| Both sides previous revision
Previous revision
Next revision
|
Previous revision
|
riff_nr_8:introduction [Y-m-dH:i]
ludvig korr. och korrförslag. |
— (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. Jajamän. "In light of current events, we must go to war." osv. /L.!! 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. Jajamän. /L.!! 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<ins>, in other words that all capitalist categories and class belonging itself constitutes an exterior constraint to the struggle, and their asking of the question of communisation is made possible.</ins> | |
| |
| <del>!!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.</del> | |
| |
| > 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 activate class struggle, as the 'objectivists' would have it. Nor is the opposite true, that class struggle activates the falling rate of profit, as the 'subjectivists' would have it.</ins> !!Jag är rätt säker på att det ska vara "push" /T. Det låter verkligen inte bra, i så fall kan det inte vara "push on", det är ju mer när man rent fysiskt puttar lite på något/någon och med prepositionen "on" har jag aldrig sett verbet "push"... 'activate' kanske? /L.!! '[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 ==== | |
| |
| To in the end say a few words about the texts in this first part of the issue. It begins with a number of texts which make up a debate between Théorie communiste and Aufheben originally published in their respecive magazines. It was through this debate that we first came in contact with the ideas of TC. Aufheben presents TC for their readers, partly in their own words, partly through a couple of translated texts. These and a few more we have translated as well as the debate itself. We hope it is sufficiently that we let the debate present itself. Then follows a few texts by TC of which a couple have already been mentioned. Among the others we are especially happy to present an interview from the last summer with a leading member of TC. Here got an opportunity to follow up the discussion with Aufheben, how TC, and to listen at what they have to say about position of communist theory in class struggle. The text 'A fair amount of killing' treats the second, ongoing, war in Iraq in light of the global restructuring. | |
| |
| ===== Debate ===== | |
| |
| In the second part follows a discussion on a text from the last issue, 'Communism of Attack and Communism of Withdrawal' by Marcel. It gives two critical comments (the one by Per Henriksson and the other by Björkhagengruppen from Stockholm) as well as a reply by the author. Henriksson argues, among other things, that Marcel mislays the historical and logical relation between capitalism and communism, where the former is a precondition for the latter, and that Marcel's perspective therefore becomes utopist. | |
| |
| Björkhagengruppen criticises Marcel from in part different starting points. They argue, for example, that Marcel has not done a proper reading of Hegel and fails to preserve a distiction between the two concepts essence and appearence. Further, they develop an idea that there exists an gap between labour power and living labour and argues for that this might be a possible way out of the capital relation. | |
| |
| In his reply, Marcel says that he acknowledge much of the critique in the previous articles but refer to a future publication where he intends to clarify what he is trying to say. In line with his former text, the thought remains that the dialectics of capital entails class struggle but that it is not here the revolution can be found. This he presents as anti-dialectic: 'Communism is non-appropriate, not appropriate, since it is the positive abolition of capital’s //telos//.' | |
| |
| To that we have recieved a text by a North American comrade, Chris Wright, who pursues the discussion on the relationship between objectivism--subjectivism and crisis--collapse on the basis of the text by Marramao in our last issue. He is not content with the solution of the problematic of objectivism--subjectivism which Marramao has to offer. | |
| |
| We find it very pleasant and positive that people wants to take part in the discussion we have tried to conduct in and through riff-raff, that they have understood that we have never had as a purpose to discuss in some sort of isolation. The fact that they besides that are both ambitions and constructive makes us feel as if we have got some acknowledgment of that to what we devote our time has some relevance even outside our group. | |
| |
| |
| ===== Marx–Engels series ===== | |
| |
| |
| In our series with première translations of texts by Marx and Engels, this time we make three apparently disparate: the years 1844--1845, 1860 and 1877. The first one is a few passages from Marx's and Engel's jointly produced writing //The Holy Family or Critique of Critical Criticism. Against Bruno Bauer and Company//. This book has never before been published in Swedish, either as a whole or (which is all too common) in the form of a commented selection. It was written about the same time as Marx' now as famous as controversial //Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844//, also called the //Paris Manuscripts// (these were manuscripts and notes and the names by which they are now well-known are editorial titles by later publishers). Neither we have managed to translate the book in its whole, we have unfortunately been forced to limit ourselves to a few passages: the 'Foreword' and 'Critical Comment No 2' from the fourth chapter, which among other things, deals with Proudhon. We publish the Forword just to come a bit on the way towards a complete future translation (however date and translators for this project can not be promised at this time) -- as for the content it does not say so much. The later part has on the other hand much more to offer (although it is very much moved out of its context). Here we find at least two passages that use to come up in the shower of Marx quotes. The shorter of the two most people are most likely already familiar with and the substance is, a bit shortened, that it is not about what workers at the coffee table or elsewhere suspects or thinks but what we are and habe to be as a class. No more, no less. The former, a little longer part, deals with the very relationship between the proletariat and capital, where these are not to be understood as two external poles, two separate subjects or a subject and an object that stand against eachother, but where these poles at the same time are each others opposites and preconditions. We will not to say anymore here. The immediate reason why the passage is beeing published right now is that the discussion between Aufheben and TC refer to it. | |
| |
| Apart from this we publish two letters by Marx from two different time periods. Neither do we feel like writing anything about these other than that they contain interesting formulations which surely might suprise one or two Marx necrophiles. We find one in a comment on the dissolution of the Communist League where some words are spent on the party and in the historical way he always intended. In the second letter we find a tired Marx who shares his view on the idolising of his personality. | |
| |
| October 2006 | |
| |
| ~~DISCUSSION~~ | |