Communization Theory is a Marxist theory that combines, and criticizes, the ideas of the Situanitionist International, Italian Left-Communist, and Council Communist. It defends the idea that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat only reassures the re-emergence of the capitalist counter-revolution and that it should be abandoned.
With this conclusion, they believe that the next communist revolution should start with immediate communization of society, which includes the abolition of capitalist social relations and replacing them with communist ones. Some may say that the roles of the DotP is the destruction of capitalist relations and replacing them with communist ones but I have not read enough theory to comment on that right now.
I have so far read Endnotes 1, which is just a bunch of text by Gilles Dauvé and Théorie Communiste explaining why they believe in this position while simultaneously critcizing each other on their viewpoints, and I'm currently reading "Eclipse and Re-Emergence of the Communist Movement" by Gilles Dauvé. The first part of the book is great and I personally think its a must read for beginner Marxists as it explains the history of capital and commodity production, though the later parts are just opinionated writing. Of course, beginner Marxists should start by reading Marx's own work than the works of other Marxists.
Communization Theory is also split into two, with one side being anarchist, groups like the now defunct group TIQQUN and The Invisible Comitee, and Marxists, groups like Troploin and the previously mentioned Théorie Communiste. Just so you know, this isn't some unknown "leftist war", I just referenced them just to give some sort of picture. The most well known communizer journal is Endnotes, who compiles and releases a bunch of communizer articles.
>>2430173>>2430152The trouble with anarchists is that they don't examine the economic reasons hierarchy and the reserve pool of labor emerges in a market. The buying and selling of labor-power leads to labor arbitrage and a bloated corporate hierarchy. A manager is simply an intermediate who buys the work of others cheap and sells it high to to their boss. Semi-relevant is Baran and Sweezy's "Monopoly Capital". The solution to preventing hierarchy from emerging is for the workers to seize control of the hiring process. So basically the workers should seize control of LinkedIn, job search sites, HR and temp agencies. It is only when the slaves are in control of the buying and selling of slaves that slavery will be abolished.
Misogyny is just an issue of monopsony rent and a pre-industrial sector of domestic labor btw.
>>2430152>Communization Theory is a Marxist theory that combines, and criticizes, the ideas of the Situanitionist International, Italian Left-Communist, and Council CommunistAh so you're telling us we can completely dismiss this then?
Cool logo tho, I'll give you that
>>2430152Seems like vagueposting to me.
>the next communist revolution should start with immediate communization of society, which includes the abolition of capitalist social relations and replacing them with communist onesSounds great but how? How specifically are you going to get that done, how specifically are you going to get to power to get that done? What's the specific organizational form replacing the vanguard party?
I think a lot of people ITT are struggling with how Communization works, what it means, so let me try to explain simply as possible, something a child could grasp.
Think of it like this:
<What's the fundamental difference between a Communist and an Anarchist?
>The Communist sees abolishing the state as a part of the end goal, and it's a long and grueling process to reach that point. You don't do it immediately.
>The Anarchist sees abolishing the state as something that must be done immediately during the revolution. You destroy it immediately as the revolution occurs.
<What's the fundamental difference between a Communizer, and a Communist/Anarchist?
>The Communist/Anarchist sees the abolition of wage labour and commodity production as the end goal, and it's a long and grueling process to reach that point. You don't do it immediately.
>The Communizer sees abolishing the capitalist mode of production and wage labour as something that must be done immediately in the revolution. You destroy it as the revolution occurs.
You don't make the economic transformation some final end point of the transition to Communism on par with abolishing the state.
No more statements from the vanguard party about how capitalists and oligarchs are vital revolutionary pioneers on the economic front, no more anarchist coops which amount to nothing more than worker owned capitalism.
No, instead you abolish wage labour and commodity production as soon as you seize a particular workplace, industry, etc, you implement the change to socialist mode of production immediately.
Doesn't this sound a lot like Left Communism?
That's exactly because it grew out of, and is a fusion and modernisation of Italian Left Communist, Council Communist, and Situationist ideas.
Communizers may be united on their economic position, but there's different camps, both Marxist and Anarchist leaning, on if/how a state should operate, although they're all pretty libertarian about statehood.
But honestly that's of secondary importance to Communizers compared to abolishing the capitalist mode of production since they believe that's the sticking point to blame for a lot of past failures.
>>2430152Is communization meaningfully different than autonomism(aka italian operaismo)?
The seem like autonomist who are ok with self identifing as communists
>>2431124Some old leftypol jokes about the genealogy of fascism through Sorel to the Red Fasci of Sicily and the National Syndicalists of France leading to Itallian fascism
To put it simply we taught them wrong as a joke; although there is a truth to it, right down to fascism and Nazism imitating soviet art down to the metal sculptures and synchronised mass events; like a facsimile a broken record repeating just one stanza from a masterpiece – a pale imitation with the aesthetics but not the simple joy and life of the real thing
>>2431145Not true at all.
>>2431148I know Georges Sorel, he was heavily influenced by Proudhon and Karl Marx, eventually moving towards a more revisionist Marxist position, he wasn't an anarchist and even if he was, he'd be in the school of Proudhon/Bakunin which is essentially irrelevant to modern anarchism.
>>2431309Why should anarchists care about Georges Sorel if he doesn't align with them? They shouldn't, which is why no anarchist likes Sorel or ᴉuᴉlossnW.
Syndicalism is also not anarchism, that's retarded.
>>2431363While that is broadly true - and from what I can gather, Proudhon's thought is quite lame and I guess if he's barely known it's just because he picked up a fight with KM - perhaps you may be intrigued by the fact that in the late 1970s - early 1980s, this otherwise unremarkable French political thinker served as a rather bizarre rhetoric tool in Italy.
Bettino Craxi, then the new leader of the local socialist party, wanted to distance himself and his party from the local communist party as much as he could. Now, I'm not exactly privy to the exact reasons of that, even considering that PSI had already been a government partner of the long-time dominant Christian Democrats for more than a decade and a half at that point, while PCI remained the largest party in opposition. Perhaps, BC may have been afraid that the attempt of a so called "historic compromise" with PCI entering the government coalition, would have a given a much bigger and stronger partner to the Christian Democrats on their left and PSI would have been squeezed and possibly reduced to a barely existing party, on par with other long-time Christian Democrats allies such as the liberals, the republicans and the social democrats.
PSI had for sure a relatively strong and influent internal left faction who always felt uneasy about the moderating influence that being in government with all that centrist slop had. Some of their members were instrumental in getting the very few remarkable achievements in terms of labour rights, welfare, healthcare that the centre-left govts of the sixties and seventies brought about. They also looked at both PCI and other smaller parties even more to the left - PDIUP, DP - with respect and sympathy. Many of them were very clear they didn't want to take any neoliberal crap while lying down, right when that particular counter-revolution was getting started in many parts of the western world. And it wasn't even a mystery that in the left-wing of PSI Marx's ideas were still discussed and enjoyed a certain currency.
So, some two-bits intellectual in his circle came up with this moronic idea to have him sign an article were he would have attacked Marx as "inherently authoritarian" contrasting him with the "libertarian" Proudhon and he was the only one espousing a reasonable and realistic form of "socialism" while PCI and others were still enamoured with "muh totalitarianism" and they were a bunch of silly losers.
Unique IPs: 22