Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Marx is closed for inventory. We are literally not in the same world as before: classes,
people, concepts are all totally different. We need to analyze in broad outline where we
are in history, why communism is a process more than ever on the order of the day,
how it would be radically different from what it was in the 20th century, and how can
we advance in this direction.
What needs to be done is to reconstitute theoretically a communist vision for our
time, and to lay out such a vision as a coherent whole, along with the motivating and
structuring concepts and primordial considerations it presupposes. What could the
term communism signify today, both as political struggle and future social form? This
involves grasping Marx's revolutionary perspective in all its vigor and rigor, in order to
rediscover the basics of deep social transformation.
democracy' as transitional to socialism. The problem is in the non-theoretical, noncritical way this transition is understood. It ignores the most essential aspects of the
Marxist historical perspective.
The problem was not the abandonment of the concept of dictatorship of the
proletariat but how this was done: in a top-down decision, and in the absence of a
theoretical context. This was the basis of Althusser's objection, and although I had
many disagreements with him, on this issue we were in agreement. The issue was
raised at that time of how theory can be freed from its role as justifying a political
course, as in the old doctrinaire 'Marxism-Leninism'.
The 23rd Congress of 1979 was one of real strategic innovation but for me it
emphasized the contrast between political wealth and theoretical poverty. On the one
hand the notion of 'self-managing socialism', in the absence of a theoretical
foundation, quickly became an empty formula. On the other, the statutes were purged
of the traditional references to Marxism. While there were good reasons for this, the
result was a weakening of the standards of theoretical thought this name represents.
The main obstacle to all advances more and more appeared to me to be the backward
conception of the functioning and mode of life of the party. The problem was not only
an indifference of the leadership to theoretical matters covering an entire range of
fundamental questions, but the unwillingness to look at the functioning and
organization of the party itself. My differences with the leadership were more and
more political as well as theoretical.
But when we look at this we see that socialism can not be spoken of except in the
larger context of communism. This is why Lenin wanted to change the name of the
Marxist party to Communists. This is why Communist parties have this name.
We need a far more vigilant examination of the relationship between socialism and
communism than what is found in the manuals of scientific socialism. We can see right
away how unclear it all is. Socialism has been seen as the first stage of communism and
communism has been understood as the stage beyond socialism. The result is an
impoverished idea of communism. As a first step toward reconstructing this idea, let
us summarize Marx's characterization of communism:
-
universal
-
real
development
appropriation
supersession
emancipatory
by
of
the
transition
of
of
associated
rule
labor
of
beyond
the
producers
of
monopoly
the
form
productive
their
objectified
capital
it
takes
and
in
the
forces;
social
commodity
capitalist
powers;
relations;
working
class;
- free satisfaction of cultural and material needs, integral development of all individuals; - disappearance of the state
and
of
de-alienation
universalization
classes;
of
of
exchange
social
and
end
elimination
of
oppressions
consciousness;
of
humanity
of
based
on
itself;
exploitation;
class,
transition
from
the
apparent
freedom
of
contingency
- all in all, the end of human pre-history and the beginning of true human history.
race
to
and
gender;
real
freedom;
It is impossible to consider this without being taken by the visionary audacity of the
Marxist idea of communism. Each of the above, of course, requires tremendous
clarification and elaboration. This should not be seen as an itemization, however, but
as an organic whole of interconnected aspects. For example, the universal
development of productive forces is not only a development of the various forces (such
as technical capacities), but is more essentially a development of the productive force,
humanity as a whole, as it incorporates science. A perfect example of this is today's
informatization of life. Without this development, no other aspect of communism can
come about. The decisive point here is that the appropriation by society as a whole of
the major means of production and exchange is impossible without the supersession of
the market and the capitalist working class, the integral development of individuals
and the disappearance of the state. The fact that so many theorists in the Marxist
tradition have failed to recognize this has resulted in the reduction of this core of
Marxist thought to simplistic formulas, i.e. socialism = social ownership of the means
of production + 'to each according to his needs'. Moreover, the whole concept of
socialism, in principle the first phase of communism, was massively reduced to simply
that of social ownership of the means of production and exchange. This had disastrous
theoretical and practical results.
This denaturing reduction had its effect not only in the realm of ideas, where it
contributed to a substantial conceptual degeneration, but in the building of socialism
in the Stalin epoch, as it shaped strategic choices. The revolution was considered to be
complete from the moment, in the '30's, when the socialization of the means of
production and exchange had been instituted in the countryside and cities. Stalin
declared that the disappearance of the state was an impossibility in the conditions of
capitalist encirclement. The integral development of individuals, supersession of the
social division in between the functions of direction and execution, dealienation of
consciousness, were no longer on the agenda. As a result, things were converted into
their reverse. Social ownership clearly cannot effectively exist in conditions of the
persistence of an omnipotent state, of a fragmented individuality and a mystified social
consciousness. This requires what Marx envisioned as the appropriation by the
associated producers themselves of their means of production and more generally, of
their societal powers, that is, the taking possession and effective control, by working
people themselves over all the objective conditions of their activity. What happened
instead was a dispossession of the producers by a state/party bureaucracy. Cut off
from communism, this version of socialism actually reinforced social alienation.
Certainly, in the traditional culture of a party such as the PCF, 'socialism' has not
been limited to this formulation of the socialization of the means of production and
exchange, although this is considered essential to the definition. Although the
discourse has proclaimed the emancipatory virtues of communism, a closer look shows
that these have been essentially seen in the same terms. All social problems and
contradictions of capitalism will be resolved, in this view, when this primary struggle
to socialize the means of production is won. The emancipatory objectives projected for
socialism thus dwindle to a shadow of the communist vision.
Another issue in the PCF is its silence on the disappearance of the state. The result is
tacit acceptance of the entire bourgeois framework for thinking the relation of the
individual to the state, and the delegation of social power.
sufficient for the Soviet Union to at least begin the transition to communism, this
cannot be attributed solely to extrinsic factors - capitalist encirclement, etc. The main
reason has to be internal: socialism, after Lenin, repudiated its revolutionary essence
to the point of actually opposing the development of communism.
The more we look at this strange experience of the Soviet Union and its camp, the
more we have to confront the ambiguity in the vocabulary of socialism and
communism. Are they two phases of the same formation? If so, why two terms? Marx,
in the Critique of the Gotha Program, introduced the idea of two phases, but did not
call the first socialism, but rather the inferior, or undeveloped stages of communism.
Marx in fact never thought this first phase could be conceptualized in any way apart
from the second. Political thinking based on a limited vision of a socialist alternative is
thus totally foreign to Marxism.
Marx and Engels clearly chose the term 'communism' when they wrote the
Manifesto, to distinguish it from the non-theoretically based conceptions of 'socialism'
of that time. The contrast of 'socialism' to 'communism' in the mid 1800's, then, had to
do with political currents. The whole point of the Manifesto is that Marxism is a
theoretically grounded total confrontation with bourgeois forms of society,
individuality and thought. The 'socialist' parties of the time did not undertake this at
all. The politics of socialism, then and now, don't confront the world at the level found
in the Manifesto, for instance on the nature of individuality and state power.
Socialism and social democracy dominated politics at the turn of the century. Marx's
Critique of the Gotha Program was deliberately misinterpreted so that socialism
became a semi-independent first phase of communism while the latter was put off to
be thought about at another time. Communism thus became an ideal, a vague
possibility far in the future, while socialism came to be seen as real, pragmatic,
attainable. Social democracy, and dogmatized 'scientific socialism' share this reliance
on a non-Marxist conception of social transformation.
Lenin was the only one to see through this mystification and its implications.
Nevertheless this distortion characterized the workers' movements of the 20th century
including both the social democratic and communist parties. What has been
invalidated by the whole course of these movements is not communism, but this whole
conception of socialism.
Relearning communism
How do we re valorize the Marxist idea of communism in light of the failure not only
of the Eastern socialisms but of the communist and socialist parties of the West? A
central issue we have identified is the complete incapacity of both to fully
conceptualize revolutionary social transformation. The questions discussed above are
crucial in understanding the chronic impotence of the parties of the West. In the area
of strategy, the state is not questioned. Social transformation is seen as a coup, a
replacement of power from above, the revolutionary conquest of state power. The
whole strategy of seizing state power followed by the dictatorship of the proletariat has
lost all credibility but no alternative strategy or vision has been proposed in any depth.
While the French and other parties renounced the term (dictatorship of the
proletariat), they haven't truly abandoned that way of thinking.
If we want a conception that is real for the majority of people, the whole conception
of social transformation must be extended far beyond seizure of the means of
production and exchange to all the abolitions and metamorphoses and the subsequent
innovations, that is, a communism for our time, not projected in the future, but as it is
as a potential right now.
The second, and even more important, reason for the failure of the revolutionary
project in the developed capitalist countries was the crisis of historical relevance that
has devalued the very idea of socialism. From the start, Marx's ideas of communism,
enumerated above, were hard to conceive and impossible to place on a political
agenda. The very notion was tacitly dismissed as irrelevant and utopian. But how can
we fail to see its real development in today's reality? Isn't science becoming a universal
productive force? Aren't individuals struggling for a revolution in biography, of age,
sex and identity, presaging the integral development of individuals? Isn't the
unprecedented expansion of wage labor, leading to broader use of human capacities
the beginning of a supersession of the traditional working class? The growth of citizen
initiatives, globalization - although in monstrous form - represent a trend toward
human universality and planetary regulation.
The main point is that means, by which we understand human organization in the
production of goods, gradually become subordinate to ends: the development of
people, the humanity we aspire to be, the form of social life, our historic horizons.
There is no real answer to these questions outside the perspective of communism. The
communist parties have by and large failed to address this entire range of questions,
sticking to old conceptions, but recently dabbling with a little bit of ecologism. The fact
is, the social revolution of the 21st century will be communist, or it will not be.
It bears repeating that we are not attempting to depict an ideal future and to
formulate a politics of how to get there. We are not calling for the abandonment of real
present day struggles for social progress in favor of a focus on vague future ideals. By
communism we must understand not only a future social formation but a current
process. To speak of the communist vision is to call for seeing the tendencies at work
right now pushing toward overcoming the human limits of the present social order.
This way of thinking avoids both the socialist utopianism of imagining abolitions by
decree, and the reformist conceptions confined to a 'socialism' that retains the most
basic features of bourgeois society. It attempts to think the process of social
transformation in the deep dialectical complexity of the process in which concrete
things really change.
The real task, however, is to develop a new politics. Communist parties have never
tackled these issues. They have not seen their relevance to all aspects of political
thinking. Issues of the changes in the working class, the nature of the state, the relation
of the individual to the collectivity, the fragmentation of individuality and
development of the spectrum of human capacities - these questions are not in the
distant future, but are here today. In fact it is the limitation of our thinking to
'socialism' that ties our hands and limits the forms and terrains of struggle to defensive
measures against the ravages of capital. We must broaden the struggle to supersede
capitalism and to all fronts: capitalist forms, commodity-labor, the state, domination,
mystified consciousness, the hundreds of relations that produce and reproduce
alienation, etc. We must construct an authentic communist strategy, as realistic in its
immediate objectives as suggestive of the immense goals that provide their true
meaning. Thus, the actors of today begin to see the communist goal of their acts.
theoretical thought. This itself is not the subject of this book, which is devoted
essentially to political questions.
A question to be taken up here, however, concerns the rationality of history. The
communist perspective has meaning only within a historical logic which implies
intelligibility of the present (up to a point) and pre-visibility of the future. Only in
these conditions can our objectives be deemed plausible and our actions effective. It
presupposes that we are still living in class society and that today's class contradictions
themselves engender the presuppositions for the transition to a classless society. If we
can name the present it is not absurd at all to suppose that we can name the future.
This is the historic rationality of the communist era.
The dominant ideology never ceases to force upon us the belief in the impossibility
of envisioning an alternative world, and with the demise of 'socialism', this view was
pushed ever more forcefully, joined by many erstwhile leftists who went along with the
idea that 'communism' can no longer be seen as an alternative.
This requires us to look briefly at a question of fact: did Marx over rationalize history
- not in an idealist way, as in Hegel, for whom the course of history is the
manifestation of Reason, but even in the materialist terms of necessity and most
importantly, in his conception of determinism? This issues has been raised and argued
over hundreds of times. Indeed, Marx adhered to a notion of causality in historical
movement - he saw a necessary connection between the general character of each
epoch of productive forces, human included, and the global structure of their class
relations, and more broadly and less strictly, with other structures and
superstructures. Each social formation, for Marx, is an organic totality whose
evolution is no more haphazard than that of a biological being. We can study the logic
of its functioning, and see the coming of a changes in its development and major
features of its contents. Thus, the capitalist mode of production, where we find class
contradictions heightened to their extreme, produces the conditions for transition to a
classless social formation where the class antagonisms that characterize thousands of
years of human history are left behind, relegated to the pre-history of social humanity.
History, for Marx, is not a dark night in which we don't see what we're doing, where
we're going or what we want. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference between
this understanding and what is properly spoken of as determinism.
First of all, this materialist theorization includes the living consciousness that
concrete social formations contain inexhaustible singularities, an infinite variety of
historical trajectories based on general logics of development. Each capitalist society,
for instance, has a familiar air, basic similarities to all others, despite immense
differences. History is saturated with chance and to this extent is unforseeable. The
necessity that reigns in nature is not univocal but dialectical. It includes contradictions
and works ceaselessly through the range of possibles. The laws of evolution essentially
express tendencies and contra-tendencies in dynamics that can always lead to
unexpected results. No evolution is linear, no process mechanical, no development
identical to itself or others, no history written in advance. Moreover, unlike natural
processes, historical events can't occur without us. But human freedom doesn't
suspend necessity, just as the airplane doesn't suspend gravity. The future is never
closed. This open necessity, equally far from scientistic determinism and obscurantist
contingentism, is where the actors of history may draw theoretical and practical
lessons derived from their experience.
question much earlier, for instance by Max Weber's thinking on the intrinsic
incompleteness of history and the arbitrariness of interpretation, by Dilthey, Jaspers
and Freud who showed that the meaning we attribute to our actions is essentially
illusory. After the war, Merleau-Ponty took up an earlier theme that logic and history
are intrinsically separate.
Without doubt the most important was Levi-Strauss who undertook the most radical
deconstruction. The final chapter of La Pense Sauvage was aimed overtly at Sartre
and covertly at Marx. It put forward enormous provocations as though they were
proven facts. All of history, according to Levi-Strauss, is an illusion, an artifact of a
discipline constituting its object. History in fact is a series of dates with no unity; it
decomposes into autonomous sequences based ultimately on infra-historical and
unconscious causalities - biological, geological and cosmological which he calls the
true infrastructures of historical materialism. Thus the linear continuity called history
is not linked to man, the meaning we ascribe to our historical experiences is never the
correct one, the supposed intelligibility of history, the meaning we ascribe to our
actions, is a myth. Levi-Strauss comes to this memorable conclusion: the French
revolution, as generally understood, in fact, never existed.
The theme of the illusion of historic rationality is developed further by many others.
Paul Veyne, for instance, in his study of Foucault (Foucault Revolutionizes History),
claims that "History, as we have spoken of it for two centuries, doesn't exist". All that
exists are "singular constellations"; the rest is "but a word". By demonstrating that
madness does not exist but is only constituted or dissolved by practices that give it the
appearance of an object, Foucault magisterially showed the way to a veritable
"completion of history", "dynamiting all rationalizing political philosophy". 'Ideology',
'the state', 'politics' even natural objects don't really exist, according to Veyne. Only a
Marxist would cling to the naive belief in an object.
This crusade is joined by F. Lyotard. Branding Marxist thought as the "totalizing
model and its totalitarian effects", he countered this peril with an irrevocable
decomposition of grand narratives. These are the broad mythologico-historic themes
such as class struggle and human emancipation that have always served to "legitimate"
authority. Post-modern science, with its understanding of the discontinuous,
catastrophic, paradoxical, sees human society for what it really is, "immense clouds of
linguistic matter". Notions such as class struggle, for Lyotard, are nothing but a
"protestation for honor".
A different direction is taken by Michel Serres, in his analysis of historical time. All
contemporary sciences, according to Serres, show that time is not linear, but turbulent
and chaotic. It "percolates", is "crumbled", "embossed", "pleated" .... All our problems
in the theory of history have to do with the naive way time has been understood. Ideas
based on a notion of temporal progression are disqualified, especially Marxism. The
dialectic is thus uninteresting and irrelevant. The entire Marxist mode of thought is
obsolete.
point of endangering humanity's future. In the face of this, how can we continue to say
history is a play of appearances, with no continuity, no meaning we can identify and
thus that there is no reasonable enterprise for us to undertake? This looks to me not
only like an intellectual aberration but a civic defection. Unconsciously bearing a
rationality through its singular twists and turns, history is not even this pure "process
without subject or end", as in Althusser's reduction: not without grave limitations and
regressions up to now, somehow there has come to be a subject and finality.
Grafted onto the great historical tendencies, the great axiological visions have never
ceased to give birth to great political and human causes, whose mobilizing virtues,
transcending the borders of generations as well as nations, enabling us to construct
this partially civilized world of ours. The struggle for the French Republic, the long
march for de-colonization, the irrepressible emergence of an autonomous human
individuality, given impetus today by the struggle for true equality of women. How can
anyone dare to say, in light of the fruits of these struggles and many others, that they
are nothing but fictitious Grand Narratives, with no existence but in our imagination,
that 'the Republic', 'sovereignty', or 'equality' don't exist?
temporary framework that made one type of transformative strategy possible and
others impossible. While the term 'conjuncture' refers to the singularity of a moment,
historic window can refer to a whole period. The truth is, the previous window was
already closing in May of 1968, revealing the progressive obsolescence of traditional
communism, not to mention Brezhnevism.
Today this historic window, identified with the Manifesto, is irremediably closed.
The 'working class' is no longer the great figure identified with the potential forces of
social transformation. Its vision of socialism is not sufficient, of revolution not
adequate, and of the party not appropriate. The cause remains but in totally different
concrete determinations. This is the dividing line between an archaic communism,
refusing to acknowledge this closure, cut off from the future, and a communism that
takes on the task of exploring theoretically and practically the new historic window,
still so little understood. This means understanding the conflict between capital and
anti-capital today and inventing a new, authentically communist culture, politics and
organizational forms that will allow us to take part in this struggle.
No, Marx did not over-rationalize history. He tried to dialecticize it in a materialist
way. He did underestimate the time-frame for completion of the processes he
discerned. He saw the transition from the era of pre-history as a short, homogeneous
epoch, rather than a very long history of changing historic windows. It is this changing
that we will endeavor to clarify.
The future indeed has a name. Despite its contingencies, turbulence, discontinuities
and false appearances, history, in its stubborn objectivity harbors enough logic to offer
a combative subjectivity a reasonable chance to carry out a great cause. Now isn't it
ever more necessary, objectively as well as subjectively, to put an end to a class society,
always inhuman, but today dramatically unleashing a proliferating and irreversible
dehumanization of the human species?
Finally, one might ask, if we can say the future is a classless society, why use the
name 'communism', particularly if the 'communist question' is far from foreclosed?
Two objections have been raised to use of the word communism as the theoretical and
political designation of the movement for universal emancipation - its semantic
content and its historic resonance. Regarding the first, while the term implies
solidarity and collectivity, it itself doesn't signify Marx's conception of the end of
history - the "complete and free development of all individuals". But the decisive
novelty of the historic window taking shape today does not nullify the continuity with
the project Marx envisioned of finally emerging from the era of pre-history
characterized by class society. The term 'communism' has come to signify the nonnegotiable radicality of the social transformation to be undertaken. Perhaps in the
future there will be another word, but for today, this is the word with these
connotations.
which speaks not only of capital and labor, but of the individual, the family, state,
nation, law and morality, Marx undertook a colossal enterprise of economic critique in
a much more limited area. And of the plan of work he outlined for this subject in 18579, Capital dealt with only a part - leaving out, with the State, the global market and its
crises, which would have completed the long march from the most simple abstraction
of commodity production to the concrete complexities of the capitalist economy. These
reductions and omissions have led to terrible misunderstandings. The dominant
reading of Capital, from the workers' movements of the 19th century to Althusser, has
been essentially limited to Book I, with enormous theoretical and political
consequences. The question is still open, therefore, of the extent to which Marxist
materialism has suffered from an intrinsic underestimation of the superstructural in
relation to the base, and more generally, of the symbolic in relation to the thing. As we
critically project the concept of communism onto the realities of the contemporary
world, we must always bear in mind everything that such a concept may be leaving out,
especially with regard to an historical window that no contradiction will be too many
to open wide.
development of productivity, but at the same time it renders this private form obsolete.
Thus, it is the development of capital itself that unwittingly creates the conditions for
the socialization of these means, which in turn can put an end to class exploitation.
The anarchy of the market is replaced with a social mastery consisting of rational plans
for human needs. Here we find the roots of the revolutionary culture oriented toward
socialism, in the classic sense of the term. Many have seen this notion of
transformation as the quintessence of Marxism, to which nothing essential can be
added or subtracted.
But if we study Capital up to book III, we discover a far broader panorama opening
up revolutionary horizons that have yet to be developed. The fundamental
contradiction the analysis now concerns is the tendential fall of the rate of profit, i.e.
the relationship between profit gained and capital advanced which constitutes the true
'motive force' of capitalist production (book III p. 271 ES 1957). This tendency has to
do with the most essential logics of capital: as it unendingly accumulates past labor
which is now objectified as fixed capital in the form of the means of production, i.e.
machinery, technology, etc., it increasingly valorizes this 'dead labor', in relation to
'living labor', the productive work of living people in the present. The profit yield from
living labor steadily decreases relative to the yield from dead labor. According to Marx,
"from all points of view, this is the most important law of modern political economy
and the most essential for the comprehension of the most complex relations
(Grundrisse book II p. 236)."
In this law, we are able to see capitalism's deeply historical and essentially transitory
function: to assure the unlimited advance of productivity in a form where in which
dead crush the living, which contradictorily imposes on this advance the most severe
and absurd limits. At the same time its violent efforts to counteract this falling rate of
profit in every possible way become clear: above all through an insatiable superexploitation of workers, but also by the massive devalorization of capitals, resulting in
tremendous waste; an aggressive international expansion creating a world market; the
technological appropriation of the formidable powers of science, which raises
productivity to unprecedented heights while unleashing contradictions themselves
unprecedented.
Marx's approach to the two processes we have been considering - the process of
production and the development of the capitalist economy as a whole - can be summed
up as follows: the general law of capitalist accumulation enables us to grasp the
recurrent functioning of the system while the law of the tendential fall of the rate of
profit allows us to understand the development of its strategies and ultimately of its
present structural crisis.
Through these processes, new pre-conditions for capitalism's supersession
accumulate, in particular those of the possible and necessary transition to a mode of
the advancement of productivity based, contrary to the preceding, on economies of
fixed capital made possible by the incorporation of science into the productive
apparatus, which in turn allow the financing of the most ambitious development of
capacities in all individuals. This inversion of the previous historic tendency opens the
way to unparalleled economic efficiency and human development. This brings us to a
major conclusion: when we consider the form of ownership of the means of production
we touch on the essential only to the extent that it can create a situation far more
favorable to the thorough transformation of the content of management of financial
and economic activities. Here is the root of the problem: in the absence of this, nothing
of importance can change, as we have seen in the French experience of the
nationalizations of 1981.
The supersession of capitalism, in other words, requires far more than socialism as it
has been ordinarily understood - that is, where the socialization of the means of
production is considered to be the fundamental act which in itself puts an end to
human exploitation. This supersession requires a communist transformation that
revolutionizes many other essential relations and historic tendencies of class society,
not only in their form but in their content, and which we can summarize as this
cardinal reversal: human development finally comes to predominate over the
production of goods.
But does this formulation mean we are allowing our rigorous economic analysis to
regress into a vague philosophical humanism? This point is even more decisive than
we might at first believe. When we read Capital carefully, we cannot help but see the
deliberate persistence of 'philosophical' formulations by means of which Marx situates
the very essence of capitalism in its irrepressible propensity to reverse the most
universal of relations: those of person to thing and of means to ends. Capitalism, he
writes many times, is that social form which personifies things and thingifies (reifies)
persons, which promotes means to ends and demotes ends to means. (Author lists
numerous pages in Grundrisse and Capital).
Synonymous with endless accumulation, in the dual sense of the word, capitalism
makes the frenzy of private enrichment, paid for by the immense sacrifice of
individuals, the most absurd 'goal in itself'. Here, in the final analysis, and by
definition what should be its triumph, is the deep anthropological reason that denies
historical permanence to this mode of social organization, and even to humanity itself
if it cannot free itself from it. Isn't the immense question of ends, far too little familiar
to traditional communist culture, presently becoming more and more crucial? We will
come back to this.
of the market, the state and the logic of power, the international arena and the
"inevitability of war", dominant ideas and illusory appearances...
But why are these powers alienated? This has to do not with some natural fate but
with an historic situation. Specifically human activities are based in the ceaselessly rebeginning and expanding cycle of their social objectivation in productions of
cumulative complexity, from the first tools and signs to the technologies and
theorizations of today, and of their constant subjective appropriation by individuals. In
this process, the individuals themselves are developing. As history progresses, the
elements of the cycle become more complex. But this complexification is paralleled by
a triple process of social division: the division of labor, which, as Engels said, "also
divides people", fragmenting their capacity for reappropriation; the divisions of class,
which place the majority of material and cultural riches outside the reach of the great
majority of individuals; and at the present stage of history, what we could call the
division of phase. In this division, we see that human capacities that have been
objectified in gigantic social powers begin to enter an era in which they are no longer
governable in the existing social framework which prevents the development of
universal cooperation and integral individuality.
Thus, we are living the paroxysm of alienation, this antagonistic form that inevitably
imprints the objectivation of human powers with the epoch of fragmented humanity.
Alienation, therefore, is not a social science concept limited to a specific sector, such as
exploitation; it is a global category of historic anthropology, less explicative than
interpretive, but more generally, critical and prospective, philosophical without any
vagueness, and rigorously indispensable to conceive the general logic of humanity's
trajectory. The concept of alienation encompasses, without dissolving, the concept of
economic exploitation, as well as biographical fragmentation, social reification,
political subjection, and ideological illusion. While the concept of exploitation enables
us to conceive of socialism; alienation constitutes the category par excellence of
communism, for which it even supplies a basic definition: communism is both the
process and result of supersession of all the great historic alienations through which
the human species has contradictorily developed until now.
What do we gain practically from these very theoretical considerations for the
challenges that face us today? It is here that we must take stock of the effects of the
historic reduction of communist culture to its socialist version, whose assigned task
can be summed up as putting an end to the exploitation of workers. We can do this by
pursuing the reverse - by studying the enrichment that the re-production of Marx's full
original conception can provide in today's conditions. The traditional culture of
socialism focuses on the production of material goods, its means and their forms of
ownership, its actors and thus the working class. These are the basic terms of more
than a century of revolutionary history. To go from here to a communist culture of
general de-alienation doesn't imply at all losing sight of this - quite the opposite: the
exploitation of labor is itself a 'great historic alienation' because, as Marx repeatedly
emphasized, it is based on the separation of the producers from their means of
production. This remains a major concern for all adversaries of capital.
Thinking in terms of de-alienation calls for an enormous expansion of the area of
contradictions brought within the scope of the communist perspective. Even in
Capital, with all its limitations from the point of view presented here, we find briefly
but clearly indicated the ravageous tendencies of capitalism such as the exhaustion of
nature or the falsification of products, the growing needs, such as for a radical change
of content in the education of the younger generation or for a relation between the
sexes that opens the way to a family of a new type, for the demystification of
consciousness, freeing its universe from the commodity and its fetishism: these are all
possible bases for seizing the transformative initiatives too often left to others, or even
treated as diversions. Furthermore, alienation, understood unambiguously as a sociohistorical process, is at the same time the most profound biographical logic, since all
forms of society imply forms of individuality. This double category thus enables us to
think social antagonism and personal suffering together, to join in practice the
motivations for transformation of the world and for recovery of the self. This would
render to politics its full anthropological and ethical dimension, a decisive expansion.
Ultimately involving the whole person, the culture of dealienation concerns everyone.
This is why increasingly, the forces likely to contribute to the supersession of
capitalism can be found well beyond the ranks of workers, in all social sectors.
limit myself to discussion of the most obvious changes, the sources of the necessary
recasting of our concept of communism, with an acknowledgment in advance of the
risks of arguable interpretations and diagnostic errors.
whose direct recipient is the human being. Capitalism thus kills their very reason to be.
We see this in highly financed sports, where everything has a price and is for sale, or in
scientific information, where new ideas are metamorphosed into salable products.
Knowledge ceases to be a public good. (note - health care, education, transportation,
the whole ideology of doing away with 'big government', i.e. the public sphere - to be
replaced by private, profit-making interests)
The second imperative is confiscation. The commodification of services forces their
submission to the criterion of capitalist efficiency. But how can we bend them in the
interest of maximal short term profitability in an atmosphere of open discussions? The
capitalist seizure of services signifies the death of all true democracy in matters of
choice, and above all with implications in health, information, culture .... where
nothing less than our humanity is decided. Isn't this the seed of what could be a 21st
century totalitarianism?
The worst is that in this commodification and confiscation we see the implacable
inversion of relations between ends and means. Not that it was ever otherwise with
capital. As Marx repeatedly emphasized, capital pursues nothing but its own
valorization. Its goal is not to satisfy needs but to make profits. Thus its constant
tendency to sacrifice the quality of the product to the rate of profit. But what is new is
that the 'product' whose quality is turned into a simple means in the pursuit of profit is
nothing other than the human ends of service activity. A logic of dehumanization is
thus begun whose effects continue to get more monstrous until this inversion can be
reversed. Thus, in the 'biomedical revolution' underway, in many ways so promising,
increasingly it is not finance that is the means for research, but research that has
become a means for finance. The results are visible everywhere, and above all in the
U.S. where, for example, the catalog sale of frozen embryos has developed, as well as
genetic testing by companies and its intrusion into personal life, not to mention the
eventual development of cloning, all while there is scarcely any money for struggles
such as against AIDS in Africa.
Service capitalism has thus induced in the most highly human activities a
hemorrhaging of meaning that has already enfeebled many aspects of cultured life, in
the truest sense of the term 'culture'. Television, for example, with its extraordinary
possibilities, has become a means for sale of advertising to an audience, whose screen
exalts everything from banks to toilet paper. A perfect image of a total perversion:
meaning dies in the interest of the means of non-sense. Only through immense efforts
have some limits been placed on this development which threatens all services today,
including schools, which emphasizes all the more the urgency of greatly expanded
struggles.
The civilized future of the world put on automatic pilot by the profitability of
finance: no doubt this is a new chapter in the book of capital, but how does this call for
a reconfigured concept of communism? Unlike all forms of exploitation, the alienation
involved here doesn't constitute its victims into a class, a radical departure from the
traditional Marxist framework. Is this a process in some way outside of class? Not at
all, in a sense: the spread of capital to these services is the clearest of the class-based
seizures, and the struggle against it is unequivocally an anti-capitalist struggle. But
while there is surely a class at one pole of the contradiction, the disconcerting fact is
that there is no class at the other. The problem of alienation goes beyond the interests
of a determinate social category; it is the human finality of everyone's activities. This
dissymmetry has profound implications: it calls for engaging in a class struggle not
only in the name of a class but for people's humanity itself. This is not at all a slide into
a simplistic humanism, but rather the most rigorous confrontation with the
dehumanization produced by capital. This is how Marx saw a new stage of history
prefigured in the development of the working class which produces everything while
owning nothing. The working class ultimately represents, for Marx, the 'dissolution of
all classes', that is, the negative prefiguration of a future de-alienated relation between
people and their social wealth.
We see outlined here, some new possibilities for the joining forces of partners who
otherwise have extreme differences. While broad coalitions have come together, for
example, in the struggle for peace, in this case the direct object for the first time would
be the supersession of capitalism. While this assemblage of persons and forces will no
doubt reach universality, it will at least be a broad plurality. Alienation impacts
everyone, but each as an individual in his or her personal singularity and
unpredictable reaction. Thus we see here and there early signs of overcoming the
traditional schisms between left and right, for example in matters of health, education,
ecology or bioethics, as people find agreement on values such as respect for the
integrity of the person. This offers truly unprecedented chances to create relations of a
majoritarian, indeed irresistible force that could bring about changes involving
essential de-alienations.
Civilized humanity against the dehumanizing economy of profit: in this ethicopolitical way of posing the question, both in terms of class and not in terms of class,
don't we already see on the horizon the goal of our struggles to emerge from our prehistory, in a transparent opening toward a future classless society?
Some misunderstandings
These considerations can be easily misunderstood as we shall see. For instance, the
preceding in no way declares that class struggles in the traditional sense of the term
are obsolete. Exploitation persists, and is more ferocious than ever; the struggle for its
class victims remains entirely on the political agenda. But it would be blind not to see
the equally serious enormous new extension of forms of alienation, in which major
social activities are deprived of their meaning, so that all participants, regardless of
class differences, find themselves qualitatively attacked in their very life. Therefore, a
fundamental trait of the new historic window for the supersession of the current state
of affairs is that the class struggle against capital can become a general struggle for a
more civilized humanity in all areas.
(note 5 pages of discussion of controversies, differences and misunderstandings
within PCF and outside, on some of these points. Sve's main point is that the
supersession of communism requires the communist vision and theory of dealienation right now - thinking only in economic terms, with the goal of socialization of
the means of production, or establishment of a 'socialist market' is not enough.
However, this does not at all mean underestimating or abandoning traditional
struggles against exploitation or a class understanding. Also, While broader issues of
racism, sexism, meaning, etc. can't be subsumed under 'seizure of the means of
production', it is equally wrong to think we can treat them in themselves, outside a
larger historical understanding of the dynamics of exploitation and alienation.)
contradictorily, the bases of the commodity order, in pushing intensely to the highest
level this rebellion from the market which so called non-productive labor represents,
this non-commodity that is information in itself, these activities in themselves noncommodities that assure the multiform development of people - and such a promotion
having not a little to do with its structural crisis? We can say that ultimately it strives
to bring everything into the market-form. But, it can be objected, don't the
extraordinary ravages that result make the alienation inherent in this form an
unsurpassable reality? Marx endeavored to show that the market is the great
universalizer, but at the price of the all-powerful fetishization of the commodity and
money, of the generalized inversion of relations between person and thing, end and
means; a very effective economic regulator, but at the price of a drastic reduction of
evaluative criteria, of flying blind to the cost of its social effects on long term human
finalities. In these conditions, doesn't the concept of 'market socialism' point us in a
highly questionable direction?
In considering the question of the market in relation to the supersession of
capitalism, there remains the question of the collapse of socialism without a market,
which was the Soviet-style society. But how can it be shown that this failure was the
logical result of the official suppression of the market, notwithstanding the
proliferation of black markets? Wasn't it more likely that the flagrant overall
inefficiency of this model tended to the extreme primitivism lined with the worst
bureaucratism of economico-financial regulations that was brutally substituted for the
mechanisms of the market? Moreover this was in a context of weak productivity and
generalized alienation of social relations, for example, the incapacity to maintain an
operative system of accountability of total time of social labor, whose importance Marx
emphasized for a post-capitalist economy.
The strategic conclusion to draw is completely different: in place of an installation in
the so disquieting perspective of a 'market socialism', but also at the other pole from an
abrupt 'abolition of the market', completely chimerical in any case, the issue is to
initiate an historic phase of the supersession of capitalism in working, in the
commodity sector of goods and services as well as finance, to increasingly replace the
dominant criteria of segmental private profit with one of total social efficacy. The
ensemble of these structural innovations and politico-social struggles would thus
constitute the most democratically and most internationally possible, a tremendous,
ceaselessly rectifiable historical experimentation in the progressive exit from the
market. While this perspective allows for the lasting presence of a market, it is
essentially distinct from the preceding: isn't to accept the idea of market socialism,
even in part, to risk indefinitely maintaining the non-supercedability of more than one
terrible aspect of the current state of affairs, to stay limited within a periodized view of
the future in which only the immediate 'tasks of socialism' are on the agenda,
marginalizing a communism concerned with problems of 'postmodernity' largely
disconnected from the stakes of the present?
Should we envision a market socialism or a postmarket communism? This is a highly
charged question when we come to the contemporary drama and the possible future of
social labor. Are we living an historical crisis of labor as we are often told? This
formulation is both a good measure and a bad analyzer of the contradictions involved.
Labor is both less at the center and more at the center of life. Less, because it is only a
part of life, which is a larger whole, and more, because it, as ever, provides the power
to make something of life, to be the subject of one's history. Marx had this in mind
when he stated that with the growing objectivation of science in the productive
apparatus, "the time of immediate labor can no longer remain in its abstract
opposition to free time" (Grundrisse book 2, 199-200). Advanced capitalism brings
about a vital need for a higher recomposition of the individual, currently fragmented,
who would then be able to reappropriate the whole of his or her social powers. Isn't it
this inexorable mutation of labor which underlies the crisis of the capitalist work-force,
where the producer of multiple competencies finds him or herself drastically reduced
to the unidimensionality of an abstract market value? This is where the movement of
capital, requiring ever more from the worker while according him less and less, as seen
in mass unemployment, endless uncertainty, denial of rights, itself precipitates the
obsolescence of the wage system integral to it. Is there a more eloquent indicator of the
objective maturation of the need for communism? Despite the multitude of ways
envisioned out of this crisis, one thing emerges as clear: the future of human labor lies
beyond its reduction to a commodity.
What can we conclude from all of this? First of all, that the extraordinary changes in
things and people since Marx's time, far from rendering the idea of communism
obsolete, has made these ideas more contemporary than ever. But the global concept of
communism we have outlined here now calls for a double modification that will make
it more precise. Until the end, Marx believed the overturning of capitalism would
involve an abrupt revolution untertaking, in a short time, major economic and political
transformations, followed by a much slower evolution of the lower phase toward the
higher phase of communist society. Significantly, Marx liked to use the metaphor of a
delivery-room.
But today we must envision the supersession of capitalism as an immense ensemble
of gradual, constant qualitative transformations, whose essence is revolutionary
despite the absence of an abrupt or violent character. To those who think that
revolutionary changes must be abrupt or violent, we would offer an image from
modern physics. In what it calls second order phase transitions. At extremely high
pressure, the rigid thresholds between different states of matter disappear. This
suggests a new metaphor: at very high levels of social and political pressure, partial
qualitative changes of the social structure may become inevitable without
revolutionary cataclysm. This is why we consider the new possibilities for anticapitalist
coalitions that go far beyond the traditional class sense of 'tous ensemble' (all for one
and one for all) to be extremely important. We will return to these important
questions.
But at the same time, isn't the Marxist distinction between the 'lower' and 'higher'
phases of the new society too much dialectics? Certainly, the perspective that the
supersession of capitalism will require a whole historic phase implies the ongoing
coexistence and conflict of capitalist and postcapitalist elements in the same social
formation, the first more or less limiting the scope of the second. Nevertheless we have
to envision from the start the explicit and concrete ways to carry out truly communist
advances, for example in effective social appropriations, the supersession of
commodity logics, the direct conquest of power, lasting ideological demystification,
etc. From a distant goal, that it was to a large extent even for Marx, communism can
begin to be seen in terms of partial short term objectives. This requires ambitious
innovations in concretely challenging a capitalist order already more deeply fragile
than it appears.
But these insights, often overlooked in the immensity of his economic work, for years
were ignored altogether by the political culture of the communist movement, to the
point that the simple mention of the individual was likely to be taken as suspect. To be
sure, the communist parties of the West, continuing the traditions of bourgeois
humanism, although not without arguments, have internalized the culture of human
rights. But it is a long way from there to a true understanding that we can't change the
world without changing human life. Today it is difficult not to see that a social
relations and individual lives within society are inseparable, so that a social crisis is no
less existential than structural, and a political perspective only becomes plausible to
the extent that it offers internalizable meaning to each individual. In today's growing
aspiration of men and women to be freely and clearly a self, we can see one of the main
indicators of the objective historical maturation of communism. But this obliges us to
pose at least two questions.
First and foremost, according to Marx, while the transition to the integral individual
is required by the universal character taken on by the productive forces of capital itself,
only communist society is capable of accomplishing this. The full development of the
individual is thus a resultant effect much more than an efficient cause, and is thereby
relegated to the future. While this relegation is comprehensible a century and half ago,
is it valid at today's stage of development of human individuality? This question
involves the way we think and apply historical materialism. Tenacious as the opposite
impression has been, this has never implied that the material base of history consists
only of things: in fact, people make up the main part of the pre-conditions basic to
every epoch. Clearly, object realities and objective relations play a fundamental role in
historical movement, and every deep transformation proceeds through their necessary
alteration. We cannot change life while leaving things as they are. But who will change
them if not individuals whose shared knowledge and political organization have been
constituted into effective historical forces?
There is thus a dialectic in which the revolutionizing of fundamental relations is
implemented by the decisive intervention of actors, who, while concerned primarily
with the intolerable objective contradictions of the existing world, add their irreducible
subjective ingredients. Thus, at the level of individuals impatient with the state of
affairs, a passive historical determinism must be replaced with an audacious political
determination. For instance, in traditional communist culture, only 'socialism' could
liberate women. History showed otherwise: the feminist movement didn't wait to
change things, giving lie to the idea that things can't change beyond a certain point
until primordial social relations are reversed. This is a crucial lesson for a new
communism: the integral development of each must begin today. And it begins with
isn't it once and for all indispensable to appropriate the concepts of the person and the
order of the person, so decisive for treating the ethical dimension implicated in so
many problems? Isn't it necessary to bring clarity to the significance of the famous
formula, "to each according to his needs", so often interpreted as the consumerist
chimera par excellence - due to the failure to grasp that, as Marx made clear,
(Grundrisse vol. 1, 160-1), it is precisely the abstract form of money that confers on our
needs, in themselves limited, the insatiability characteristic of the frenzy for
enrichment, which sums up all alienation? While human needs are often seen as
unlimited, requiring the mechanism of money for allocating limited resources, in fact,
it is the thirst for profit by multinational finance that is unlimited and that pushes
everything to dangerous extremes.
Isn't this the moment, if ever there was one, to pose the question of ends? Where do
we want the movement for the affirmation of human individuality to take us? Toward
the omnipresence of an arrogant particularization or the deepening of a civilized
personalization. What does this imply concretely? This is an open question because the
humanity of people is not entirely made; it forever remains a beyond to envision, and
no doubt it is exactly of this that it consists.
There is a practical concern as well. The damage inflicted on persons by capital today
is indescribable. Nothing is more urgent than to confront this inexpiable malfeasance.
But 'humanity is the world of humanity'. The human ends of the communist struggle
should therefore lead us to pose, in the broadest and most ambitious way, the
fundamental questions of the content of activities in which the individual is formed
and malformed - those of work, non-work and outside of work, of school and
neighborhood, town or city, of culture in all its personalizing dimensions, of politics,
etc. To paraphrase Ernst Bloch, a communist politics must be more 'individual than
any before it.'
The insurrectional seizure of state power, on the other hand, has never in itself
conferred hegemony, and this is why it never puts an end to the violence which it
presupposes. On the other hand, the progressive formation of a hegemony leads
sooner or later to power in the conditions of majority consent. This is the only
plausible alternative to the dictatorship of the proletariat. It requires a decisive
renewal of the political: no longer the limited struggle between partisan apparatuses
for governance of the state, which becomes a goal in itself, but the broad participation
of the citizens in everything concerning their social life. The political, re-acquiring
meaning, becomes once again the center of public life.
How does this make it credible that the state should and must disappear? We
ordinarily assume that the state is no more supersedable than the market - which
relegates communism altogether to a myth. But before we pass judgment on the
feasibility of such a disappearance let us ask what bearing this has for the Marxist
perspective. Two things, fundamentally distinct in principle, are confounded in the
word 'state'. In this power above and apart from civil society, the power of people over
their social life is both objectified as public administration and alienated in political
domination. Simplistic ideology hides this second aspect under the first, maintaining
the fiction of a neutral state. Doing justice to this false appearance, the Marxist critique
does not imply at all a symmetrical reduction. On the contrary, it seeks to emancipate
the first from the second: when the class character of the state is removed, the division
between civil society and its organized power is overcome. Power is reappropriated by
the citizens, putting an end to political alienation. The key question that must be
confronted is this: is it or is it not possible to supersede capitalism and all its great
historic alienations while leaving intact the instrument par excellence of human
domination, the class state?
But how to undertake the disappearance of this state without being in power? While
the task is arduous, the answer in principle is easy: the class state is the alienation of
political power; everything that de-alienates politics causes this power to recede. The
key to the processes is not in some part of the state apparatus, but is throughout civil
society, in multiplying these reappropriations of effective power until fundamental
changes in the state apparatus itself become inevitable. The extinction of the state is
thus the very opposite of the disappearance of politics: the future is not in a boundless
administration of things, but in a self-government oriented to people. Here also,
everything begins today, with whatever critical consciousness and oppositional
initiatives may develop in all domains, with the extension, until it is hegemonic, of the
demand at all levels for a democracy that can't be rescinded, built for the citizens from
direct decentralized powers and true means of central control. A de-statization of the
state can all the better begin today when the ravages of capital mire it in ever deeper
crisis. The crisis of efficacy and credibility that results for institutional powers - often
with the exception of the municipal level - is such that deep structural transformations
are less and less avoidable.
At the international level, for instance, the growing aspiration for a reconception of
the UN or the forced resignation of the Commission of Brussels in March 1999 give an
idea of the possibilities. At the national level, although for the political parties, whether
they admit it or not, the time has come for an authentic refoundation, the
understanding is gaining ground that there is a need for a new constitution,
inaugurating a new Republic with a completely different democratic content. The
disappearance of the state can also happen through its refounding, thus making it
contribute to its own disappearance in the interest of a new age of politics, a very
different articulation of powers, a fundamental democratization of political functions,
and a revitalization of all civic life.
meaning. Here too, on the level of globalization, our perspective requires that we begin
with the ends.
After decades in which the communist idea lost the intense universalist luster of its
origins, everything points to the need to reappropriate it. In the face of capitalist
globalization we must advance the most resolute internationalism, but of a new
generation. We have paid dearly to learn the pitfalls of an immature universality that
was seen as driving a 'particular', whether the state or party or a superpower, which
then itself became the obstacle to a more advanced universalization. The human
universality we are moving toward won't be one in which the abstract unity of a
dominant form attempts to impose itself on the singular identity of nations, persons,
cultures and organizations which then must 'normalize' themselves according to this
unity. Rather, it will be a concrete universality in which each singular, as such,
becomes societal while distinct from the species as a whole, internalizing the common
values in its own way. This coherence with neither domination nor uniformization is
inscribed in the new concept of communism. But from the so alienated singular of
today to the emancipated universal of tomorrow, some mediations are necessary. In
the international arena, the most immediate development along these lines is the
regional community of states. Having for a long time turned its back on a growing
Europe, abandoning its construction to others has been one of the most grievous faults
of French communism. For such a community, disastrous if it sets itself up as
particular overseer of a general domination, can become instead the place of a concrete
universalization where new global logics take shape. Thus a Europe freed from the
dictatorship of finance can undertake large scale non-predatory cooperation with the
African continent, facilitating democratic progress and more civilized relations.
Contributing to all the growing movements for concrete universalization would
encourage the communist forces to replace the outdated form of alienated unification,
represented by the 'Internationale", with a direct democracy of cooperation between
everyone, where communism, for each, comes to signify free solidarity.
Let us recapitulate. For a long time taken as the essence of communism, the project
of proletarian conquest of state power to socialize the means of production, in the
belief that this would abolish the exploitation of workers, corresponded to an
impoverishment of Marxist thought. The failure of this socialism and the changes of
our epoch in all their dimensions demand that we give new life to a much more broad
and radical communist project of superseding all humanity's great historic alienations,
and that we re-think the content under present conditions. Communism then becomes
synonymous with revolutionary evolution in all areas of social reality, brought about
by all the class and non-class forces mobilized by the cause of the people's humanity,
All these problems are accumulating with alarming speed, on a frantic course
imprinted by profit and exploitation, far outstripping the rhythm and organization
necessary for a lasting development, which would involve precaution, ethical
deliberation and democratic input. Unlike other developments discussed here, these
are not in themselves class problems. Naturally, arising in a world dominated by
capital they will bear these characteristics. Thus, the irresponsible devastation of
nature or the shattering of the human condition have much to do with the dictatorship
of financial profitability and the untenable rhythm of many innovations directly reflect
its short-term priorities. But while everything is based in the general alienation of the
present world, the necessary de-alienation, as we have discussed, will not resolve the
problems posed by these developments, which have to do with our choices to be made
in our desire for the development of humanization to persevere.
We are in a truly novel situation: humanity is beginning to have the power to decide
what it will be. What meaning should be given to this being? To live to enrich oneself
or enrich life? To accept a limit or do everything possible to surpass it? To approach
society as a user or as an activist? We are now confronted with ethical choices,
inseparably universal and personal, between visions of humanity in which the question
of ends, its philosophic dimensions included, comes to concern everyone. Is there
anything more philosophical, for example, than the question of the universal?
Nevertheless, it appears everywhere, from the domestic to the global arenas. It was at
the center of the vehement French debates in 1999 on the political equality of men and
women. Is the 'man' of the 'rights of man' an abstractly non-gendered universal? In
fact, it ignores women as such. Is it, rather, a concrete being of determinate gender?
What becomes of its ethico-juridical universality, so essential for everyone? Can we
suggest, with a little of this so misunderstood dialectic, that in its concrete universality,
the human being in general is neither without gender nor of a certain gender, but
gendered in both ways, which gives meaning to the requirement for equality without at
all violating the requirement for universality? (note, the individual is both singular and
universal, and particular to - member of sub-groups)
Questions of this sort arise everywhere, and this is only the beginning. The question
of what might constitute the stuff of human history after the end of our pre-history
raises significant anthropological issue. Fundamentally overdetermined today by their
class contexts and stakes, these problems will not disappear in a future classless
society. The communist idea in itself cannot answer these questions because its object
is the overcoming of class society and the de-alienation of human history. In a dealienated society, the communist idea will no longer point to the future and it will
remain for our descendants to invent what sort of humanity they want to become. We
see here with these post-class questions of human ends, not only the horizon of
communism but its own coming supersession as the global gauge of human meaning.
structured according to what principles? And under these diverse questions, a very
central point of inquiry: all this from what perspective, in the broadest historic and
anthropological sense of the word?
This is the key to any political renewal and beyond that, to any supersession of
capitalism. Promising but uncertain, toady's new social movements can neither be
satisfied with current political practice, nor can they by themselves produce what they
need. To bring life to this dialectic, it seems to me that the contribution of a third
factor is indispensable: this is what we can call the theoretical movement: the labor of
thought, debate of ideas, re-creation of a culture of social transformation, as we had in
the thirties or the sixties. The theoretical movement to which the various political
groups and formations can contribute, but which is not the monopoly of any one, has
the crucial task of responding to the key question of what is our perspective. And this
refers to what we have called here the new communist question. We now understand
this word to mean the full resolution of all our historic alienations, old and new, of
class and outside of class.
Having this universal de-alienation as its content, the communist idea is not one
emancipatory vision among others. Rather, it is the concept of all real radicalities. It
does not stand above them or seek to dominate them, but is open to all authentically
de-alienating projects, whether referring to Marx or not, whether they call themselves
communist or not. It says on the theoretical plane that all adherents of a real
radicality, together will form the new force of revolutionary practice, aimed at the
classless society that epoch is calling for. This is a multiform development of the social
movement, plural construction of the political movement, dialogical elaboration of the
theoretical movement. Among these, I consider the third to be decisive at present,
because the most serious crisis left by the failure of communism is the crisis of the
future, and because the importance of the fundamental labor of thought in
surmounting it has been grossly underestimated. The Manifesto told generations of
revolutionaries for what they were struggling. Nothing is more important today than to
know in a completely new way what this is for us.
This is why all politics of the poor has a theoretical aspect, including the philosophical.
But that is not all. Without a strong theory there is no true demystifying critique, nor,
as a result, sufficiently motivated revolutionary politics. We are touching here on a
principal aspect of communism on which I have not yet commented - the de-alienation
of consciousness, often itself taken as mythic in accord with Althusser's notorious
thesis that ideology "will always exist", even in communist society, and "will never
change its function". It is not possible here to discuss the Althusserian concept of
ideology. Let us say only that in the form cited here, it is a source of tremendous
confusion, because the complex notion of ideology has at least two different meanings:
imagined representation of real life, and mystified representation of the real. As Hegel
said in the Science of Logic, "ordinary life doesn't have a concept, but representations"
(vol. 3, p. 213). And in the representations through which I see my relations with the
world, with others, with myself, enter necessarily the affective, the evaluative, the
optative, in short, the subjective, including the unconscious. In this sense we always
life, in effect, not in conceptuality but in ideology, with its variable part of the
imaginary, perhaps illusory, which nevertheless does not at all amount to an inevitable
aberration in relation to the real. What Marx had in mind in his constant critique of
ideology in the historico-social sense was something entirely different: the objective
social processes by which, in bourgeois society in particular, reality presents itself to
everyone in an inverted form, a phenomenal appearance which, without our knowing
it, fundamentally denatures essential relations. Thus the wage is obviously the price of
the labor expended, profit is simply the earnings of capital, the market is the place
where freedom reigns, social inequality is a fact of nature, etc. Linked in its forms and
contents to determinate social structures, this mystified representation of the real is
not at all invariant through history. Even in today's world, the fact is that we can think
and act with regard to real relations and thus dispel, up to a certain point, the falseappearances of the economy and of politics, of racism and sexism. An even stronger
reason will be the case when people have reappropriated their social powers. In short,
the dealienation of consciousness (contra Althusser) is not an ideological myth.
This task is the most urgent of all because, more than ever, the domination by capital
relies on ideological mystification. Alienation, in all areas, has reached unprecedented
heights; the social machinery for deluding consciousnesses in the interest of the ruling
class has been perfected as never before. The media are loaded with upscale
advertising identifying sophistication with speciousness. Television, in constant use,
obliterates the concept under the image and permanently feeds a baseless credulity for
events and history. Against the will of many students, school doesn't develop the
highly cultivated critical capacities that a real sovereignty of the people would require.
And so on. The ordinary citizen thus lives in an incredibly deceiving reality. Perhaps
this explains the tremendous and persistent gap between the burgeoning of motives to
struggle, and the paucity of actual combatants. The contrary would be a miracle. Thus
the considerable importance of what I call the struggle for representation: at every
moment, in every area, to expose the deception and bring to light, in the simplicity of
form which only real theoretical penetration makes possible, the processes in which
the false-appearances, real and imagined, originate, and this way, to form the vigilant
consciousness, placing our image of reality back on its feet and reopening paths to
action.
The first task is the critique of language, including that used on the left. Too often
our choice of language carelessly accedes to the deceptions perpetrated by the
dominant ideology rather than critiquing them. Only when this pre-requisite
demystification is underway can the complex problems confronting us be legitimately
debated. This is one example of the critical campaigns that must be undertaken in all
areas, beginning with fundamental theoretical work, through iconoclastic initiatives
with regard to the media, inventive efforts to foster an alternative press, battles for
critical books, for everything that can make life untenable for the purveyors of the
false-appearances. To transform the world, we must transform the representation of
the world.