| Both sides previous revision
Previous revision
Next revision
|
Previous revision
|
riff_nr_8:introduction [Y-m-dH:i]
titorelli Korr och korrkommentarer |
— (current) |
| ====== Introduction ====== | |
| |
| ===== Communist Theory Beyond the Ultra-left ===== | |
| |
| ==== The Class Struggles During the Years Following the First World War. Social democrats, communists and left-communists ==== | |
| |
| ==== The Ultra-left and the Mediations ==== | |
| |
| ==== From the Victory of Labour to the Dissolution of the Proletariat ==== | |
| |
| ==== Real Subsumption: How Capital in a Historical Way Becomes a Totality ==== | |
| |
| ==== The Double Mill and the Reproduction of Capital and Labour ==== | |
| |
| ==== From Self-organisation to Communisation ==== | |
| |
| > With the restructuring of the capitalist mode of production, the contradiction between the classes is found at the level of their respective reproduction. In its contradiction with capital, the proletariat puts itself into question.((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, pp. 34--44)) | |
| |
| Presumably the most important of the texts by Théorie communiste that we have translated is //Self-organisation is the first act of the revolution; it then becomes an obstacle which the revolution has to overcome.// It is also the TC-text which comes closest to some sort of manifesto. This text was written in 2005 and deals with the characteristics of contemporary class struggle and what TC considers to be different from before. As basis for this argumentation we find a number of contemporary and historical examples of struggles from different countries, for example Italy, France, Argentina and Algeria. The emphasis lies on the question of how a revolutionary opening can be created out of the existing immideate struggles and the sharp qualitative rupture which a revolutionary process according to them has to entail, by necessity. | |
| |
| In contrast with the view of communism as a paradise on earth that we are to enter 'after the revolution', TC understands (together with Dauvé and others) the communist revolution in our time as that of //communisation//, the immediate suppression of all capitalist relations: wage labour, exchange, division of labour, property, the state and all the classes in society. | |
| |
| The proletarian revolution is centered around the dissolution of the proletariat, and therefore the proletariat's movement of communisation will by necessity come in contradiction with its own self-organisation as a class. This is due to the fact that self-organisation does not go beyond the organisation of proletarians as proletarians. | |
| |
| > The supersession of really existing self-organisation will not be accomplished by the production of the 'true', the 'right', the 'good' self-organisation, it will be achieved against really existing self-organisation, but within it, from it.((Théorie communiste, op. cit., p. 14)) | |
| |
| In <del>the</del> !!säker? /T.!! light of this view on the supersession of self-organisation, TC maintains that the teories of workers' autonomy become insufficient and that they can not be be used to grasp the process of revolution. The bottom line, however, is not that autonomous, self-organised struggles (for example occupations of factories) are 'bad' (since they can not be revolutionary measures). Instead TC says that they in actual fact are indispensable, that this is the way class struggle //has to// express itself initially. If the possible revolution can not be anything but the thorough communisation of society((Something which we adhere to.)), this communisation also has to start from somewhere, and it has to emerge out of the class contradictions of this society. Thus, the opening for a social movement of communisation arises //out of// the self-organisation, but //as a break, a rupture, with it//. It would be absurd to be against self-organisation <del>on</del> <ins>by</ins> !!säker? /T.!! principle. | |
| |
| A central idea in the text, which we find immensely important, is that the syndicalism which characterises all everyday class struggles can not be explained by the existence of trade unions, or that this nature would somehow disappear in the struggle outside the union; syndicalism does not exist //because of// institutionalisation. But if trade unions organise proletarians as workers and go into negotiations with the buyer of labour power, while the self-organised, autonomous workers struggle defends the proletarians conditions of life as proletarians, is it then any differences of importance between them? Yes and no. The difference is not found in that the former are the administrators of labour while the latter represent the revolt against work. | |
| |
| On the other hand, there is an important distiction between trade union and self-organisation when it comes to the possibilities for how far the syndicalist struggle can be fought. In the text TC claim that first self-organisation must be reached and triumph in order to be superseded later, and that this is the only way in which the proletarians gains practical knowledge of their situation !!and!! that, ultimately, all capitalist categories !!and!! <del>existence as class itself</del> <ins>the own class belonging</ins> !!Jag tog formuleringen "class belonging" från den engelska översättningen. /T.!! constitutes an exterior constraint in the struggle !!and!! <del>themselves</del> <ins>the proletariat</ins> !!Nja, föredrar något annat /T.!! can ask the question of communisation. | |
| |
| > The self-organisation of struggles is a crucial moment of the revolutionary supersession of struggles over immediate demands. To carry on the struggle over immediate demands intransigently and to the very end cannot be achieved by unions, but by self-organisation and workers’ autonomy. To carry on the struggle over immediate demands through workers’ autonomy on the basis of irreconcilable interests is to effect a change of level in the social reality of the capitalist mode of production.((Théorie communiste, op. cit., pp. 27--28)) | |
| |
| TC are saying that nowadays the proletarians simply get fed up with self-organisation as soon as it is established, because when they look at themselves in the mirror, they see nothing but their own existence. However, they first need to see this reflection in order to knuckle down this existence and thereby to go beyond self-organisation. | |
| |
| > There is a qualitative leap when the workers unite against their existence as wage labourers, when they integrate the destitute and smash market mechanisms; not when one strike ‘transforms’ itself into a ‘challenge’ to power. The change is a rupture.((Théorie communiste, op. cit., p. 40)) | |
| |
| > [The proletarians can] fight against market relations, seize goods and the means of production while integrating into communal production those that wage-labour can’t integrate, make everything free, get rid of the factory framework as the origin of products, go beyond the division of labour, abolish all autonomous spheres (and in the first place the economy), dissolve their autonomy to integrate in non-market relations all the impoverished …; in this case, it is precisely their own previous existence and association as a class that they go beyond as well as (this is then a detail) their economic demands. The only way to fight against exchange and the dictatorship of value is by undertaking communisation.((Théorie communiste, op. cit., p. 30)) | |
| |
| For TC, it is the class relation understood as exploitation which gives the proletariat its position as a capitalist category and at the same time delivers the key to the <ins>dissolution</ins> of the classes and the capitalist categories. With exploitation class struggle does not become one thing and the Marxian (economic) concepts something else. 'It is the insufficiency of surplus-value in relation to accumulated capital which is at the heart of the crisis of exploitation.'((Théorie communiste, op. cit., p. 76)) <del>It is not the falling rate of profit which push on class struggle, as with the 'objectivist', or the opposite, that class struggle push on the falling rate of profit, as with the 'subjectivist'.</del> <ins>The falling rate of profit does not force class struggle, as the 'objectivists' would have it. Nor is the opposite true, that class struggle forces the falling rate of profit, as the 'subjectivists' would have it.</ins> !!Jag är rätt säker på att det ska vara "push" /T.!! '[T]he fall of the rate of profit is a contradiction between classes.'((Théorie communiste, 'Communist theory' <http://www.theoriecommuniste.org/neoTC/Traductions/Communist%20theory/>)) | |
| |
| In 2003 the publishing collective Senonevero, where TC among others participate, took an initiative to try to bring together all the different groups sharing the perspective of revolution as communisation: the 'communising current'. This on the basis of a mini platform and around the review project //Meeting//. A number of indivuals and groups swallowed the bait, however not those around //Troploin Newsletter// (Dauvé & co.) who give their explanation to this in the text 'Communisation: a "Call" and an "Invitation"'. The work with //Meeting// is going on while this is being written, but it should probably be mentioned that a lot of the discussions have orbited around whether the platform in 'Invitation' is entirely perfect. In light of this you can probably say that there exists a communising current, where some are gathering around //Meeting//, but that it is not entirely easy to define. Either way, it is clear that we welcome this initiative. | |
| |
| |
| ==== Some last words about the first part ==== | |
| |
| |
| ===== Debate ===== | |
| |
| |
| ===== Marx–-Engels series ===== | |
| |
| October 2006 | |
| |
| ~~DISCUSSION~~ | |