revolution

Reflections on resistance, reform, and revolution

Posted by

5

The problematic forms of
contemporary anticapitalism

Untitled.
Image: Cover to Rosa Luxemburg’s
Sozialreform oder Revolution? (1899)
untitled2

The following are the prepared remarks to a Platypus panel on “The 3 Rs: Reform, Revolution, and Resistance” with 1960s activist Todd Gitlin and WIL organizer Tom Trottier, held last March at NYU. A considerably expanded and improved version of this essay has been published by Upping the Anti (which I encourage everyone interested to buy):

Almost five years have passed since Platypus hosted its first panel on “The 3 Rs: Reform, Revolution, and Resistance.” At the time, many of us were trying to come to terms with the profound sense of disorientation we’d felt during our involvement in the antiwar movement, which was then in a process of rapid disintegration. We hoped to explore the relationship between these three categories, both to each other and to the greater project of human freedom, in order to determine whether an emancipatory politics was still even possible. How can the respective political modes of resistance, reform, and revolution be deployed to advance social and individual freedom? How might they reinforce each other on a reciprocal basis? Today, with the recent upsurge in global activism, we stand on the precipice of what promises to herald the rebirth of such a politics. These questions have acquired a renewed sense of urgency in this light. Now more than ever, they demand our attention if we are to forge a way forward without repeating the mistakes of the past.

Reform, revolution, and resistance — each of these concepts exercises a certain hold over the popular imagination of the Left. While they need not be conceived as mutually exclusive, the three have often sat in uneasy tension with one another over the course of the last century, however. The Polish Marxist Rosa Luxemburg famously counterposed the first two in her pamphlet Reform or Revolution?, written over a hundred years ago. In her view, this ultimately turned out to be a false dichotomy. Nevertheless, Luxemburg was addressing a real dilemma that had emerged along with the formation of the Second International and the development of mass working-class politics in the late nineteenth century. Even if she was able to conclude that reforms could still be pursued within the framework of a revolutionary program — that is, without falling into reformism — this was by no means an obvious position to take.

Still less should we consider the matter done and settled with respect to our current context, simply because a great figure like Luxemburg dealt with it in her own day. We do not have the luxury of resting on the accomplishments or insights of past thinkers. It is unclear whether the solution at which she arrived then holds true any longer. History can help us understand the momentum of the present carried over from the past, as well as possible futures toward which it may be tending. But it offers no prefabricated formulae for interpreting the present, no readymade guides to action. Continue reading →

Soviet board-games, 1920-1938

Posted by

18

Games of revolution and industry 

Untitled.
Image: Reds and Whites, a war game!
A Soviet board-game from 1929.
untitled2.

It’s the 1920s. You’re a young revolutionary living in the newly-formed Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Now that the Allied Intervention’s been frustrated, and the reactionary White Army beaten back, the threat of counterrevolution seems to have momentarily subsided. All in all, it’s a good time to be a Marxist in old Muscovy.

There’s only one problem with this new arrangement: What to do with the free time you’re not spending locked in combat against the tsarists, yankees, and Huns? Sure, you’ve got a job at the local shoe factory. But war communism’s out, and the New Economic Program is in. It’s time to kick back and relax. Communism will be built soon enough.

Luckily, there’s a new product available to help pass the time. A.V. Kuklin’s come out with a whole batch of revolutionary board-games, featuring such riveting class-conscious titles as Electrification, Revolution, Reds vs. Whites, and Maneuvers: A Game for Young Pioneers [Soviet Boy Scouts]. Games for the whole family, even though the family form of property-relations must eventually be abolished. Let the capitalists have their Monopoly; let the imperialists play their Risk. I’ll stick to Modern War or Air Struggle.

Ages 8 and up?

1930
1927
1925
1924
1924
Air Struggle! 1925
1925
1929
1938
1926
1925
1925
Modern Fight, the game! 1933
1928: “Electrification,” the board game
1931
1931
Russia vs. China (1925)
1924

.
My favorites among these include the “electrification” board-game, the chemical war game, and the Reds vs. the Whites game. You can tell that they reflect the immediate experience of devastating world war, revolution, and bloody civil war, followed by a project of social engineering and economic modernization the likes of which the world had never seen. The only other thing I’ll say is that, from an aesthetic perspective, one can see the change in the officially-sanctioned styles from the more avant-garde lines, shapes, and typography to the cartoon realism of caricatured figures in the Sots-art of the 1930s. Enjoy!

Part IV: 1848

Posted by

1

For a host of reasons, Žižek is not able to do full justice to the program suggested by the title of his essay, that only “communism” (that is, the Left) can save bourgeois-liberal democracy.  Though accurate, this broader point is lost in his focus on the twilight of the welfare state.  Despite their historic rivalry, the projects of liberalism and socialism were always bound up with one another.  At its best, the latter saw itself as a continuation of the former.  The founding insight of socialism was that liberalism had failed to live up to the standards it set for itself.  In the words of Neil Davidson, the greatest socialists have thus fought “for those universal principles of freedom and justice which the bourgeois revolutions brought onto the historical agenda but, for all their epochal significance, were unable to achieve.”[226]  Because liberalism fell short of its own ideals, socialism has been charged with the task of their realization.   Precisely this, and nothing else, is what Marx meant when he stated in 1871 that the proletarian movement has “no ideals [of its own] to realize, but to set free elements of the new society with which old collapsing bourgeois society itself is pregnant.”[227]  Engels, challenging the moth-eaten liberalism of François Guizot, therefore rebuked the aging minister in 1850 for his revisionist account of the English Revolution.  Guizot had opportunistically contrasted the unhurried gradualism of social and political transformation in England with the violent convulsions that would later take place in France.  As Engels was eager to point out, however, the origin of these French revolutionary ideals could be found in the writings of the British liberals.  “M. Guizot forgets that freethinking, which so horrifies him in the French Revolution, was brought to France from no other country than England,” Engels asserted.  “Locke was its father, and with Shaftesbury and Bolingbroke it assumed that keen-spirited form [that] subsequently developed so brilliantly in France.  We thus arrive at the odd conclusion that freethinking on which, according to M. Guizot, the French Revolution foundered, was one of the most essential products of the ‘religious’ English Revolution.”[228]

To put it in the starkest terms imaginable, the advent of socialism would at the same time entail the liberation of liberalism from the unresolved contradictions in which it is still enmeshed to this day.  This is what would be required of the proletariat, by acting “[i]n the full consciousness of [its] historic mission,…in order for it to work out [its] own emancipation, and along with it that higher form to which present society is irresistibly tending.”[229]  The Left must therefore not only oppose liberalism, but in a sense it must also thereby transpose liberalism by adopting this oppositional stance.  Accordingly, the proletariat must not only negate bourgeois society, but in a sense also complete bourgeois society through this very act of negation.  The path to overcoming liberal ideology, like the capitalist mode of production on which it is based, must be pursued in and through bourgeois society itself.  It is impossible to stand at some kind of Archimedean remove, outside of one’s moment in history.  Along these same lines, Lenin already wrote in 1920 that  “[c]apitalism could have been declared — and with full justice — to be ‘historically obsolete’ many decades ago, but that [has] not at all remove[d] the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the basis of capitalism.”[230]

Continue to Socialism or Barbarism?

Socialism or Barbarism?

Posted by

2

The decline of the Left over the course of this last century is thus not only a tragedy for those who fought on its behalf, but also for those who traditionally fought against it.  Inasmuch as proletarian socialism aimed at the supersession of bourgeois liberalism, its old nemesis, while simultaneously preserving the latter’s revolutionary accomplishments and raising them to a “higher level,” the former stood for the hope of all humanity — no matter which side one was on.  For as long as it is able to reproduce its own existence, the underlying volatility of capitalist society will remain unchanged (whether or not there is a leftist political project capable of overcoming it).  But the idea that capitalism will simply continue to exist indefinitely cannot at all be supported by historical experience.  Though bourgeois political economists have time and again tried to naturalize the social relations that have appeared immediately before them, mesmerized by the fetish-character of the commodity form, the capitalist mode of production has not always existed.  It came into existence historically, and could just as easily pass out of existence historically.[231]  The issue thus comes down to ascertaining the nature of this historical passage, should it ever arrive at all.  Capitalist society could cease to exist in any number of ways, the majority of which would not be emancipatory in the least.  This might well be the most disturbing prospect of all: that capitalism will collapse and still not lead to a more just, liberated, and equitable society.  As Lukács pointed out, commenting on the revolutionary legacies of Lenin and Luxemburg, “socialism would never happen ‘by itself,’ and as the result of an inevitable natural economic development.  The natural laws of capitalism do indeed lead inevitably to its ultimate crisis, but at the end of its road would be the destruction of all civilization and a new barbarism.”[232]  Broadly speaking, there are two scenarios that can be imagined as leading to capitalism’s eventual demise: 1.) cataclysm or 2.) revolution.

In either case, the result would be that capital would no longer exist.  The reason for this would be quite different from instance to instance, however.  Should the former take place, capital would be dissolved simply because it would no longer be able to reproduce and augment its own value through the process of production.  For example, a war could break out that would be of such devastating proportions that the cycles of production and circulation would be fatally disrupted.  Some of the images called to mind are total blight, scorched earth, and nuclear holocaust.  Another possibility would be some sort of global environmental catastrophe.  Should the latter (revolution) obtain, however, capital would be dissolved because human production would no longer be subordinated to its ends.  Humanity would not produce goods simply to extract surplus-value from labor and then be realized on the market, only to repeat this cycle all over again, in perpetuity.  Rather, humanity would produce in order to meet (and surpass) human needs, in a way that does not endanger the provision of such needs in the future.  In this scenario, society would not undertake production for the sake of a category external and alien to itself (capital), but would become its own self-directed end.  Society would only produce for the sake of society and its individual members.  The mystery of capital — and indeed the riddle of all history[233] — is that society is a product of human activity, and yet appears to humanity as an unruly force of nature.[234]  Crises are experienced under the capitalist social order as so many natural disasters, as storms to “weather” or endure.  Humanity is, nonetheless, the unconscious demiurge of this second nature.  It has but to attain consciousness in order to decisively act and thereby claim this system for itself, so that society and its constituent individuals might someday live autonomously.  As Engels once put it:

With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer…The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him.  Man’s own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action…It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.[235]

Faced with the polarity dividing freedom and humanity on the one hand from unfreedom and inhumanity on the other, society arrived at a historic impasse almost a century ago.  Since this time it appears to have remained at a virtual standstill, stuck before this fork in the road.  This apparent immobility must not be thought of as an absolute motionlessness, however, qua an absolute cessation of motion or activity.  At best, civilization has merely been spinning its wheels for the last hundred years; at worst, it has politically regressed.  The choice presently at hand poses afresh Luxemburg’s old disjunction of “socialism or barbarism.”[236]  But make no mistake about it: these options do not present themselves as on an empty slate.  Liberalism has been utterly barbaric for over 150 years now.  But the attempts to go beyond it during this time, the many faces of “actually existing socialism,” have been similarly barbarized and enervated.  The twentieth century, Richard Rubin has pointed out, revealed the nightmarish possibility of having both socialism and barbarism, embodied its most characteristic and grotesque form as Stalinism.[237]  A pair of related, if troubling, questions now makes an appearance.  What if liberal civilization still provides the basis for the best (or least worst) of all possible worlds that humanity can realistically hope for? This is, at least in Michéa’s opinion, how it has often understood itself.[238]  And, assuming that liberalism does in fact provide this basis, what if the best (or least worst) of all possible worlds thus established proves impossible to maintain?

This is the prospect raised by Žižek, amongst others, as the specter of ecological and thermonuclear Armageddon continues to haunt contemporary social life.[239]  In one of his more bombastic books of late, In Defense of Lost Causes, Žižek summarizes this current state of affairs more succinctly.  “What looms on the horizon today is the unprecedented possibility that [a calamity] will intervene directly into the historical Substance,” projects Žižek, “catastrophically disturbing its course by triggering an ecological catastrophe, a fateful biogenetic mutation, a nuclear or similar military-social catastrophe, and so on…It no longer holds that, whatever we do, history will carry on.”[240]  Since the 1970s and the emergence of the environmental movement, many leftists fear that an impending natural disaster will render the Earth uninhabitable, effectively bringing an end to the drama of human history.  Other critics of a Marxist persuasion, such as Fredric Jameson, count no fewer than “four fundamental threats to the survival of the human race today,” throwing global impoverishment and famine as well as structural unemployment into the mix along with ecological collapse and nuclear war.  He immediately adds, correctly, the humbling fact that “in each of these areas no serious counterforce exists anywhere in the world.”[241]  Yet it would seem to be of paramount importance that such counterforces eventually arise so that humanity can continue to exist at all — let alone realize its deepest aspirations of liberty and equality.  Despite capitalism’s much-vaunted “adaptability,” the liberal belief in the self-correcting capacity of the Market seems a dangerous game to play, a concern voiced in recent decades by the Marxian anthropologist Maurice Godelier.[242]  For now, at least, liberalism clearly offers no way out.  With the decline of the Left in the twentieth century, however, no socialist alternative seems readily available.  That is to say, the need for revolutionary transformation has never been greater, and yet the forces necessary for such a transformation have never been in shorter supply.

Lenin remarked in 1917, of course, that revolutionary ruptures necessarily appear as “miracles” to those who witness them.[243]  It is thus perhaps not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that capitalism might still someday be transcended.  If liberalism’s original emancipatory potential is ever to be realized, however, it will require a revolutionary act of sublation — in the strict Hegelian sense of a thing’s determinate negation, its concurrent cancellation and preservation.[244]  As Chris Cutrone has put it: “Socialism is meant to transcend liberalism by fulfilling it.  The problem with liberalism is not its direction, supposedly different from socialism, but rather that it does not go far enough.  Socialism is not anti-liberal.”[245]  Despite the recalcitrance it has repeatedly shown to efforts aiming to radically transform it, liberalism’s — and, indeed, all of humanity’s — only chance for survival resides with socialism.  “In this hour, socialism is the only salvation for humanity,” Rosa Luxemburg proclaimed in 1918.  The fundamental truth of this assertion remains equally valid today, however much other conditions have changed.  Absent the possibility of its determinate negation, liberalism now instead faces absolute annihilation.  Socialism or barbarism? Revolution or cataclysm?

Continue to Revolution into Reaction: June 1848 to August 1914

Friedrich Engels’ “The Civil War in Switzerland” (1847)

Posted by

3

Engraving of William Tell

While I appreciate Said more than most of the subsequent post-colonial theorists, this article alone should dispel the myth of Marx’s and Engels’ alleged Eurocentrism or chauvinism, as supposedly evidenced in their writings on the traditional societies of India and Algiers. Here Engels writes with more scorn and contempt about traditional society in Switzerland, in the heart of Europe, than anything either of them wrote about non-European societies.

At last the ceaseless bombast about the “cradle of freedom,” about the “grandsons of William Tell and Winkelried,” about the heroic victors of Sempach and Murten is being brought to an end.  At last it has been revealed that the cradle of freedom is nothing but the centre of barbarism and the nursery of Jesuits, that the grandsons of Tell and Winkelried can only be brought to reason by cannon-balls, and that the heroism at Sempach and Murten was nothing but the desperation of brutal and bigoted mountain tribes, obstinately resisting civilization and progress.

It is really very fortunate that European democracy is finally getting rid of this Ur-Swiss, puritan, and reactionary ballast.  As long as the democrats concentrated on the virtue, the happiness, and the patriarchal simplicity of these Alpine shepherds, they themselves still appeared in a reactionary light.  Now that they are supporting the struggle of civilized, industrial, modern-democratic Switzerland against the crude, Christian-Germanic democracy of the primitive, cattle-breeding cantons, they represent progress everywhere, now the last reactionary glimmer disappears, now they show that they are learning to understand the meaning of democracy in the 19th century.

There are two regions in Europe where old Christian-Germanic barbarism has retained its most primitive form, almost down to acorn-eating — Norway and the High Alps, especially Ur-Switzerland.  Both Norway and Ur-Switzerland still provide us with genuine examples of that breed of men who once beat the Romans to death in good Westphalian style with clubs and flails in the Teutoburg Forest.  Both Norway and Ur-Switzerland are democratically organized. But there are many varieties of democracy and it is very necessary that the democrats of the civilized countries should at last decline responsibility for the Norwegian and Ur-Swiss forms of democracy.

The democratic movement in all civilized countries is, in the last analysis, striving for the political domination of the proletariat. It therefore presupposes that a proletariat exists, that a ruling bourgeoisie exists, that an industry exists which gives birth to the proletariat and which has brought the bourgeoisie to power.

There is nothing of all this either in Norway or in Ur-Switzerland. In Norway, we have the very famous peasant regiment (bonde-regimente); in Ur-Switzerland a number of rough shepherds who, despite their democratic constitution, are ruled by a few big landowners, Abyberg, etc., in patriarchal fashion. A bourgeoisie only exists in exceptional cases in Norway, and not at all inUr-Switzerland. The proletariat is practically non-existent.

The democracy prevailing in civilized countries, modern democracy, has thus nothing whatever in common with Norwegian or Ur-Swiss democracy. It does not wish to bring about the Norwegian and Ur-Swiss state of affairs but something absolutely different. Let us nevertheless look a little closer at this primitive-Germanic democracy and deal first with Ur-Switzerland, which is what above all concerns us here.

Is there a German philistine who does not rave about William Tell, the liberator of his Fatherland; a schoolmaster who does not celebrate Morgarten, Sempach, and Murten along with Marathon, Plataea, and Salamis; a hysterical old maid who does not go into raptures over the strong leg calves and sturdy thighs of the chaste Alpine youths? The glory of Ur-Swiss valor, freedom, skill, and strength has been endlessly praised in verse and prose from Aegidius Tschudi to Johannes von Müller, from Florian to Schiller.  The carbines and cannons of the twelve cantons now provide a commentary on these enthusiastic panegyrics.

The Ur-Swiss have drawn attention to themselves twice during the course of history. The first time, when they freed themselves gloriously from Austrian tyranny; the second at the present time, when they march off to fight in God’s name for the Jesuits and the Fatherland.

On closer examination, the glorious liberation from the talons of the Austrian eagle does not look at all good. The House of Austria was progressive just once in the whole of its career; this was at the beginning of its existence when it allied itself with the urban petty bourgeoisie against the nobility, and sought to found a German monarchy.  It was progressive in the most philistine of ways but it was progressive nonetheless.  And who opposed it most resolutely? The Ur-Swiss.  The struggle of the Ur-Swiss against Austria, the glorious oath on the Grütli, Tell’s heroic shot, the eternally memorable victory at Morgarten, all this was the struggle of stubborn shepherds against the onward march of historical development, the struggle of obstinate, rooted local interests against the interests of the whole nation, the struggle of crude ignorance against enlightenment, of barbarism against civilization.  They won their victory over the civilization of the time, and as a punishment they were excluded from all further civilization.

As if this were not enough, these simple, stiff-necked shepherds were soon punished in a quite different way.   They escaped the domination of the Austrian nobility only to come under the yoke of the petty bourgeois of Zurich, Lucerne, Berne, and Basel.  These had already noted that the Ur-Swiss were just as strong and as stupid as their oxen.  They agreed to join the Swiss Confederation and stayed peacefully at home behind their counters while the thick-headed Alpine shepherds fought out all their battles with the nobility and the princes for them.  This is what happened at Sempach, Granson, Murten, and Nancy.  In return, these people were allowed to arrange their internal affairs as they wished and so they remained in blissful ignorance of how they were being exploited by their dear fellow-Confederationists.

Since then nothing much has been heard of them.  They busied themselves in all piety and propriety with milking the cows, with cheese-making, chastity and yodeling.  From time to time they had folk assemblies at which they divided into horn-men, claw-men, and other animal-like groups, and these gatherings never ended without a hearty, Christian-Germanic fight.  They were poor but pure in heart, stupid but pious and well-pleasing to the Lord, brutal but broad-shouldered and had little brain but plenty of brawn. From time to time there were too many of them and then the young men went off on their “travels,” i.e., enlisted in foreign armies where they displayed the most steadfast loyalty to the flag no matter what happened.  One can only say of the Swiss that they let themselves be killed most conscientiously for their pay.

The greatest boast of these burly Ur-Swiss was that from time immemorial they had never deviated by a hair’s breadth from the customs of their forefathers, that they had retained the simple, chaste, upright, and virtuous customs of their fathers unsullied throughout the centuries. And this is true. Every attempt at civilization was defeated by the granite walls of their mountains and of their heads.  From the days when Winkelried’s first ancestor led his cow, with the inevitable little pastoral bell round its neck, on to the virgin pastures of the Vierwaldstätter Lake, up to the present day, when the latest descendant of Winkelried has his gun blessed by the priest, all houses have been built in the same way, all cows milked in the same way, all pigtails plaited in the same way, all cheeses prepared according to the same recipe, all children made in the same way.  Here, in the mountains, is Paradise, here the Fall of Man has not yet come to pass.  And should some innocent Alpine lad happen to find his way to the great outside world and allow himself to be tempted for a moment by the seductions of the big cities, by the artificial charms of a decadent civilization, by the vices of sinful countries, which have no mountains and where corn thrives — his innocence is so deep-rooted that he can never quite succumb.  A sound strikes his ear, just two of those notes of the Alpine cowherd’s call that sound like a dog’s howling, and he falls on his knees, weeping and overwhelmed with remorse, and at once tears himself from the arms of seduction and will not rest until he lies at the feet of his old father! “Father, I have sinned against my ancient mountains and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.”

In recent times two invasions against these artless customs and primitive power have been attempted.  The first was by the French in 1798. But these French, who spread a little civilization everywhere else, failed with these Ur-Swiss.  No trace of their presence has remained, they were unable to eliminate one single jot of the old customs and virtues.  The second invasion took place about twenty years later and did at least bear a little fruit. This was the invasion of English travellers, of London lords and squires and the hordes of chandlers, soap-manufacturers, grocers and bone merchants who followed them.  This invasion at least ended the old hospitality and transformed the honest inhabitants of the Alpine huts, who previously hardly knew what money was, into the most mean and rascally swindlers anywhere to be found.  But this advance made no impact at all on the old simple customs.  This not so very virtuous chicanery fitted in perfectly with the patriarchal virtues of chastity, skill, probity, and loyalty.  Even their piety suffered no injury; the priests were delighted to give them absolution for all the deceptions practiced on British heretics.

But it now looks as if all this moral purity is about to be thoroughly stirred up.  It is to be hoped that the punitive detachments will do their best to finish off all the probity, primitive power, and simplicity. Then moan, you philistines! For there will be no more poor but contented shepherds whose carefree peace of mind you might wish for yourselves on Sundays after you have made your cut out of selling coffee made of chicory and tea made of sloe leaves during the other six days of the week.  Then weep, you schoolmasters, for there will be an end to your hopes for a new Sempach-Marathon and other classical feats.  Then mourn, you hysterical virgins over thirty, for those six-inch leg calves, the thought of which solaced your solitary dreams, will soon be gone — gone the Antinous-like beauty of the powerful “Swiss peasant lads,” gone the firm thighs and tight trousers which attract you so irresistibly to the Alps.  Then sigh, tender and anaemic boarding-school misses, who when reading Schiller’s works delighted in the chaste but oh so powerful love of the agile chamois hunters, for all your fond illusions are lost and now there is nothing left for you but to read the works of Henrik Steffens and fall for the frigid Norwegians.

But no more of that.  The Ur-Swiss must be fought with weapons quite different from mere ridicule.  Democracy has to settle accounts with them about matters quite different from their patriarchal virtues.

Who defended the Bastille on July 14, 1789 against the people who were storming it? Who shot down the workers of the Faubourg St. Antoine with grape-shot and rifle bullets from behind safe walls? — Ur-Swiss from the Sonderbund, grandsons of Tell, Stauffacher and Winkelried.

Who defended the traitor Louis XVI on August 10, 1792 from the just wrath of the people, in the Louvre and the Tuileries? — Ur-Swiss from the Sonderbund.

Who suppressed the Neapolitan revolution of 1798 with the help of Nelson? — Ur-Swiss from the Sonderbund.

Who re-established the absolute monarchy in Naples — with the help of Austrians — in 1823? — Ur-Swiss from the Sonderbund.

Who fought to the last on July 29, 1830, again for a treacherous king 10 and again shot Paris workers down from the windows and colonnades of the Louvre? — Ur-Swiss from the Sonderbund.

Who suppressed the insurrections in Romagna in 1830 and 1831, again along with the Austrians, with a brutality which achieved world notoriety? — Ur-Swiss from the Sonderbund.

In short, who holds the Italians down, to this day, forcing them to bow to the oppressive domination of their aristocrats, princes and priests; who was Austria’s right hand in Italy, who enables the bloodhound Ferdinand of Naples to keep a tight rein on his anguish-stricken people to this very moment, who has been acting as his executioners to this day carrying out the mass shootings he orders? Always, again and again, Ur-Swiss from the Sonderbund, again and again, the grandsons of Tell, Stauffacher and Winkelried!

In one word, wherever and whenever a revolutionary movement broke out in France either directly or indirectly advantageous to democracy, it was always Ur-Swiss mercenaries who fought it to the last, with the utmost resolution.  And especially in Italy these Swiss mercenaries were always the most devoted servants and handy men of Austria.  A just punishment for the glorious liberation of Switzerland from the talons of the two-headed eagle!

One should not think that these mercenaries were the refuse of their country, or that they were disavowed by their fellow- countrymen.  Have not the people of Lucerne had a statue hewn out of the rock at their city gates by the pious Icelander Thorvaldsen, depicting a huge lion, bleeding from an arrow wound, covering the Bourbon fleur-de-lis with his paw, faithful unto death, in memory of the Swiss who died at the Louvre on August 10, 1792?  This is the way Sonderbund honors the venal loyalty of its sons.  It lives by the trade in human beings and glorifies it.

Can the English, French, and German democrats have had anything in common with this kind of democracy?

Through its industry, its commerce and its political institutions, the bourgeoisie is already working everywhere to drag the small, self-contained localities which only live for themselves out of their isolation, to bring them into contact with one another, to merge their interests, to expand their local horizons, to destroy their local habits, strivings and ways of thinking, and to build up a great nation with common interests, customs and ideas out of the many hitherto mutually independent localities and provinces.  The bourgeoisie is already carrying out considerable centralization.  The proletariat, far from suffering any disadvantage from this, will as a result rather be in a position to unite, to feel itself a class, to acquire a proper political point of view within the democracy, and finally to conquer the bourgeoisie.  The democratic proletariat not only needs the kind of centralization begun by the bourgeoisie but will have to extend it very much further.  During the short time when the proletariat was at the helm of state in the French Revolution, during the rule of the Mountain party, it used all means — including grape-shot and the guillotine — to effect centralization.  When the democratic proletariat again comes to power, it will not only have to centralize every country separately but will have to centralize all civilized countries together as soon as possible.

Ur-Switzerland, on the other hand, has never done anything but obstruct centralization; with really brutish obstinacy it has insisted on its isolation from the whole outside world, on its local customs, habits, prejudices, narrow-mindedness, and seclusion.  It has stood still in the centre of Europe at the level of its original barbarism, while all other nations, even the other Swiss, have gone forward.  It stands pat on cantonal sovereignty with all the obduracy of the crude primitive Germans, that is, on the right to be eternally stupid, bigoted, brutal, narrow-minded, recalcitrant and venal if it so wishes, whether its neighbors like it or not.  If their own brutish situation comes under discussion, they no longer recognize such things as majorities, agreements, or obligations.  But in the 19th century it is no longer possible for two parts of one and the same country to exist side by side without any mutual intercourse and influence.  The radical cantons affect the Sonderbund, the Sonderbund affects the radical cantons, where, too, very crude elements still exist here and there.  The radical cantons are, therefore, interested in getting the Sonderbund to abandon its bigotry, narrow-mindedness and obduracy, and if it won’t, then its self-will must be broken by force; and this is what is happening at this moment.

The civil war which has now broken out can only help the cause of democracy.  Even though there is still a great deal of primitive Germanic crudity to be found in the radical cantons, even though a peasant, or a bourgeois regiment, or a mixture of both is concealed behind their democracy, even though the most civilized cantons still lag behind the development of European civilization and really modern elements only rise to the top slowly here and there, this is no great help to the Sonderbund.  It is necessary, urgently necessary, that this last bastion of brutal, primitive Germanism, of barbarism, bigotry, patriarchal simplicity, and moral purity, of immobility, of loyalty unto death to the highest bidder, should at last be destroyed.  The more energetically the Swiss Diet sets to work and the more violently it shakes up this old nest of priests, the more claim it will have on the support of all really resolute democrats, and the more it will prove that it understands its position.  But of course the five great powers are there and the radicals themselves are afraid.

As far as the Sonderbund is concerned, it is significant that the true sons of William Tell have to beg the House of Austria, Switzerland’s hereditary foe, for help just when Austria is baser, viler, meaner, and more hateful than ever.  This is yet another part of the punishment for the glorious liberation of Switzerland from the talons of the two-headed eagle and the much boasting that went with it.  And for the cup of punishment to be filled to the brim Austria itself has to be in such a pass that it could not give William Tell’s sons any help whatever.

Written about November 10, 1847

First published in the Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung No. 91, November 14, 1847

Mike Ely at the Platypus International Convention, March 31, 2012: Communism and this moment

Posted by

0

Originally posted over at Kasama on May 13, 2012

The Kasama Project

“State of the left: three great arcs and a beginning”
Talk to the Platypus conference plenary, March 31

“How people radicalize”
Q & A, Platypus conference plenary, March 31

“Breaking with illusions and old models”
Q & A, Platypus conference plenary, March 31

“After the death watch over social-democracy“
Q & A, Platypus conference plenary, March 31

Several people have asked for a written text of this talk. We have added below the notes from which Mike spoke. It is not a transcript of the  talk…it is the prepared text, and so is somewhat different from the spoken talk itself.

Three Revolutionary Arcs & This Moment for Communists

Trayvon Martin is dead.  Let’s start there.

He was stalked on the street like dangerous animal and shot in the heart by a crazed, armed wannabe cop.

That’s bad enough.

Then all the machinery of this society conspired to protect him.  The police chief of Sanford arrived to oversee it personally.  Zimmerman was never arrested.  He was released — obviously no danger to the community — and left to cook up elaborate lies with his father, a well-connected retired judge.

And (in ways amazing to many of us watching) Trayvon was killed again — portrayed as a drug user, wannabe gangster, as the violent aggressor, and someone who should be watched, suspected, and contained.

Or consider this: that in the United States, a central question in the U.S. election has become whether states should, once again, be allowed to criminalize birth-control — and if the availability of birth control to young women is only state approval of their right to carry out an immoral lifestyle.  And while the Republicans pick over such madness, the Democrats celebrate — because this frees them of any necessity to defend the right to abortion, which is under massive assault by law, propaganda and budget.

Young women are blown away that their private parts and sexual choices are the target of wholesale attempts at reactionary social control.

Well, don’t be surprised.

If you want a sense of the need for revolution in the U.S. — just look there. Or at the ongoing U.S. and Israeli threats at Iran, here the phrase “nothing is off the table” means that millions of Iranian people go to bed each night wondering if they will be incincerated.

Read the rest at the Kasama Project’s website

Το κίνημα ως αυτοσκοπός; Μια συνέντευξη με τον David Graeber

Posted by

2

Folk singer Tea Leigh at the #Occupy site

Folk singer Tea Leigh at the #Occupy site

Below is a Greek translation that was recently made of my interview with David Graeber, for The Platypus Review.  Many thanks to the eaganst group, which as I understand it from my friend Thodoris is an Autonomist organization based out of Greece, heavily influenced by the writings of Cornelius Castoriadis, among others (Adorno!).

Αρχική δημοσίευση: The Platypus Review

Μετάφραση: eagainst.com

Την 6η Δεκεμβρίου του 2011, ο Ross Wolfe πήρε συνέντευξη από τον David Graeber, αναπληρωτή καθηγητή του Κολεγίου Goldsmiths του Λονδίνου, συγγραφέα του έργου Θραύσματα μιας Αναρχικής Ανθρωπολογίας (2004), και κεντρική φιγούρα της πρώτης φάσης του κινήματος Occupy Wall Street. Αυτό που ακολουθεί, είναι μια επεξεργασμένη απομαγνητοφώνηση της συνέντευξης.

Ross Wolfe: Υπάρχουν εντυπωσιακές ομοιότητες μεταξύ του κινήματος Occupy και του κινήματος του 1999 ενάντια στην Παγκοσμιοποίηση στο Seattle. Και τα δύο ξεκίνησαν κατά την τελευταία χρονιά της προεδρίας των Δημοκρατικών, και η αιχμή του δόρατος ήταν οι αναρχικοί, παρακινούμενοι από την δυσαρέσκεια προς τον νεοφιλελευθερισμό, και έλαβαν την υποστήριξη της οργανωμένης εργατιάς. Ως ενεργός συμμετέχων τόσο σε αυτό της αντι-παγκοσμιοποίησης όσο και στο κίνημα του Occupy, σε ποιο βαθμό θα λέγατε ότι το Occupy αποτελεί συνέχεια του έργου που εγκαινιάστηκε στο Seattle; Τί, αν μη τι άλλο, κάνει το κίνημα αυτό ξεχωριστό;

David Graeber: Νομίζω πως αρκετοί από αυτούς που εμπλέκονταν στο κίνημα της παγκοσμιοποίησης, μεταξύ αυτών και εγώ, αισθάνθηκαν πως αυτό ήταν μια συνέχεια των προσπαθειών μας, γιατί ποτέ δεν πιστέψαμε πραγματικά πως το κίνημα της παγκοσμιοποίησης είχε φτάσει στο τέλος του. Χτυπούσαμε τα κεφάλια μας στον τοίχο κάθε χρόνο, λέγοντας “ναι, τώρα έχουμε πραγματικά επιστρέψει. Μια στιγμή, ίσως όχι.” Αρκετοί από εμάς σταδιακά αρχίσαμε να πιστεύουμε όλο και λιγότερο ότι επρόκειτο να αναζωπυρωθεί με τον τρόπο που πάντα νομίζαμε πως ξέραμε ότι θα γίνει. Και τότε συνέβη, ως ένας συνδυασμός τακτικών της προσπάθειας να δημιουργηθούν προεικοντιστικά μοντέλα μιας δημοκρατικής κοινωνίας, ως τρόπος οργάνωσης της διαμαρτυρίας ή δράσεων που στρεφόταν κατά μιας προφανέστατα αντιδημοκρατικής δομής διακυβέρνησης.

Ταυτόχρονα, νομίζω ότι ένας λόγος που οι τακτικές φαίνονται κατάλληλες σε κάθε περίπτωση είναι επειδή, κατά κάποιο τρόπο, μιλάμε για δύο γύρους του ίδιου κύκλου της ίδιας στην πραγματικότητα κρίσης χρέους. Κάποιος θα μπορούσε να προβάλει το επιχείρημα ότι ο κόσμος κατά κάποιον τρόπο έχει εισέλθει σε μια μορφή κρίσης του χρέους από τη δεκαετία του εβδομήντα, και ότι για το μεγαλύτερο μέρος εκείνης της περιόδου, η κρίση απείλησε τον παγκόσμιο Νότο, και σε κάποιο βαθμό κρατήθηκε μακριά από τον Βόρειο Ατλαντικό, από χώρες και περιοχές με τις πιο ισχυρές οικονομίες, οι οποίες περισσότερο ή λιγότερο χρησιμοποιούν την πίστωση για ν’ αποτρέψουν τη λαϊκή δυσαρέσκεια. Το παγκόσμιο κίνημα για τη δικαιοσύνη ήταν τελικά μια πολύ πετυχημένη μορφή λαϊκής εξέγερσης κατά της νεοφιλελεύθερης ορθοδοξίας, της Συναίνεσης της Ουάσιγκτον, και της τυραννίας των φορέων επιβολής του χρέους, όπως το ΔΝΤ και η Παγκόσμια Τράπεζα. Ήταν επίσημα τόσο πετυχημένο που το ίδιο το ΔΝΤ εκδιώχθηκε από πολλές χώρες του κόσμου. Δεν μπορεί πλέον να λειτουργήσει καθόλου σε πολλές περιοχές της Λατινικής Αμερικής. Και τελικά γύρισε πίσω. Ως εκ τούτου, είναι η ίδια διαδικασία: αναγγέλλοντας κάποιο είδος οικονομικής κρίσης που οι ίδιοι οι καπιταλιστές είναι υπεύθυνοι για αυτήν, και απαιτώντας την αντικατάσταση με τους λεγόμενους «ουδέτερους τεχνοκράτες» του ενός τύπου ή του άλλου, που στην πραγματικότητα έχουν εκπαιδευτεί σε αυτό το είδος της νεοφιλελεύθερης ορθοδοξίας, και οι οποίοι είναι στην οικονομία για χονδρική λεηλασία εκ μέρους των οικονομικών ελίτ. Και επειδή το Occupy αντιδρά στο ίδιο πράγμα με το Παγκόσμιο Κίνημα Δικαιοσύνης, δεν αποτελεί έκπληξη το γεγονός ότι η αντίδραση παίρνει την ίδια μορφή: ένα κίνημα για την άμεση δημοκρατία, την προεικονιστική πολιτική, και την άμεση δράση. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, αυτό που λένε είναι ότι τα εργαλεία της κυβέρνησης και της διοίκησης είναι εγγενώς διεφθαρμένα και ασύδοτα.

RW: Ενάντια στην δυσφορία που ακολούθησε από τη διάλυση του κινήματος της αντι-παγκοσμιοποίησης μετά την 9/11, ισχυριστήκαμε ότι ο κύριος λόγος της οριστικής ήττας του ήταν το ότι δεν ήξερε πώς να χειριστεί το σοκ των αρχικών επιτυχιών του, στην διαδρομή οι συμμετέχοντες είχαν “ζαλιστεί από την επιτυχία”. “Ένας λόγος που τόσο εύκολα [το κίνημα της αντι-παγκοσμιοποίησης] κατέρρευσε, ήταν […] ότι ακόμα μια φορά, στους περισσότερους από τους άμεσους στόχους μας, είχαμε ήδη, αναπάντεχα, νικήσει” [1]. Με άλλα λόγια, για σας το μονοπάτι για την ήττα ήταν στρωμένο από τη νίκη. Kατά έναν περίεργο τρόπο, αυτό εμφανίζεται να καθρεφτίζει, αν και από την αντίθετη κατεύθυνση, την αντι-ενστικτώδη κατανόηση του Ιούνη του 1848 από τον Μαρξ. Ο Μαρξ έγραψε πως “μόνο η ήττα του Ιούνη δημιούργησε όλες τις συνθήκες υπό τις οποίες η Γαλλία μπορεί να πάρει την πρωτοβουλία για την Ευρωπαϊκή επανάσταση. Μόνο αφού έχει βουτηχτεί στο αίμα της εξέγερσης του Ιούνη, η τρικολόρ έγινε η σημαία της Ευρωπαϊκής επανάστασης – η κόκκινη σημαία!” [2] Για τον Μαρξ, λοιπόν, ο δρόμος προς τη νίκη ήταν στρωμένος από την ήττα. Πώς είναι δυνατό να συνδέονται αυτές οι δυο φαινομενικά αντίθετες οπτικές; Αναιρούνται αμοιβαία, ή είναι πιθανώς συμπληρωματικές; Είναι σωστό ή ακόμα και πιθανο να μιλάμε για μια ‘διαλεκτική της ήττας”; [3]

DG: Είναι ενδιαφέρουσα αυτή η αναλογία. Θα ρωτούσε κανείς: “είχε δίκιο ο Μαρξ;” Είπε ότι η ήττα ήταν απαραίτητη για την τελική νίκη, αλλά δεν είναι ξεκάθαρο οτί η νίκη συνέβη στ’ αλήθεια. Είναι σίγουρα αληθές ότι συγκεκριμένα είδη ήττας μπορούν να μυθοποιηθούν, και μπορούν να μετατραπούν σε νίκη, ή καταστάσεις που μοιάζουν με ήττες να είναι στην πραγματικότητα νίκες που δεν είχες συνειδητοποιήσει πως είχες. Νομίζω πως αυτό συμβαίνει αρκετά συχνά στην επαναστατική ιστορία. Κατά κάποιο τρόπο, η τακτική ήττα σχετίζεται συγκυριακά με τη στρατηγική νίκη. Δεν υπάρχει προβλέψιμο σχέδιο, κάτι σαν την ιδέα του Immanuel Wallerstein για μια σειρά παγκόσμιων επαναστάσεων ξεκινώντας από τη Γαλλική επανάσταση, την παγκόσμια επανάσταση του 1848, που δεν κατάφερε νίκη τακτικής πουθενά, αλλά μεταμόρφωσε ριζικά τον τρόπο που λειτούργησαν οι κυβερνήσεις στην Ευρώπη. Έτσι προέκυψε η καθολική παιδεία, η αλλαγές στην πολεοδόμηση κτλ.

RW: Η Γαλλική Επανάσταση απέτυχε ακόμη και εσωτερικά, στο βαθμό που μετατράπηκε σε μια αυτοκρατορία από τον Ναπολέοντα. Αλλά ακόμα βοήθησε στην εξάπλωση εθνικιστικών και φιλελεύθερων/δημοκρατικών ηθών.

DG: Απολύτως. Υπήρχαν θεσμικά, συμπαγή υποδείγματα που αναδύθηκαν από αυτήν και που παραμένουν σε εμάς από τότε. Το ίδιο πράγμα συνέβει και με το 1917: Ήταν επιτυχημένη μόνο στην Ρωσία, αλλά είχε σχεδόν την ίδια επίδραση και σε άλλες χώρες. Τίποτα δεν ήταν το ίδιο στη συνέχεια. Βασικά, ο Wallerstein υποστηρίζει ότι το 1968 ήταν μια παρόμοια επαναστατική στιγμή, του ίδιου είδους με αυτήν του 1848. Τώρα μιλά για την παγκόσμια επανάσταση του 2011. Αλλά στην πραγματικότητα δεν είναι σαφές σε ποιο μοντέλο αυτή πρόκειται να μοιάσει.

Αυτό με έκανε να σκεφτώ τι είναι στ’ αλήθεια ο νεοφιλελευθερισμός: είναι περισσότερο πολιτικό παρά οικονομικό κίνημα, το οποίο αποτελεί μια αντίδραση στη σειρά νικών των κοινωνικών κινημάτων στη δεκαετία του εξήντα, είτε αυτά ήταν τα αντιπολεμικά κινήματα, ο φεμινισμός, η αντικουλτούρα, και ού τω καθεξής. Αυτό έγινε ένα είδος κοινωνικού ελέγχου,για την επίτευξη πολιτικών νικών διαμέσου της πρόληψης κάθε κοινωνικού κινήματος που θα μπορούσε να θεωρήσει τον εαυτό του ως πρόκληση για τον καπιταλισμό καθ΄οιονδήποτε τρόπο ή παρέχοντας οποιοδήποτε είδος βιώσιμης εναλλακτικής λύσης. Έτσι έγινε ένας πόλεμος προπαγάνδας ο οποίος έδινε συνεχώς προτεραιότητα στην δημιουργία ενός πραγματικά βιώσιμου καπιταλιστικού συστήματος. Ο τρόπος που διεξάχθηκε ο πόλεμος στο Ιράκ είναι άλλο ένα καλό παράδειγμα αυτού του γεγονότος. Είναι πολύ σαφές ότι η πραγματική εμμονή από την πλευρά εκείνων που σχεδίαζαν τον πόλεμο ήταν να αντεπεξέλθουν σε αυτό που αποκαλούσαν “το Σύνδρομο του Βιετνάμ”, δηλαδή το κύμα των αντιπολεμικών διαδηλώσεων της δεκαετίας του εξήντα οι οποίες είχαν στην πραγματικότητα εμποδίσει τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες από το να παρατάξουν μεγάλες δυνάμεις εδάφους σε κάθε είδους σημαντικό χερσαίο πόλεμο τα τελευταία 30 χρόνια. Για ν’ αντεπεξέλθουν, χρειαζόταν να κάνουν τον πόλεμο με τέτοιον τρόπο ώστε να αποφευχθεί μια γενικευμένη κοινωνική κατακραυγή και αντίσταση μέσα στη χώρα. Αυτό που εκτίμησαν ήταν ότι “οι απώλειες είναι τα πάντα,” ως εκ τούτου έπρεπε να δημιουργήσουν αποτελεσματικά σχέδια μάχης ούτως ώστε να περιοριστούν όσο το δυνατόν γίνεται οι απώλειες Αμερικανών στρατιωτών έτσι ώστε να μην δημιουργηθεί μαζική αναταραχή με την μορφή αντιπολεμικού κινήματος. Βέβαια, προκειμένου να το επιτύχουν αυτό, αυτά τα σχέδια μάχης σήμαιναν ότι εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες Ιρακινών και Αφγανών πολιτών θα σκοτώνονταν, το οποίο με την σειρά του έκανε λίγο έως πολύ απίθανη την νίκη του πολέμου. Φαινόταν όμως ότι για αυτούς ήταν πιο σημαντικό το να αποφύγουν ένα αντιπολεμικό κίνημα παρά το να νικήσουν τον πόλεμο.

Βέβαια, το αντιπολεμικό κίνημα της τελευταίας δεκαετίας βρέθηκε σε άσχημη κατάσταση με τις επιθέσεις της 11ης Σεπτεμβρίου, μια επίθεση τέτοιας κλίμακας που δεν είχε συμβεί ξανά σε Αμερικανικό έδαφος. Τώρα, είναι επίσης αλήθεια ότι αποτελεί ορόσημο το γεγονός ότι η 9/11 ήρθε σε μια πολύ κατάλληλη στιγμή, και αν δεν είχε συμβεί αυτή η επίθεση, πιθανότατα θα είχαν εφεύρει κάποια άλλη δικαιολογία για να ξεκινήσουν πόλεμο στο εξωτερικό. Διότι φαίνεται ότι όταν τελικά βλέπεις ένα πολιτικό κίνημα βάσης, είτε πρόκειται για το κίνημα των Πολιτικών Δικαιωμάτων, το αντι-πυρηνικό κίνημα, το κίνημα για παγκόσμια δικαιοσύνη, ή οποιοδήποτε άλλο φωτεινό παράδειγμα, αυτό συμβαίνει. Το αξιοσημείωτο πράγμα για εμένα είναι πως ξαφνικά η άρχουσα τάξη πανικοβλήθηκε και ένιωσε ότι έπρεπε να προβεί σε μαζικές παραχωρήσεις και κατά βάση φαίνεται να ξεκινά κάποιο είδος πολέμου στο εξωτερικό. Φαίνεται ότι έχουν παγιδεύσει τον εαυτό τους σε ένα είδος συμβιβασμού. Είναι ξεκάθαρο ότι έχουμε ένα πρόβλημα εδώ στην Αμερική, αλλά δεν είναι πραγματικά ξεκάθαρο σε ποιόν πρόκειται να επιτεθούν ή σε ποιόν θα μπορούσαν να επιτεθούν στο εξωτερικό.

RW: Μια από τις σημαντικότερες αντιπαραθέσεις μέσα στο OWS αφορά τον βαθμό στον οποίο το κίνημα παραμένει ιδεολογικά περιεκτικό και ανοιχτό σε όλους. Από την αρχή, οι διαδηλώσεις στην Liberty Plaza προσέλκυσαν μια σειρά νεοφιλελεύθερων ιδεολόγων: υποστηρικτές του Ron Paul, του κινήματος του τσαγιού και δεξιούς συνωμοσιολόγους. Ενώ η ορατότητά τους μέσα στο κίνημα έχει ίσως ελαχιστοποιηθεί τις τελευταίες εβδομάδες, εξακολουθούν να είναι μια αδιαμφισβήτητη, αν και περιθωριακή, παρουσία στις εκδηλώσεις του Occupy. Κάποιοι έχουν απορρήψει την ιδέα του να τοποθετηθούν εντός του πολιτικού φάσματος «αριστεράς” και «δεξιάς», καθώς θεωρούν ότι οι δύο αυτές κατηγορίες είναι πολύ περιοριστικές και φοβούνται ότι η ταύτισή τους με το ένα ή το άλλο θα μπορούσε να απομακρύνει τους εν δυνάμει υποστηρικτές. Θα λέγατε ότι ο λόγος της «δεξιάς» και της «αριστεράς» έχει ακόμη κάποια ωφελιμότητα για το Occupy Wall Street; Μήπως το Occupy αντιπροσωπεύει ένα νέο λαϊκό κίνημα της Αριστεράς;

DG: Υπάρχει δυστυχώς μια τάση να προσδιορίζουμε την «αριστερά» όχι σαν ένα σύνολο ιδανικών ή ιδεών αλλά σαν ένα σύνολο θεσμικών δομών. Πολλοί ατομικιστές, αναρχικοί, εξεγερσιακοί και πριμιτιβιστές έχουν ταυτίσει την Αριστερά με τα διάφορα πολιτικά κόμματα, εργατικά σωματεία, αυτό που γενικά θα αποκαλούσαμε ως «οι κάθετοι» και μπορώ να καταλάβω γιατί κάποιος θα ήταν πιο επιφυλακτικός να προσδιορίσει τον εαυτό του με βάση αυτά. Αλλά την ίδια στιγμή, ακούμε τουλάχιστον από το τέλος του Δευτέρου Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου ότι η διαφορά μεταξύ αριστεράς και δεξιάς δεν είναι πια υπαρκτή. Είναι κάτι που λέγεται κάθε πέντε χρόνια σε κάθε μεγαλεπήβολη τοποθέτηση. Και το γεγονός ότι το κάνουν τόσο συχνά δείχνει ότι δεν είναι αλήθεια. Είναι σαν τον τρόπο με τον οποίο ορισμένοι εξακολουθούν να κάνουν βαρύγδουπες δηλώσεις για το ότι η όλη αφήγηση της προόδου έχει τελειώσει. Το κάνουν σχεδόν μία φορά κάθε γενιά. Αλλά γιατί θα πρέπει να το ανακοινώνουν αυτό κάθε γενιά, αν πραγματικά έχει τελειώσει; Πιστεύω λοιπόν ότι αυτές οι έννοιες παραμένουν.

Το Κόμμα του Τσαγιού επίσης υποστήριζε ότι δεν ήταν μια δεξιά συσπείρωση αλλά μια ευρεία λαϊκή απόρριψη της δομής της υπάρχουσας πολιτικής τάξης, με τον ίδιο τρόπο που θέλουν να βλέπουν οι άνθρωποι το Occupy Wall Street . Αλλά είναι μια πολύ δεξιά λαϊκιστική απόρριψη, ενώ το κίνημα του Occupy εμπνέεται από αριστερές αρχές. Και πολλά από αυτά δεν έχουν να κάνουν μόνο με τη στάση του ατόμου απέναντι στην οικονομία της αγοράς, αλλά με τον κορπορατιστικό καπιταλισμό. Έχουν αυτό το ουτοπικό ιδεώδες για το τι θα πρέπει να είναι ο καπιταλισμός, που στην πραγματικότητα είναι πολύ πιο ουτοπικό από κάθε αντίληψη για το τι είναι σοσιαλισμός, ή οτιδήποτε άλλο θα μπορούσε να αφορά την Αριστερά. Έτσι, οι έσχατες ουτοπίες του Κόμματος του Τσαγιού και του Occupy είναι βαθιά διαφορετικές, γεγονός που δείχνει τη διαφορά σε βασικές κατευθύνσεις τους. Και το Occupy Wall Street είναι, στην τελική, αντι-ιεραρχικό. Και νομίζω ότι αυτό είναι το βασικό. Η Δεξιά δεν είναι, κατά βάση, αντι-ιεραρχική. Θέλει να περιορίσει ορισμένες μορφές της ιεραρχίας, και να προωθήσει άλλες μορφές, αλλά κατά βάση δεν είναι ένα εξισωτικό κίνημα. Επομένως, πιστεύω ότι το να αγνοούμε την ευρύτερη κληρονομιά της αριστεράς είναι ανόητο. Μου φαίνεται πραγματικά ανέντιμο. Καταλαβαίνω ότι αυτό μερικές φορές είναι χρήσιμο από άποψη τακτικής προκειμένου να δημιουργηθεί ένα δίκτυο όσο το δυνατόν ευρύτερο και καθαρό, επειδή στην πραγματικότητα υπάρχει πολύ κοινό έδαφος. Πολλοί δεξιοί λαϊκιστές έχουν ορισμένες βασικές αντιρρήσεις που αφορούν, για παράδειγμα,την μονοπωλιοποίηση της κουλτούρας, ή το γεγονός ότι υπάρχει αντικειμενικά μια πολιτιστική ελίτ. Μια ορισμένη κοινωνική τάξη μονοπωλεί τις θέσεις εργασίας στις οποίες θα μπορούσε κάποιος να δραστηριοποιηθεί ή να επιδιώξει μορφές αξίας που δεν έχουν να κάνουν με το χρήμα. Η εργατική τάξη έχει ένα συντριπτικό μίσος κατά της πολιτιστικής ελίτ και ένα ενθουσιασμό για τον στρατό, ώστε να υποστηρίζει τα στρατεύματά μας. Αυτό προκύπτει απ΄το γεγονός ότι αν προέρχεσαι από μια τάξη με εργατικό υπόβαθρο,έχεις μια πολύ μικρή πιθανότητα να γίνεις ένας επιτυχημένος καπιταλιστής, αλλά πραγματικά δεν υπάρχει πιθανότητα να γίνεις κριτικός θεάτρου για την New York Times. Νομίζω ότι θα ήταν υπέροχο αν μπορούσαμε να βρούμε έναν τρόπο να προσελκύσουμε τέτοιους ανθρώπους με μη πελατειακό τρόπο. Αλλά και πάλι, η απόρριψη αυτού του διαχωρισμού μεταξύ της Δεξιάς και της Αριστεράς εξ ολοκλήρου, μου φαίνεται, πως κινείται σε εντελώς λάθος κατεύθυνση.

Αυτό που έχουμε είναι αυτή η φοβερή σύνθεση της αγοράς και της γραφειοκρατίας που έχει κατακλείσει κάθε πτυχή της ζωής μας. Μέχρι στιγμής, μόνο η Δεξιά έχει κριτική κατά της γραφειοκρατίας. Είναι μια πολύ αφελής κριτική, αλλά η Αριστερά πραγματικά δεν έχει καμία.

RW: Κάποιοι έχουν χαρακτηρίσει το κίνημα του Occupy σαν έναν προάγγελο του “ταξικού πολέμου”. Αναφέρουν το πλέον πανταχού παρόν σύνθημα του Occupy Wall Street, “Είμαστε το 99%!” ως απόδειξη αυτού του γεγονότος. Σαν ένας φαινομενικά εισηγητής αυτού του συνθήματος, πιστεύετε ότι το Occupy Wall Street είναι μια εκδήλωση της λανθάνουσας ταξικής πάλης που διέπει την αστική κοινωνία; Όποιο και αν είναι το ρητορικό της αποτέλεσμά, παρέχει αυτή η θέση το επαρκή πλαίσιο για την ανάλυση της ταξικής πάλης;

DG: Δεν το σκέφτομαι σαν μια ανάλυση όσο σαν επεξήγηση. Είναι ένας τρόπος θέασης της ανισότητας. Φυσικά, ένα σύνθημα ποτε δεν απαντά στο πραγματικά θεμελιώδες ζήτημα του πώς αναπαράγονται οι κοινωνικές τάξεις. Αυτό που κάνει ένα σύνθημα είναι να σου δείχνει πώς μπορείς ν’ αρχίσεις να σκέφτεσε για ένα πρόβλημα που μπορεί να μην ήξερες πριν ότι υφίσταται. Ήταν εξαιρετικά αποτελεσματικό σε αυτό, για δύο λόγους: ο ένας, επειδή επισημαίνει πόσο μικρή είναι η ομάδα των ανθρώπων που απολαμβάνουν τα κέρδη της οικονομικής ανάπτυξης, της παραγωγικότητας μας. Μας άρπαξαν ουσιαστικά τα πάντα. Επίσης, το σύνθημα έκανε το Occupy επιτυχώς περιεκτικό κατά ένα τρόπο που άλλα κοινωνικά κινήματα είχαν πρόβλημα με το ζήτημα αυτό. Νομίζω, δηλαδή, ότι αυτό ήταν το αποτελεσματικό με αυτό το κίνημα. Προφανώς υπάρχουν άπειρες αποχρώσεις διαφορών μεταξύ μας, και η τάξη είναι ένα πολύ πιο περίπλοκο πράγμα από το γεγονός ότι απλά υπάρχει μια συγκεκριμένη ομάδα ανθρώπων που είναι εξαιρετικά πλούσιοι και διαθέτει μεγάλη πολιτική δύναμη. Αλλά παρ ‘όλα αυτά, παρέχει στα άτομα έναν τρόπο για ν’ αρχίσουν να μιλάμε ο ένας με τον άλλο για το τι κοινό έχουν, παρέχοντας έτσι τη βάση στην οποία τα άλλα πράγματα μπορούν να εντοπιστούν. Θα πρέπει να αρχίσεις με αυτό που έχεις κοινό. Και πάνω σε αυτό το θέμα περάσαμε αρκετά δύσκολους καιρούς μέχρι τώρα.

RW: Οι περισσότεροι στο κίνημα του Occupy αναγνωρίζουν το πασιφανές γεγονός της δραματικής κοινωνικής ανισότητας, αλλά διαφωνούν σχετικά με τη μέθοδο που θα πρέπει ν’ αναζητηθεί για την επίλυση αυτού του προβλήματος. Πολλοί ελπίζουν ότι το Occupy θα παρέχει τη λαϊκή πολιτική ορμή που χρειάζεται για να περάσει μια σειρά οικονομικών μεταρρυθμίσεων, οι οποίες τυπικά θα έρθουν από την νομοθεσία που ψηφίστηκε μέσω των υφιστάμενων διαύλων διακυβέρνησης. Άλλοι βλέπουν το Occupy ως εν δυνάμει επαναστατικό, ότι στοχεύει σε κάτι πέρα από το στενά “οικονομικό”. Οι δύο αυτές προοπτικές φαίνεται να δείχνουν τις ριζικά διαφορετικές κατευθύνσεις που το κίνημα δύναται να πάρει. Θα χαρακτηρίζατε το κίνημα αυτό ως «αντι-καπιταλιστικό»; Θα έπρεπε να είναι; Αν ναι, ποια είναι η φύση των «αντι-καπιταλιστικών» πολιτικών κατευθύνσεών του;

DG: Θα ξεκινήσω λέγοντας ότι οι άνθρωποι που αρχικά συμμετείχαν στη δημιουργία του Occupy ήταν υπερβολικά αντικαπιταλιστές, πολύ ανοιχτά.Προφανώς και δεν θα έπρεπε να είναι ,ακόμα και αν πιστεύαμε ότι θα μπορούσαμε να ανατρέψουμε τον καπιταλισμό με την πρώτη. Εργαζόμαστε προς αυτήν την κατεύθυνση σαν απώτερο στόχο. Γι’ αυτό είναι βασικό το να έχεις ένα αποτέλεσμα που πραγματικά θα βοηθήσει τις ζωές των ανθρώπων. Το Occupy δεν βρίσκεται σε αντιδιαστολή με τον επαναστατικό παλμό, και μας βοηθά να κινηθούμε προς μια κατεύθυνση περισσότερης ελευθερίας και αυτονομίας, εννοώντας δηλαδή την ελευθερία από τις δομές τόσο του κράτους όσο και του καπιταλισμού. Τώρα, για να δημιουργήσεις ευρείες συμμαχίες σε αυτό το πλαίσιο, θα πρέπει να είσαι πολύ προσεκτικός σχετικά με τις οργανωτικές και θεσμικές δομές σου. Επειδή ένα από τα πράγματα που είναι επαναστατικά στο κίνημα του Occupy είναι ότι προσπαθεί να δημιουργήσει προεικονιστικούς χώρους στους οποίους μπορούμε να πειραματιστούμε και να δημιουργήσουμε θεσμικές δομές που θα υπάρχουν σε μια κοινωνία χωρίς κράτος και καπιταλισμό. Ελπίζουμε να τους χρησιμοποιήσουμε για να δημιουργήσουμε ένα είδος κρίσης της νομιμότητας των υφιστάμενων θεσμών.

Βέβαια, εγώ μπορώ να μιλήσω μόνο για τον εαυτό μου. Αλλά οι περισσότεροι από τους ανθρώπους με τους οποίους δούλευα, οι οποίοι δούλευαν πάνω σε αυτό το όραμα, είχαν αυτή την κοινή πεποίθηση: ότι το μεγάλο πλεονέκτημα που είχαμε ήταν ότι άνθρωποι όλου του πολιτικού φάσματος στην Αμερική μοιράζονται μια βαθιά αποστροφή για το υπάρχον πολιτικό σύστημα, στο οποίο αναγνωρίζουν ένα σύστημα θεσμοθετημένης διαφθοράς που έχει πολύ λίγο να κάνει με αυτό που λέμε δημοκρατία. Το χρήμα σαφώς ελέγχει κάθε πτυχή του πολιτικού συστήματος. Έτσι, θα χρειαζόταν μόνο να απονομιμοποιήσουμε ένα σύστημα το έχει ήδη απονομιμοποιήσει σχεδόν εξ ολοκλήρου τον εαυτό του. Υιοθετήσαμε αυτό που ισοδυναμεί με μια “διπλή στρατηγική δύναμη.” Με τη δημιουργία αυτόνομων θεσμών ανταποκρινόμενων στο τι θα μπορούσε να είναι μια πραγματική δημοκρατία, θα μπορούσαμε να προκαλέσουμε μια κατάσταση για μια μαζική απονομιμοποίηση των υπαρχόντων θεσμών της εξουσίας. Προφανώς, αυτοί που είναι οι πιο βίαιοι είναι πιο δύσκολο να απονομιμοποιηθούν. Στην αμερικανική κοινωνία, για διάφορους ιδεολογικούς λόγους, οι άνθρωποι μισούν τους πολιτικούς, αλλά έχουν εκπαιδευτεί να ταυτίζονται με το στρατό και την αστυνομία σε βαθμό που δεν συμβαίνει οπουδήποτε αλλού στον κόσμο. Έχει υπάρξει μια αμείλικτη προπαγάνδα για να δημιουργηθούν συμπάθειες για τους στρατιώτες και τους αστυνομικούς, από τότε που οι ταινίες με τους Καουμπόι μετατράπηκαν σε αστυνομικές ταινίες. Πιστεύω ότι θα ;ήταν μεγάλο λάθος να πάμε από αυτές τις προεικονιστικές δομές στην υποστήριξη κάποιου πολιτικού υποψηφίου. Αλλά ακόμα και η ιδέα να μετατραπούμε σε ένα γκρουπ που ασκεί πιέσεις [lobbying group] επιδιώκοντας μια ρεφορμιστική ατζέντα είναι εξαρχής λάθος. Από την στιγμή που συμπλέκεσαι με το σύστημα, όχι μόνο το νομιμοποιείς, αλλά απονομιμοποιείς και τον εαυτό σου, διότι η ίδια σου η πολιτική γραμμή έχει στρεβλωθεί. Ακόμα και η αποδοχή του χρήματος έχει ολέθριες συνέπειες. Αλλά από τη στιγμή που διασυνδέεσαι με κάθετα οργανωμένες δομές της εξουσίας, οι οποίες στην τελική βασίζονται στον εξαναγκασμό, αυτό δηλητηριάζει τα πάντα. Με την ενεργή απονομιμοποίηση της δομής, είμαστε σε θέση, ίσως και ως παρενέργεια των ενεργειών μας, να δημιουργήσουμε τις μορφές που θα είναι πραγματικά προς όφελος των απλών ανθρώπων.

RW: Μια διαίρεση που προέκυψε από νωρίς μεταξύ των καταληψιών, αφορούσε την ανάγκη αναζήτησης αιτημάτων. Έχετε στο παρελθόν απορρίψει την ιδέα της πολιτικής ως μικροπολιτική, θεωρώντας ότι τα αιτήματα για εκλογική μεταρρύθμιση ή για κανονιστικές μεταρρυθμίσεις της αγοράς θα οδηγήσουν το κίνημα σε μια συντηρητική κατεύθυνση. Αν όχι αιτήματα, τι είδους «οράματα και λύσεις», όπως το έχετε θέσει, νομίζετε ότι το κίνημα Occupy θα πρέπει να παρέχει;

DG: Υπάρχει μια βαθιά ασάφεια στη γλώσσα της πολιτικής διαμαρτυρίας. Πάντα αναφέρομαι στη γραμματική των σημείων ή του συνθήματος. Κάποιος λέει “Λευτεριά στoν Μουμία” [Mumia Abu Jamal] ή “Σώστε τις φάλαινες.” Αλλά από ποιόν ζητάει να το κάνει αυτό; Εννοεί πως πιέζει όλο το σύστημα να το πράξει; Ή μήπως καλεί εμάς ως συλλογικότητα να τους πιέσουμε να το πράξουν; Οπότε ναι, θα μπορούσε κανείς να θέσει το επιχείρημα ότι η διάκριση μεταξύ «οραμάτων», «αιτημάτων» και «λύσεων» είναι κάπως αυθαίρετη.

Όταν πρωτοασχολιόμασταν με την ιδέα για το Occupy Wall Street, υπήρχαν κάποιοι που ισχυρίστηκαν ότι θα μπορούσαμε να θεσουμε μια σειρά από αιτήματα που αποτελούν μέρος της διαδικασίας απονομιμοποίησης, θέτοντας δηλαδή αιτήματα για θέματα κοινής λογικής, τα οποία κανονικά δεν θα τα λάμβαναν υπόψιν τους ούτε σε χίλια χρόνια . Έτσι, αυτό δεν θα ήταν απλά μια προσπάθεια να ικανοποιηθούν τα αιτήματα, αλλά μάλλον θα ήταν ένας επιπλέον τρόπος για να αποδομηθεί η εξουσία, οι οποία θα αποδεικνυόταν εντελώς άχρηστη στην παροχή των αναγκαίων για τους ανθρώπους. Αυτό για το οποίο μιλάμε εδώ είναι στρατηγικές ρητορικής, όχι στρατηγικές διακυβέρνησης, επειδή το Occupy Wall Street δεν φιλοδοξεί να αναλάβει τον έλεγχο των οργάνων της εξουσίας, ούτε σκοπεύει να το κάνει. Όσον αφορά τα μακροπρόθεσμα οράματα, ένας από τους κύριους στόχους μας έχει ήδη επιτευχθεί σε βαθμό που ποτέ δεν είχαμε φανταστεί ότι θα μπορούσε να γίνει. Ο στόχος μας ήταν να εξαπλωθεί μια ορισμένη αντίληψη για την άμεση δημοκρατία, για το πώς θα μπορούσε να λειτουργήσει η δημοκρατία.

Για τη διάδοση της ιδέας, η κατάληψη του δημόσιου χώρου ήταν πολύ καρποφόρα. Ήταν ένας τρόπος να πούμε: «Είμαστε ο λαός. Ποιος θα μπορούσε να μας κρατήσει έξω από τον χώρο μας;» Υιοθέτησαν μια Γκαντιανή στρατηγική. Με το να είναι επιμελώς μη-βίαιη, μια ομάδα ανθρώπων που δεν θα μπορούσε να αποτελέσει απειλή για κανέναν, μπορεί να αναδείξει πόσο το κράτος είναι πρόθυμο να αντιδράσει με ακραία βία. Φυσικά, ανέκαθεν το πρόβλημα με την Γκαντιανή στρατηγική ήταν ότι χρειάζεται ο Τύπος να την παρουσιάσει με αυτόν τον τρόπο. Ένας λόγος που το κίνημα στο Σιάτλ έγινε εξεγερσιακό ήταν γιατί μεγάλο μέρος των ανθρώπων που συμμετείχαν ήταν ακτιβιστές για τα δάση που είχαν χρησιμοποιήσει στο παρελθόν αποκλειστικά Γκαντιανές τακτικές – κάθισμα σε δέντρα, δημιουργία “αλυσίδων”για να σταματήσει η καταστροφή των αρχέγονων δασών, κλπ. Η αντίδραση της αστυνομίας ήταν να χρησιμοποιήσει οπλοποιημένες μεθόδους βασανιστηρίων. Έτσι, αυτοί οι ακτιβιστές κατάλαβαν ότι οι Γκαντιανές τακτικές δεν ήταν πλέον αποτελεσματικές: επρεπε να δοκιμάσουν κάτι άλλο. Τώρα όμως, αναπάντεχα, η Γκαντιανή προσέγγιση ήταν σχετικά επιτυχής. Υπήρξε αυτή η προοπτική, και είναι ενδιαφέρον να αναρωτηθούμε: “Γιατί;”

RW: Ένα από τα σκεπτικά του Occupy Liberty Plaza ήταν ότι οι συμμετέχοντές του δούλευαν μαζί για να δημιουργήσουν ένα μικρής κλίμακας μοντέλο ανταποκρινόμενο στο πως μια χειραφετημένη κοινωνία του μέλλοντος θα μπορούσε να μοιάζει. Αυτή η συλλογιστική προϋποθέτει μια πολύ στενή σχέση μεταξύ της ηθικής (changing oneself) και πολιτικής (changing the world). Ωστόσο, δεν είναι δύσκολο να δούμε ότι οι περισσότερες από τις υπηρεσίες που παρέχονται στο Liberty Plaza ήταν και εξακολουθούν να είναι εξαρτημένες από τη χρηματοδότηση που έλαβαν από δωρεές, η οποία με τη σειρά τους προήλθαν από την κοινωνία της συνδιαλλαγής: τον καπιταλισμό. Από τη στιγμή που τα μέσα για την προσφορά αυτών των υπηρεσιών μπορούν να θεωρηθούν ως παρασιτικά από την καπιταλιστική ολότητα, μήπως το γεγονός αυτό περιπλέκει ή θέτει σε κίνδυνο καθ΄οιονδήποτε τρόπο τη νομιμότητα αυτών των φερόμενων ως προεικονιστικών κοινοτήτων;

DG: Νομίζω ότι η «καπιταλιστική ολότητα» υπάρχει μόνο στη φαντασία μας. Δεν νομίζω ότι υπάρχει μια καπιταλιστική ολότητα. Νομίζω ότι υπάρχει κεφάλαιο, το οποίο είναι εξαιρετικά ισχυρό, και αντιπροσωπεύει μια ορισμένη λογική που είναι στην πραγματικότητα παρασιτική για πάρα πολλές άλλες κοινωνικές σχέσεις, χωρίς τις οποίες δεν θα μπορούσε να υπάρξει. Νομίζω ότι ο Μαρξ δεν είχε κατασταλάξει πάνω σε αυτό το θέμα ο ίδιος. Υποστήριξε, φυσικά, την Παρισινή Κομμούνα. Ισχυρίστηκε ότι ήταν ο κομμουνισμός στην πράξη. Έτσι, ο Μαρξ δεν ήταν ενάντια σε όλες τις πειραματικές, προεικονιστικές μορφές. Εκείνος είχε πει ότι η αυτο-οργάνωση της εργατικής τάξης ήταν «κομμουνισμός εν κινήσει». Κάποιος θα μπορούσε να θέσει το επιχείρημα, αν θέλετε να πάρουμε τις καλύτερες πτυχές του Μαρξ (αν και νομίζω ότι ήταν βαθιά αμφίθυμος πάνω στο θέμα αυτό, στην πραγματικότητα), ότι αποδέχθηκε την ιδέα ότι ορισμένες μορφές αντίστασης θα μπορούσαν να διαδραματίζονται προεικονιστικά. Από την άλλη πλευρά, είναι βέβαιο ότι είχε βαθιές διαφωνίες με τους αναρχικούς για το θέμα αυτό, σε ό,τι αφορούσε την πρακτική εφαρμογή.

Νομίζω ότι το πραγματικό πρόβλημα είναι ο Εγελιανισμός του Μαρξ. Το στοιχείο της ολότητας στην κληρονομιά του Χέγκελ είναι μάλλον ολέθριο. Μία από τις εξαιρετικά σημαντικές διαφωνίες μεταξύ Μπακούνιν και Μαρξ είχε να κάνει με το προλεταριάτο, ιδιαίτερα των πιο προχωρημένων τμημάτων του, ως αναγκαίο παράγοντα της επανάστασης, σε σχέση με τους αγρότες, τους τεχνίτες, ή τους πρόσφατα προλεταριοποιημένους. Το βασικό επιχείρημα του Μαρξ ήταν ότι μέσα στην καπιταλιστική ολότητα, το προλεταριάτο είναι το μόνο που αναιρείται απολύτως και που μπορεί να απελευθερώσει τον εαυτό του μέσα από την απόλυτη άρνηση του συστήματος. Όλοι οι υπόλοιποι είναι ένα είδος «μικροαστών». Μόλις κολλήσεις με την ιδέα της απόλυτης άρνησης, αυτό ανοίγει την πόρτα σε μια σειρά από αρκετά επικίνδυνα συμπεράσματα. Υπάρχει ο κίνδυνος να πούμε ότι κάθε μορφή ηθικής ,ως μη σχετική πλέον, είναι άχρηστη. Δεν γνωρίζεις πια τη μορφή της ηθικής που θα είναι λειτουργική σε μη αστική κοινωνία, δικαιολογώντας έτσι πολλά πράγματα που πραγματικά δεν μπορούν να δικαιολογηθούν.

Αυτό που προσπαθώ να πω είναι πως είναι πολύ πιο λογικό να υποστηρίζει κανείς ότι όλες οι κοινωνικές και πολιτικές δυνατότητες υπάρχουν ταυτόχρονα. Το ότι ορισμένες μορφές συνεργασίας στάθηκαν δυνατές μόνο μέσω της λειτουργίας του καπιταλισμού, ότι τα καταναλωτικά αγαθά είναι καπιταλιστικά, ή οι τεχνικές παραγωγής είναι καπιταλιστικές, δεν τις κάνει πιο παρασιτικές στον καπιταλισμό από το γεγονός ότι τα εργοστάσια μπορούν να λειτουργήσουν χωρίς τις κυβερνήσεις. Κάποια μορφή συνεργασίας και καταναλωτικών αγαθών τις καθιστά σοσιαλιστικές. Υπάρχουν πολλές,αντιφατικές λογικές ανταλλαγής, λογικές δράσης, και λογικές συνεργασίας που υπάρχουν ανά πάσα στιγμή. Είναι ενσωματωμένες η μια στην άλλη, σε αμοιβαία αντίφαση, συνεχώς σε ένταση. Ως αποτέλεσμα, υπάρχει μια βάση από την οποία μπορεί κανείς να κάνει μια κριτική του καπιταλισμού, ακόμη και την ίδια στιγμή που ο καπιταλισμός υπαγάγει συνεχώς όλες αυτές τις εναλλακτικές λύσεις σε αυτόν. Δεν σημαίνει πως οτιδήποτε κάνουμε αντιστοιχεί σε μια λογική του καπιταλισμού. Υπάρχουν εκείνοι που υποστηρίζουν ότι μόνο το 30-40% των όσων κάνουμε υπόκεινται στη λογική του καπιταλισμού. Ο κομμουνισμός ενυπάρχει ήδη στις στενές σχέσεις μας σε πολλά διαφορετικά επίπεδα, γι ‘αυτό το ζήτημα είναι η σταδιακή επέκτασή του, και τελικά η καταστροφή την εξουσίας του κεφαλαίου, παρά αυτή η ιδέα της απόλυτης άρνησης που μας βυθίζει σε κάποιο μεγάλο άγνωστο.

RW: Η εκδοχή του αναρχισμού που αποδέχεστε τονίζει τη σχέση των μέσων και των σκοπών. Έχετε γράψει ότι «[ο αναρχισμός] επιμένει, πριν από οτιδήποτε άλλο, ότι τα μέσα κάποιου πρέπει να είναι σύμφωνα με τους σκοπούς του: δεν μπορεί κάποιος να φέρει την ελευθερία μέσα από αυταρχικά μέσα. Στην πραγματικότητα, όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο, πρέπει κανείς, στις σχέσεις του με τους φίλους και τους συμμάχους του, να ενσαρκώνει την κοινωνία που επιθυμεί να δημιουργήσει». [4] Φαίνεται ότι έχετε την τάση να υιοθετείτε μια προσέγγιση για την άμεση δράση του τύπου «ποικιλία στρατηγικής» . Αν κάποιος επιμένει σε μια αυστηρή ταυτότητα μέσων και σκοπών, δεν μπορεί μια βίαιη πορεία δράσης να παραβιάσει την αρχή της επίτευξης μιας μη βίαιης κοινωνίας;

DG: Η ιδέα της ταυτότητας των μέσων και των σκοπών ισχύει ιδιαίτερα στον τρόπο που επαναστάτες αλληλεπιδρούν ο ένας με τον άλλον. Θα πρέπει να δημιουργήσεις τις δικές σου σχέσεις με τους συντρόφους σου, να είσαι μια ενσάρκωση του κόσμου θέλεις να δημιουργήσεις. Προφανώς, δεν έχεις την ελευθερία να κάνεις τη σχέση σου με τους καπιταλιστές ή την αστυνομία στα πρότυπα του κόσμου θέλεις να δημιουργήσεις. Στην πραγματικότητα, αυτό που έχω ανακαλύψει είναι ότι εθνογραφικά αυτό όριο πρέπει να διατηρείται πολύ καλά. Οι άνθρωποι συνήθιζαν να επικρίνουν το παγκόσμιο κίνημα για την δικαιοσύνη, επειδή χρησιμοποιούνταν όροι όπως «κακό», αλλά πραγματικά αυτό που η λέξη σήμαινε ήταν ακαθόριστο. Υπάρχουν ορισμένοι θεσμοί με τους οποίους μπορούμε τουλάχιστον να ασχοληθούμε, επειδή δεν είναι θεμελιωδώς εχθρικοί σε αυτό που προσπαθούμε να κάνουμε. Υπάρχουν άλλοι που είναι μη αναστρέψιμοι. Απλά δεν μπορούμε να μιλήσουμε γι ‘αυτούς. Γι ‘αυτό αρνηθήκαμε ν’ ασχοληθούμε με το WTO [Παγκόσμιος Οργανισμός Εμπορίου]. «Κακό» σήμαινε «δεν μπορούμε να επεκτείνουμε την προεικονιστική λογική σε αυτούς». Όταν έχουμε να κάνουμε με ανθρώπους που είναι “μέσα” στον κύκλο μιας προεικονιστικής πρακτικής μας, υποθέτεις ότι ο καθένας έχει καλές προθέσεις. Τους δίνεις το δικαίωμα της αμφιβολίας. Ακριβώς όπως (και αυτό είναι μια άλλη αναρχική αρχή) δεν υπάρχει καλύτερος τρόπος να φροντίσεις ώστε κάποιος να συμπεριφέρεται σαν παιδί από το να τον αντιμετωπίζεις σαν παιδί, έτσι και ο μόνος τρόπος για να φροντίσεις ώστε κάποιος να συμπεριφέρεται σαν ενήλικας είναι να τον αντιμετωπίζεις σαν ενήλικα. Έτσι, τους δίνεις το δικαίωμα της αμφιβολίας συναφώς, ως καλοπροαίρετος και ειλικρινής. Αλλά πρέπει να έχεις και ένα όριο. Τώρα, για το τι συμβαίνει σε αυτό το όριο είναι που γίνεται όλη η συζήτηση. Τι θα έκανε κάποιος σε μια ελεύθερη κοινωνία, εάν έβλεπε ανθρώπους να συμπεριφέρονται με τρόπους που ήταν τρομερά ανεύθυνοι και καταστροφικοί;

RW: Ενώ η δημοκρατική ιδεολογία που αντιπροσωπεύει το κίνημα Occupy το βοήθησε σίγουρα να γίνει λαοφιλές, πολλοί έχουν παραπονεθεί ότι εντός του μοντέλου συναίνεσης στη λήψη αποφάσεων, η διαδικασία τελικά φετιχοποιείται. Η όλη υπόθεση μπορεί να οδηγήσει στην ξένωση, καθώς αυτοί με την μεγαλύτερη αντοχή ή τον πιο άνετο χρόνο μπορεί να ασκήσουν σ’ ένα υπέρμετρο βαθμό επιρροή στη διαδικασία λήψης αποφάσεων. Ένα άλλο αντιληπτό πρόβλημα σχετικά με τη συναίνεση στη λήψη των αποφάσεων είναι ότι μόνο οι πιο άτολμες, αβέβαιες ή χλιαρές προτάσεις καταλήγουν να περάσουν. Είτε αυτό είτε ότι μόνο αόριστες ανακοινώσεις ενάντια στην “απληστία” ή την “αδικία” περνάνε, επειδή ακριβώς η έννοια των όρων αυτών παραμένει ακαθόριστη. Η δομή της συναίνεσης, το να περνάνε δηλαδή προτάσεις με τις οποίες οι περισσότεροι θα συμφωνούσαν εκ των προτέρων, τείνει να ευνοήσει τις πιο κοινότοπες ιδέες, και μου φαίνεται μια εγγενώς συντηρητική προσέγγιση. Έχουν οι κριτικές αυτές κάποια ορθότητα σχετικά με το κίνημα του Occupy;

DG: Δεν μπορείς να δημιουργήσεις μια δημοκρατία απ’ το τίποτα, χωρίς να υπάρξουν αρκετά μπερδέματα. Κοινωνίες που το κάνουν αυτό εδώ και πολύ καιρό έχουν βρει τις λύσεις σε αυτά τα προβλήματα. Γι’ αυτό μου αρέσει να μιλώ για το παράδειγμα της Μαδαγασκάρης, όπου το κράτος διαλύθηκε, αλλά δεν μπορείς πραγματικά να το θέσεις έτσι. Οι άνθρωποι συνέχισαν ακριβώς όπως και πριν, διότι είχαν συνηθίσει στην λήψη αποφάσεων με βάση την συναίνεση. Το έκαναν εδώ και χίλια χρόνια. Αυτή τη στιγμή έχουν μια στρατιωτική κυβέρνηση. Όμως, απο άποψη λειτουργίας της καθημερινής ζωής σε μια μικρή κοινότητα, όλα γίνονται δημοκρατικά. Πρόκειται για μια αξιόλογη αντίθεση στην δικιά μας κοινωνία,φαινομενικά πιο δημοκρατικής από άποψη των μεγαλύτερων υποδομών μας. Πότε ήταν η τελευταία φορά που μια ομάδα είκοσι Αμερικανών (εκτός του OWS) κάθισαν και πήραν αποφάσεις συλλογικά επί ίσοις όροις;

Ναι, έχετε δίκιο: θα έχεις μόνο ευρείς και ενθουσιώδεις λύσεις εάν φέρεις τα πάντα στη Γενική Συνέλευση. Για το λόγο αυτό έχουμε ομάδες εργασίας, που τους εξουσιοδοτούμε να εκτελούν ενέργειες, και να τους ενθαρρύνουμε να σχηματίζονται αυθόρμητα. Αυτή είναι μια άλλη από τις βασικές αρχές σχετικά με τη συναίνεση και την αποκέντρωση. Σε έναν ιδανικό κόσμο, η αδυναμία στο να βρεθεί συναίνεση σε μια μεγάλη συνέλευση θα πρέπει να πείσει τους ανθρώπους να μην φέρνουν έτοιμες αποφάσεις μπροστά σε αυτήν, εκτός και αν είναι αναγκασμένοι. Αυτός είναι στην ουσία ο τρόπος σύμφωνα με τον οποίο έπρεπε να λειτουργεί.

RW: Σε ποιο βαθμό θεωρείτε ότι ο στόχος της πολιτικής θα έπρεπε να είναι ελευθερία από την αναγκαιότητα της πολιτικής; Είναι η ηθική ακόμα δυνατή σε έναν κόσμο που δεν έχει αλλάξει; Ο Theodor Adorno παρατήρησε, στα Minima Moralia, ότι “Δεν υπάρχει σωστή ζωή μέσα στην ψεύτικη.” Με άλλα λόγια, μπορούμε ακόμη και μιλάμε για ηθική με την αριστοτελική έννοια της ενάρετης ζωής εντός της κυριαρχίας του ψευδούς; Ή αυτό απαιτεί έναν πρότερο πολιτικό μετασχηματισμό;

DG: Πιστεύω ότι αυτό το είδος της ολοκληρωτικής λογικής καταλήγει στο ν’ απαιτεί μια ολοκληρωτική ρήξη. Ίσως μετά την επανάσταση να μπορούμε να φανταστούμε μια ρήξη, δυνάμει της οποίας εμείς τώρα πλέον ζούμε σε μια κοινωνία εντελώς διαφορετική, αλλά όλοι γνωρίζουμε πως αυτό δεν πρόκειται να συμβεί μέσω μιας απόλυτης ρήξης. Και αν πραγματικά υιοθετήσουμε αυτήν την Εγελιανή λογική, αρχίζει να φαίνεται ότι εν τέλει δεν είναι καν δυνατό. Αυτό οδηγεί σχεδόν αναγκαστικά σε βαθύτατα τραγικά συμπεράσματα και σε μεγάλη πολιτική παθητικότητα, όπως πράγματι συνέβη με την Σχολή της Φρανκφούρτης. Δεν νομίζω ότι η πολιτική μπορεί να εξαλειφθεί. Και όπως ακριβώς δεν μπορεί να επιτευχθεί η τέλεια ζωή, η διαδικασία που στοχεύει σε αυτήν είναι η καλή ζωή.

Πιστεύω ότι από άποψη ηθικής, αυτό είναι το ζήτημα. Δεν μπορώ να φανταστώ έναν κόσμο στο οποίο εμείς δεν είμαστε επαναστάτες, δεν επαναστατικοποιούμε τις σχέσεις μεταξύ μας και δεν επαναστατικοποιούμε την κατανόησή μας για το τί είναι δυνατό. Αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι — ίσως κάποια μέρα σύντομα, ας ελπίσουμε — δεν θα πετύχουμε κάποια μέρα έναν κόσμο όπου τα προβλήματα που υπάρχουν σήμερα θα είναι ιστορίες με τις οποίες θα τρομάζουμε τα μικρά παιδιά. Αλλά αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι κάποια στιγμή θα ξεπεράσουμε την ανάγκη να επαναστατικοποιούμε τους εαυτούς μας. Και η διαδικασία με την οποία συμβαίνει αυτό είναι η καλή ζωή.

RW: Τελικά είναι το ίδιο το κίνημα ο σκοπός; Θα έπρεπε αυτή η διαδικασία να γίνει αυτοσκοπός;

DG: Θα πρέπει να γίνει. Εννοώ, τι άλλο υπάρχει στη ζωή;
_________________________________________
1. David Graeber, “The Shock of Victory,” in Revolutions in Reverse: Essays on Politics, Violence, Art, and Imagination (New York: Minor Compositions, 2010), 17.
2. Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, in Collected Works, Volume 10: 1849–1851 (New York: International Publishers, 1977), 70. Available online at Marxist.org
3. See Platypus’ discussion at the 2009 Left Forum: Dialectics of Defeat: Toward a Theory of Historical Regression. Available online at Platypus Dialectics of Defeat 
4. David Graeber, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2004), 7.

The movement as an end-in-itself? An interview with David Graeber

Posted by

14

January 31st, 2012

Ross Wolfe

Platypus Review 43 | February 2012

[PDF]

On  December 16, 2011, Ross Wolfe interviewed David Graeber, Reader at Goldsmiths College in London, author of Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004), and central figure in the early stages of the #Occupy Wall Street Movement. What follows is an edited transcript of the interview.

Indie folk singer Tea Leigh at #Occupy

Ross Wolfe: There are striking similarities between the #Occupy movement and the 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle. Both began in the last year of a Democratic presidency, were spearheaded by anarchists, motivated by discontents with neo-liberalism, and received the support of organized labor. As an active participant in both the anti/alter-globalization and the #Occupy movements, to what extent would you say that #Occupy is a continuation of the project inaugurated at Seattle? What, if anything, makes this movement different?

David Graeber: I think a lot of the people involved in the globalization movement, myself included, felt this was a continuation of our efforts, because we never really felt the globalization movement had come to an end. We’d smash our heads against the wall every year, saying “Oh yes, this time we’re really back. Oh wait, maybe not.” A lot of us gradually began to lose hope that it was really going to bounce back in the way we always thought we knew it would. And then it happened, as a combination of tactics of trying to create prefigurative models of what a democratic society would be like, as a way of organizing protest or actions that were directed against an obviously undemocratic structure of governance.

At the same time, I think one reason why the tactics seem appropriate in either case is because, in a way, we’re talking about two rounds of the same cycle of really the same debt crisis. One could make the argument that the world has been in one form of debt crisis or another since the seventies, and that for most of that time, the crisis was fobbed off onto the global South, and to a certain degree held off from the North Atlantic, countries and places with the most powerful economies, which more or less use credit as a way of staving off popular unrest. The global justice movement ultimately was a quite successful form of popular uprising against neoliberal orthodoxy, Washington Consensus, and the tyranny of the debt enforcers like the IMF and the World Bank. It was officially so successful that the IMF itself was expelled from large parts of the world. It simply can’t operate at all in many spaces within Latin America anymore. And it eventually came home. So it’s the same process: declaring some kind of financial crisis which the capitalists themselves are responsible for, and demanding the replacement of what are termed “neutral technocrats” of one type or other, who are in fact schooled in this kind of neoliberal orthodoxy, who’ve been in the economy for wholesale plunder on the part of financial elites. And because #Occupy is reacting to the same thing as the Global Justice Movement, it’s not surprising that the reaction takes the same form: a movement for direct democracy, prefigurative politics, and direct action. In each case, what they’re saying is that the tools of government and the administration are inherently corrupt and unaccountable.

RW: Against the malaise that followed from the dissolution of the anti/alter-globalization movement after 9/11, you argued that the primary reason for its eventual defeat was that it did not know how to handle the shock of its early victories, its participants had become “dizzy with success” along the way. “[O]ne reason it was so easy for [the global justice movement] to collapse, was…that once again, in most of our immediate objectives, we’d already, unexpectedly, won.”[1] In other words, for you the path to defeat was largely paved by victory. In an uncanny way, this appears to mirror, albeit from the opposite direction, Karl Marx’s counter-intuitive understanding of June 1848. Marx wrote that “only the June defeat has created all the conditions under which France can seize the initiative of the European revolution. Only after being dipped in the blood of the June insurgents did the tricoleur become the flag of the European revolution—the red flag!”[2] For Marx, then, the path toward victory was seen to be paved by defeat. How, if at all, are these two seemingly opposite views related? Do they mutually exclude one another, or are they perhaps complementary? Is it proper or even possible to speak of a “dialectics of defeat”?[3]

DG: That’s an interesting analogy. One would have to ask: “Was Marx right?” He said that defeat was necessary for the ultimate victory, but it’s not clear that that victory ultimately did occur. It’s certainly true that certain sorts of defeat can be mythologized, and may turn into victory, or things that seem like defeats on the field are in fact victories that you didn’t realize you had. I think that happens quite regularly in revolutionary history. In a way, tactical defeat is almost randomly related to strategic victory. There’s no predictable pattern, kind of like Immanuel Wallerstein’s idea of the series of world revolutions starting with the French revolution, the world revolution of 1848, which didn’t achieve tactical victory anywhere, but radically transformed the way governments operated in Europe. That’s where you get universal education, redistricting, etc.

RW: The French Revolution even failed internally, insofar as it was turned into an empire by Napoleon. But it still helped spread the nationalist and liberal/republican ethos.

DG: Absolutely. There were institutional, concrete forms that came out of that that have remained with us ever since. Same thing with 1917: It only was successful in Russia, but it had almost as much of an effect on other countries as it did at home. Nothing was the same afterwards. Basically, Wallerstein argues that 1968 was a similar revolutionary moment, sort of along the lines of 1848. He’s now talking about the world revolution of 2011. But it really isn’t clear which model this is going to resemble.

This made me think of what neoliberalism is really about: It’s a political movement much more than it is an economic movement, which is a reaction to those series of victories won by social movements in the sixties, whether the anti-war movements, feminism, the counterculture, and so on. That became a kind of a sanction, in achieving political victory by preventing any social movement from feeling that it had been successful in challenging capitalism in any great, empowered way, or providing any sort of viable alternative. So it became a propaganda war that was continually hierarchized, over creating an actually viable capitalist system. The way the Iraq War was conducted is another great example of that. It’s very clear that the real obsession on the part of the people planning the war was to overcome what they called “the Vietnam syndrome,” i.e., the wave of anti-war demonstrations in the sixties that had really prevented the U.S. from deploying large ground forces in any kind of major land war for 30 years. In order to get over that, they needed to fight the war in a way that would prevent widespread opposition and resistance at home. What they calculated was that “body count is everything,” therefore they had to create rules of engagement such that few enough American soldiers would die that there would be no mass uproar in the form of an anti-war movement. Of course, in order to do that, their rules of engagement meant that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians died, which in turn pretty much ensured they couldn’t win the war. But it seemed more important to them to prevent the anti-war movement than to win the war.

Of course, the anti-war movement of the last decade was put in a terrible situation by the attacks of 9/11, an attack on U.S. soil on a scale that hadn’t ever happened. Now, it’s also true that there’s a pattern where 9/11 came at a very opportune moment, and had it not been for that attack, they probably would have tried to come up with some other excuse for an overseas war. Because it seems that when you finally see a grassroots political movement, whether it’s the civil rights movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the global justice movement, or any kind of glimmering, that is what happens. The remarkable thing to me is how immediately the ruling class panicked and felt that they had to make massive concessions and invariably seem to commence some sort of overseas war. It seems like they’ve trapped themselves in something like a box. It’s clear that we’ve got a situation here in America, but it’s not really clear who they’re going to attack, or who they could attack overseas.

RW: One of the central debates within #OWS is over the degree to which the movement remains ideologically inclusive and open to all. From early on, the demonstrations at Liberty Plaza drew a number of neoliberal ideologues: Ron Paul supporters, Tea Partiers, and right-wing conspiracy theorists. While their visibility within the movement has perhaps diminished in recent weeks, they remain an undeniable, if marginal, presence at #Occupy events. Some have rejected the very idea of being placed along the political spectrum of “left” and “right,” as they both consider these categories to be too constrictive and fear that identification with one or the other risks alienating potential supporters. Would you say the language of “right” and “left” still has any utility with respect to #Occupy Wall Street? Does #Occupy represent a new popular movement on the Left?

DG: There is an unfortunate tendency to identify “the Left” not as a set of ideals or ideas but of institutional structures. A lot of individualists, anarchists, insurrectionists, and primitivists see the Left as the various leftist political parties, labor unions, what we would generally call “the verticals,” and I can see why one would feel rather chary about wanting to identify himself with these. But at the same time, we’ve been hearing at least since the end of World War II that the difference between right and left is no longer relevant. It’s something that’s said about every five years in making some great pronouncement. And the fact that they have to keep doing it so regularly shows that it isn’t true. It’s sort of the way that people keep making these grand declarations that the whole narrative of progress is gone. They make that about once every generation. But why would they have to announce this every generation if it was actually gone? So I think that these concepts remain.

The Tea Party was also claiming that they weren’t a right-wing group and that they were a broad populist rejection of the structure of the existing political order, in the same way that people want to see #Occupy Wall Street. But one is a very right-wing populist rejection, while the #Occupy movement is inspired by left-wing principles. And a lot of it has to do not even with one’s attitude towards market economics but corporate capitalism. It has this utopian ideal about what capitalism should be, which is actually far more utopian than any conception of what socialism, or whatever else would exist for the Left, would be. So the ultimate utopias of the Tea Party and #Occupy are profoundly different, which indicates a difference in their basic orientations. And #Occupy Wall Street is, in the end, anti-hierarchical. And I think that’s the key. The Right is not, in the end, anti-hierarchical. They want to limit certain types of hierarchy, and promote other types, but they are not ultimately an egalitarian movement. So I think that ignoring that broad left legacy is kind of silly. It strikes me as patently dishonest. I understand that it is sometimes tactically useful to throw as broad a net as possible, because there actually is a lot of common ground. Many right-wing populists have certain sincere objections to, for example, the monopolization of culture, or the fact that there is objectively a cultural elite. A certain social class monopolizes those jobs whereby you get to engage or pursue forms of value that aren’t all about money. The working classes have an overwhelming hatred of the cultural elite and a celebration of the army, to support our troops. It comes down to the fact that if you come from a working-class background, you have a very slim chance of becoming a successful capitalist, but there’s really no possibility that you could become a drama critic for The New York Times. I think it would be wonderful if we could find a way to appeal to such people in a way that wouldn’t be patronizing. But still, rejecting this split between the Right and the Left entirely, strikes me as going in completely the wrong direction.

What we have is this terrible synthesis of the market and bureaucracy which has taken over every aspect of our lives. Yet only the Right has a critique of bureaucracy. It’s a really simple-minded critique, but the Left really doesn’t have one at all.

RW: Some have characterized the #Occupy movement as sounding the alarm for “class war.” They cite the now-ubiquitous #Occupy Wall Street motto, “We are the 99%!” as evidence of this fact. As the ostensible originator of this slogan, do you believe that #Occupy Wall Street is an outward manifestation of the latent class struggle underlying civil society? Whatever its rhetorical effect, does this metric provide an adequate framework for the analysis of class struggle?

DG: I don’t think of it as an analysis so much as an illustration. It’s a way of opening a window on inequality. Of course, a slogan doesn’t ever answer the real structural question of how social classes get reproduced. What a slogan does is point you to how you can start thinking about a problem that you might not have even known existed. It’s been remarkably effective at that, for two reasons: one, because it points out just how small the group of people who have been the beneficiaries of the economic growth, of our productivity has been. They basically grabbed everything. Also, the slogan has successfully made #Occupy inclusive in a way that other social movements have had trouble with before. So I think that’s what was effective about it. Obviously there are infinite shades of difference between us, and class is a much more complicated thing than just the fact there is a certain group of people that is super rich or has a lot of political power. But nonetheless, it provides people with a way to start talking to each other about what they have in common, thus providing the form in which the other things can come to be addressed. You have to start with what you have in common. And that’s one thing we’ve had a really hard time doing up till now.

RW: Most within the #Occupy movement recognize the raw fact of dramatic social inequality, but disagree over the method to pursue in looking to resolve this problem. Many hope that #Occupy will provide the grassroots political momentum necessary to pass a set of economic reforms, which typically would come by way of legislation passed through the existing channels of government. Others see #Occupy as potentially revolutionary, as pointing to something beyond the merely “economic.” These two perspectives seem to indicate radically different directions this movement might take. Would you characterize this movement as “anti-capitalist”? Should it be? If so, what is the nature of its “anti-capitalist” politics?

DG: I’ll start by saying that the people who were originally involved in the creation of #Occupy were overwhelmingly anti-capitalist, very explicitly. Whether we thought we were going to be able to overthrow capitalism in one go, well, obviously no. We’re working toward that as an ultimate goal. That’s why it’s key to have an effect that will genuinely benefit people’s lives. #Occupy certainly doesn’t contradict that revolutionary impulse, and helps move us in a direction towards greater freedom and autonomy, by which I mean freedom from the structures of both the state and capitalism. Now, to create broad alliances along those lines, you’d have to be very careful about your organizational and institutional structures. Because one of the things that is revolutionary about the #Occupy movement is that it’s trying to create prefigurative spaces in which we can experiment and create the kind of institutional structures that would exist in a society that’s free of the state and capitalism. We hope to use those to create a kind of crisis of legitimacy within existing institutions.

Of course, I can only speak for myself. But most of the people I was working with, who were putting the vision together, had this belief in common: that the great advantage we had was that people across the political spectrum in America shared a profound revulsion with the existing political system, which they recognize to be a system of institutionalized bribery that has very little to do with anything that could be meaningfully called democracy. Money clearly controls every aspect of the political system. Thus, we would only had to delegitimate a system that has already almost entirely delegitimated itself. We adopted what amounts to a “dual power strategy.” By creating autonomous institutions that represent what a real democracy might be like, we could provoke a situation for a mass delegitimation of existing institutions of power. Obviously, the ones that are the most violent are the hardest to delegitimate. In American society, for various ideological reasons, people hate politicians, but they have been trained to identify with the army and police to a degree that is hardly true anywhere else in the world. There’s been relentless propaganda to create sympathies for soldiers and policemen, ever since the cowboy movie turned into the cop movie. I think that it would be a terrible mistake to go from these prefigurative structures to running some sort of political candidate. But even the idea of turning into a lobbying group pursuing a specific reformist agenda is wrongheaded. The moment you engage with a system, you’re not only legitimating it, you’re delegitimating yourself, because your own internal politics become warped. Even accepting money has pernicious effects. But the moment you’re interfacing with vertically organized structures of power, which are ultimately based on coercion, it poisons everything. By actively delegitimating the structure, we are in a position, perhaps as a side effect of our actions, to create the forms that will actually be of the most benefit to ordinary people.

RW: One division that emerged early on among the occupants concerned the need to call for demands. You have in the past rejected the idea of politics as policy-making, feeling that demands focused on electoral reform or market regulations would only steer the movement in a conservative direction. If not demands, what kind of “visions and solutions,” as you’ve put it, do you think the #Occupy movement should provide?

DG: There is a profound ambiguity in the language of protest politics. I always point to the grammar of signs or slogan. Someone says “Free Mumia” or “Save the whales.” But who are you asking to do that? Are you talking about pressuring the entire system do so? Or are you calling on us as a collectivity to pressure them to do so? So yes, one could make the argument that the distinction between “visions,” “demands,” and “solutions” is somewhat arbitrary.

When we were first putting together the idea for #Occupy Wall Street, there were some who argued that we could make a series of demands that are part of the delegitimation process, by making demands for things that are obviously commonsensical and reasonable, but which they would never in a million years even consider doing. So it would not be an attempt to achieve the demands, but rather it would be a further way to de-structure the authority, which would be shown to be utterly useless when it came to providing what the people need. What we’re really talking about here is rhetorical strategies, not strategies of government, because #Occupy Wall Street does not claim to take control of the instruments of power, nor does it intend to. In terms of long-term visions, one of our major objectives has already been achieved to a degree which we never imagined it could have been. Our goal was to spread a certain notion of direct democracy, of how democracy could work.

For spreading the idea, the occupation of public space was very fruitful. It was a way of saying, “We are the public. Who could possibly keep us out of our space?” They adopted a Gandhian strategy. By being studiously non-violent, a group of people who couldn’t possibly pose a threat to anyone might bring out how much the state is willing to react with extreme violence.  Of course, the problem with the Gandhian strategy has always been that you need the press to cover it that way. One reason the window-breaking in Seattle happened was that a majority of the people involved had been forest activists who had previously used exclusively Gandhian tactics — tree-sitting, chaining themselves to equipment to prevent the destruction of old-growth forests, etc. The police reaction was to use weaponized torture devices. So these activists had decided that Gandhian tactics don’t work; they had to try something else. Now suddenly the Gandhian approach has been relatively successful. There has been this window, and it’s interesting to ask yourself: “Why?”

RW: One of the tropes of #Occupy Liberty Plaza was that its participants were working together to build a small-scale model what an emancipated society of the future might look like. This line of reasoning posits a very intimate connection between ethics (changing oneself) and politics (changing the world). Yet it is not difficult to see that most of the services provided at Liberty Plaza were still dependent on funding received from donations, which in turn came from the society of exchange: Capitalism. Since the means for the provision of these services can be viewed as parasitic upon the capitalist totality, does this in any way complicate or compromise the legitimacy of such allegedly prefigurative communities?

DG: I think the “capitalist totality” only exists in our imagination. I don’t think there is a capitalist totality. I think there’s capital, which is extraordinarily powerful, and represents a certain logic that is actually parasitic upon a million other social relations, without which it couldn’t exist. I think Marx veered back and forth on this score himself. He did, of course, support the Paris Commune. He claimed that it was communism in action. So Marx wasn’t against all experimental, prefigurative forms. He did say that the self-organization of the working class was “the motion of communism.” One could make the argument, if you wanted to take the best aspects of Marx (though I think he was deeply ambivalent on this issue, actually) that he did accept the notion that certain forms of opposition could be acted out prefiguratively. On the other hand, it’s certainly true that he did have profound arguments with the anarchists on this matter, when it came to practice.

I think that the real problem is Marx’s Hegelianism. The totalizing aspect of Hegel’s legacy is rather pernicious. One of the extremely important disagreements between Bakunin and Marx had to do with the proletariat, especially its most advanced sections, as the necessary agent of revolution, versus the peasants, the craftsmen, or the recently proletarianized. Marx’s basic argument was that within the totality of capitalism, the proletariat are the only ones who are absolutely negated and who can only liberate themselves through the absolute negation of the system. Everyone else is some kind of “petit-bourgeois.” Once you’re stuck with the idea of absolute negation, that opens the door to a number of quite dangerous conclusions. There is the danger of saying that all forms of morality are thrown out the window as no longer relevant. You no longer know what form of morality will work in a non-bourgeois society, thus justifying a lot of things that really can’t be justified.

The point I’m trying to make is that it’s much more sensible to argue that all social and political possibilities exist simultaneously. Just because certain forms of cooperation are only made possible through the operation of capitalism, that consumer goods are capitalist, or that techniques of production are capitalist, no more makes them parasitical upon capitalism than the fact that factories can operate without governments. Some cooperation and consumer goods makes them socialist. There are multiple, contradictory logics of exchange, logics of action, and cooperative logics existing at all times. They are embedded in one another, in mutual contradiction, constantly in tension. As a result, there is a base from which one can make a critique of capitalism even at the same time that capitalism constantly subsumes all those alternatives to it. It’s not like everything we do corresponds to a logic of capitalism. There are those who’ve argued that only 30–40% of what we do is subsumed under the logic of capitalism. Communism already exists in our intimate relations with each other on a million different levels, so it’s a question of gradually expanding that and ultimately destroying the power of capital, rather than this idea of absolute negation that plunges us into some great unknown.

RW: The version of anarchism that you subscribe to stresses this relationship of means to ends. You’ve written that “[anarchism] insists, before anything else, that one’s means must be consonant with one’s ends; one cannot create freedom through authoritarian means; in fact, as much as possible, one must oneself, in one’s relations with one’s friends and allies, embody the society one wishes to create.”[4] It seems that you tend to endorse a “diversity of tactics” approach to direct action. If one insists upon a strict identity of means and ends, might not a violent course of action violate the principle of attaining a non-violent society?

DG: The idea of the identity of means and ends particularly applies to the way revolutionaries deal with one another. You have to make your own relations with your fellow comrades, to be an embodiment of the world you wish to create. Obviously, you don’t have the liberty to make your relationship with the capitalists or the police into an embodiment of the world you wish to create. In fact, what I’ve found ethnographically is that this boundary has to be very clearly maintained. People used to criticize the global justice movement because it would use terms like “evil,” but really what that word indicated was a borderline. There are certain institutions that we can at least deal with, because they’re not fundamentally inimical to what we’re trying to do. There are others that are irredeemable. You just can’t talk to them. That’s why we refused to deal with the WTO. “Evil” meant, “we can’t extend that prefigurative logic to them.” When dealing with people who are “in” the circle of our prefigurative practice, you have to assume everyone has good intentions. You give them the benefit of the doubt. Just as (and this is another anarchist principle) there’s no way better to have someone act like a child than to treat him as a child, the only way to have someone act like an adult is to treat him as an adult. So you give them the benefit of the doubt in that regard, as well-intentioned and honest. But you have to have a cutoff point. Now, what happens at that cutoff is where all the debate takes place. What would one do in a free society if he saw people behaving in ways that were terribly irresponsible and destructive?

RW: While the democratic ideology it represents has certainly helped popularize the #Occupy movement, many have complained that within the consensus decision-making model, process ultimately becomes fetishized. The entire affair can be massively alienating, as those with the greatest endurance or the most leisure time can exert an inordinate amount of influence the decision-making process. Another perceived problem with consensus decision-making is that only the most timid, tentative, or lukewarm proposals end up getting passed. Either that, or only extremely vague pronouncements against “greed” or “injustice” get passed, precisely because the meaning of these terms remains underdefined. The structure of consensus, passing proposals that most people agree upon already, tends to favor the most unambitious ideas, and seems to me an inherently conservative approach. Do these criticisms have any legitimacy with regard to the #Occupy movement?

DG: You can’t create a democracy out of nothing without there being a lot of kinks. Societies that have been doing this over the long term have come up with solutions to these problems. That’s why I like to talk about the example of Madagascar, where the state broke down, but you couldn’t even really tell. People carried on as they had before, because they were used to making decisions by consensus. They’d been doing it for a thousand years. At the moment they have a military government. But in terms of the day-to-day operation of everyday life in a small community, everything’s done democratically. It’s a remarkable contrast to our own society, ostensibly more democratic in terms of our larger structures. When was the last time a group of twenty Americans (outside of #OWS) sat down and made a collective decision in an equal way?

Yes, you’re right: you’ll only get broad and tepid solutions if you bring everything to the General Assembly. That’s why we have working groups, empower them to perform actions, and encourage them to form spontaneously. This is another of the key principles in dealing with consensus and decentralization. In an ideal world, the very unwieldiness of finding consensus in a large group should convince people not to bring decisions before this large group unless they absolutely have to. That’s actually the way it’s supposed to work out.

Extract from Eduard Bernstein's Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie. Text reads: „Das, was man gemeinhin Endziel des Sozialismus nennt, ist mir nichts, die Bewegung alles.“ (What is commonly called the ultimate goal of socialism is nothing to me, the movement is everything.)

RW: To what extent do you think that the goal of politics should be freedom from the necessity of politics? Is ethics even possible in a world that hasn’t been changed? Theodor Adorno remarked in Minima Moralia that “the wrong life cannot be lived rightly.” In other words, can we even speak of ethics in the Aristotelian sense of the good life within the totality of the wrong? Or would this require a prior political transformation?

DG: I think that kind of totalizing logic ends up requiring a total rupture. Perhaps after the revolution we can imagine a rupture, whereby we now live in a totally different society, but we all know it’s not going to happen through a total rupture. And if you really adopt that Hegelian logic, it begins to seem as if it’s not possible at all. It almost necessarily leads to profoundly tragic conclusions and extremely quietist politics, as indeed it did with the Frankfurt School. I don’t think that politics can be eliminated. And just as the perfect life cannot be achieved, the process of moving toward it is the good life.

I think that in terms of ethics that is the case. I can’t imagine a world in which we aren’t revolutionary ourselves, and revolutionizing our relations with one another, and revolutionizing our understanding of what is possible. That doesn’t mean that we will not someday—perhaps someday soon, hopefully—achieve a world whereby the problems we have today will be the sort of things to scare children with stories of them. But that doesn’t mean we’ll ever overcome the need to revolutionize ourselves. And the process by which that comes about is the good life.

RW: So does the movement itself become the goal? Must this process become an end-in-itself?

DG: It has to be. I mean, what else is there to life? |P

1. David Graeber, “The Shock of Victory,” in Revolutions in Reverse: Essays on Politics, Violence, Art, and Imagination (New York: Minor Compositions, 2010), 17.↑
2. Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1851, in Collected Works, Volume 10: 1849–1851 (New York: International Publishers, 1977), 70. Available online at <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/index.htm>.↑
3. See Platypus’ discussion at the 2009 Left Forum: Dialectics of Defeat: Toward a Theory of Historical Regression. Available online at <http://www.archive.org/details/PlatypusDialecticsofDefeatLeftForum2009NYC041809>.↑
4. David Graeber, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2004), 7.↑

“The Four Cs”: Commodity, Currency (Money), Capital, Corporation — A popular lexicon regarding some commonly confused terms, along with some further scholarly notes

Posted by

9

The Parisian Arcades

The “Four Cs”: Commodities, Currency (Money), Capital, and Corporations

POSITIVE DEFINITIONS

First we can state briefly what these objects concretely are, so that we can then spell out exactly what they are not.

Commodity — A commodity is any product that is produced for sale on the market, i.e. for the sake of exchange.  Like any other product (non-commodities included), it has a certain utility, or “use-value.”  Products, regardless of their salability, tend to be useful in some way or another, to satisfy a certain need.  Use-values are of a qualitative nature.  That is to say, they are useful because they possess certain utile qualities.

Unlike other products, however, commodities also possess a certain value, or “exchange-value.”  As soon as a product becomes available for exchange on the market, it is thereby converted into a commodity.  Exchange-values are of a quantitative nature.  That is to say, they are valuable because they possess a certain quantity of value.

(It must be noted, however, that if a commodity loses its use-value, i.e. becomes broken or useless, it simultaneously loses any exchange-value it might have had).

How is this quantity of exchange-value determined? What is the basis for the following equation: 20 yards of linen = 1 coat? In terms of their material qualities, the two are totally incommensurable.  A coat may be made of linen, but a single coat does not require 20 yards of linen to produce.  Nevertheless, their quantitative equality presupposes an underlying qualitative identity of substance.  The question thus becomes: What exactly is this substance?

The substantial basis for the equality of two dissimilar items or use-values is the amount of labor-power expended upon them, measured in homogeneous units of time (days, hours, minutes, etc.).  This alone determines the magnitude of value that a commodity possesses.

Commodities are not unique to capitalism.  They preexist the crystallization of the capitalist social formation.  However, in precapitalist societies, the majority of goods that are produced are not commodities.  In other words, most products are intended for immediate use or consumption, either by their producer himself or his next-of-kin.  Society’s general mode of production is only properly called “capitalist” when the majority of its products are commodities.

One final point about the commodity-form should be made before passing on to money.  This concerns the extent to which one’s labor (or more specifically, one’s labor-time) can itself be sold as a commodity on the market.  An employer purchases a certain duration of a person’s labor-time in exchange for the services rendered or products produced.  In return, the employee is typically compensated by hourly wages or an annual salary.

Though wage-labor existed in the margins of precapitalist society, the reproduction of the capitalist mode of production requires that there exists a large displaced population of persons whose only commodity available for sale is their labor.  Thus, under capitalism, wage-labor or salaries becomes generalized as the societal norm.

Currency/Money — Money is a certain commodity that is set aside to serve as a universal measurement of value.  It is the universal equivalent of qualitatively dissimilar commodities.  Money therefore serves as a quantitative medium of exchange.

In another sense, money (as such) is the circulation of commodities.  That is to say, it provides the means by which the exact quantity of one commodity is traded for an exact equivalent quantity of money, which is then used to purchase a given quantity of another.  Money acts as an intermediary in place of direct barter.

This operation can be illustrated by a simple formula, using these symbols:

C = Commodity.

M = Money.

C → M → C.

One commodity is sold for its value in money, which is then used to purchase an equivalent value in another commodity.  This allows for a more equitable exchange of value between commodities than took place in simple barter, which tended to involve uneven transactions.

Capital — Capital is self-valorizing value.  In other words, it is value that becomes more value, or money (which is but an expression of value) that magically transforms itself into more money.  The principle of capitalization is that you start the day with a certain amount of money, and by the end of the day you have more money.

As Marx put it, this process is almost “theological.”  In capital, value becomes at once the subject and object of its own activity, ceaselessly augmenting its own magnitude.  The analogy Marx uses is the differentiation of God the Father from God the Son in the triune theology of traditional Christianity; they are both made from the same substance, and are equally old, yet one begets the other.

The ultimate expression of capital in all its forms is the following:

M → Mº.

(º = “prime.”  Money “prime” signifies the increment of value over and above the amount of value originally advanced.  Once thrown back into the circuit of production and circulation, however, this augmented money or value obtained as a result of capitalization becomes the starting value of the new formula).

Species of Capital

1. Interest-bearing (usurers’) capital — M → Mº.  This is the basic formula of money lending or usury.

A certain amount of money is advanced as a loan, in return for a greater amount of money to be received later, the magnitude of which is determined by a contractually agreed-upon interest rate.

2. Commercial (merchants’) capital — M → C → Mº.  In its most simple form, this just involves the purchase of a commodity for a certain amount of money and its resale for a greater amount of money.

This can be accomplished in any number of ways.  First, a merchant can simply find a chump who is willing to either sell a commodity for less than its value, or a chump who is willing to buy a commodity for greater than its value.

A more calculated approach might involve the purchase of a commodity in a locale where it is abundant (where it is not as highly valued), and then transport it for sale in a locale where the commodity is scarce (where it is more highly valued).  The difference between the money originally paid and the money received at the end of this cycle is the surplus value.

3. Industrial capital — M → C → Mº.  Formally, this circuit is identical with that of merchants’ capital.  The crucial difference consists in the nature of the commodity purchased.  In the movement of industrial capital, the commodity bought is always the labor-time of another person.

Thus, the formula for industrial capital may perhaps be more properly described as M → C(L) → Mº.

Obviously, in this formula the following symbolism is used:

L = Labor.

The labor-time expended by the worker imparts greater value onto the articles under production, thus augmenting the original value of the commodities involved.

Two methods can be used to extract surplus-value in this process:

1. Absolute surplus-value — The capitalist extends the length of the working day, so that the worker invests an amount of labor-time into production greater than the value he receives in wages.  Once the commodities produced in this process are sold in circulation on the market, the surplus-value gained thereby is “realized.”

2. Relative surplus-value — The capitalist reduces the amount of time required to impart a certain amount of value into production below the average of the social aggregate.  This is accomplished by either revolutionizing the social organization of the division of labor or by overhauling the technical means of production.  As a result, the capitalist is able to sell the commodities produced at a level lower than the social average while still realizing the same amount of surplus-value.

Of course, once these new methods of heightened productivity are generalized throughout society, the advantage gained vanishes.  This necessitates a constant revolutionization of the technologies and organization used in production, and an accelerating pace of modernization.  This gives rise to what Moishe Postone has called the “treadmill effect” of capitalism.

4. Finance capital — Mx → M → C → Mº → Mºx.  In this formula:

x = x/100, where x ≤ 100.

Finance capital operates by having investors contribute a percentage of the overall money used to supervalue the value originally inserted into the circuit.  Typically, finance is invested into industry, where again the commodity purchased is labor.  Thus, the formula in this instance would appear as Mx → M → C(L) → Mº → Mºx.

Corporation — A corporation is an association of capitalists who jointly share ownership of a single enterprise.  This is achieved by making shares of the company’s ownership available for purchase by the public.  Historically, this is connected to the rise of the join-stock exchange in the middle of the nineteenth century.  While corporations tend to be much larger and more visible than smaller private businesses, both operate according to the logic of capital.

NEGATIVE DEFINITIONS

Now that we have indicated what these terms are, we can safely say what they are not, in order to clear up some common misconceptions surrounding them. 

Commodity — A commodity is not identical to any other good, article, or product.  Unlike these other products, commodities are not produced for immediate use or consumption by their producer.  Rather, commodities are produced in order to be sold or exchanged, either for money or for other commodities.

Furthermore, commodities are not unique to capitalist society.  Obviously, there existed precapitalist systems of barter, commerce, and exchange.  The point is that throughout most of history the majority of products were not intended to serve as commodities.  They were for the most part produced to serve the most immediate needs of the producer, or alienated without recompense into the possession of one’s feudal lord.  By contrast, capitalism only comes into existence when the majority of products produced by society are commodities.

Currency/Money — The value of money is neither imaginary nor arbitrary.  Money is simply the universal equivalent form of exchange, used as a measurement of the value of goods, or commodities.  This is something of which the Alternative Currency working group should take note.

There are quite real and concrete historical reasons for the development of the money-form of value.  Precious metals came to serve as this medium of exchange because of their practical divisibility, and because of their relative scarcity (and thus also their value, given the difficulty of their location/extraction).  It is true that these metals come to be increasingly substituted by paper money representing their value, and even more abstract forms of credit, but this does nothing to diminish the validity or reality of money as an expression of value.

Capital/Capitalism — Capitalism does not necessarily entail the existence of a free market.  The libertarian notion that has become fashionable in recent years is that only under the economic conditions of laissez-faire, or government non-intervention, can capitalism flourish and exist in a “pure” form.  They cite Bernard Mandeville or a diluted, oversimplified version of Adam Smith as evidence of this proposition.

Some leftish moderates, accepting this facile rightist notion of what capitalism is, naïvely believe that administrative reform, government oversight, more expansive welfare/social programs, and bureaucratic regulations would help counter the volatility and rampant inequality inherent in capitalism.  They believe that the perpetual crisis at the core of capitalism can be “curbed,” “corrected,” or even “controlled” by such Keynesian, neo-Fordist measures.

In reality, however, state-interventionist capitalism is just as capitalist as free market capitalism.  The fundamental principle underlying capitalism in all its different configurations is perhaps elusively straightforward: capital itself.

Corporation — A corporation is not simply any form of capitalist big business.  In fact, in terms of private property, a corporation is actually less tied to the interests of a single individual than non-corporate businesses.  Because the existence of a corporation qua corporation involves an enterprise “going public,” i.e. selling shares of its ownership, it actually reflects (in terms of sheer magnitude) a larger proportion of the public interest than a smaller private enterprise.

Of course, the public character of the corporate enterprise and big agribusiness (the Monsantos of the world) shouldn’t fool us as to their capitalist nature.  A corporation is beholden only to the interest of its shareholders, and not to the public at large.  They have one obligation alone — to turn a profit for those who own a portion of their stock.  And corporations have been known to be exceptionally ruthless in this pursuit.

The only point that I am trying to make by this is to note the irrevocably capitalist character of both big corporations as well as small businesses.  Both operate according to the logic of capital: the supervaluation of value.  In other words, big corporations and small businesses have the same goal at the end of the day.  They seek to turn money into more money. Continue reading →