#communization

[redorthodoxy]

[bordigamarvin]

Workerism versus Communism

Workerism, in all its myriad forms (Marxism-Leninism, Syndicalism, Social Democracy, among others), posits the worker as a privileged subject to be empowered, liberated, or elevated within society. In doing this, it preserves and reinforces the very conditions which communism seeks to negate: the separation of life from productive activity (labor as it exists) and the existence of the proletariat as a class defined by the selling of their labor power. Communism is not the rule of the workers, the celebration of labor, or a more rational and "equitable" distribution of labor. It is the abolition of the conditions that produce workers. It is the abolition of wage-labor, private property, the state, and of the value-form. It is the supersession of the condition of the proletariat, not its exaltation. Workerism views the worker as a positive subject to be affirmed, while communism views the proletariat as a negative object to be abolished during the revolution. The workerist society is still one centered around work and the worker, whether the capitalist is individual or collective, it is irrelevant, but the communist society is one without the concept of the worker or boss. Workerism is an alteration of the present state of things, but communism is its abolition.

[carabinerandsickle]

There is no valorisation without work. Labour power is quite a special commodity: its consumption furnishes work, hence new value, whereas means of production yield no more than their own value. Therefore the use of labour power furnishes a supplementary value. The origin of bourgeois wealth is to be found in this surplus value, in the difference between the value created by the wage-labourer in his work, and the value necessary for the reproduction of his labour-power. Wages only cover the expenses of that reproduction (the means of subsistence of the worker and his family). […] Supposing the capitalist and the wagelabourer were fused into one, if labour truly managed capital, re-oriented production in the interest of everyone, if wages were equal and fair, etc., and value logic continued to operate, it would not go beyond capitalism: it would be a (short-lived) worker-led capitalism

— Gilles Dauvé, Eclipse and ReEmergence of the Communist Movement - Chapter 1: Capitalism and Communism

[endlessandrea]

Inquiry on the Future of Revolution, Part 1 - Notes - e-flux

A conversation between Jasper Bernes and M. E. O’Brien on revolutionary speculation and the poetry of communism. Part 1 of 2.

"It would be a massive technical project to remake the world so that people have access to the things they need to live lives of dignity and meaning and fulfillment—so that the free development of every person can be the maxim of a communist society. It’s not going to happen overnight. We’ll need to move stuff all around the world in order to remedy a lot of the imbalances that have been created by centuries of capitalism and colonialism and dispossession. How do we do that? Well, it’s a vast project of imagination that no one mind could solve, but I think with millions of minds it can be solved."

[all-things-are-nothing-to-me]

On Anti-Work, Mexican(American)s and Work.

Read it and a buncha other writings here.

Ediciones Inéditas Anthology

ediciones inéditas Ediciones Inéditas Anthology an anthology of original essays published by ediciones inéditas 2019

[tastethebloodofmeatthawsmoth]

"Texts such as Call or The Coming Insurrection.... do not even properly ask the question of what the revolution is, for in these texts the problem has already been evaporated into a conceptual miasma. In these texts, the revolution will be made not by any existing class, or on the basis of any real material, historical situation; it will be made by 'friendships,' by 'the formation of sensibility of a force,' 'the deployment of an archipelago of worlds,' 'an other side of reality,' 'the party of insurgents' - but most of all by that ever-present and always amorphous positivity: we. The reader is beseeched to take sides with this 'we' - 'the we of a position' - to join it in the imminent demise of 'capitalism, civilization, empire, call it what you wish'. Instead of a concrete, contradictory relation, there are 'those who can hear' the call, and those who cannot; those who perpetuate 'the desert', and those with 'a disposition to forms of communication so intense that, when put into practice, they snatch from the enemy most of its force.' Regardless of their statements to the contrary, do these pronouncements amount to anything more than the self-affirmations of a self-identifying radical milieu?" - Endnotes, "What are we to do?"

lol, rekt

[reportsofagrandfuture]