Reply
to "The Real Movement"
The following article by Monsieur Dupont is a reply to
The Real Movement in
Red & Black Notes #14. A response to
this piece will appear in R&BN#17. Those
wishing to contact Monsieur Dupont may do so through R&BN.
It is difficult to reply to your article because it doesn't really
get anywhere. At one point in the article you say"Yet, all of this
begs the question of what exactly is the real movement?" But you fail
to arrive at any sort of real conclusion, even though you have
already stated what Marx and Engels thought and already described
their thoughts as "clear." (For the record, we don't think Marx and
Engels were very clear on the issue of how a revolution that might
overthrow capitalism could develop. Look at this example (also from
The German Ideology, where the term "real movement" is
used)"Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist
consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the
alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which
can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this
revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class
cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class
overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of
all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew." What
does Marx mean here by "movement," by "practical movement," by "the
cause," by "revolution"? Is "the movement" the actual physical
revolution (seizing the means of production), or is "the revolution"
a continuing accumulation of acts of revolt (a "real movement")
wherein mass communist consciousness is formed? Or is he talking
about something else entirely? Don't try to answer these questions.
The point of asking them is not to encourage further interpretations
of the Works of Marx, but to indicate where the limits of his theory,
logic and explanation lie. We do not need to "go back to Marx" to
examine the concept of "the real movement", we can look at ourselves
and the world around us to see if this marries up to what present day
ideologues of "the real movement" are trying to tell us. In so doing
we will be examining the way communists generally see
themselves.)
One problem with your article is that you haven't looked at what
the word "movement" really means, such an examination is surely the
first criteria for your article? When we look at various activities
that are going on around us that are related to the working class and
its inherent opposition to the economic system do we see a movement?
Do we see a real movement that is heading in the direction of the
overthrow of capital? Marx also described upheavals of the working
class as "convulsions", were these convulsions part of a real,
continuous movement, or unconnected spasms, connected, of course, by
the fact that they were brought on by the same conditions? The
article ends with this vague, and meaningless statement, that also
implies that the whole debate is a waste of time anyway "We end by
concluding [sic] that the resistance to capital must be the
prerogative of those who struggle against it". It seems that the main
angle of the writer of the article is to continue a refutation of
Leninist and Trotskyist notions of Party vanguardism. Unfortunately,
the writer does not seem to sense the possible vanguardism, despite
our previous correspondence, that lies inside the concept of "the
real movement" itself. Below are some partial thoughts on the
subject.
You say that capitalism has produced its own gravedigger in the
form of the proletariat. But you don't say why this is. Why is the
proletariat any more the gravedigger of capitalism than the slaves
were the gravediggers of Ancient Greek society? What is the
difference between the world today and the world before
capitalism?
You make some linking of the proletariat with class struggle (ie,
its role as the revolutionary subject) in your web page introduction
as printed in the last issue, here you say to look for class struggle
in "strike figures, wildcats, sabotage" but then you abandon the
direct link of the proletariat with economic production by continuing
with, "and above all resistance to capitalism in all its forms" (my
italics). Here we have left the realm of the working class and
entered the world of political movements, single issues, and most
importantly, the heart of capitalist economics resistance to
capitalism comes mainly from capitalists themselves and ideologues of
capitalism. Every corner shop resists the onslaught of capitalism,
every big firm resists the onslaught of rival capitalist firms. The
ideological basis of capitalism is democracy, which is another word
for competition. Globalization and anti- globalization is the latest
public arena in which capitalism is testing itself, checking horizons
and re- formulating strategies.
But what is the proletariat anyway? Academics, sociologists, and
communists and anarchists usually only help to confuse matters.
We, at Monsieur Dupont, aim for a simplicity that is strategic and
tactical in analysis, since definitions of the proletariat/working
class that are ideological or cultural have never had any use but to
mystify (protect) capitalism. We would say that the relevant part of
the working class, for an analysis of how a revolution might come
about, is that section which works in industries without which the
economy would stop functioning (Marx called the proletariat those
workers who work in big industry). They are relevant not because they
have some sort of working class "cultural identity" (all cultural
identifications help mystify the true nature of society) but simply
because when they are at work they have in their hands the levers of
production, the mechanisms whereby capitalism can continue to
function. How it comes to pass that these workers stop production is
entirely out of the hands of those who would call themselves
"revolutionaries" (we prefer the term pro-revolutionary, since the
description "revolutionary" bestows on the holder of the title an
expertise all out of proportion with reality since there has never
been a revolution that has got rid of capitalism how can anyone be an
expert on it?). As Paul Mattick has said, "Thus far, [
]
revolutionary actions have occurred only in connection with social
catastrophe, such as were released by lost wars and the associated
economic dislocations. This does not mean that such situations are an
absolute pre-condition for revolution, but it indicates the extent of
social disintegration that precedes revolutionary upheavals. There
will be no movement created that will destroy capitalism. Capitalism
will only flounder under the incompetence of its directors and
managers, when a situation might emerge in which workers are forced
into certain acts, and, in particular, when those workers who work in
the essential industries are forced to stop production, thereby
halting the capitalist process; thereby creating the possibility for
a new material basis of living to assert itself.
We would agree with Marx that capitalism creates the grounds for
its own removal not because of any (mystical) "necessity" or
"movement of the class towards {
] self-actualisation"
[?] as you (Marx also talks about communist revolution in
terms of "necessity") would have it, but simply because capitalism is
a global condition. In antiquity it was possible for people to live
in different ways across the globe but only to a certain extent due
to the limited technologies of the time, these days there is the
possibility, due to advanced technology, for everyone to live
comfortably, but the economic system prevents this. In antiquity any
successful revolt of people from oppression would eventually be
brought down by the imperatives of survival. These days there is no
possibility of any revolt, of any people, escaping capitalism, there
is nowhere to go, and nowhere to stay. Any direct opposition to
capitalism (seizing its productive apparatus) is always forced to
expand into a global phenomenon, if revolt fails to do what it must
then it is quickly brought right back into the capitalist arena (we
see this truth in every strike, and in every revolutionary event in
recent history). This is what the proletarians of Russia in 1917, and
beyond, knew instinctively, what they knew in Germany in 1919, what
they knew in Spain in 1936, ETC. It is also what the "revolutionary"
leaders knew of course. All of this explains why, at some point early
on during all these events, the workers started giving up, going
home, and they allowed "their leaders" to try to get into power under
capitalist/anti-working class terms.
Back to "the real movement." Capitalism is an economic system that
relies on certain industries (these rise and fall in their importance
over time) to keep it functioning. Now, these industries, which make,
dig, extract, build, distribute, all, at their base, rely on the work
of supervised workers. In times of economic crisis these workers
might feel forced to take over their workplaces as a collectivity
(thus disrupting the reality and continuation of capitalism; creating
a new material base), and, in their making of connections to other
workers and other parts of the working class (which tactics their
revolt forces on them), they may establish a new way of living. But
this new way of living cannot be established, or planned, before the
old way of living (capital accumulation) is stopped. The ruling ideas
of society are the ideas of the ruling class, to put it another way,
there is no possibility of a new way of thinking arising before the
material basis for it has been established. Who, amongst the readers
of this magazine, really thinks that a movement is needed before
capitalism will be halted? Yes, we thought as much, all of you no
less. Does history count for nothing? Everywhere in the
pro-revolutionary milieu we see aspirant midwives for communism,
self-proclaimed experts who insist on putting their ideological cart
before the horse of material events. The problem we see with the
concept of "the real movement" is that it is another ideological
trick by which pro-revolutionaries can trumpet their sense of
self-importance and their ownership of understanding, the leadership
role which they refuse to give up. The British group Aufheben use the
concept in the most explicit, and authoritarian, way, they say, "The
real movement must always be open, self-critical, prepared to
identify limits to its present practice and to overcome them"
(Aufheben 9, 2000). Here Aufheben have gone beyond
merely looking for connections between events and given the concept a
personality and suit of clothes, that is, they have themselves
actually become "the real movement". The gods have put themselves in
heaven. Marx was vague about this concept that he coined, he himself
cast about uncertainly for "signs of resistance" like many others do
now, and we will never know whether he understood the kind of use
that the term might be put to.
In Dauvé and Martin's Eclipse and Re-
Emergence
it says, "Communism is not an ideal to be
realized it already exists, not as a society, but as an effort, a
task to prepare for. It is a movement which tries to abolish the
conditions of life determined by wage labour, and it will abolish
them by revolution". Here communism, or "the real movement", is
clearly described as "an effort, a task to prepare for". This, plus
the use of the term "movement" would imply that it is the continuous
accumulation of certain acts that will bring us to the revolution. Of
course, once such a (flawed see below) prognosis has been accepted
then it is up to the experts to identify which acts are to be
considered worthy. It would seem that we have replaced the notion of
The Party of the Working Class as the holder of truth and
understanding with the notion that the politicized element (the
communists) of the "real movement" now hold understanding. Thus the
"historic mission" of "revolutionaries" is not damaged at all.
"Revolutionaries" are still the experts, despite their history of
failure and betrayal. We are stuck at about 1860, we are still in the
period of anti-tsarist populism, communists have not escaped Lenin
(who was not a disciple of Marx but an anti-tsarist populist, and
finally an agent of the German State, if Germany hadn't used him he
would not be mentioned or remembered by communists). When they are
pushed, communists always go back to what Lenin said (as
R&B Notes did), because he "won" ("Lenin
[is] perhaps more than any other person, responsible for the
course of twentieth century history", R&B Notes, by
the way, what happened to the materialist conception of history?).
The owners of understanding (the modern, friendly face of the
old-style Party) can display some interesting characteristics,
characteristics that are no different from those of the old Leninist
Parties, take this threat from Aufheben"Our interest in the struggle
in Mexico is how it expresses the universal movement towards the
supersession of the capitalist mode of production. One needs to avoid
acting as judge of every manifestation of this universal movement,
dismissing those manifestations which don't measure up, while at the
same time avoiding uncritical prostration before such expression"
(Aufheben 9, 2000). This is from an article that
championed the movement of the Zapatistas and criticized the views of
people they termed "ultra- leftists" on the matter. At first glance
what they say above might seem reasonable, until one realizes that to
ask people not to "judge every manifestation of this universal
movement" is, in fact, their bullying defence of their own judgement
of events in Mexico. Where is the intelligence here? Where is the
self- reflection?
The concept of the real movement and communists self-employed
status as the holders-on to consciousness, the performers of
understanding of the movement is grounded in an ideology of inter-
subjectivity. (Aufheben again"Our task is to understand, and to be
consciously part of something which already truly exists the real
movement that seeks to abolish the existing conditions.") Communism
for the understanders is made of acts. But we understand from the
works of charity that inter-subjective acts, no matter how profoundly
good intentioned and no matter how many thousands or even millions
might be involved, address only surface phenomena of society and not
the structural causes - acts at their best, can only ever achieve a
status of a political intransigence, but always trapped by
conditions. There is no means by which a symptom may turn on and
attack its cause, puppets cannot cut their strings. Fi Fie Fo Fum, an
Englishman cannot be anti-English, as many are, of course, without
expressing one of the possible forms of Englishness. Communism cannot
be itself in an ideological form, that is, as a current, or movement
of political values and acts acting in present conditions without
being wholly determined by conditions, which in an almost unanimous
majority are capitalist (how infinitesimal, how like the mustard
seed, is the negative moment). Communism, breaking out right now, is
a variant of capitalism. It is precisely because communism is absent,
is in a future, that we search for it. Search for it but do not work
for it, there is no proof that acts or works, that teaspoon paddling
against the current, makes our desire more possible. In the dingy
bars where we hold our meetings, communism is always not here. To
say, as we do, do nothing, is only an admittance of the difference
between structure and perception. The cup of the world is not shaped
by many people talking to each other, rather the world is a cup that
holds many people talking to each other. Structure precedes acts.
This is not to say do nothing. Some lives are better lived than
others, some have the life force stronger than others. Don Quixote's
adventures reveal a flawed but good human being but he never
approached political and social power, his vision of a better world
made up of noble acts never passed beyond fancy, reality is always a
drag. It is important to be a good human, to work good works, to
perform noble acts, after all, what else is there to do? But works
and acts address the merely and immediate human, this cannot bring
about the revolution. Good acts in the capitalist world is pissing in
the wind (the cherry saplings on the estate where we live have all
been snapped). A generality of good acts depends upon an entirely
different configuration of social power, communism comes after
revolution.
Monsieur Dupont, February 2002.
History/theory
page /Home page