Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
en:one-step-forward-but-just-as-far-from-the-goal [2011/04/11 03:13]
titorelli
en:one-step-forward-but-just-as-far-from-the-goal [2015/04/12 21:08] (current)
Line 22: Line 22:
 > [T]here is also a big misunderstanding about the way we present the possibility of communisation:​ when we say "now the revolution presents itself in this way" we are certainly not saying "​finally it presents itself in the way it always should have", nor are we saying that capital has resolved the problems of the proletarians in their place, because in order to imagine that it would be necessary for those problems to have pre-existed the restructuring and determined the previous period. But e.g. the problem of the impossibility of programmatism posed by the last restructuring was not a problem during the period of programmatism itself, where it was the very course of the revolution, and if capital has resolved the problem of programmatism it should not be forgotten that this happened in a restructuring,​ that is to say in a counter-revolution,​ the resolution was produced against the proletarians,​ and not as a gift from capital. And today the problematic of revolution as communisation raises problems just as redoubtable as those of programmatism,​ because when it is action as a class which becomes the very limit of class struggle, and you can only make the revolution in and through that action, you have some god-awful problems.((riff-raff / Roland Simon, "​Interview with Roland Simon" <​http://​www.riff-raff.se/​en/​8/​interview_roland.php>​)) > [T]here is also a big misunderstanding about the way we present the possibility of communisation:​ when we say "now the revolution presents itself in this way" we are certainly not saying "​finally it presents itself in the way it always should have", nor are we saying that capital has resolved the problems of the proletarians in their place, because in order to imagine that it would be necessary for those problems to have pre-existed the restructuring and determined the previous period. But e.g. the problem of the impossibility of programmatism posed by the last restructuring was not a problem during the period of programmatism itself, where it was the very course of the revolution, and if capital has resolved the problem of programmatism it should not be forgotten that this happened in a restructuring,​ that is to say in a counter-revolution,​ the resolution was produced against the proletarians,​ and not as a gift from capital. And today the problematic of revolution as communisation raises problems just as redoubtable as those of programmatism,​ because when it is action as a class which becomes the very limit of class struggle, and you can only make the revolution in and through that action, you have some god-awful problems.((riff-raff / Roland Simon, "​Interview with Roland Simon" <​http://​www.riff-raff.se/​en/​8/​interview_roland.php>​))
  
-The profound scepticism that many people have for TC is founded on a reading which sees a messianic preaching that the moment of true communism has finally arrived, when they see that TC writes that the revolution //as communisation//​ (which is not to be mistaken for the communist revolution in general) is something new which has only become a question as from the current cycle of struggles. For those comrades who are still stuck in the problematic of the ultra-left one of the largest obstacles to the revolution is constantly the integration of the working class with capital through the unions which, according to them, are preventing the class from achieving its autonomy. These still often see social democracy and Leninism as dangerous impasses which the proletariat must make sure to avoid,((Cf. "Ein schritt in die falsche Richtung. Eine Kritik an Lenin und der Systematisierung seiner Ideen",​ //​Kosmoprolet//​ no. 2, 2009, pp. 166--180.)) ​and so when TC and others are saying that the affirmation of labour is no longer a problem this sounds too good to be true. What they forget then is only that at the same time as the //​counter-revolutionary//​ force inherent to the self-affirmation of the proletariat has fortunately been swept away by the restructuring,​ also the //​revolutionary//​ power basing itself on the class identity of the worker has also gone up in smoke, that which had made possible the revolutionary workers’ autonomy.((Cf. Théorie communiste, //​Self-organisation is the first act of the revolution; it then becomes an obstacle which the revolution has to overcome//, Supplement to //Théorie communiste//​ no 20, 2006.)) So we won’t have to see any future workers’ states that imprisons workers but at the same time we are deprived of the broad workers’ solidarity and organisation,​ the proletarian class unity which previously constituted a solid base for the struggle against capital. Revolution and counter-revolution in our time will simply appear different and neither of them is going to have the worker’s identity as its life-bringing source. In other words we have witnessed a shift in cycles of struggles and so today we are situated in a completely new arena where the rules of the game have been rewritten. Now if this new situation is going to be more successful, from a communist perspective,​ than was the 150 years of programmatism,​ that is something which remains to be seen. At least the future is open, as opposed to what has already been added to the historical archives. The class contradiction of today has no magical configuration which automatically leads to the abolishing of capital. Had that been the case then the whole matter should have already been out of the way.+The profound scepticism that many people have for TC is founded on a reading which sees a messianic preaching that the moment of true communism has finally arrived, when they see that TC writes that the revolution //as communisation//​ (which is not to be mistaken for the communist revolution in general) is something new which has only become a question as from the current cycle of struggles. For those comrades who are still stuck in the problematic of the ultra-left one of the largest obstacles to the revolution is constantly the integration of the working class with capital through the unions which, according to them, are preventing the class from achieving its autonomy. These still often see social democracy and Leninism as dangerous impasses which the proletariat must make sure to avoid, and so when TC and others are saying that the affirmation of labour is no longer a problem this sounds too good to be true. What they forget then is only that at the same time as the //​counter-revolutionary//​ force inherent to the self-affirmation of the proletariat has fortunately been swept away by the restructuring,​ also the //​revolutionary//​ power basing itself on the class identity of the worker has also gone up in smoke, that which had made possible the revolutionary workers’ autonomy.((Cf. Théorie communiste, //​Self-organisation is the first act of the revolution; it then becomes an obstacle which the revolution has to overcome//, Supplement to //Théorie communiste//​ no 20, 2006.)) So we won’t have to see any future workers’ states that imprisons workers but at the same time we are deprived of the broad workers’ solidarity and organisation,​ the proletarian class unity which previously constituted a solid base for the struggle against capital. Revolution and counter-revolution in our time will simply appear different and neither of them is going to have the worker’s identity as its life-bringing source. In other words we have witnessed a shift in cycles of struggles and so today we are situated in a completely new arena where the rules of the game have been rewritten. Now if this new situation is going to be more successful, from a communist perspective,​ than was the 150 years of programmatism,​ that is something which remains to be seen. At least the future is open, as opposed to what has already been added to the historical archives. The class contradiction of today has no magical configuration which automatically leads to the abolishing of capital. Had that been the case then the whole matter should have already been out of the way.
  
 True, TC maintains that the proletarians now tend to confront their class belonging directly in the majority of today’s struggles. This is indeed a very interesting phenomenon in which we can see how every-day struggles portend the dissolution of the classes. It wasn’t like this before, but when did anybody say that this must imply a certain victory in the class war? Never is anything certain but it is only in the contradiction between capital and the proletariat,​ the way this contradiction stands today, that we can put our hopes. True, TC maintains that the proletarians now tend to confront their class belonging directly in the majority of today’s struggles. This is indeed a very interesting phenomenon in which we can see how every-day struggles portend the dissolution of the classes. It wasn’t like this before, but when did anybody say that this must imply a certain victory in the class war? Never is anything certain but it is only in the contradiction between capital and the proletariat,​ the way this contradiction stands today, that we can put our hopes.