Every time I meet a virulent anti-communist, I see a stampede of strawmen descending from the horizon.
The vicious anti-communist slams his feet against the floor and cries “Communism is a totalitarian system that demands bloodless altruists! Men are bad people!”
First let me point out that it is a shame that these individuals have such a negative conception of “human nature”—and in an ironic turn, of themselves. These dancing carcasses, have already willfully accepted death, because in their sad, misanthropic account of human nature, they enthusiastically accept the lie that all the Hiroshimas, Great Terrors, Kosovos, Iraqs, boredoms, humiliations…all the suffering is necessary to subdue that “bad human” inside everyone of us. We, the original sinners, are capable of nothing more than evil…yahoo!
Second, communism was never some grand, theoretical blueprint for some sort, of future, egalitarian and moralistic society. This is nothing more than a scarecrow argument built upon cold war hysteria and gutless hippyism. Communism is a tension--not a blueprint, towards the complete emancipation of humanity. It wishes nothing less that converting every individual into a master without slaves. It is not a blueprint precisely because it is a tension looking for a conclusion--it would be ridiculous to try to describe something very meticulously that hasn't come into being. People who criticized Marx for being to vague about communism misunderstood everything--because communism wasn't invented by Marx; he simply tried to create a theoretical framework for it.
Whether it was Spartacus leading a slave revolt, medieval anti-state peasant militias declaring war against the church, french revolutionaries decapitating the king, John Brown shooting down slave masters, Russian workers trying to take over the machinations of society through democratic councils, Hungarians decorating the trees of Budapest with the finest fruits of the secret police, Spanish anarchists declaring “no gods, no masters” and taking over the land and the factories, Argentine factory occupations…every outburst of complete, erotic desire for liberty—the communist ghost was trying to come into being.
There is nothing “altruistic” about the desire for complete liberation—it is not some sort of sacrifice for the greater “good”—in the contrary, it is the absolute self-realization of the individual. There is no sacrifice in taking control of our lives.
Neither the individual, or the collective, is the most important. Both are part of a dialectic that depends on each other to transcend. The worthless randinist argues for cutthroat "individualism", but he or she doesn't realizes, that in order for that society based on back-stabbing to work, everyone has to try to slit the throat of everyone else. This is the same thing with the dry, stalinist who argues that the collective is everything, without realizing that for the collective to work, the individuals have to embrace the collective.
Before, it wasn’t possible for communism to come into being—hence it was only a phantom, trying to show its head, but unable to hack through the thick concrete.
Today, however, Capital has simplified class relations and has developed technology to the extent that this community of masters without slaves is actually possible. The working class, having the economic infrastructure lying on its back, is therefore, the revolutionary class. The working class can do well without capitalists—and we cannot say the same about the latter.
Indeed, the destruction of the “master-slave” dialectic is completely necessary for the survival of humanity. As technology develops, class society has exponentially increased the nightmare—from some thousands of Athenians and Spartans dead, to the industrial holocaust of dozens of millions in WW II. Now, the ruling class has the technological capabilities to incinerate all our existence with the pressing of a few buttons.
Rosa Luxembourg, when sensing the imminent catastrophe of WWI, said it is either “Socialism or barbarism”. I say she was wrong, it is now “socialism or death”.
10 comments:
Excellent!
I hope that we get to talk more about the nature of "the working class" this semester. Like many I've become more and more skeptical of the revolutionary potential of this catagory, which -- in this era of working class uncritical consumption of new technological capital -- seems to grow increasingly amorphous. The working class (in my opinion) seem very accepting, and embrace, even, their technological displacement from the work force. They accept such "advances" as their own. In doing so, they flip Marx on his head; the working class is digging its own grave.
We have not seen a working class revolution in the United States, the paragon of global hyper-capitalism. We would do well, as socialits, to explore historically an theoretically, why?
Without understanding the dynamics of the contempoary working class, I fear this heroic designation will deteriate into a strawman, lacking substance. Let us learn from the past as we move forward in the making of history.
first and foremost, the working class is not an unitary class, in the same way every class is not.
There was a fascist bourgeosie, and an anti-fascist bourgeosie, etc.
What makes the working class revolutionary is not its mentality, but its objective position in the economy. We are living a period of counterrevolution everywhere, not only in the US, but even at Mexico, were I come from.
By no means I am a trotskyist "workerist" because communism is the emancipation of humanity, not a class. However, it is their position in the economy that can make everything crumble.
If you think there isnt class struggle you are not looking hard enough. Everyone dislikes their work and makes everything to try to work less, there is always that class tension of bosses and workers.
Many countries havent had a workers' revolution--so what. Feudalism lasted around 1000 years.
I hope you are not coming from a MIMite perspective, because those people are nuts
Well, slow down a bit. I'll address your last point first: I can assure that I am neither "nuts" nor speaking from a particular "position." I am, however, raising one of the most fundamental questions grappled with and debated by Marxists, "post-Marxists," and Anarchists alike:
Marxism identifies the revolutionary potential of the working class. For example, THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO (the main YDS reading over the winter break) does this in the strongest of terms, calling for a "dictatorship of the proletariate." The revolutionary potential of this class becomes manifest when workers develop consciousness as a class, an awareness of capitalist reification and commodification of its labor, and fight to destroy this exploitative relationship by taking control of the means of production towards a more equitable distribution of wealth and democracy. This basic conceptual framework has been the cornerstone of socialist struggle from 1848 to the relative present.
Today, we are now in a period of what could be described as a global "dictatorship of hyper-capitalism." We have massive, world-wide exploitation of labor in every corner of the globe -- from the far East to the near West, including your home country, Mexico. And at the same time, we see this amorphous "working class" not working as a class. And often, ewhen they are conscious of unfair relationships between owner and worker, they embracising asymmetric divisions of labor as simply a fact of daily life (i.e., the American worker's adherence to the so-called "Protestant work ethic," in which working in and of itself is reward enough, from God).
And this is the basic problem: Marxist theory, on the one hand, posits that the social contradictions produced by capital causes it to "dig its own grave." On the other hand, the grave diggers -- the working class who are supposed to rise up in the face of an exploitative capitalist order -- ain't doing that too much. This is the basic contradiction pursued by my last posted comment.
So, my basic question, and the question raised in the Marxist tradition -- from Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, James Boggs, Jean-Paul Satre, and the whole of "Frankfurt School" critical theory and "Birmingham School" cultural studies -- is this: Why? Or more precisely, WHAT continues to impede the revolutionary potential of the working class? Related, IS Marx's theory that socialism would be brought into being by an industrialized working class? Or is Mao and Newton correct in asserting the revolutionary potential of the Un-working class, the "lumpen-proletariate" dismissed as social "scum" in THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO? Or are anarchists like Larry Bookchin correct in saying that the industrialized working class (especially in America) is *not* the revolutionary class, as the workplace, the factory created by the capitalist class inculcated the worker into its own value system (i.e., the Protestant work ethic, in which work itself is reward enough, from God, and "obey your masters" theology in the workplace).
Identifying existing chains that impede class consciousness in the working class is the first step towards removing those chains that impede class consciousness. Not liking work and complaining about it doesn't seem to jive with what we know needs to happen to bring about a dictatorship of the proletariate. And in the backdrop of communism mophing into state capitalism (i.e., Soviet Union, China, Vietnam), asking why the revolutionary class has yet to revolt is not "nuts." Not to ask ths question, however, seems to be precisely that.
Considering the enormous challenges we have to bring about real revolutionary change within our capitalist societies, we need to look at history and engage in serious analytic work to examine both the successes and possible failures of various working class movements throughout the world.
We can learn from this, and we must, or we, too, will be unable to avoid failure.
I also wanted to say that I'm enjoying this conversation and others on the blog. It's a good thing to bring different perspectives on socialism into conversation.
Well yeah, you are talking about the MIMite position, but lets speak about the points you raised:
I am well aware of what the Communist Manifesto says. There is absolutely nothing that suggests that marxism is just workerism. Marx speaks about the dictatorship of the proletariat, this is because the working class is the revolutionary class, and in the same way the bougeoisie enacted a dictatorship of their class, the working class has to enact that dictatorship in order to sweep the counterrevolution. This is simply means that the working class is the revolutionary class that will emancipate humanity, not only the working class itself.
Classes don't act always "as a class", they are not unitary, and completely uniform in their consciousness. If this was the case, the bourgeosie woulndt have tried to butcher each other in WWI and WW II. This is just a simplification, and this has never happened in history.
So your argum
I dont think the "lumpenproletariat" are the "scum" of society, but they are not, and they have never been revolutionary. Some sectors of it may be won over, but the scum like drug dealers, thugs, etc, are not revolutionary at all. How can they destroy something they don't have any relation to? If the lumpen dissappear from society, nothing fundamentally would change. However, if the workers strike, the economy goes into a grinding halt. Furthermore, how can a class, that has absolutely no relationship to the economy, can even know how to take over it? How is is a homeless guy going to be able to take over the machines in the factory, or the land in a farm, or the transportation etc. This is a complete rejection of class analysis. because class analysis has everything to do to our relation to the economy, and really, what gives left wing politics a thrust at all. If you remove that analysis, you end up with superficial liberal identity politics, or MIMite christian third worldism--which is more akin to the old moralistic utopian socialism, than to real socialism at all.
I don't come from any tendency at all, I am a communist (although I have strong sympathies to the old "infantile disorder" of left wing communism), not a marxist. However, class analysis is extremely important, so important, that without it, all the theory crumbles.
If anything, this MIMite concept of "whoever suffers more" is the best, in this case the lumpenproletariat, is imbued with the christian ethic you denounce--the more you suffer, the more righteous you are!
Did slaves act always as a class? There was always the home slave that was "content" and argued "oh well, I am atleast not in the plantations!" etc.
Everywhere, this disgusting work-ethic is prevalent. This is not a problem with only industralized nations, this is a problem everywhere. The left is also part of the problem, because they love to "glorify labor", as if the same sphere that causes us misery should have anything positive in it.
It is true there is ideological domination over every sphere of our everyday lives, and that is why we have to work really hard against it. But to say, workers are completely content with their state is completely dismissing what Frankfurt School theoreticians like Marcuse try to explain, and frankly, is a somewhat arrogant thing to say. There is always a tension, but it is an incoherent tension, and it is the job of militants to try and help cohesify it.
I am sorry if I sounded somewhat arrogant in my former post, its just that I have very strong opinions against this "third worldism" a lot of first world leftists seem to be facinated with.
Dear Comrade:
I see you didn’t slow down to consider my basic point. The problem with your last point has less to do with sounding arrogant and more do with sound arguments and accuracy. It’s clear that we will have to “agree to disagree,” as they say, about certain issues, and I hope to continue this conversation when we return to school in January. And I still hope you’re a part of the Black Rose Tendency next semester. While MSU YDS is a diverse collection of socialist perspectives, the BRT seeks to place this diversity in dialectic and toward a unifying synthesis. I disagree with you profoundly about many things; nevertheless, I respect the scope of your thought, your courage to express it, and the passion and intensity that guides your thinking about socialism. In short, though I find some of your positions problematic, I still consider you my brother.
It is within this spirit of brotherhood and comradeship that take issue with much of your last posted comments.
1. Since you think that you’ve written what I believe, let me state my position plainly. Like anyone else, my approach to Marxist-socialist theory is filtered through my main disciplinary training, which is in rhetoric, cultural studies, and critical social theory. I’m particularly sensitive to the relationship between language and social consciousness, seeing both as an essential battleground in struggle for socialism. I do not self-identify as a Marxist, and I am not a communist in traditional sense of this word. I am, however, deeply influenced by both French structuralist, post-structuralist, and post-colonial (what you dismiss as “third world-ist”) iterations – and reforumulations – of Marxist-socialist theory (Gramsci, Sartre, Fanon, Foucault, Althusser, to name a few). I am also greatly influenced by “third wordlist” theorists identified with African socialism and Pan-Africanism, such as Nkruma, Lumummba, Nyerere, Cabral, among others. Closer to home, the socialist praxis of DuBois, Newton, Davis, (Cedric) Robinson, and Marable impact my thinking. And pragmatically, the work of the late Brazilian Marxist humanist Paulo Freire helps me move thought into tangible action. In other words, my theoretical orientation is eclectic and un-dogmatic, as it should be. I’ve been described as a “neo-Marxist” and “post-Marxist,” but such tags are pretty useless and unnecessary. Now you have an idea where I’m coming from, so that you do not need to invent a position for me again.
2. Relatedly, your line of argumentation is problematic. It relies on strawmen and ad hominium. For example, what the hell is a “MiMite?” If this is my position as you say, why don’t I know what this means? This strawman is conveninent for you; you stuff my argument into something you dislike, and then you bash it. But merely label someone something doesn’t make the label stick. This reminds me of that Nick Griffin speech, where the anti-racist activists built an effigy of the racist speaker in the form of a piñata in the racist speaker’s likeness, and then proceeded to beat the candy-filled stuffing out of it, while cheering wildly. Your efforts to fit me into a caricature I’ve never heard of is very similar. And unhelpful. This is the essence of stawman arguments – building an imaginary antagonist, and then proceeding to beat the stuffing out of it. Nothing of substance ever emerges, though.
3. Your reliance on ad hominium or personal attack is highly problematic. You seem more concerned about the theoretical orientation of speaker/writer than you are about the actual substance of the argument being offered. Why tag me as this or that? Why not slow down and read my basic argument: that socialists of all stripes need to devote more attention on things that impede or might impede the development of class consciousness, the prerequisite for socialist revolution? I’m not sure why this is a controversial point for you, considering that in many “first world” – as you put it, problatically – nations have not experienced robust working class resistance. This is not opinion but objective fact, and you know it. What is your problem with MSU YDS members doing intellectual work devoted to getting at the root of the problem? I really don’t understand your point.
4. Relatedly, little in your post responds to my basic argument, reiterated above. Most of it is just assertion and truism. I would like to keep focus on the central issue raised in my last point and in point #3 above.
5. As for the “lumpen,” so many historical developments contradict your assertion about these so-called “scum.” Mao, of course, was right about the revolutionary potential of those landless, non-industrialized peasants in the Chinese country side (and to be clear, this is not to excuse Mao of his mistakes and excesses during the “cultural revolution; this is only to point out that history proved Mao’s challenge to Marxist orthodoxy correct). Relatedly, Hughey P. Newton’s theory about the revolutionary potential of the American “lumpen” was proven as fact with the Black Panther’s recruitment and reformation of the un-working class such as pimps, drug dealers, stick-up kids, welfare mothers, addicts, gang bangers, and other such “scum” summarily dismissed by Marxist orthodoxy. Newton accurately identified this class as the most alientated class in American society, and also identified the fact that much of it was already armed and adepted at fighting. He simply redirected their target towards the capitalist order itself. And the BPP had unprecedented results until the party was infiltrated, its leaders assassinated exiled, or jailed on trumped-up charges. But that’s another but related story. The point here is simply this: Newton and others have clearly shown that, unless you organize the lumpen, the capitalist racist power structure will organize it against you.
6. Even though this is besides the point, I need to address your comment about slavery. Firstly, I never suggested that every single person within a class participates in unified struggle. This is a strawman argument. Secondly, the enslaved class did in fact operate as a single class in unified struggle despite of a few parasites and sell-outs. This is seen throughout the Americas, and especially in the country I’m currently located right now, Jamaica, and her cousin to the northwest, Haiti. Maroons in Jamaica waged the first successful guerrilla war against Spanish and British colonialism. Toussant L’Ouveture led the first and only successful Black overthrow of European (French) enslavement and occupation. These are just two examples from many that show clearly that enslaved Africans largely operated as a “slave class” and fought deliberately to liberate themselves from this status.
7. Relatedly, I find your liberal use of the words “third worldism” and “first world” very problematic and troubling. The so-called “third world” – from Africa to South America – has much to teach the so-called “first world” about revolutionary struggle. I suggest not dismissing third world struggle as irrelevant, and I also recommend that you adjust the terms in which you couch your discussion about it. The so-called third world exists at the expense of first world subjugation and exploitation of it. We should be sensitive to the language, to the words we use to discuss issues of socialist struggle, and avoid adopting imperialist language (and therefore, thoughts) as our own.
My entire focus – in this post, my last, and in our work at Michigan State – is towards developing a new way of walking *and* a new way of talking to make socialism a reality in the 21st century. Let’s avoid internectine struggles over theory and move towards praxis, together.
In struggle --- your brother, always
Ugh, my internet went to hell and the huge post I wrote dissappeard ewfwrefwefwfer
I just want to adress this point quickly:
I dont disregard third world struggles, and this is a terrible strawman against me, because it makes me look some sort of chauvinist. I disregard nationalism and people being sent to die for the interests of their national bosses, which is very different. Furthermore, I embrace internationalism as the cornerstorne of socialism. I also find it problematic for first world leftists to be obsessed with the third world, seeing that this is unhealthy, and creates a vaccuum for reactionary scumfucks to fill, as it is doing in Europe, with all those right wing lunatics, and its doing in the US now.
I apologize for my "strawman" against you, but it was just a little part of post, and most of it actually adressed what you wrote.
Your example about slaves doesnt proves anything, as the working class has acted unitarily many times in history, even right now, in the present. What I wanted to prove is that classes are not as unitary as some people think. Notice how you never addressed how there was a fascist and an antifascist bourgeosie, how the bourgeosie fought against each other in WWI etc.
Furthermore, about the lumpen, you still dont prove anything. THe simple fact that they had to be "reformed" by non-lumpen, and put under their leadership, signififies that the lumpen itself is not revolutionary. Mao talked about how the proletariat needed to be leader of the other classes, not the other way around. (Also mao said a lot of nonsense, like cross class antimperialism and new democracy, but this is another dicussion) Furthermore, streetfighing for the "right thing" is not the onl.y thing that makes the revolutionary a revolutionary--it is its ability to create a new world. The BPP did fight back opression, but they werent ecnommended yet with the difficulty of building a new world. After the enemies are defeated, how can the lumpen lead the building of a new world? You know, running factories, land, transportation etc, something you didnt address from my last post.
I am going to join the reading group, but be wary that I have very strong dissagreements with the watering down of class, which I believe, needs to be central for effective politics.
I'm moving quickly, so please excuse the numbered points:
1. I’m glad you don’t disregard third world struggles. It seems like you did. As a descendent of enslaved Africans in this place we call America, I still find your terms “third world” and “first world” problematic. I understand your concern about European “scumfucks,” as you call them. However, as an African American, I am not a “first word” subject but rather what Vincent Harding called an internally colonized third world subject. I was born and now live in a first world country that relegates the descendents of enslaved Africans as “third world” subjects. The ghettos of New York are nothing more than colonized, heavily militarized spaces. The same is true for North Africans in the suburbs of Paris, Jamaicans in Brixton, London, etc. (aside: I remember when the Black "lumpen" in New Orleans was abandoned by the goverment to perish in the aftermath of Katrina; the press widely referred to the Black victims as "refugees" -- articulating for the first time in modern history that the United States largely considers Black people born on U.S. soil as third world subjects. Personally, since my ancestors were captured and brought here during a war against African civilizations, I consider myself a prisoner of war. And when one takes state-sponsored brutality into consideration against Black men, the metaphor is fitting...and like any prisoner of war, my aim is to get free...)
2. I think that in some instances you’re really arguing with yourself, or an imaginary adversary. My initial point about the working class was that AT THIS CURRENT STAGE IN HISTORY, THERE APPEARS TO BE VERY LITTLE WORKING CLASS RESISTANCE – ESPECIALLY IN THE UNITED STATES – AGAINST GLOBAL HYPER-CAPITALISM. AND WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, AND DEVOTE INTELLECTUAL WORK TOWARDS FIGURING OUT 1) WHY, 2) WHAT WE CAN TO DO SPARK CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE WORKING (AND UN-WORKING) CLASSES IN THE NEW MILLENIUM. IT WAS A CALL TO ACTION, NOT A HISTORICAL CRITIQUE OF THE WORKING CLASS.
3. As for the lumpen, I think you’re just trying to be contrarian for contrarian’s sake. Of course, the working class you speak of has had to be “reformed” through the building of class consciousness. The un-working or “lumpen” also has to be reformed, by the building of class consciousness. Marx’s original thesis about the lumpen-proletariate, that were incapable of class consciousness, was proven wrong by the BPP. Both groups are able to identify asymmetrical, exploitative relationships to production. This does not a negative commentary on working class movements; it only opens up greater possibility for unified struggle.
4. It is precisely *because* you have strong opinions about certain things that the BRT group needs you. You have much to offer. Just be prepared that others might disagree with you, and even argue something different from what you believe.
See you in January
Ugh, I wrote a huge post again and it dissappeared!
I think I will leave you with the last word. Its better if we discuss this in real life in January.
Solidarity
MIM = Maoist Internationalist Movement, a tiny and really nutty group in the U.S. Info on them can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoist_Internationalist_Movement
Post a Comment