - but that is such a pathetic non-engagement with the faults and relationship of anarchism and marxism.
As already pointed out, it is the amalgam tactics of leftist and bourgeois hacks alike, as arrogant as it is ignorant.

this is really gone off on one, let's just saying that there is a tipping point in both anarchism and marxism where the radical critique falls back in on itself.

I think cph_ shawarma illustrates this very well. His ultra leftism extends beyond a critique of the unions to a critique of proletarian class struggle itself, which falls back into a kind of ambivalence to trade union mediation and co option, afterall these are issues already trapped within the total dialectic of capital, whether workers assembly or union bureacracy they are still engines of capitalism.

The abstract radicalism of complete rupture and destruction manifests itself in concrete conservatism, afterall without the total rupture with capitalism it's no more important than the theological controversies of angels on pins.

I must say I'm rather underwhelmed by the quality of these responses which boil down to 'I disagree' and 'here are some red herrings'.

I was hardly arguing they were identical, just that there is quite a bit in method they hold in common that makes the transiation from one to the other not so difficult.

BTW in itself this proves neither wrong but I think what I posted is pretty self-evident.

Many people call themselves marxists, it does not mean they are. There was a whole flourishing of academic marxism from the 1950's which sort to rip the revolutionary guts out of marxism, which was the reason it was encouraged. adorno, horkheimer, gorz, if I remember correctly were part of this. As for holloway, negr, I do not know their background but by denying the revolutionary nature of the proletariat they abandon any relationship with Marxism.

Why can't you accept that they are marxists but that they are pish marxists?

I would say that none of those "marxist" academicians had anything to do with actual "marxism", that is the method marxism uses to examine history, economics and sociology.

Yeah, that'll teach the ICC (!)

I'm assuming that's why you didn't bring yourself down to defend your overly prejudiced "observations".

Less than Engels or Kautsky (considering their lesser physical and chronological proximity)?

I think you have to accept that there's a load of "Marxists" that have talked bollocks the past 150 years or so. That doesn't invalidate Marx's method or whatever, but I think it's counter-productive to disavow these people as Marxists, even if they're wrong. Same as I accept that there's loads of anarchists who talk bollocks, but that doesn't invalidate everything within the body of history and ideas that happens to have been called "anarchism", as Beltov unconvincingly just tried to do yet again.

It's a good reason not to use either term to describe yourself though.

REvol68 first of all I agree with much of what you have said in defence of Marxism against privitivism, especially the defence of the historical materialist concept of history. However, in relation to the academic Marxists,how can you be a Marxist and deny the revolutionary nature of the proletariat, let alone not be actively involved in revolutionary activity? Yes Adorno etc could use some of elements of the marxist method but then they had to if they were going to be taken seriously. And Adorno was able to make some interesting analyses of cultural aspects of capitalism. Nevertheless, in the end all this activity only strengthened the bourgeoisies' ability to distort Marxism and turn it into another academic activity, into something alien to the interests of the working class and its revolutionary traditions. We did an article on Academic Marxism in the 70's I will see if I can find it.
Revol68: What is pish Marxism?

The thing is, it is not about being "right" or "wrong" in every case. It is about practicing a method of analysis, some sort of a tool to look into the society. All those people, adorno, horkheimer, gorz, holloway, negri probably have said several at some points of their life that I would have agreed wholeheartedly. But rejecting class analysis has nothing to do with the "marxist" method; meaning: method introduced by Marx.

Again, the same thing, Kautsky did not use the method I am talking about, at all; however I would have agreed with him on Christianity, for example. And Engels was wrong, in my opinion, to support bourgeois political parties, but he was, after all, practicing the method Marx introduced. It is not about being always "right" or "wrong". Everyone makes mistakes. What matters is the basic tools used, which gives us most basic principles of the working class movement.

Pish marxism is marxism that one deems to reek of the stench of ammonia.

Marcuse, Adorno et al are as much Marxists as the Kautsky and Lenin, infact in terms of their theory they are better Marxists.

For me Marxism is a series of ideological/conceptual tendencies that may or may not offer much of value.

Marxism will always be distorted and set against the working class, from the Bernstein, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao to the relatively harmelss Marxist theorists who teach in academia. it's because Marxism isn't the real revolutionary movement of the working class that must be zelously protected, the revolutionary movement has come under various names, anarchism, communism, the commune or the council.

The ICC fetishise Marxism, making it an idol, a statue that must no be profaned, they launch denouncing inquisition after inquisition against parasites and other usurpers of "Marxism". But like the Golden Calf this ends up mistaking the image for the god. The emancipation and self defense of the proletariat becomes confused with the defence of Marxism.

nice

Or to paraphrase "The marxist method is the basic principle of the working class movement". I think Marx was part of the working class movement, (which has revol says has been called a lot of things at various times), and is invaluable for understanding it, but he's not the source of it.

Feel free to correct me if you think I'm misrepresenting your position, but it seems to take Marx or "marxism" or "Marx's method" as the starting point rather than "the real movement towards the abolition of classes" of which Marx and some Marxists are a part.

And yes, some people are right for the wrong reasons or vice versa, but it does matter sometimes. If you're methods keep coming up blank all the time then they need to be re-evaluated in light of experience.

Catch you are correct, Marxism, the historical materialist concept of history, modern socialism (as Engel's called it) arose from and is the highest expression of the proletariat struggle to emancipate itself. As Engels explained very clearly at the end of Socialism, Utopian and Scientific

[url=http://]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
I am sure the Leo would agree with this.

I'm not interested in 'teaching' the ICC or anyone - I want to engage with those who feel a real need for a revolution. You ultra-leftists seem more interested in establishing the credibility of your 'pure' theoretical bloodlines. Theory is what is useful in our struggles for grasping their significance and developing it, not the eternal truths of the left communist or anarchist churches. There is much that is redundant and some that is still useful in anarchism and marxism, historically they have both defined themselves in relation to the other, and trying to prove the superiority of one over the other is the endeavour of irrelevant cretins.

The actual movement of the proletariat has been at different times and places more or less related to these currents. The need to prove the superiority of one strain is sectarian and flies in the face of historical reality. The proletariat, when it really acts for itself, is already moving beyond the immediate limits of all radical theory and so is renewing it; it has no need of sectarian labels.