Representing Abolition: A Critique of Communisation


Highlights from Ray Brassier’s quite substantial critique of “communization”:

Endnotes “argue (rightly, in my view) that there can be no exit from the capital relation because it constitutes us: ‘What we are is, at the deepest level, constituted by this relation, and it is a rupture with the reproduction of what we are that will necessarily form the horizon of our struggles.’11 Thus there can be no secession from the capital relation, only its abolition. Communisation is the name for this abolition-in-process.” Continue reading “Representing Abolition: A Critique of Communisation”

Luc Wander – Occupy the Futurepast

To the Communes: Tunisia to New York City; Egypt to Oakland,

I know, it’s a bit absurd, but *pop music has prefigured the rise of Occupy Wallstreet*, according to a dialogue entitled “Don’t Stop Beliebing”.1 Raided their songlist, cooked up a mix. Take it for a spin.

<3, Luc

Continue reading “Luc Wander – Occupy the Futurepast”

ontological communism – self-valorization

certain brands of post-structuralism scared off most ontological thinking. mapping the path would distract, so i’ll just lay it at the feet of post-sausserian epistemological analysis. recent returns to communism (no doubt partially due to the ground-clearing after the fall of ‘actually exiting socialism’) have begun highlighting the ontological definition of the concept: the production of man by man, the abolition of the present state of things, etc etc.

but the question begged by the autonomist citing of the ‘fragment on machines’ and the foucaultian concept of biopower is whether or not capitalism is already communism of a sort. changes marx attributed to the exclusive domain of communism seem to have been anticipated by capitalism – species being, etc etc. it is important to differentiate the subsequent strategy of capitalism from the old frankfurt school fear of complete colonization, however. instead of investing itself in communism (something that zizek comes too close to claiming by sarcastically entitling its subjects ‘liberal communists’), it offers a ‘third way’ that ideologically forecloses communism — ie: it naturalizes or de-libidinizes the potentiality of a communism that de-links from capitalist valorization.

early-mid negri follows the hegelian optimism for capitalism creating its own grave diggers via the tactic of the “self-valorization” whereby critical flows in the circuits of capital are diverted from capital valorization (understood here as the process of re-articulating or re-territorializing the flows necessary for the expanded reproduction of a given mode of production). the capitalist valorization process serves as the source of the freeing of flows, but its extraordinarily fine-tuned ability to re-capture those flows provides it a surplus to re-invest in additional circuits of valorization. the “self-valorization” (‘self’ being ‘auto‘ in both french/italian, indicating a auto-poietic feedback loop that its source is also its product, gesturing to Marxist assumption that the basis for surplus value is labor power) is the re-capture of relative amounts of surplus value which is then put to use within a non-capitalist valorization circuit. [i apologize if this prose is un-readable, it’s incredibly technical and i’m not proofreading very closely]

so a string of questions — what is the ontology of communism, and how is it reached? is this ontology unleashed by capitalist de-territorialization? are the conditions for a future ontology of communism produced by capitalism (the “it will have been” of the future anterior)?

a final provocation — in what ways does “communization” (or more continental, ‘communisation’) differ from self-valorization? my understanding is that ‘communization’ sees communism as the contingent possibility in every ‘moment’ (and for now, i’ll keep the definition of ‘moment’ open) — and in opposition to communism is socialization. so to restate: every moment has the contingent possibility of communization or socialization. the exact terrain of “the social” of course, varies. for a hegelian marxist, socialization is the tendency of increased relationality of abstract labor within the production process. further following the accompanying neo-hegelian state theory – the secular state emerges co-constitutively with its outside, the social, which is the private life of the citizen (civil society being the space of contact between the two). tiqqun’s subsequent work on these in “introduction to civil war” is pretty illustrative of their implication in the formation of Empire.

returning to the question at hand — communization appear to be a set of relations that doesn’t map onto any of this typology, in fact it seems to be relations necessarily take on a different articulation. rather than being strongly different than self-valorization, then, communization might be a clarification of the relationality necessary for a circuit of valorization to be properly defined as “self-valorization” rather than just alternately capitalist (surplus value not appropriated by the capitalist firm but still immediately placed back into circuits of capital valorization like 401k pay-ins, etc), parallel (black markets relations that look like capitalism only without the sanction of the law),or supplemental (non-capitalist relations partly used to benefit capitalist production, ie: household production).

i guess i skirted any deep ontological questions & any positive steps v/v ‘ideology’. whoops.