I want to do a series of posts on the theory of “communization” as it has developed since 1968, because it seems to me there is a great deal more interest in the term and desire than there is comprehension.
Puedo leer bien inglés pero no tanto escribirlo. Una cuestión clave sobre la discusión en torno al contenido del comunismo en la así llamada "corriente bordiguista", se relaciona con la definición y función de la ciencia. Es un asunto de ribetes epistemológicos ¡pero también teológicos! , que bien podría ser pensada desde eso que se llama "políticas del conocimiento".
indeed, there is more to say about this question and particularly how communization specifies the "content." i put this quote from bordiga here, which i believe is the primary reference for "content"? [note that he puts the phrase in quotes, does anyone know why or which is the first use he is referring to?]
---
Did Marx ever say what “the content of socialism” was? No. Marx never replied to such a metaphysical question. The content of a receptacle can just as well be water as wine, or indeed a rather more unpleasant liquid. As Marxists, it is appropriate to ask: what is the historical process which leads to socialism? What relations will exist between individuals “under socialism”, i.e. within a society which is no longer capitalist?
To such questions it would be a nonsense to reply: control of production, management of the factory, or as is so often said: autonomy of the working class.
For over a century now, we have defined the historical process which leads from fully industrialised capitalist society to Socialism as follows: formation of the proletarian class, organisation of the proletariat into a class political party, organisation of the proletariat into the ruling class. The control and management of production can only start after reaching the latter stage. This will occur not in individual factories managed by staff councils, but within society as a whole, managed by the class State with the class party at its helm.
If the ridiculous search for “content” is applied to a fully socialist society, we have all the more reason for saying that the formulae “workers’ control” and “workers’ management” are lacking in any content. Under socialism, society isn't divided into producers and non-producers any more because society is no longer divided into classes. The “content” (if we have to use such an insipid expression) won't be proletarian autonomy, control, and management of production, but the disappearance of the proletarian class; of the wage system; of exchange – even in its last surviving form as the exchange of money for labour-power; and, finally, the individual enterprise will disappear as well. There will be nothing to control and manage, and nobody to demand autonomy from.
Fíjate en esta cita, tomada del mismo texto que citas tú:
"Proudhon rehúye la conclusión de la lucha política, porque su concepción de la transformación social es defectuosa, no contiene la superación integral de las relaciones capitalistas de producción, es competitiva, es localmente cooperativa, queda encerrada en la visión burguesa de la empresa y del mercado. Proudhon gritó que la propiedad era un robo, pero su sistema, al permanecer mercantil, sigue siendo un sistema propietario y burgués. Su miopía sobre la revolución económica es la misma que la de los modernos “socialistas de empresa” que repiten de manera menos vigorosa la vieja utopía de Owen, quien quería liberar a los obreros dándoles la gestión de la fábrica en plena sociedad burguesa. Que estos señores se llamen ordinovistas a la italiana o barbaristas a la francesa, la marca proudhoniana los acompaña en sus remotos orígenes y, como a Stalin, se les podría lanzar la invectiva: ¡miseria de los enriquecedores!"
"Barbaristas a la francesa", homologados al consejismo ligado a Gramsci, aún anclados al proudhonismo. Toda especulación sobre el contenido del socialismo choca con la metafísica, lo cual vuelve a los problemas del conocimiento:
La differenza non va fatta dunque fra l'arte e la scienza, fra l'intuizione e l'intelligenza. È con l'intuizione che l'umanità ha sempre avanzato perché l'intelligenza è conservatrice e l'intuizione è rivoluzionaria. L'intelligenza, la scienza, la conoscenza hanno origine nel movimento avanzante (abbandoniamo l'ignobile termine di "progressivo"). Nella parte decisiva della sua dinamica la conoscenza prende le sue mosse sotto forma di una intuizione, di una conoscenza affettiva, non dimostrativa; verrà dopo l'intelligenza coi suoi calcoli, le sue contabilità, le sue dimostrazioni, le sue prove. Ma la novità, la nuova conquista, la nuova conoscenza non ha bisogno di prove, ha bisogno di fede! non ha bisogno di dubbio, ha bisogno di lotta! non ha bisogno di ragione, ha bisogno di forza! il suo contenuto non si chiama Arte o Scienza, si chiama Rivoluzione!
Puedo leer bien inglés pero no tanto escribirlo. Una cuestión clave sobre la discusión en torno al contenido del comunismo en la así llamada "corriente bordiguista", se relaciona con la definición y función de la ciencia. Es un asunto de ribetes epistemológicos ¡pero también teológicos! , que bien podría ser pensada desde eso que se llama "políticas del conocimiento".
thanks for writing, jorge. i can also read spanish but write it terribly.
indeed, there is more to say about this question and particularly how communization specifies the "content." i put this quote from bordiga here, which i believe is the primary reference for "content"? [note that he puts the phrase in quotes, does anyone know why or which is the first use he is referring to?]
---
Did Marx ever say what “the content of socialism” was? No. Marx never replied to such a metaphysical question. The content of a receptacle can just as well be water as wine, or indeed a rather more unpleasant liquid. As Marxists, it is appropriate to ask: what is the historical process which leads to socialism? What relations will exist between individuals “under socialism”, i.e. within a society which is no longer capitalist?
To such questions it would be a nonsense to reply: control of production, management of the factory, or as is so often said: autonomy of the working class.
For over a century now, we have defined the historical process which leads from fully industrialised capitalist society to Socialism as follows: formation of the proletarian class, organisation of the proletariat into a class political party, organisation of the proletariat into the ruling class. The control and management of production can only start after reaching the latter stage. This will occur not in individual factories managed by staff councils, but within society as a whole, managed by the class State with the class party at its helm.
If the ridiculous search for “content” is applied to a fully socialist society, we have all the more reason for saying that the formulae “workers’ control” and “workers’ management” are lacking in any content. Under socialism, society isn't divided into producers and non-producers any more because society is no longer divided into classes. The “content” (if we have to use such an insipid expression) won't be proletarian autonomy, control, and management of production, but the disappearance of the proletarian class; of the wage system; of exchange – even in its last surviving form as the exchange of money for labour-power; and, finally, the individual enterprise will disappear as well. There will be nothing to control and manage, and nobody to demand autonomy from.
"a rather more unpleasant liquid" ha
Hola Jasper. Se trata de una diatriba contra Castoriadis, por eso las comillas:
https://es.scribd.com/document/117492606/CASTORIADIS-Cornelius-Sobre-El-Contenido-Del-Socialismo
Fíjate en esta cita, tomada del mismo texto que citas tú:
"Proudhon rehúye la conclusión de la lucha política, porque su concepción de la transformación social es defectuosa, no contiene la superación integral de las relaciones capitalistas de producción, es competitiva, es localmente cooperativa, queda encerrada en la visión burguesa de la empresa y del mercado. Proudhon gritó que la propiedad era un robo, pero su sistema, al permanecer mercantil, sigue siendo un sistema propietario y burgués. Su miopía sobre la revolución económica es la misma que la de los modernos “socialistas de empresa” que repiten de manera menos vigorosa la vieja utopía de Owen, quien quería liberar a los obreros dándoles la gestión de la fábrica en plena sociedad burguesa. Que estos señores se llamen ordinovistas a la italiana o barbaristas a la francesa, la marca proudhoniana los acompaña en sus remotos orígenes y, como a Stalin, se les podría lanzar la invectiva: ¡miseria de los enriquecedores!"
"Barbaristas a la francesa", homologados al consejismo ligado a Gramsci, aún anclados al proudhonismo. Toda especulación sobre el contenido del socialismo choca con la metafísica, lo cual vuelve a los problemas del conocimiento:
La differenza non va fatta dunque fra l'arte e la scienza, fra l'intuizione e l'intelligenza. È con l'intuizione che l'umanità ha sempre avanzato perché l'intelligenza è conservatrice e l'intuizione è rivoluzionaria. L'intelligenza, la scienza, la conoscenza hanno origine nel movimento avanzante (abbandoniamo l'ignobile termine di "progressivo"). Nella parte decisiva della sua dinamica la conoscenza prende le sue mosse sotto forma di una intuizione, di una conoscenza affettiva, non dimostrativa; verrà dopo l'intelligenza coi suoi calcoli, le sue contabilità, le sue dimostrazioni, le sue prove. Ma la novità, la nuova conquista, la nuova conoscenza non ha bisogno di prove, ha bisogno di fede! non ha bisogno di dubbio, ha bisogno di lotta! non ha bisogno di ragione, ha bisogno di forza! il suo contenuto non si chiama Arte o Scienza, si chiama Rivoluzione!
https://www.quinterna.org/pubblicazioni/rivista/16/rivista15_16_completa.pdf
pp. 111.