, THE WANDERING

OF HUMANITYf

Jacques Camatte y}\,

B lack & Red Detro it

1975

The essays included in the present work first appeared in the journal In variance (Annee VI, Serle II, No. 3, 1973) with the titles, "Errance de I'humanite; Conscience repressive; Communisme," and "Declin du mode de production ou declin de I'humanite?" The author of these Jacques worked with Amadeo and the group of theoreticians were known as the Italian communist left. After the events which took place in France in May of 1968, Carnatte, together with his comrades on In variance, began a critical analysis of the activities of the Italian communist left, the work of Bordiga as well as the work of Marx. The title of the journal originally referred to "the invariance of the theory of the proletariat," the theory of the League of Communists and the First International. By 1973 critics said of this journal that "nothing varies more than In variance. " By 1973 Camatte and his comrades, pursuing the critical analysis they had begun, were led to conclude that "what is invariant is the aspiration to rediscover the lost human community, and this cannot take place through a re­establishment of the past, but only through new creation." Their theoret­ical quest led them to a complete rejection of the theory of revolutionary parties and organizations, the theory of revolutionary consciousness, the theory of the progressive development of productive forces. "The French May movement showed that what is needed is a new mode of living, a new life." (The above quotations are from the last article in Invariance No. 3, 1973.)

Works by Bordiga and Camatte are available (in Italian) from Ed. International, Casella Postale 177, 17100 Savona, Italy. Issues of In variance are available (in French) from J. Camatte, B.P. 133, 83 170 Brignoles, France. The essays in the present work were translated from French by Fredy Perlman with assistance from Camatte; the illustrations were selected and prepared by Allan Foster; Lorraine Perlman and Judy Campbell participated in the photography, printing and binding. The cover is a detail from a painting by Dali; the two pictures facing the first page of each essay are by Kley; the remaining illustrations are composed from advertisements, "the discourse of capital." The present work is available from Black & Red, P.O. Box 9546, Detroit, Michigan, 48202.

CONTENTS

I. The Wandering of Humanity 5

1. Despotism of Cap ita l 5

2 . . G rowth of Produ ct ive Forces; Domesticat ion of H u ma n Bei ngs 16

I

3. Repressive Con sciousness 25

4. Com m u n ism 32

II. Decl i ne of the Capitalist Mode of Production or D ecl i ne of Hu manity? 47

4

The Wandering of Humanity Repressive Consciousness

Communism

1. Despotism of Capital

When capita l achieves rea l domination over society, it becomes a materia l com m u nity, overcoming va l ue and the law of va l ue, which survive o n l y as something "overcom e." Capita l accom plishes this i n two ways: I) the quantity of l a bor i nc l u ded in the produ ct-capital d i m i nishes enormo u s l y ( d eva lor ization); 2) t h e excha n ge re lation tends i ncreasi n g l y t o d i sappear, first from the wage re lation , the n from a l l econo m ic transaction!!. Capita l , wh ich or igi na l l y depended o n the wage re lation, becomes a despot. When the re i s va l ue i t is ass igned by cap ita l .

Capita l i s capita l i n p rocess. I t acquired t h i s attribu te with the r ise of fictive capita l , whe n the opposition va loriza­tion/deva l o rization sti l l had mea n i ng, whe n capita l had not yet rea l ly overcome the law of va l ue.

Capita l in p rocess is cap ita l i n constant m ovement; it cap i ta l izes everythin g, assimilates everything and makes it its own substance. Havi ng become autonomous, it is " reified for m " in movement. It becomes intang ib le. It revita l izes its bei ng-that vast metabolism which absorbs ancient exchanges or reduces them to exchanges of a bio logica l type-by despoi l i ng a l l h u ma n beings i n the i r var ied activities, however

5

fragmented these may be (this is why capital pushes human beings to engage in the most diverse activities)' It is humanity that is exploited. More than ever the ex pression " ex ploitation of man by man" b ecomes repulsive.

I n its perfected state, capital is representation. Its rise to this state is d u e to its anthropomorphization, namely to its capitalization of human beings, 1 and to its su persession of the old genera l equivalent, gold. Capital needs an ideal re­presentation, s i nce a representat ion with su bstance i n h i bits its p rocess. Go l d, i f i t i s n ot tota l ly dem onet ized, can n o longer play t h e ro l e o f sta n dard. Capita l ized h u man activ i ty becom es the sta n dard of cap ita l , u n t i l even th is dependence on val u e and its law beg i n to d i sappear com p l ete ly. T h i s presu pposes t h e i ntegrat ion o f h u man be i n gs i n t h e process of cap ita l and the i nteg rati o n of capita l in the m i nds of h u ma n bei ngs.

Cap ita l becomes rep resen tat ion t h rough the fo l lowing h i storica l m ovement: exchange va l u e becom es a u tonomous, h u ma n bei ngs are expropriated, h u man activity i s red uced to labor, and labor is redu ced to a bstract labor. T h i s ta kes p lace when cap ita l r i ses on the fou ndat ion of the law of va l u e. Capita l becom es autonomous by dom esticati ng the h u man b eing. After ana lyz i n g-d issecti ng-frag m ent i ng the h u ma n being, cap i ta l reconstructs the h u man being a s a fu nct ion of its p rocess. The ru ptu re of the body from the m i n d made possibl e the t ransformat ion of the m i nd i nto a com puter which can be p rog ram med by the laws of cap i ta l. Prec ise l y because o f the i r m e nta l capac it ies, h u ma n bei ngs a r e n ot o n l y enslaved, but tu rned i nto w i l l i ng s laves o f capita l. W hat seem s l i ke the greatest paradox i s that cap ita l i tse lf rei ntroduces

lThis does not exclude an opposite movement: capital forces human beings to be human.

6

subjectivity, which had been eliminated at the time of the rise of exchange valu e. All human activity is exploited by capital. We can rephrase Marx's statement, " Labor, by adding a new valu e to the old one, at the same time maintains and eternizes [capital]

, ,2 to say: all human activity "eternizes" capital.

Capital as representation overcomes the old contradic­tion between monopoly and competition. Every quant u m of capita l tends to becom e a tota l ity; competition operates between the variou s capita l s, each of which tends to becom e t h e tota lity. Product ion and c ircu lation a r e u n i f i ed; the a ncient opposition between u se va l u e and exchange va l u e l oses i ts raison d'etre. Besides, consu mption is t h e u t i lization of n ot on l y materia l products but m ost l y representatio ns t hat i ncreasi ng l y structure h u man bei ngs as bei ngs of cap ita l a nd revita lize cap ita l as the genera l representat ion . Pr ices no l onger have the fu nction they had i n the per iod of formal dom i nat ion of capita l , when they were representations of valu e; they become m ere i n d ices or signs of representations of cap ita l . Free goods are not im possi b le. Capita l cou l d ass ig n a spec ific quantity o f i t s products t o each program m ed i n d iv idua l; this quantity m ight depend on the requ ired activity im posed on this i n div i d ua l . Such a despotis m wou l d b e m o re powerfu l t h a n the p resent one. Human beings wou l d wish they had t h e m oney w h i c h h a d "g iven" t h e m free access to the diversity of p rodu cts.

D uri ng its deve lopment cap i ta l a l ways tended to negate c lasses. Th is has fina l l y been acco m p lished through the u n iversa l ization of wage labor and the format ion-as a tran si­t iona l stage-of what is ca l l ed the u n iversal c lass, a m ere co l lect ion of pro letarianized m en and wom en, a co l lection of

2 Karl Marx, Grundrisse, London : Pelican, 1973, p . 365 .

7

slaves of capital. Capital achieved complete domination by mystifying the demands of the classical proletariat, by dominating the proletarian as produ ctive laborer. But by achieving domination throu gh the mediation of labor, capital brought about the disappearance of classes, since the capital­ist as a person was simultaneously eliminated. 3 The State becomes society when the wage relation is transformed into a relatio n of constra i n t, i nto a statist re lat ion . At the same t ime the State becomes a n enterpr ise o r racket wh ich m ed iates between the d i fferent gangs of cap ita l .

Bou rgeois society has been destroyed and we have the despotism of cap ita l . C lass confl icts are rep laced by strugg l es between the gangs-orga n izat ions wh ich are the var ied m odes of bei ng of cap ita l . As a resu l t of the dom i nation of re­p resentati on, a l l orga n i zations which want to oppose cap ita l a r e engu l fed b y it; they are consu med b y p hagocytes.

It i s the rea l end of dem ocracy. One can no l o nger h o l d that there is a c lass wh ich represents futu re hu man ity, a n d a fortiori there is no party, n o grou p ; there can be n o de lega­t ion of power.

Advert is i ng crass ly ref l ects the fact that cap ita l i s re­p resentation, that it su rvives becau se i t i s representat ion i n the m i nd o f each human bei ng ( i nterna l i z i ng what was �xterna l ized). Advert is i ng is the d i scou rse of cap i ta l: 4 every-7'fiJ

�Here we see a convergence with the Asiatic mode of produc­tion, where classes could never become autonomous; in the capitalist mode of production they are absorbed.

4See the book of D. Verres, Le discours du capitalisme, Ed.

L'Herne. Interesting material will also be found in the works of Baudrillart: Le systeme des objets and Pour une critique de J'economie politi que du signe, Ed. Gallimard.

8

thing is possible, all norms have disappeared. Advertising organizes the subversion of the present for the sake of an apparently different fu ture.

"We now face the problem of letting the average American feel moral when he flirts, when he spends, even when he buys a second or third car. One of the basic prob le m s of t h i s p rosperity i s to give people sanct ion and just if icat ion to enjoy it, to show them that mak i n g the i r l ives a p l easu re is m ora l and n ot i m m ora l . T h i s perm i ss ion g iven to the consu mer to free l y enjoy l ife, th is dem onstration that he has a r i ght to su rrou nd h im se l f with products that e n r ich h is ex istence and g ive h i m p leasu re, shou l d be one of the mai n them es of a l l advert is ing and of every project designed to i ncrease sa l es. "s

The d is i ntegration of consciou sness which ca n be seen i n m a n i festai ions l i ke the women's l i berat ion m ovement, the gay l i beration m ovel11ent and ant i-psych iatry (wh ich are o n l y possi b l e after t h e work of F reu d, Re ich, and t h e fem i n ist m ove m ent at the beg i n n i ng of t h i s centu ry) i s not part of the s im u l ta neous emergence of revo l u t ionary consciousness, but only ref l ects the end of bou rgeoi s soc iety based o n va l ue, o n a f ixed sta ndard wh ich affected a l l l eve l s o f h uman l ife. T h e disi ntegration began whe n the genera l equ iva l ent conf l icted with c i rcu lat ion. If the former general equ iva lent gav e way, it was lost. The State had to force a l l su bjects to respect a normalcy based on a standard wh ich estab l ished the va lues of

5Dichter, cited by Baudri l lart in Le syst�me des objets, pp. 218-219.

9

CAPITAL The best total management syslems.

We can put you In better touch with your business hy replacing a lot of time-consuming non-productive status meetings. paperwork and guesswork with simple, automated systems that tell everyone who needs to know, everything they need to know. whenever they need to know it. No matter where they are or what they do Of how they do it.

We can deliver a compatible, expandible,

high-perfonnance family of systems We have another family of on-line/balch

that offers centralized control and a

of standard applications software fonn a network offering batch real-time data entry and retrieval. decentralized control and

Just two basic industries support the world.

HelDing to move laster.

10

society. The law of valu e imprisoned human beings, forcing them into stereotypes, into fix ed modes of being. The highest development of morality appeared in Kant's categorical imperative. By engulfing the general equ by becoming its own representation, capital removed the prohibitions and rigid schemas. At that point human beings are fixed to its movement, which can take off from the normal or abnormal, moral or immoral h uman being.

T h e f i n i te, l i m ited h u man bei ng, the i n d iv i dua l of bou rgeois soc iety, is d i sappea r i ng. Peop l e are pass ionate l y ca l l i ng f o r t h e l i berated hu man be i ng, a be ing who is a t o nce a soc ia l be i ng and a Gemeinwesen. But at p resent it i s cap i ta l that is reco m posi ng man, givi ng h i m form a n d matter; com m u na l bei ng com es i n the form of col lective worker, i n d iv i d ua l i ty i n the form of consu m er of cap i ta l . S i nce cap i ta l i s i ndef i n i te it a l lows t h e h u man bei ng to have access to a state beyo n d the fi n ite i n a n i nf in ite becom i ng of appro p r ia­t ion wh ich is never rea l ized, renewi ng at every i nstant the i l l us ion of tota l b losso m i ng.

The h u man bei ng in the image of cap i ta l ceases to consider any event def i n it ive, bu t as a n i n stant i n an i n f i n ite p rocess. E njoyment is a l lowed bu t is never possi b l e. Man becom es a sensua l and passive voyeu r, cap i ta l a sensual and su p rasensua l bei ng. H u man l ife ceases to be a process a n d becomes l i near. Aspi red b y the p rocess o f cap i ta l , m a n can no l o nger be "h i m se l f. " T h is asp i rat i o n evacuates h i m , creat i ng a vacuu m which he m u st cont i nua l ly sat isfy w ith rep resenta­t ions (capita l ) . More genera l l y, cap i ta l in process sec u res i ts dom i nati on by mak i ng every p rocess l i near. T h u s i t brea ks the m ovement of natu re, and this leads to the d estruction of natu re. But if t h i s destruct ion might enda nger its own process, cap i ta l adapts itse l f to natu re (by anti-po l l u t ion, for examp l e) .

1 1

The non-living becomes autonomous-and triumphs. Death in life: Hegel had intuited Nietzsche described it, Rainer Maria Rilke sang abou t Freu d almost institu-tionalized it (the death exhibited it as bu ffoon and the it: live death." The fem movement has individualized it:

"The male likes death-it excites him sexu ally and, a lready d ead ins ide, he wants to d i e."6

The au tonomy of form affects a l l aspects of l i fe dom i nated by cap ital. K n ow ledge is va l id o n l y if it i s forma l ized, if i t is em ptied of content. Abso l u te knowledge is tauto l ogy rea l ized ; i t is dead form dep l oyed over a l l knowledge. Sc ience is its systematization ; ep i stem o l ogy i s its red u n dancy.

I n the era of its rea l dom i nation, cap ita l has ru n away (as the cybernet ic ians p u t it) , i t has escapedJ It is n o l o nger

6Valerie Solanas, The SCUM Manifesto (The Society for Cutting Up Men), New York : Olympia Press, 1970.

7We analyzed the autonomization of capital in Le Vie chapitre imJdit du Capital et I'oeuvre economique de Marx (1966), particularly in the notes added in 1972 .

In a future article we will analyze this subject more thoroughly by showing that Marx had raised the problem without recognizing it in its totality, and by analyzing the capitalist mode of production of today. This will also lead us to define labor and its role in the developrhent of humanity. G. Brule already began such an analysis in his article in In variance No. 2, Serie I I : " Le travail, Ie travail productif et les mythes de la classe ouvriere et de la classe moyenne." (Labor, productive labor and the myths of the working class and the middle class).

I n general we can say that the concept of labor is reductive : it encompasses only one part of human activity. But the call for its

1 2

controlled by human beings. ( H uman beings in the form of proletarians might, at least passively, represent a barrier to capitaL) It is no longer limited by nature. Some produ ction processes carried ou t over periods of time lead to clashes with natural barriers: increase in the number of human beings, destru ction of natu re, pollu tion. But these barriers cannot be theoretically regarded as barriers which capital cannot su per­sede. At present there are three possible courses for the capitalist mode of produ ction (in addition to the destruction

abolition is a call for the destruction of this remainder of activity, which is a utopian demand of capital. The project of communism inserts itself into the context of human life, activity being no more than a modality of expression. Love, meditation, day-dreaming, play and other manifestations of human beings are placed outside the field of life when we trap ourselves within the concept of labor. Marx defined labor as an activity which transforms nature or matter for one or another purpose, but the concept of nature can no longer be accepted as it is . I n the period of domination of capital, the human being is no longer in contact with nature (especially during work). Between nature and the individual lies capital. Capital becomes nature.

On the other hand, in his so-called "philosophical" works, Marx clearly refers to all human activity and asserts that communism cannot be reduced to the liberation of labor. This position does not completely disappear from the rest of Marx's works, and survives alongside the "revolutionary reformist" conception expressed in Capital. For the Marxists the problem is subsequently simplified : they exalt labor, pure and simple. In Trotsky's work, for example, there is no longer a trace of Marx's complex analysis, but rather a display of the language of domestication, the language of capital : "The entire history of humanity is a history of the organization and education of social man for labor, with a view to obtaining from him greater productivity." (Terrorism and Communism [ French ed . : Paris : Ed. 10/ 18, 1963, p . 2 18] .)

1 3

The Print Shop of the Future.

Someday, there will be a machine that will automatically feed and cycle originals. Provide limitless sorting of Automatically adjust for various ' two paper

rept withe

..l..1_ �

Science Fiction? No. Science fact . It's here today.

larriYOU. 1 4

of humanity--a hypothesis that cannot be ignored):

-complete au tonomy of capital: a mechanistic where human beings become simple accessories an automated system, though still retaining an execu tive role ;

-mutation of the hu man being, or rather a change of the species: p roduction of a perfect ly progra m mable being which has l ost a l l the characteristics of the species Homo sapiens. This wou ld not require an automatized syste m , since th is perfect h u ma n be i ng wou l d be made to do whatever i s required;

-genera lized l u nacy: i n the p lace of h u man bein gs, a nd on the basis of thei r p resent l i m itations, cap ita l rea lizes everythi ng they desire (normal or abnormal) , but h u man beings can n ot f i n d the m se lves and enjoyment continua l ly l ies in the futu re. The h u man be i n g is carr ied off in the ru n-away of capita l , and keeps it gOing. 8

The resu l t is u l timate l y the same: the evo l u tion of the h u man be i ng is frozen , sooner in one case than in another. T hese possi b i l it ies a re abstract lim its; i n rea l ity they tend to u nfol d sim u lta neou s ly and in a contrad ictory man ner. To cont i nue on its i ndefi nite course, capita l i s forced to ca l l o n the activity o f human bei ngs, t o exal t their creativity. A nd to sec u re its permanence, cap ita l has to act qu ick ly . It r u n s i n t o barr iers of t i m e and space which are lin ked to the dec rease of natu ra l resou rces (wh ich can not a ll be rep laced by synthetic substitutes) a nd the m ad i ncrease of h u man

8This possibility is described and exalted in Future Shock by Alvin Toffler.

1 5

population (which causes the disappearance of numerous forms of life).

It becomes clear that raising the banner of labor or its abolition remains on the terrain of capital, within the frame­work of its evolu tion. Even the movement toward u nlimited generalization of desire is isomorphic to the indefinite move­ment of capital.

The capitalist mode of production is not decadent and can not be d ecadent. Bou rgeo is soc iety d is integrated, to be su re, bu t this did not l ead to com m u nism . At most we can say that com m u n i sm was affi rmed i n opposit ion to bou rgeo i s society, b u t not i n opposit ion t o cap i ta l . The ru n-away of capita l was not perce ived; in fact th is ru n-away was rea l ized o n l y with the r ise of the fasc ist, Naz i , popu lar fro nt m ove­ments, the New Dea l , etc . , m ovements wh ich are t ransit ions from formal to rea l dom i nat ion . It was t h ought t hat com­m u n i sm was em erg i ng from the soc ia l ization of h u man ac­t ivity and thus from the destruct ion of pr ivate property, w h i l e in fact cap i ta l was emerg i ng as a mater ia l com m u n ity .

2 . Growth of Product ive Forces; Domestication of Human Beings

The capita l ist m ode of production becom es decadent only with the o u tbrea k of effect ive revo lut ion aga i nst cap ita l . A s o f now, human bei ngs have been decayi ng f o r a centu ry, they have been d o mest icated by cap ita l . T h i s domesticat ion is the source of the p ro letar iat's i nabi l ity to l iberate hu manity. P roductive forces cont i n u e to grow, bu t these are forces of capita l .

1 6

" Capitalist produ ction develops techniqu e and the combination of the social production process only by simultaneou sly u sing u p the two sources from which all wealth springs: the land and the laborer."g

It makes no sense to proclaim that hu manity's pro­ductive forces have stopped growing, that the capitalist mode of production has begun to decay. Such views reveal the inability of many theoret ic ians to recogn ize the ru n-away of cap i ta l and th u s to u nderstand com m u n ism and the com­m u n ist revo lut ion . Paradox ica l ly , Marx anal yzed the de­composit ion of bou rgeois soc iety a n d the condit ions for the deve l opment of the cap ita l ist m ode of production: a society whe re productive forces cou Id deve l o p free l y. What he presented as the p roject of com m u n i sm was rea l i zed by cap i ta l .

Marx e laborated a d ia lect ic o f the deve l opment of product ive forces. 10 He he l d that h u man emanc i pat ion depended on ,the i r fu l lest expans ion. Com m u n ist revo l ut i o n -the refore the e n d o f t h e cap i ta l i st m ode of production-was

9Marx, Capital, Vol . I [Le Capital, L. I , t . 2, p. 182 .) 10This requires a detai led stu dy which wou ld incl ude the

analysis of labor. I n the article which fol lows we begin this study: it presents the first concl usions we've reached. I n particu lar we want to anal yze the stage of this decadence of humanity, how it is ex pressed, etc. I n addition we want to show the intimate connection between the movement of va lue and the dialectic of the productive forces. The end of the movement of value and of capital is the end of a mode of representation and destroys its autonomy. The Marxian dialectic wil l be complete ly overcome.

1 7

to take place when this mode of production was no longer "large enough" to contain the productive forces. But Marx is trapped in an ambiguity. He thinks that the human being is a

to and that the human being as a to its development as power. Marx also suggests that capital can escape from the human barrier. He is led to postulate a self-negation of capital. This self-negation takes the form of crises which he perceived either as moments when cap ita l i s restructu red (a regeneration carri ed out by the destruct ion of p roducts i n h i biti ng the process: another reason why cap i ta l i sm must d i sappear) , or as the actua l m om ent when cap i ta l is destroyed.

I n other words, w h i l e p rov i d i ng the e lem ents necessary for u ndersta n d i n g the rea l dom i nation of cap ita l over soc iety, Marx d i d n ot deve l o p the concept; h e did n ot recogn ize the ru n-away of cap i ta l . For Marx, gol d remai n ed a barr ier to capita l , the contrad ict ion between va l or izat ion and de­val orizat ion rema i ned i n force, and the p l u nder and estrange­ment of p ro l etar ians rema i ned an o bstac l e to the evo l u tion of capita l.

" In the devel o p m ent of p roductive forces there com es a stage when p roductive forces and m eans of i nter­cou rse are brought i nto bei ng, which, u nder the ex i st i ng relatio n sh i ps, o n l y cau se m isch ief, and are no l o nger p rodu ctive bu t destructive forces ( mach i nery and m oney) . . . "

(Before conti n u i ng the c itation, we sh ou l d m ention the retardation of th ose who proc la i m that cap ita l now deve l ops only destructive forces. It tu rns out that for Marx, in 1847, cap i ta l is destructio n; he cont i n u ed to h o l d this v iew.)

1 8

" ... and connected with this a class is called forth, which has to bear all the burdens of society without enjoying its advantages, which, ousted from society, is forced into the most decided antagonism to all other classes; a class which forms the majority of all members of society, and from which emanates the consciousness of the necessity of a fundamental revolu­tion, the communist consciousness, which may, of course, arise amor]g the other classes too through the contemp lation of the situatio n of this c1ass."11

T he proletariat is the great hope of Marx and of the revolu tionaries of his epoch. T his is the class whose struggle for emancipatio n wil l liberate al l h umanity. Marx's work is at once an analysis of the capitalist mode of production and of the proletariat's role within it. T his is why the theory of va l u e a nd the theory of the proletariat are co nnected, thou gh not directly:

"T h e aljove app lication of the Ricardian theory, that the entire social product belo ngs to the workers as their product, because they are the so le real producers, l eads direct l y to com m u nism. But, as Marx i ndicates t oo in the above-quoted passage, formally it is economical ly i ncorrect, for it is simp ly an app lication of mora lity to economics. According to the laws of bourgeois eco nomics, the greatest part of the product does not be long to the workers who have produced it. If we now say: that is u njust, that ought not to be so, t h e n that has nothi ng immediately to do with economics. We are m ere l y sayi ng that this economic fact is in contradiction to our se nse of morality. Marx,

1 1 Engel s, Marx, The German Ideology, [Moscow, 1964, p. 85.1

1 9

therefore, never based his communist demands u pon this, b ut u pon the inevitable collapse of the capitalist mode of production which is daily taking place before our eyes to an ever greater degree . . . "12

Marx did not develop a philosophy of exploitation, as Bordiga often recalled. How will the capitalist m ode of pro­duction be destroyed, and what does the "ruin" consist of? ( Engels, in 1 884, p rovided argum ents for those who today spea k of the decadence of capita l ism.) Th is i s not spec if ied . After Marx the p ro letariat was reta i n ed as the c l ass n ecessary for the f ina l destruction, the defi n i t ive abol it ion of cap ita l­ism, and it was taken for granted that the proletar iat wou l d be forced to d o t h i s.

B ernste i n grasped t h i s aspect of Marx's theory, and app l i ed h i m se lf to demonstratir.lg that there were n o contra­d ictions push i ng toward d isso l u t i o n.13 B ut th i s l ed B ernstei n to become a n apologist for the o l d bou rgeois soc i ety which capital was abou t to destroy, espec i a l ly after 1 9 1 3; con­sequently h i s work d oes not in any way c lar i fy the present situation.

Marx l eft us mater ia l with wh ich to overcome the theory of va l u e, and a l so m ater ia l necessary for overcom i n g t h e theory of the proletariat. The two theor i es a r e rel ated, and just i fy each other. In the Grundrisse, M a rx pra ises the

} 12

Engels, "Preface" to The Poverty of Philosophy by Marx, New York : 1 963, p. 1 1 .

1 3See particularly "The Movement of I ncome in Modern Society" and "Crises and Possibilities of Adaptation" in Presupposi­tions of Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy, R owohlt Verlag, pp. 73ft.

20

capitalist mode of production, which he considers revolu­tionary. What is not stated explicitly is that the proletariat has this attribu te to the extent that it carries ou t the internal laws of capitalism. The proletariat is present in the analysis. Marx postulates that the proletariat's misery will necessarily push it to revolt, to destroy the capitalist mode of produc­tion and thu s to liberate whatever is progressive in this mode of production, namely the tendency to expand produ ctive forces.

I n Capital the p ro letariat is no longer treated as the c lass that represents the disso l u tion of society, as negation at work. The c lass in qu estion h ere is the working c lass, a c l ass which is more or l ess integrated in society, which is enga ged in revol u tionary reformism: stru ggle for wage increases, stru ggle a gainst h eavy work i m posed on wom en and chi l d ren, stru gg le for the sh ortening of the working day.

At the end of the fi rst vo l u m e, Marx exp l ains the dynamic which leads to the ex propriation of the ex­prop riators, 1;0 the increase of mise ry 14 which wi l l fo rce the p rol eta riat to rise agai nst capita l .1 5

I n the third vol u me, and a l so in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, M a rx does not descri be a rea l dis­conti nuity between ca pita lism and com m u nism. Productive forces continue to grow. T h e discontinu ity lies in the fact that the goa l of p roduction is inverted (after the revo l u tion; i. e. , the discontinuity is tem poral). The goa l ceases to be wea lth , bu t h u ma n beings. H owever, if there is no rea l dis-

1 4Here we should be careful, as Bordiga justly observed, not to reduce this to an economic concept.

1 5Marx, Capital, Vol. I, New York: R andom House, pp. 835-837.

2 1

continuity between capitalism and communism, human beings must be wilfully transformed; how else could the goal be inverted? This is Marx's revolu tionary reformism in its greatest amplitude. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the transitional phase (in the Grundrisse it is the capitalist mode of production that constitu tes this transitional phase: this is obviou sly extremely relevant to the way we define com­munism today) is a period of reforms, the most important bei ng the shorten i n g of the working day and use of the l a bor voucher. What we sh ou l d n ote h e re, though we can not i nsist on it, is the connectio n between reform ism and d ictatorship .

The proletar iat seems t o be needed t o gu ide t h e de­velopm ent of productive forces away from the po le of va l u e toward t h e pole o f h u m a n ity. I t may happen that the pro­l etariat i s i ntegrated by cap i ta l , bu t-a nd th is i s a bu sed by va r ious Marxists-crises destroy the p ro l etar iat's reserves and reinstate i t into i ts revolu t ionary rol e. T h en the i nsu rrect ion aga i nst capita l i s p ossi b l e aga i n .

T h u s Marx's work seems l a rgel y t o b e the authent ic consc i ousness of th" cap i ta l i st m ode of p roduct ion . The bou rgeois ie, a nd the capita l ists who fol lowed, were a b l e to express only a fa l se consciou sness with the h e l p of the i r variou s theori es. Fu rthermore, t h e cap ita l i st m ode of pro­duction has rea l i z ed Marx's p ro l etar ian p roj ect. B y rem a i n i ng on a narrowly Marx ist terra i n , the p roletar iat and i ts theoreti­cians were ou tfla n ked by the fol l owers of cap ita l . Cap i ta l , hav ing ach i eved rea l dom i n at ion , rat if ies t h e va l i d ity of Marx's )work in its redu ced form (as h i storica l m ateria l i sm) . W h i l e German proletar ians at the beg i n n i n g of t h i s centu ry thought thei r act ions were destroy i n g the cap ital ist m ode of production, they fai l ed to see they were o n l y t ry i n g to manage i t themse lves. Fa l se consciousness took h o l d of the prol etar iat.

22

Historical materialism is a glorification of the wander­ing in which humanity has been engaged for more than a century: growth of productive forces as the condition sine-qua-non for liberation� But definition all quantitative growth takes place in the of the the false

Who will measure the of the forces to determine whether or not the great day has come? For Marx there was a double and contradictory movement: growth of productive forces and immiseration of proletarians; this was to lead to a revolu tionary collision. Put differen tly, there was a contradiction between socialization of produc­tion a nd private appropriation.

The moment when the productive forces were to reach the level required for the transformation of the mode of production was to be the momen t when the crisis of capital­ism began. T his crisis was to expose the narrowness of this mode of production a nd its inabi lity to hold new productive forces, a nd thus make visib le the antagonism between the prod uctive forces and the capita list forms of production. But capita l has ru n away; it h as absorbed crises and it has suc­cessfu l l y provided a social reserve for the pro letarians. Ma ny have nothi ng left to do bu t to ru n o n ahead: some say the prod uctive forces are not developed enough, others say t hey h ave stopped growing. Both reduce the whole problem either to organizing the va n gu ard, the party, or resort to activities designed to raise consciousness.

Development in the context of wandering is deve lop­ment in the context of mystification. Marx considered mystification the resu l t of a reversed relation: capital, the product of the worker's activity, appears to be the creator. The m ystification is rooted in rea l events; it is rea lity in process that mystifies. Something is mystified even throu g h a strugg le of the pro letariat against capita l; the generalized

23

mystification is the triumph of capital. But if, as a con­sequence of its anthropomorphization, this reality produced by mystification is now the sole reality, then the question has to be put differently. 1) Since the mystification is stable and real, there is no point in waiting for a demystification which would only expose the truth of the previous situation. 2) Because of capital's run-away, the mystification appears as reality, and thus the mystification is engulfed and rendered i noperative. We h ave the despotism of capita l .

T h e assertion that t h e m ystification is sti l l operative wou l d mean that h u m a n bei ngs a re able to engage in rea l relat ions and a re conti nu a l ly m ystif ied. I n fact the m ystifica­tion was operative o nce a n d became rea l i ty. It refers to a h istor ical stage com pl eted i n the past. T his does not e liminate the i m po rtance of u ndersta n d i n g and stu dyi n g it so as to understa nd the m ovement which l eads to the present stage of the capi ta l ist mode of p roduction a nd to be awa re of the rea l actors t h rou gh the ages.

Both the m yst i fy i n g- m ysti f ied rea l ity as wel l as the p revious ly m ystif ied rea l ity have to be destroyed. The mystif ication is on ly "v is i b l e" i f o n e breaks (w ithou t i l l us ions about the lim i tat ions of th is break) with the representations of cap ita l . Marx's work is very im portant for this b reak. But it conta i ns a m ajor f law: it fa i ls to ex p l a i n the whole mag nitude of the m ystificat io n because it does not recognize the ru n-away of capita l .

E a r l ier, revo l u t ion was poss i b le as soon as the mystif icat ion was exposed; the revo l u t ionary p rocess was its dest ruction . Today the h u man bei n g h as been engu l fed, not o n l y in the d eter m i nat ion of c l ass where h e was trapped for centu r ies, but as a biologica l be ing . It is a tota l ity that h as to be destroyed. Demyst i f icatio n is no longer enoug h. T h e revolt o f h u m a n bei n gs th reatened i n t h e i m m ed i acy of t he i r

24

daily lives goes beyond demystification. The problem is to create other lives. This problem lies simultaneously outside the ancient discourse of the workers' movement and its old practice, and outside the critique which considers this move­ment a simple ideology (and considers the human being an ideological precipitate).

3. Repressive Consciousness

Mystification does not o n l y affect capita list society but a lso affects the theory of capita lis m . Marxist theo ry e l evated to the rank of pro l etarian consciousness is a n ew form of consciousness: repressive conscious ness. We wi l l d escri be som e of its characteristics, leavi n g aside the p robl em of d etermining whether or not a l l forms of consciousness th roughout history are repressive.

The obj ect of repressive consciousness is the goa l wh ich it thinks it controls . Si nce there is a gap between this goa l and im m ediate' reality, this consciousness becomes theo logica l and refines the differences between the minim u m or i m mediate program a n d t h e m axim u m , fu tu re, or m ediate p rogram. But the longer the path to its rea lization, the more conscious ness m akes itse l f the goa l and reifies itse l f in an orga nization w hich com es to inca rnate the goa l .

T h e proj ect o f this co nsciousness is to fra m e rea lity with its concept. This is the sou rce of a l l the sophisms a bout the d ivergence betwee n obj ective and subj ective e lements. It exists but it can not be. And precisely because of its inabi lity to be, it h as to negate and scorn w hatever is trying to emerge, to be.

25

I n other words, it exists but it needs certain events to be real. Since it is a product of the past, it is refuted by every current event. Thus it can only exist as a polemic with reality. It refutes everything. It can survive only freezing,

increasingly totalitarian. I n order to it has to be organized: thus the mystique of the party, of councils, and of other coagulations of despotic consciousness.

All direct action which does not recognize this consciousness (and every polit ical rac ket pretends to embody the true consc iousness) is co ndemned by it. Co ndem natio n is fol lowed by justificatio n: i mpatience of those who revolt, l ack of m aturity, provocation by the dom inant class. T he p icture is com p leted by l itan ies on the petit-bourgeo is character of the eterna l anarchists and the u top ian ism of i ntel lectuals or you n g peop le. Stru gg les are not real u nless they revive c lass consc iousness; som e go so far as to wish for war, so that th is consciousness wi l l at l ast be produced.

T heory h as tu rned i nto repress ive consciousness. The proleta ri at h as become a m yth, not in terms of i ts existence, but i n terms of its revo l u tiona ry role as the class w h ic h was to l i berate a l l h u m a n ity and thus reso lve all socio-econom ic contradictions. I n rea l ity it exists in al l cou ntr ies charac­terized by the fo rma l dom i natio n of capita l , whe re th is p roletar iat sti l l consti tu tes the m ajority of the popu l ation; i n cou ntries characte rized b y the real dom i nation of cap ital one sti l l f inds a l arge nu m ber of m en and women i n cond it ions of 19th centu ry p ro l etar ians. But the act iv ity of every party a nd eve ry grou p is orga n i zed a ro u n d the myth . T he m yth is thei r sou rce. Everyth i n g beg i ns with the appeara nce of t h is c l ass which is defi ned as the o n l y revo l u tionary class' i n h istory, o r a t least as the most revo l u t ionary. Whatever happened before is ordered as a fu nction of the rise of this c lass, and ear l ier events are secondary i n rel ation to those

26

lived or created by the proletariat. It even defines conduct. Whoever is proletarian is saved; one who is not must ex piate the defect of non-proletarian birth by various practices, going so far as to serve terms in factories. A group achieves re­

only at the moment when it is able to exhibit one or several "authentic" proletarians. presence of the man with calloused hands is the guarantee, the cer­tificate of revolutionary authenticity. The content of the program defended by the group, its theory, even its act ions, cease to be i m po rtan t; all that m atters is the presence or a bsence of the "proleta rian ." The m yth m aintains a n d revives the a ntagonism between inte l l ectu a l and m a n u a l . Ma ny cou nci l ists m a ke a cu l t of a n ti-i ntel lectualism w hich serves them as a su bstitute for th eo ry and ju stification . T h ey c a n pronou nce any idiocy; they' l l b e saved; they're proletarians.

J u st as it is thou ght by many that one w ho leaves the party thereby ceases to be revo l u tionary, so it is considered i m possib le to be revo l u tionary without c l aiming one's p ro­l etarian positipn , withou t ta king on the virtu es thou ght to be prol etarian . T h e cou nter-revolu tion ends at the m ythic a l frontiers w hich sep arate t h e p ro l etariat from t h e rest o f the socia l body. Any action is ju stif ied in the name of the pro letarian m ovement. One d oes not act because of a n eed to act, because of h atred for capita l , but because the pro letariat has to recover its c l ass base. Action and thought a re u nvei l ed by interm ediaries.

T his is h ow, especia l ly after 1945, the p ro l etariat as revolutionary c lass ou t lived itse l f: t h rough its m yt h .

A historica l stu dy of p ro letarian revo l u tionary m ove­m ents wou l d shed light o n the l imited character of this c l a ss. M a rx h i m se l f c l ea r l y exposed its reformist cha racter. Fundamenta lly , fro m 1848, when it demanded the right to work, to 19 17- 1923, when it demanded fu l l em p l oyment and

27

C") I» = .... c: =

= =

I» =

"< -c: CD

I :-

f\.) C') CO I» � C) .... lIE I» -CD :-' C) .... CD 0< CD =

CIQ I» .... =-I»

CIQ �

LIP: NOUS SOUHAITONS QUE VOUS AIMIEZ VOTRE METIER AUT ANT QUE NOUS AIMONS LE NOTRE.

Chez un hnrlogcr de chose Je plus qu'une grande aigu de la precisIon: C'est l'a�l�)Ul du mct1cr .

Car 11 faut auner ce metler apportcr sans ctsse des perfectionnements ;l qualite d'unc montre, pour inventer des machi0cs speciales qui fabriquent des pieces OllCUX adaptees, pour innover dans rom domames

self-management by workers' u nions, the proletariat rebelled solely within the interior of the capitalist system. This seems to conflict with Marx's statements in his " Critical Notes on the Article 'The King of Prussia and Social Reform. ' By a Prussian" : "But at this moment the proletariat really manifested itself as a class without reserves, as a total negation. It was forced to create a profou nd ru pture which makes possible an u nderstanding of what communist re­volution and therefo re communism can be.

, ,16 Ma rx was

r ight; but the cap i ta l ist mode of p roduct ion, i n order to s u rvive, was forced to a n n i h i l ate the negation w h ich u n d e r­m i ned i t. The p ro l eta r iat which is outs ide of soc iety, as Ma rx and Engels say i n The German Ideology, is i ncreas i n g l y i ntegrated i nto soc iety; it i s i ntegrated to t h e extent that i t stru ggl es for surv iva l , for rei n forcem ent; t h e more i t orga n i zes itse lf, the more i t beco m es reform ist. It succeeds, w ith the Germa n Soc ia l ist Party, in for m i n g a cou nter-soci ety w h ich is f i na l ly absorbed by the society of cap ita l , and the n egat i ng m ovem ent of the p ro l eta riat is over.17

D idn't Kautsky, Bernstei n a n d Len i n s i m p l y recog n i ze the rea l i ty of the workers' m ovem ent when they d ec l a red that it was necessa ry to u n ite it w i th the socia l ist movement: "Th e workers' movem en t a n d soc i a l ism a re i n no way ident ica l by natu re" (Kautsky)?

Doesn't Len i n's d iscred ited statem ent that the p ro­l etar iat, l eft to itse l f, can o n l y atta i n trade-u n io n consc ious­ness, d escribe the truth about the c l ass bou n d to cap ital? It

1 6Marx, Early Writings, London: Pelican, 1 974, pp. 40 1 -420. 1 7Which proves that it was impossible to hold on to a "classist"

discourse and behavior while maintaining the basic "aclassist" thesis of the necessity of the proletariat's self-negation.

29

can be criticized only from the standpoint of the distinction, made by Marx in The Poverty of Philosophy, between class as object of capital and class as subject. Without a revolutionary upheaval the proletariat cannot become a subject. The process through which it was to become a subject implied an outside, external consciousness, which at a given moment would become incarnated in the proletariat. This conscious­ness coming from the outside is the most reified, the most estranged form of repress ive consciousness! Consequently, the point is not to rehash the debate and return to Marx, but to recognize that the cycle of the p ro l etarian c lass is now over, first of a l l because its goa ls have been rea lized, second l y because i t is no longer t h e determinant in the g loba l context. We h ave reach ed the end of the historica l cyc l e d u ri n g which h u manity (especially the part situated in the West) moved w ithi n c lass societies. Capita l has rea lized the negation of c lasses-by m ea ns of m ystification, since it retains the conflicts and co llisions which cha racterize the existence of c l asses. The rea lity is the despotism of cap ita l . It is capital we m ust now face, not the past.

A l most a l l socia l democrats were aware of the divorce between the rea l , reformist movement of the working c lass and the socia list goa l . Bernstei n proc l a i m ed that it was necessary to adapt o nce and for a l l , c lear l y a n d straight­forward ly, not h ypoc ritica l ly ( like the majority of the socia l ­ists) by mak i n g revo l u tionary proclamations i n order to hide com p romises. 1 8 At the sam e tim e, it becam e i nc reasing ly

) 180n this subject, see the book by H. Mueller published in

1892, Der Klassenkampf in der Deutschen Sozialdemokratie, Verlags­kooperative Heidelberg- Frankfurt-Hanover-Berlin, 1969. This book clearly shows the duality-duplicity of men like Bebel, who expressed themselves as "rightists" in parliament and as "leftists" at workers'

30

problematic to define and delimit the proletarian class. This problem became so acute that by the beginning of this

all revolutionaries were trying to define the in terms of consciousness: Luxemburg, Pannekoek

Lenin, the etc. Russian revolution merely increased the urgency of

specifying the proletarian class; this is the context of Korsch's attempts, and especially of Lukacs' History and Class Consciousness. Later on Bordiga held that the class should be defined i n terms of the mode of production w hich it builds. T h us it can be a c lass for itse l f o n l y from the mom ent when its actio ns move toward this goa l , o n l y to the extent that it recognizes its program (which describes this mode of production). For Bordiga, it exists when t he party exists, because the program can o n l y be carried by the party. "We sti l l need an object, the party, to envision the com­m u nist society.

, ,19 But to the extent that m en and wom en are ab le to move o n their own toward com m u nism , as is evident a mOrlg you n g peop l e today, it becom es obvious t hat this object, the party, is not needed.

I n su m, for party as we l l as cou nci l advocates, the pro b l em of action wou ld l arge l y be reduced to fin di n g a direct or i ndirect m eans for m a king the prol etariat receptive to its own consciousness-since i n this view the pro l etariat is itsel f on ly throu gh its consciousness of itsel f.

meetings, who told one audience it would be very long before the principles of socialism could be realized, while telling another that socialism was around the corner. This book is also interesting because it contains positions which were later to be taken up by the KAPD (German Communist Workers' Party).

19Bordiga at meeting in Milan, 1960.

3 1

4. Communism

R e v o lu tionary reformism-the project of creating socia lism on the foundation of capitalism and in continuity wi t h t h e c a pita list mode of production-disi ntegrated between 19 13 and 1945. I t is the end of what tu rned out to be a n i l l usion: the i l l usion of being ab le to di rect the de­velopment of the p rodu ctive forces in a di rection which differed fro m the one they had taken in rea lity. We can actu a l l y agree with Marx's view that after 1848 com m u nism was possib le precise l y because the irruption of the capita list mode of production h a d broken a l l socia l and natu ra l barriers a nd made free development possi b le. But the m e nta lity, the representations of peop le were such that they cou l d neither concieve nor perceive such a futu re. T hey were too de­pendent on the mi l lenarian movement of va l u e, or they were too debi litated by the limitations of th e perverted rem ai ns of thei r ancient com m u nities, to be ab le to set out on a new path to reach a nother com m u nity. Even Marx and E ngels u l timatel y considered capita lisl)1 a n ecessary moment, a n d thou ght t h a t a l l h u m a n beings everywhere wou l d inevita b l y come to experience it. O n l y the revo l ts o f the Russian popu lists, and their d esire to avoid the capita list road, m ade Marx

'u nderstan d h i s error. B u t th i s recognition was in­

sufficient. F rom the midd le of the 1 9th centu ry, with the just i fication p rovi d ed by M a rx i st theory (the t heory of the pro l etar iat) , a l l h u m a nity set out to wander: to develop productive forces.

32

If we can no longer accept Marx's theoretical analysis of the role of the productive forces, we can nevertheless agree with him after a detour. Capital enslaves humanity in the very name of humanity because it is anthropomorphized. This is nothing other than the reign of death. Human beings are dominated by their past being, while they contemplate it. It is a process which continually starts over again. Capital penetrates thought, consciousness, and thus destroys human bein gs such as they h ave bee n produced by ce nturies of c l ass society. Their loss of substa nce is the loss of their form er being, which capita l h as p u m ped out of them . Si nce this process is a l most over, capita l is now turning from its attack against the past dim e nsion of h u m anity to an attack agai nst its future dim ension: it m ust now conquer im agi nation. T h e h u m a n being is t h u s despoi led and tends to b e reduced to t h e biologica l dim en sio n. T h e phenom enon reach es t h e roots. I n other words, t h e development o f productive forces appears to have been necessary for the destruction of o ld sche m as, modes of thou ght, archaic representations which limited h u m a n beings (thi s destruction i s now being a n a l yzed by phi losophers like Foucau lt ) . Th reatened in their pure l y bio logica l existence, h u m an bei n gs are begi n ning to rise against capita l . It is at this point that everythi ng can be re-conquered by genera lized creation. But this becoming is not sim pl e, u ni li near . Capital can sti l l profit from the creativity of hu m a n beings, regen erating and resubstan­tia lizi n g itse l f by p l u nderi n g thei r im agi nations. T h e im­porta nce a nd p rofu ndity of the stru ggl e can be grasped in the face of the a l ternative: com m u nism or destruction of the h u m an species. A n d it shou l d not be forgotten that during the wandering variou s revo l u tionary movements l ooked for

33

an exit and various possibilities were blocked; they can now manifest themselves. 20

We have to stop and destroy the repressive which inhibits the emergence of communism.

do this we have to prolongation the mode of and stop thinking it is enough to suppress exchange value and make use value triumphant. This dichotomy no longer signifies anyth i ng. Use value is t ied to value even if it revolves arou nd the pri nc ip le of u t i l i ty i nstead of productiv ity ; related to the d irect domi nation of h u ma n bei n gs , it is i nseparable from private property.

20Absolute i rreversi b i l ity i s not a fact of h i story. Possib i l it ies wh ich appeared thousa nds or h u ndred s of years ago were not a bo l i shed for a l l t ime. H istory is not a Mo loch which swa l lows possib i l it ies, condemning the human future to an i nev itable and i rremediable de­spoliation. I n that case h i story wou ld be no more than a j u st if icat ion for what happened. Many wou ld l i ke to reduce h i story to th i s, m a k i ng it the worst of despots.

H e gel ' s p h i l o so p h y w i t h i t s dia lect ic of supersession (A ufhebung), of movement which abol i shes a nd preserves at one and the same time, was a n attem pt to sa lvage what human bei ngs had produced in ear lier epochs. Hege l was trou bled by the problem s of loss of rea l ity, of the m ult ipl ic ity of man ifestations and poss ib les, etc. Thus he attached enormous i m portance to memory ( see part icu lar ly the chapter "Absolute Knowledge," in the Phenomenology of Mind.)

By contrast, the movement of capital abolishes the memory of its prev ious stages (by mystif ication and magic) as we ll as the stages of humanity, and presents itself, as it is, at its highest level of develop­ment-the "reified (or ossified) form" (See Marx, Theories o f Surplus Value, [ Moscow: 197 1 ] , Vol. I I I , chapter on " Revenue and its Sources. Vulgar Political Economy."

34

Communism is not a new mode of production21 ; it is the affirmation of a new commu nity. It is a question of

2 1 The concept of mode of produ ction is in reality valid for m od e of as the concept of class is in

The conce pt of in attributes. I t becomes im poverished

when we m ove from the 1844 Manuscripts and The German Ideology to Capital. I t is closely related to the conce pt of nature and also t o a certai n conception of the h u m a n being. I n other words , we have a m u ch more com plex "given" when we can examine it on ly in re lation to the existence of initial communist communities and their dissolution. The separation of the human being from the community (Gemeinwesen) is a despoliation . The human being as worker has lost a mound of attributes which formed a whole when he was related to his community.

The process of expropriation of human beings is rea l . Those who do not understand this do not understand what capital is. Man has been reduced to an inexpressive being; he has lost his senses, and his activity has been reduced to quantified labor . Man turned into abstract being longs for music which still preserves the ancestral sensuality (thus the vogue of jazz and South American music ) . The reduced human being now has only one element relating him to the external world: sexuality which fills the void of the sen ses. It is precisely this which explains the pan-sexuality, or more exactly the pansexualization of being which F reud interpreted as an invariant characteristic of human beings, whereas it is the result of their mutilation . What is the sub­conscious if not the affective-sensual life of the human being repressed by capital? The human being has to be domesticated, shaped to a rationality which he must internalize-the rationality of the process of production of capital. Once this domestication is achieved, the human being is dispossessed of this repressed sensual life which becomes an object of k nowledge, of science; it becomes capitalizable . The un­conscious, becoming an object of commerce, is thinly sliced and re­tailed in the market of k nowledge. The unconscious did not always exist, and it exists now only as a component in the discourse of capital ; this is also true of human perversions.

R educed to perfect inexpressivity, the human being increasingly becomes comparable point by point to the elementary particle studied by nuclear physics, where one can find the principles of the psychology of the capitalized human being who is moved by the field of capital.

35

being, of life, if only becau se there is a f undamental dis­placement: from generated activity to the living being who produced it. Until now men and women have been alienated by this production. They will not mastery over pro­duction, but will create new relations among themselves which will determine an entirely different activity.

Nor is communism a new society.2 2 Society grows out of the subju gation of some ethnic grou ps by others, or out of the formation of c lasses . Society is the networ k of socia l relations w hich quic k l y beco m e despotic intermediaries . Man i n society is m a n ens laved by society.

Com m u nism puts an end to castes, c lasses and the div ision of labor (onto w hich was grafted the m ovement of val u e which in tu rn a ni mates and exa l ts this d ivision) . Com­m u nism is first of a l l u nion . It is not dominatio n of natu re but reconci l iation, a n d thus regeneration of natu re: h u man bein gs no l o nger treat natu re s i m pl y as a n o bject for thei r deve l opment, as a usefu l t h i ng, but as a su bj ect (not i n the ph i l osophic sense) n ot separate from them i f on ly because natu re is in them . T h e natu ralization of m a n and the

22 1t is also unsound to speak of primitive society. We will substantiate this by making a new analysis of primitive communities. I f it i s true that Marx's work does not deal adequately with the existence, development and dissolution of primitive communities, it is not true that Marx is absolutely wrong because of Europocentrism or the spirit of enlightenment, namely that his work suffers from the same short­comin�s as bourgeois theory. The majority of those who hold this view have riot understood the question of community in Marx's work and have reduced his work to a simple historical materialism.

What Marx's work lacks is a detailed analysis of the way "the economy" appears in primitive communities and provokes their dis­integration.

We should add that it is becoming increasingly misleading to speak of capitalist society. We will return to this.

36

humanization of nature (Marx) are realized; the dialectic of subject and object ends.

What follows is the destruction of urbanization and the formation of a multitude of communities distributed over the earth. This implies the suppression of monoculture, another form of division of labor, and a complete trans­formation of the transportation system: transportation will d i m i n ish cons i derably. Only a com m u nal (com m u n i tar ian) mode of l ife can a l low the h u man bei ng to rule h is re­p rodu ction, to l i m it the (at p resent m ad) growth of pop u la­tion withou t resorting to despica b le practices (such as d estroyi ng men and wom en).

The domination of one gro u p over another, the soci ety of c lasses, or ig i nates in the sedentar ization of the h u man bei n g. We sti l l l ive w ith the m yths generated at the t im e of this fixation somewhere i n ou r mother-earth: m yths of the hom eland, the foreigner; m yths w hich lim it the v is ion of the world, wh ich m utilate. It is o bvious that the reaction can not be a retu rn to a nomadism of a type p racticed by ou r d istant a ncestors w ho were gatherers. Men and women w i ll acqu i re a new mode of bei n g beyo n d nom adism and sedentarism. Sedentary lives com pou nded by corporeal i nactivity are the root cause of a l most a l l the somatic and psycholog ical i l l ­nesses of p resent-day human beings. An active and u n fixed l ife w i l l cu re a ll these p rob lems withou t m ed i c i ne or psyc h iatry.

The passage to com m u nism im plies a transformation of tech niqu e. Technology is not a neutral thing; it is determined by the mode of p roduction. I n the West, more than else­w h e r e , t h e var ious modes of p roduction i ncreas i n g l y separated h u m a n beings fro m tec h nology, which was o rigi n a l­l y no more tha n a modal ity of h u man bei ng. T h e cal l for a convenient tech no logy is a cal l for a tech nology w h i c h is

37

38

again a prolongation of the human being and not an autonomous thing at the service of an oppressive being. 23

Human beings in communism cannot be defined as simple users; this would be communism conceived as a ter­restrial paradise where people dispose of what there is with such immediacy that human beings are indistinguishable from nature (man, as Hegel said in this context, would be an animal). Human beings are creators, producers, users. The entire process is reconstituted at a higher level, and for every individual. I n relations between individuals, the other is no

23 1 n primitive communities human beings ru le techno logy. Technology starts to become autonomous in ancient Western society, and this was feared by the ancients. Technology forces man to copy nature, even if later he can find a procedure not found in nature ; thus he is subjected to a compulsory procedure, a how-to-do, a sort of natural order. He seems to lose the capacity to create free ly . ( On this subject, see the comments of J .P. Vernant in My the et pensoo chez les grecs, Ed. Maspero. ) When human beings no longer fear technology, they simultaneously become reconci led with art, which had been disparaged at the end of s lave society. This took p lace at the time of the R enaissance, w hen phi losophers defined man as a being who makes himself (See Cassirer, Individual and Cosmos in Renaissance Philo­sophy) . But the development of techno logy did not lead man toward nature; on the contrary, it led to the expropriation of man and the d estruction of nature. The human being increasingly loses the facu lty of creativity. In this sense, the fear of the ancients was justified.

From the phi losophers of the Renaissance, through D escartes and H ege l , to Marx, the human being is defined in relation to tech­nology (man is a tool-maker : Franklin) and to production. To go beyond Marx, it is necessary to re-examine the "human phenomenon" from the disintegration of primitive communities until today and to rethink the works of philosophers and economists from Aristotle to Marx in order to understand more clear ly how human beings perceived themselves in a period when value and then capital dominated, and in order to understand how, now that we have come to the end of the phenomenon value, we can conceive humanity, and thus communism.

39

longer considered in terms of utility; behavior in terms of utility ends. The sexes are reconciled while retaining their differences; they lose the differences and rigid oppositions produced by millenia of antagonism.

few characteristics should adequately how the movement of ascent to the human community can be conceived.

We are all slaves of capital. Liberation begins with the refusa l to perceive onesel f i n terms of the categories of capita l , na me ly as pro l etaria n, as mem ber of the new midd l e c lass, as capita l ist, etc. T h us w e a lso stop perceiving the other-in his movement toward l iberation-in terms of those sam e categories. At this point the movement of recognition of h u m a n beings ca n begin . T his is obvious l y o n l y the begin­ning of the liberation movement, and is continua l l y th reat­ened with fai l u re. Refusing to take this into accou nt denies the power of capita l . What has to be perceived is a dynamic. We are s l aves; o u r goa l is not to become m asters, even without s laves, but to a bo lis h the entire dia l ectic of m aster and s lave. T his goa l ca n n ot be rea lized by the establis hment of com mu nities w hich, a lways iso l ated, are never a n obstac l e t o capita l , ca n easi l y be su rrou n ded b y capita l , and a re no more tha n deviations i n re l ation to its norm (deviations which make that norm visi b le for what it is) . Nor ca n the goa l b e reached b y t h e cu l tivation o f one's individu a l bei ng, i n which o n e wou l d fina l l y find t h e rea l h u m a n bei ng. I n rea l ity these app roaches shou l d be connected. Perceiving onesel f as a h u m a n being u nshac k l ed by any attributes a l ready removes the dog col l a r im posed by c l ass society. T h e desire for com ­m u n ity is abso l u tel y necessary. T h e reaffirmation of in­div idua l ity (especia l l y i n its tem pora l aspect) is a rejection of dom est ication. But t h is is inadequ ate even as a first e l ement of rebel lion; the h u m a n being is a n individua lity and a

40

Gemeinwesen. The reduction of the human being to his present inexpressive state could take place only because of the removal of Gemeinwesen, of the possibility for each individual to absorb the universal, to embrace the entirety of human relations within the entirety of time. The varied religions, ilosophies and theories are mere substitutes for this essential component of human being. Since communism is the death of sameness, of repeti tion, human bei n gs will emerge in all their diversity; Gemeinwesen will be affirm ed by eac h . This im plies that as of now we reject the despotism of a re ligion, a phi loso p h y, a theory.

The refusal to be trapped by a theory is not a rejection of a l l theoretica l refl ection . It is just the opposite. B u t this refus a l does postu l ate that the theoretica l act is insufficient. T h eo ry ca n ca l l for the reconci liation of senses and brai n but it remains withi n the bou da ries of this separation . What m ust be affirmed is the w h o l e of l i fe, the entirety of its manifesta­tions, the who l e u nified bei ng . It m ay sti l l be necessa ry to proceed with the he l p of Ma rx's i nsights, for exa m p l e, but it becomes increasing ly im beci l e to p rocl aim onese l f a Marxist. F u rt hermore, like repressive consciousness, theory ca n beco m e a sim p l e a l ibi for inaction . At the start, the refusa l to act might be perfectl y j ustifiabl e. N everthe l ess, sepa ration fro m rea l ity often l eads to fai l u re to perceive new pheno­mena w hich shape it. At that point theory, instead of h e l pi n g esta bl ish contact with rea lity, becom es an agent o f separa­tion, of remova l , and in the end is transformed into a pro­trusion, a n ejection from the wor ld . Waiting is particu l a r l y diff icu l t for those who d o not w a n t to recognize that others ca n arr ive at theory without us, ou r grou p, or ou r party as intermediaries. T heory, l i ke consciousness, dema n ds ob­j ectification to such a n extent that even an i ndiv i d u a l w h o rej ects politica l rac kets ca n el evate theory t o the status o f a

4 1

racket. In a su bject posing as revolutionary, theory is a despotism: everyone should recognize this.

After the domination of the body by the mind for more than two millenia, it is obvious that is still a

of this domination. It is the whole of life that becomes determining. All

the varied productions of the past-art, philosophy, science­are fragments. They are elements of the vast despol iation of h u man beings as well as attempts to remedy it. But t he point is no longer to realize art or p hilosoph y ; capital has already do ne this in its way ; the point is to conqu er a nd create another world: a world where all the biological potentialities of the species ca n fi nally develop. I n this vast movem ent, it is futi le to want to present o neself as the repository of truth . First of all truth, like value, needs a measure, a standard, a general equival ent, a norm, hence a State . Secondly, truth is never more than one truth . T h e historical inflation of t his concept parallels the ever more thorough destruction of hu man bei ngs. Nothi ng less can be proposed tha n another life where the gestures, the words, the imaginations a nd all the feelings of h u m a n bei ngs will no longer be chained, w h ere senses and brai n will u nite-o n l y t his u nion can eliminate all the fixations of madness. It is obvious that all t his can o nly be conquered by the destr uction of the capitalist mode of prod uction. It i s al l of h u m a nity perceived through time that is hosti l e to capital. H u ma n bei ngs wi ll have to u ndergo a profou nd revo l utionization to be able to oppose capital; the actions of this m ovement are accom panied by the production of revol utionaries.

The em ergence of revo l u tion in al l the domains of o u r lives l eads some people to overemphasize the p l aces w here they fe l t this emergence.

Revolu tion d oes not emerge from one or a n other part

42

of our being-from body, space or time. O u r revolution as a project to reestablish commu nity was necessary from the moment when ancient communities were destroyed. The reduction of to an which was to resolve the contradictions posed by the capitalist mode of production was perniciou s. Revolution has to resolve all the old contradictions created by the class societies absorbed by capital, all the contradictions between relatively primitive com m u nities a n d the m ovement of excha nge va l u e cu rrently being a bsorbed by the m ovement of capita l ( in Asia a n d especia l l y i n Africa) . Beyond this, the revol u tionary m ove­m ent is the revol u tion of natu re, accession to thought, a n d mastery o f being with the possibi lity o f using t h e prefrontal centers of the brain w hich a re thought to rel ate to t h e im agination . R evo l u tion has a bio l ogical and therefore cos mic dim e nsion, consideri n g o u r u niverse limited ( to the sol a r system ) ; cosmic a lso i n t h e m ea ning o f t h e ancient phi l o­sop hers and fllystics. T his m ea ns that revol u tion is not o n l y the object o f t h e passion o f ou r epoch , but a lso that of mil lions of h u m a n bei ngs, sta rting with ou r ancient a ncestors who rebe l l ed agai nst the m ovement of exchange va l u e which they saw as a fata lity, passing t h rough Marx a n d Bordiga who, i n their dim e nsion as p rophets, witnessed this inex­tinguis h a b l e passion to fou n d a new com m u nity, a h u m a n com m u nity. Wa nting t o situ ate t h e revo l u tion is like wanti n g t o fix its height. Sa i n t-J ust said t h a t revo lutio n cou l d not stop u n ti l happiness was rea lized, thus showing the fa lsity of wanting to j u dge men in terms of the p u re l y historica l ­materia l facts o f a given epoch. T h e h u m a n being is n ever a pu re being-there. H e ca n o n l y be by supersedi ng a n d h e ca n not b e o n l y that w hich has to be superseded ( Nietzsche) . Structu ra l l y and bio l ogica l l y m a n is a supersession because h e

43

is an overpowerful being. In other words, human beings are explorers of the possible and are not content with the im­mediately realizable, especially if it is imposed on them. They lose this passion, this thirst for creation-for what is the search for the possible if not invention? -when they are debased, estranged, cut off from their Gemeinwesen and therefore mutilated, reduced to simple individuals. It is only with the real domination of the capitalist mode of produc­tion that the human being is com pletely evacuated.

A l l the revo l u tions of the species a re revolu tions w hich try to go beyond the p resent m om ent, beyo n d what is p e r mi t t ed b y t h e deve lopment of p roductive forces (Bo rdiga) . This reach beyo n d the possibl e is w hat constitutes the continuity among the h u m a n generations, j ust as the perspective of com m u nism conceived as the destruction of c lasses, exchange, and va l u e constitutes the conti nuity among the varied rev o l u tionaries; this is w hat, fol lowing M a rx, we ca l l the historica l pa rty. 24

The stru gg le agai nst redu ction of the am p litude of the revol ut ion is a l ready a revo l u tionary strugg le. The reader shou l d not be asto nished if to support this a m p litu de we refer to authors c l assica l l y tagged religious, m ystica l , etc. What m atters is the reapprop r iatio n of Gemeinwesen (and past bei ngs a re part of it) , which can o n l y be done after the u n i fication of the species, and t his u nification can on l y be conceived by grasping the aspiration, d esire, passion and wil l for com mu nity exp ressed th rough the ages. T h e h u m a n being can "m u l taneous l y be a Gemeinwesen only if hu m anity lives in com mu nity. As soon as fragm entation appears, the need to recom pose a u nity em erges . I n the West this u n ity had a

24"Origine et fonction de la forme parti" ( 1 96 1 ), published in Invariance, No. 1 , Serie I.

44

mediate and coercive form: the individu al was defined by the State ; knowledge was a means for hierarchization and for justification of the established order; the viciou s circle of practice-theory emerged.

Communist revolution is complete revolution. Bio­logical, sexu al, social, economic revolu tions are no more than partial attribu tes ; the predominance of one is a mutilation of revo l u t ion, which can o n l y be by bei ng a l l .

Comm u n i st revo l u t ion can be conceived o n l y if i t is grasped throu g h the h i story and pa leontol ogy of human bei ngs as wel l as a l l other l iv i ng bei ngs. B y g rasp i n g this we becom e aware that, i f t h i s revo lut ion has l ong been necessary, i t can now be rea l ized. Ear l i er i t was poss ib le but n ot u n­avo idab le. There were sti l l other " h u man" paths i n that they sti l l a l l owed a h u m a n devel opment; specif ica l ly, they a l low ed the externa l izat ion of h u m a n p owers. N ow a l m ost everyth i ng has been externa l ized and p l u n dered by capi ta l , which de­scr i bes the on l y path other than com m u n ist revol ut ion: the tota l negation of huma n bei ngs. Therefore we must u nd er­stand ou r worl d ; we m u st u nderstand the despotism of capita l a nd the m ovement of rebe l l i o n breaki ng out aga i nst i t. T h i s act of u nderstan d i ng which i s taki ng p l ace n ot o n l y i ntel l ectu a l l y but a l so sen su a l l y (the rebel l ion i s t o a l arge extent bod i l y rebel l io n) can o n l y be reached by reject i ng the wander ing and the repressive consciousness.

45

I I

Decline of the Capital ist Mode of Production or Decline of Humanity?

i t has often been thought and written that com m un i sm would blossom after the destruction of the capital ist mode of production, which would be u ndermined by such contra­dict ions that its end wou l d be inevitabl e. But numerous events of t h is centu ry have u n fortu natel y brought other possib il it ies i nto view: the retu rn to "barbar ism , " as a n a l yzed by R. Luxem bu rg and the ent i re left wing of the German workers' movement, by Adorno a n d the Frankfu rt School ; the destruction of the h uman spec ies, as is evident to each a nd a l l today; fina l ly a state of stagnation in which the capita list mode of production su rvives by adapti n g itsel f to a d egenerated hu manity which l acks the power to destroy it. I n order t o u nderstand the fai l u re of a fu tu re that was t hought i nevitabl e, we m ust take i nto accou nt the domestication of h u man beings implemented by a l l c lass societies a nd mai n l y b y capita l , a n d w e m ust a n a l yze t h e autonomization of capita l .

W e do n o t intend t o treat these historica l deviations ex haustive ly i n a few pages. By commenting on a passage i n Marx's Grundrisse w e can show that it is possibl e to u nder­sta n d the autonomization of capita l o n the basis of Ma rx's work, and we can a lso see the contradictions in Marx ist thought and its inab i lity to solve the prob l em . The passage is from the cha pter o n the process of circu l at ion . To u n d er­sta n d it, we shou l d keep in mind w hat Marx had said short l y before this passage:

47

"Circulation time thus appears as a barrier to the

productivity of labour = an increase in necessary labour time =: a decrease in surplus labour time = a decrease in surplus value = an obstruction, a barrier to the self-realization process [Selbstverwertungsprozess} of capita! . "l

Here Marx makes an extremely important digression :

"T here appears h ere the u niversa lizing tendency of capita l , w hich disti nguishes it from a l l previou s stages of production, and t h us becom es the p resupposition of a new mode of production, w hich is fou nded not on the development of the forces of production for the purpose of reproducing or at most expa ndi ng a given condition, bu t where the free, u nobstructed, pro­gressive a nd u niversa l development of the forces of production is itse l f the presupposition of society and hence of its reproduction; where advance beyo nd the

point of departu re is the on ly p resupposition . " 2

What makes capita l a barrier is not stated here, whereas its revo l u tionary, positive aspect is emphasized (this aspect is emphasized on many other pages of the Grundrisse, and of Capital) : the tendency toward u niversal development of the forces of p roduction . H owever, and this is what interests u s here, capita l can not rea lize th is; i t w i l l b e the task o f a nother, superior mode of p roduction. The futu re of society here takes the form of a n i n definite, cu m u lative m ovement.

"This tendency-w hic h capita l possesses, but w hich at the sam e tim e, since capita l is a l i m ited form of pro-

1 Marx, Grundrisse, London: Pelican, 1973, p . 539 . 2/bid. , p. 540. 48

duction, contradicts it and hence drives it towards dissolution-distinguishes capital from all earlier modes of production, and at the same time contains this element, that is posited as a mere point of transition. " 3

Hence capital is driven towards dissolution by this contradiction. It is a pity that Marx did not here m ention what h e u nderstands by " limited form of production , " si nce this keeps us from "seeing" c l ear l y w hat he means by contra­diction in this specific case. T his conditions the u n der­sta ndi ng of the statement th at the capita l ist mode of pro­duction is a transitory form of production. Even without an exp l a nation of the contradiction , we can u ndersta n d it as fo l lows: the capita list mode of productio n is not eter n a l -Marx's po l emica l argu m ent against t h e bourgeois ideo­logues. This is the content of his m ain statem ents. B ut a nother argu ment is e mbedded i n the precedi ng one: the capita list mooe of production is revo l utionary and m a kes possibl e the passage tp anoth er, su perior socia l form where h u m a n beings wi l l no lo nger be dominated by the sphere of necessity (the sph ere of the production of m ateria l life) a n d w here a lienation wi l l cease to exist.

Today, after the b lossoming of Marxism as a theory of development, another part of th is sentence appears basic: there is a conti nu u m between the two periods. W h at is a tra nsition if not the opposite of a brea k? This continu u m consists o f the development o f the forces of prod uction . From w hich fol lows the s h a m efu l but rea l re lationship: Marx- Lenin-Sta lin ! B ut this is not our topic. Our aim is to determine w hat constitutes the productive forces a n d for whom they exist, according to Marx in the Grundrisse.

3'bid.

49

50

"All previou s forms of society-or, what is the same, of the forces of social produ ction-foundered on the development of wealth,"4

Wealth resides in the productive forces and in the results of their action, There is a contradiction here which, according to Marx, characterizes the totality of hu man h i story: wea lth is necessary and therefore sought, but i t d estroys soc iet ies. Societies m u st therefore oppose its de­velopm ent. Th is i s not the case i n the capita l ist m ode of p roduction (it thu s destroys a l l othe r soc ia l form ations) , which exa lts the p roductive forces, bu t for whom?

"Th ose th i n kers of ant iqu ity who were possessed of consc iousness therefore d i rect ly denou nced wealth as the d i sso l u ti o n of the commu n ity fGemeinwesenJ . The feu da l system , for its part, fou ndered on u rban i ndustry, trade, m odern agricu l tu re (even as a resu l t of i nd iv idua l i nventions l i ke gu npowder and the p rint ing p ress) . W ith th'e deve l opment of wealth-a n d hence a l so new powers and ex panded i ntercou rse on the part of ind iv idua ls-the eco nom ic condit ions on w h ich the com m u n ity fGemeinwesenJ rested were d i ssolved, a long with the pol it ical re lat ions of the var ious con­st itu ents of the com m u n ity wh ich corresponded to those cond i t i ons: rel i g ion , in which i t was v iewed i n idea l ized form (and both [ rel ig ion and pol i t ica l re­lat ions] rested in tu rn on a g iven re lat ion to natu re, i nto which a l l p roductive force reso lves i tse l f); the character, out l oo k, etc. of the i ndiv idu a l s. T h e de­v elopment of science alone-L e. the m ost sol id form of wea lth, both its p roduct and i ts producer-was suf-

4/bid.

5 1

ficient to dissolve these communities. But the develop­ment of science, this ideal and at the same time practical wealth, is only one aspect, one form in which

the development of the human productive forces, L e. of wealth, appears. Considered ideal ly, the

a given form 'of consciousness sufficed to kill a whole epoch. I n reality, th is barrier to consciousness corresponds to a def in ite degree of development of the forces of material production and h ence of wea l th . T rue, there was not o n l y a deve lopment o n the o l d basis, b u t a l so a development o f this bas is itse lf."5

For Marx, the p roductive forces are h u m a n ( from the human bei ng) a nd they a re for the h u m a n be i n g, for the ind iv idu a l . Science as a p rodu ctive force ( thus a l so wea lth , as was a l ready show n i n the 1844 Manuscripts and i n The German Ideology) is determ i ned by the deve l opment of these forces and corresponds to the appearance of a l arge n u m ber of externa l i zat ions, a greater possi b i l ity to appropr iate natu re. Even if i t ta kes an a m bigu o u s form, the b lossom ing of the h u man bei n g i s possi b l e ; it i s the m om ent when, in the development of the dom i nant c lass, i n d iv i du a l s ca n f ind a model of a fu l l er l i fe. For Marx , the capita l i st m ode of production, by p u sh i n g the deve lopment of product ive forces, makes p ossi b l e a l iberat i n g autonom ization of the i n d iv idua l. T h is i s its m ost i m portant revo lut ionary aspect.

"Th e h i gh est d eve lopment of th is bas is itse l f (the f lower i nto w h ich it transforms itse l f; but it i s a lways this basis, th is p la nt as f lower; hence w i lt i n g after the f loweri n g and as a consequ ence of the f l ower i n g) i s the poi nt at w h ic h it i s itse l f worked out, deve l oped, i nto

5/bid., pp. 540-54 1 . 52

the form in which it is compatible with the highest development of the forces of production, hence also the richest development of the individuals. As soon as this point is reached, the further development appears

and the new begins a new

There is decay because the development of individuals is blocked. It is not poss i b l e to use t h is sentence to su pport the theory of the dec l i n e of th e cap ita l ist m ode of p roduction7 s i nce it wou l d h ave to be stated that the dec l i ne sta rted, not at the beg i n n ing of th is centu ry, but m i n i m a l l y i n the m iddle o f the previous centu ry ; or e lse i t wou l d h ave to be shown that the dec l i ne of i n d iv i d u a ls is s i m u ltaneous l y the dec l i ne of cap ita l , wh ich contradicts what can be o bserved ; Marx h i msel f repeated l y ex p l a i ned that the deve lopment of cap ita l was accom pan i ed by the destruction of h u ma n bei ngs a n d of natu re.

When d id the devel o p ment of productive forces ac­com pa ny the deve l o p ment of i n d iv idua ls in d ifferent societ ies? When was the cap ita l ist m ode of product ion revo lu ­t ionary for itse l f and for h u ma n bei ngs? Do the product ive forces adva nce conti n u a l ly, in sp ite of moments when i ndiv idua ls decay? Marx sa id: " . . . the fu rther deve lopment appears as decay . . . " Do the p roduct ive forces stagnate; does the capita l ist m ode of product ion decay?8

6,bid. , p. 541 . 7 As is done by Victor in Revolution Internationale No. 7, serie

I , p. 4 of the article "Volontarisme et confusion." 8

Various authors have spoken of stagnation and declining production between the two world wars. Bordiga always rejected the theory of the decline of the capitalist mode of production as a gradual­ist deformation of Marx's theory (see " Le renversement de la praxis dans la theorie marxiste," in Invariance No. 4, serie I.

53

The remainder of Marx's digression confirms that the decay refers to human beings. Individuals blossom when the produ ctive forces allow them to develop, when the evolution of one parallels the evolu tion of the other. By means of a comparison with the pre-capitalist period, Marx shows that capital is not hostile to wealth bu t, on the contrary, takes u p its production. Thus it takes u p the development of pro­ductive forces. Previously the development of human beings, of thei r com m u nity, was opposed to the deve l op m ent of wea lth ; now there is som ething like sym biosis between them . For this to happen, a certain m utation was necessary: capita l had to destroy the limited character of the individua l; this is another aspect of its revol u tionary character.

"We saw ear lier that p roperty in the conditions of p roduction was p osited as identica l with a limited, defi nite form of the com m u nity [GemeinwesenJ; h ence of the indivi d u a l with the characteristics-lim ited cha racteristics a n d limited devel opment of his p roduc­tive forces-req uired to form such a commu n ity [GemeinwesenJ. This p resu pposition was itse l f in tu rn the resu l t of a l imited historic stage of the devel op­ment of the productive forces, of wea l th as we l l as the mode of creati n g it . The p u rpose of the community [GemeinwesenJ , of the individu a l-as wel l as the condition of p roduction-is the reproduction of these specific conditions of production and of the in-

! dividu a l s, both sing ly a n d in thei r socia l grou p i ngs a n d relations-as l ivi n g carriers o f these conditions. Capita l posits t h e production of wealth itse lf a n d h ence the u niversa l development of the p roductive forces, the constant overth row of its prevai l ing p resu ppositions, as the p resu ppositi o n of its rep roductio n. Va l u e exc l u des

54

no use value; i .e. includes no particu lar kind of consumption etc . , of intercourse etc. as absolu te con­dition; and likewise every degree of the development

the social forces of production, of intercourse, of knowledge etc. appears to it only as a barrier which it strives to overpower.

, ,9

This passage h as momentous consequences. There is no reference to the pro leta riat ; it is the revol u tionary role of capita l to overth row the p revai l ing p resu ppositions. Ma rx h ad a l ready said this, i n a m ore stri kin g m a n ner:

" It is destructive towards a l l of this, and constant ly revolutionizes it, teari n g dow n a l l the barriers which hem in the devel opment of the forces of production, the expans ion of needs, the a l l-sided devel op m ent of p roduction, a n d the ex p l o itat ion and excha nge of natu ra l and menta l forces . " 1 o

We are forced to ta ke a new approach towa rd t h e manner i n which Marx situ ated the p ro l etar ian c l ass i n the context of the cont i n u a l u ph eava l carr ied out by the capita l­ist mode of p roduct ion . W h at is i m m ediatel y evi dent is that the capita l ist m od e of p roduct ion i s revolutionary in rel ation to the destruction of a ncient soc i a l re lations, a n d that the proletar iat is def i ned as revo l u t i on a ry i n rel ation to capita l . But i t i s a t th is po int that the problem beg i ns: capita l ism i s revol u t ionary becau se it devel ops t h e p roductive forces ; the p ro letariat can not be revolut ionary i f, after its revo lut ion, it develops o r a l l ows a d i fferent deve l opment of the p roductive forces. H ow can we tan g i b l y d ist i n gu ish the revo lut ionary

9Marx, Grundrisse, p. 54 1 . 1 0/bid. , p. 41 0.

5 5

role of one from that of the other? How can we j ustify the destruction of the capitalist mode of production by the proletariat? This cannot be done in a narrowly economic context. Marx never faced this problem because he was absolutely certain that the proletarians would rise against capital. But we have to confront this problem if we are going to emerge from the impasse created by our acceptance of the theory accord i ng to which the production re l at ions com e into conf l ict with the deve l opment o f the productive forces (forces which were postu lated to ex ist for the h u m a n bei ng, s ince if th is were not the case, why wou l d h u m a n beings rebel?) If the p rod u ctive forces do not ex ist for h u m a n beings but for capita l , and if they confl ict w ith p roduction re l at ions, then th is m eans that these relat ions do not prov ide the proper structu re to the capita l i st mod e of p roduction, and therefore there can be revo l u t ion wh ich i s not for h u ma n bei ngs (for exam p l e, t h e genera l p h enom enon which i s ca l led fasc i sm) . Consequ ent ly cap ita l escapes. In the passage we are exam i n i ng, Ma rx m a kes a remarkable statem ent a bout the dom i nat ion of cap ita l:

" Its own p resu pposit ion-va l u e- i s posited as p roduct, not as a l oft ier p resu pposit ion h over ing over produc­t ion.

, ,11

Capita l d om i nates va l u e. S i nce labor is the su bstance of va l u e, it follows that cap i ta l dom i n ates h u m an bei n gs. Ma rx refers on ly i n d i rect ly to the p resu pposit ion w h ic h is a l so a product: wage l a bor, nam e l y the ex i stence of a l a bor force which m a kes va l or izat ion possi b le :

1 1 /bid., p . 54 1 .

56

"The barrier to capital is that this entire development proceeds in a contradictory way, and that the work­ing-out of the productive forces, of general wealth etc. , knowledge etc. , appears in su ch a way that the working individu al a l ienates himself [sich enUiussert]; relates to the conditions brought out of him by his labor as those not of his own b u t of an a l ien wealth and of his own poverty . , , 1 2

H ow c a n t h i s b e a l i m it for capita l? O n e m ight s u ppose that u nder-consu m pt ion by the workers causes crises, and the f i na l cr is is. T h is i s one p oss i b i l ity ; at least it appears that way at certa i n t i m es. Ma rx a lways refused to grou n d a t heory of crises o n this p o i nt, but th is d i d n ot keep h im from m ent i o n­ing th is u nder-consu m ption. For Marx cap ita l h as a barr ier because it despoi ls the work i n g i n d iv idua l . We s h ou l d keep i n m i nd that h e is a rgu i n g aga i nst apolog ists for cap ita l a n d wants to show that the capita l ist m ode of p roduct ion is n ot eternal and does not ach ieve h u m a n emanci pat ion. Yet i n the cou rse of h is ana lys is h e po i nts to the poss i bi l ity for cap ita l to escape from h u m a n condit ions. We perceive that it is n ot the p roduct ive forces that bec om e autonom ous, bu t cap ita l , s i nce a t a given moment t h e p roduct ive forces become "a barrier w h ich it str ives to overpower. " T h is takes p lace as fol l ows: the p roduct ive forces a re no longer productive forces of h u m a n bei n gs but of cap i ta l ; they are for cap ita l . 1 3

The despo l iat i o n ( a l i enat ion ) of the work i ng i nd iv i d u a l cannot b e a barrier f o r cap ita l , u n l ess Marx m ea ns ba rrie r i n

1 2lbid. 13This is what Marx shows when he analyzes fixed capital in the

Grundrisse, and also in Book I of Capital where he analyzes the transformation of the work process into a process of production of capital (see also Un chapitre inedit du Capital, Paris : Ed. 10/1 8, 197 1 ).

57

58

the sense of a weakness; such a weakness would make capital­ism inferior to other modes of production, particularly if we contrast this weakness to the enormous development of productive forces which it impels. In Marx's work there is an ambiguity about the subject to which the productive forces refer : are they for the human being or for capital? This ambiguity grou nds two interpretations of Marx. The ethical interpretation (see especially R u bel) emphasizes the extent to which Marx denou nces the destruction of the h u m a n being by capita l , and v i gorou s ly ins i sts that the capita l i st m od e of production can only be a transitory stage. The i nterpretat ion of A lthusser and h is schoo l h o l d s that Marx does not succeed in e l i m i nating the h u m a n bei ng from h i s econom ic ana lyses, wh ich ref lects h is i n a b i l ity to a bandon ideo l ogica l d i scou rse, from which fo l lows A l t h u sser's p rob lem of correct ly l ocating the ep istem o l ogica l b rea k.

It is poss ib le to get out of t h i s ambigu i ty. If cap i ta l s u c c e e d s i n overcom i ng th i s barrier, i t ach i eves fu l l autonomy. Th is i s why M a rx postu l ates that capital m ust abol ish i tse l f; th i s abol i t ion fol lows from the fact that it can n ot develop the I p roductive forces for h u man bei ngs wh i l e it makes possi b l e a u n iversa l , var ied devel opment which can only be rea l iz ed by a su perior m ode of p ro­ducti on. Th is conta i ns a contradiction: capi ta l escapes from the grasp of h u man bei ngs, bu t it must per i sh becau se it can n ot devel op h u m an p roductive forces. T h is a l so contrad icts M a rx's ana l ys i s of the destruct ion of h u man bei ngs by cap i ta l . H ow can destroyed human bei ngs rebel? We can, i f we avoi d these contradict ions, consider Marx a proph et of the d ec l ine of capita l , but then we wi l l not be ab le to u nderstand h is work or the p resent situat ion. T h e end of M a rx's d ig ress ion c lar if ies these contradict ions.

59

"But this antithetical form is itself fleeting, and produces the real conditions of its own suspension. T h e r e s u I t i s: the tendentially and potentially general development of the forces of production-of wealth as such-as a basis; likewise, the universality of intercourse, hence the world m arket as a basis. The basis as the possibility of the universal develop­ment of the individual, and the real developm ent of the individua ls f ro m t his basis as a constant suspen­sion of its barrier, which is recognized as a barrier, n ot taken fo r a sacred l i m it. · Not an idea l or i m a gined u niversality of th e individu a l , bu t the u niversa lity of his rea l and idea l re l ations. H ence also the graspin g of his own history as a process, a nd the recognition of natu re (equa l l y p resent as practica l power over n atu re) as his rea l body. The process of development itse lf posited and k n own as the p resu pposition of the sam e. For this, h owever, n eces­sary above a l l that the fu l l d eve lopment of the forces of p roduction has becom e the condition of produc­tion; and not that specific conditions of production are posited as a limit to the devel opment of the productive forces. "1 4

If this p rocess is to concern individua ls, capita l h as to be destroyed and the p roductive forces have to be for h u m a n beings. I n the a rtic l e, . " La KAPD e t I e m ouvement pro­l etarien,

, ,1 5 we referred to this passage to indicate that the h u m a n being is a possi b i l ity, giving a fou n dation to the statement: the rev o l u tion m ust be h u m an. This is i n n o way a

1 4Marx, Grundrlsse, pp. 54 1 -542 . 1 5/nvariance, Serie I I , No. 1 .

60

discou rse on the hu man being conceived as invariant in every attribute, a conception which wou l d mere l y be a restatement of immutabi lity human nature. But we have to point out that this is sti l l since the development of

which, to Marx, wil l take p l ace in a superior mode of production, is precisel y the same develop­ment presentl y carried out by capital . The l imit of Marx is that he conceived com m u n i sm as a new m ode of production where productive forces b lossom . These forces a re u n­dou bted l y i m po rta nt, bu t the i r ex istence at a certa in l evel does not adequate l y define com m u n ism.

For Marx , cap ita l overcomes its contrad ictions by engu l fi n g them and by m ystify i n g rea l ity. It can o n l y ap­paren t l y overcome i ts narrow base, its l i m ited natu re which res ides in the excha nge of capital-m oney aga i n st l a bor force. Capi ta l m ust i n ev ita b l y come i nto confl ict with t h i s pre­su pposit ion ; th u s Marx speaks of the opposit ion between p rivate appropriat ion and soc i a l izat ion of p roduction. Private appropriation of what? Of su r p l u s va l u e, which presu pposes the p ro l etar ian, and th u s the wage re l at ion. B ut the ent i re d eve l opment of cap i ta l (and M a rx's own ex p l a nations are a p rec i ous a id i n u ndersta n d i n g it) ma kes the myst ificat ion effective, mak ing cap i ta l independent of h u man bei n gs, thus ena b l i ng it to avoi d the confl ict with i ts p resu pposit ion. O n e m ight say that t h e conf l ict n everthe less pe rsists, as a resu l t of the tota l process: soci a l i zat ion. T h i s is tru e. B ut the soc ia l i za­tion of product ion and of h u m an activity, the u n iversa l deve lopment of the p roduct ive forces a n d thu s the destruc­t ion of the l im ited character of the h u m a n being-a l l t h i s was on l y a possible grou nd for com m u n ism ; it d i d n ot p ose c o m m u n i sm automatica l ly. F u rtherm ore, the act ion of capita l tends consta nt l y to d estroy comm u n ism, or at l east to i n h i bit i ts em ergence and rea l iz at ion. To transform t h i s

6 1

possible ground into reality, h u man intervention is necessary. But Marx himself showed that capitalist production in­tegrates the proletariat. How could the destruction of human beings and of nature fail to have repercussions on the ability of human beings to resist capital and, a fortiori, to rebel?

Some will think we are attributing to Marx a position which is convenient to u s. We will cite an extraordinary passage:

"What p recise l y d isti ngu ish es capita l from the m aster­serva nt re lat ion is th at the worker confro nts [capita l ] as consu m er and possessor of exchange va l u es, and that i n the form of the possessor of m oney, in the form of money h e becomes a s i m p l e center of c i rcu l at ion-one of its i nf i n ite l y many centers, i n w h ich h is spec i f ic ity as worker is ext ingu ish ed . "l 6

One of the m od a l i t ies of the re-absorbt ion of the revo lut ionary power of the pro letari at h as been to perfect i ts character as consu mer, thus catch ing it i n the m es h of cap ita l . The p ro l etariat ceases to be the c lass that negates; after the formation of the work i n g c lass i t d isso lves i nto the soc i a l body, Marx antic i p ates the poets o f the "consu mer soci ety" and, as in other i nstances, he exp l a i ns a phenomenon which is observed o n l y later and then fa lsely, i f o n ly in terms of the nam e g iven to i t.

The p reced i n g o bservations do n ot l ead to a fata l ist ic conception (this t i m e negative) , such as: w hatever we d o, there's n o way out ; it's too l ate; or any other m i nd l ess defeatism which w ou l d generate a s icken i n g patch-work reform ism. Fi rst we h ave to d raw the les son. Capita l h as ru n away from h u m a n a n d natu ral barriers; h u m a n bei ngs h ave

1 6 Marx• Grundrisse, pp. 420-42 1 . 62

been domesticated: this is their decadence. The revolu tionary solu tion cannot be found in the context of a dialectic of productive forces where the individu al wou Id be an element

the contradiction. analyses proclaim a for human who, some, are residu e without consistency. This means that the discourse of science is the discourse of capital, or that science is possible only after the destru ction of human beings; it is a d i scou rse on the patho l ogy of the h u m a n be ing. T h us i t i s i nsan e to grou n d the h ope of l i bera­t ion on sc ience. T h e posit ion is a l l the more i nsane where, as with A lthusser, it can n ot m a ke its own break, l iq u i date i ts "archeol ogy, " s ince i t rema i ns fa ithfu l to a pro letariat-a prol etariat which in th i s concept ion i s m erel y an o bject of cap i ta l , an e lem ent of the structu re. B ut th i s i neff ic ient, destroyed h u m a n bei n g is the i n d iv idua l p roduced by c l ass soci et ies. And on th i s we agree : the h u m a n bei ng is dead. T h e o n l y possi bi l ity for another h u m a n bei n g t o appear i s ou r struggle aga i nst ou r domesticat ion, ou r emergence from i t. H u m a n i sm and sc i ent ism (a nd the fol lowers of "eth ica l science" a fa M onod a re the m ost a bso l u te s laves of cap ita l ) a re two express ions of the dom estication of h u m a n ity. A l l those who nu rse the i l l us ion o f the decadence of cap ital rev ive ancient h u m a n ist conceptions or give b i rth to new scient ific m yth s. T h ey rem a i n i m permea ble to the revo lu­t ionary p h enomenon ru n ni n g th rou gh ou r world.

U nt i l now a l l s ides h ave a rgu ed as if h u man bei ngs rema i ned u nchan ged in d i fferent c lass soc iet ies and u nder the dom i nation of capita l . Th is i s why the ro le of the soc i a l context was em phasized ( man, w h o was fu n damenta l ly good, was seen to be m od if ied positivel y or negativel y by the soc i a l context) b y t h e m ater ia l i st ph i l osophers o f t h e 1 8th centu ry, whi l e M a rx i sts emphasized the rol e of an env i ro n m ent con-

63

ditioned by the development of produ ctive forces. Change was not den ied, and after Marx it was repeated that history was a contin u al transformation of human n ature. Never­theless it was held ex plicitly or implicitly that an irreducible element continued to allow human beings to revolt against the oppression of capital . And capitalism itself was described in a Manichean man ner : o n one side the positive pole, the proletariat, the liberating class; on the other the negative pole, capital. Capital was affirmed as necessary and as having revo lut ion ized the l i fe of h u m an bei ngs, but it was descri bed as an abso l u te evi l in re lat ion to the good, the p ro l etar iat. The phenom en on wh ich em erges today does not in the l east destroy the negat ive eva l u at ion of capita l , but forces us to genera l i ze i t to the c l ass wh ich was once antago n i st ic to it a nd carried with i n itse l f a l l the positive e lem ents of h u m a n devel opment a n d today of h u ma n ity itse l f. T h i s phen omenon is the recom posit ion of a com m u n ity and of h u m an bei n gs by cap ita l , refl ect i ng h u m a n comm u n ity l i ke a m i rror. T h e theory o f t h e l oo k i n g g l ass cou ld o n ly ar i se when t h e h u m a n bei n g becam e a tau to logy, a ref lect ion o f cap ita l . W ith i n the wor l d of the despotism of capita l ( t h i s i s h ow soc iety appears as of today ) , ne ither a good nor a n ev i l ca n be d i st i ngu ished. Everyth i ng can be condemned. N egati ng forces can o n l y ar i se outside of cap i ta l . S i nce capital has absorbed a l l the o l d contradictions, t h e revo l u t ionary m ovem ent h a s t o reject the ent i re product of the deve l opment of c lass soc iet ies. This is the crux of i ts stru ggl e aga i nst dom estication, aga i n st the d ecadence of the h u m a n spec ies. T h is i s the essentia l m oment of ttfe p rocess of form ation of revo l ut ionar ies, a bso l u te l y necessary f o r t h e p roduct ion o f revolu t ion.

W o r c e s t e r , M a s s . 0 1 6 1 0

64

Jacqu es Camatte May, 1 973