Churchill, Why Are You So Skeptical?

Churchill, Why Are You So Skeptical?

“It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production.”

~Karl Marx, “The Principals of Communism.

“At first glance good reason to rejoice; but no sooner does the slightest suspicion enter one’s mind that it becomes obvious that all these forces have simply redeployed, and are now waging the same war under different colors. Green, lest not forget, is also the color of the dollar bill. The new and improved consumerism may be democratic, it maybe ironic, but always presents its bill, and the bill must always be paid. A life governed by a sanctioned greed is by no means freed thereby from the old tyranny of having to forfeit one’s life simply to pay for it…”

~Raul Vaneigem, The Revolution of Everyday Life.

I must say that I like Ward Churchill but this article is the most randomly pieced together interpretation of Marxism I have ever read. I believe there is a great many different kinds of Marx within Marx’s own writings and it is completely unfair and out of context to pretty much just mix it all together to make a good point in a very bad way. We can see Marx the historian of ideas, Marx the historian of the evolution of political-economy, Marx the communist, Marx the critic of capitalism, Marx the interpreter and translator of capitalism where we gain so much knowledge concerning capitals relation to both the Earth and Humanity (all humans even non-European hold outs, the few that are left). Churchill’s article did contain some positive critiques concerning Marx’s non-PC/insensitive/Eurocentric language but Churchill’s theoretical understanding of Marx and Marxism, Communism (anarchist-communism, libertarian-Marxism, etc..), a classless society (not Stalinism, Marxist-Leninism, China, Cuba, Soviet Union, etc…) seems to be confused or even slanted to fit his own agenda, which is fine. I totally respect and admire what AIM fights for! I just feel that Churchill is trying to debate an issue that is a non-issue.

Churchill states, “Marx was very straightforward in acknowledging that the sold cultural model upon which he was basing theses on history and value was his own, that is to say European (or, more accurately, northwestern European) context. He even committed a paper several provisos stipulating that it would be inappropriate and misleading to attempt to apply the principles deriving form his examination or the dominate matrix in Europe to other, non-Europe3an contexts, each of which he (correctly) pointed out would have to be understood in its own terms before it could be properly understood vis a vis Europe. With this said, however, Marx promptly violated his own posited methodology in this regard, offering a number of non-European examples - of which he admittedly know little or nothing - as illustration of various points he wished to make in his elaboration on the historical development of Europe. Chinese society, to name a prominent example of this, was cast (really miscast) as "Oriental feudalism," thus supposedly shedding a certain light on this stage of European history. "Red Indians," about whom Marx knew even less about than he did of the Chinese, became examples of "primitive society," illustrating what he wanted to say about Europe's Stone Age…Insofar as all cultures were made to conform with the material correspondences of one or another moment in European history, and given that only Europe exhibited a "capitalist mode of production" and social organization - which Marx held to be the "highest form of social advancement" as of the point he was writing - it follows that all non-European cultures could be seen as objectively lagging behind Europe.”

And,

“In plainest terms, Marxism holds as "an immutable law of history" that all non-European culture must be subsumed in what is now called "Europeanization." It is their inevitable destiny, a mater to be accomplished in the mane of progress and "for their own good." Again, we may detect echoes of the Jesuits within the "anti-spiritualist" Marxian construct.”

Concerning Marx’s choice of word I must say, yes his interpretation of the world is Eurocentric and I could see why people would be turned off or even offended reading words that refer to one’s own cultural and economic system as “primitive” in relation to Europe. Then again it is within the context of a historical analysis that sees capitalism as a more advanced economic system then feudalism, hunter-gatherer, and all the pre-capitalist economic systems and I agree. His meaning of “advanced” does not automatically mean superior. Rather, a more “advanced” economic system means, in comparison to other forms of production, that under capitalism workers have a better material existence than under feudalism, etc… With the development of capitalism came the people’s liberation from peasantry, serfdom, and extreme poverty but that liberation is not synonymous with utopia, peace, or Marxism. As capitalism was organized and workers began filling places of labor capitalism created its own time bomb, the negation of capitalism is the working class. Marx understands history and human existence as contradictions that are both exploited and destroyed which he refers to as dialectic materialism. A communist’s, a Marxist’s, and an anarchist’s main political goal is to understand and exploit these contradictions within capitalism and other economic conditions to better their condition. As in the autonomous zones of Chiapas where the Zapatistas try to remain outside of capitalism but find themselves in constant war with capitalism to defend the scraps they have.

Churchill’s main argument or most reasonable argument seems to be more about linguistics or semantics concerning revolutionary theory. I agree, there can be some tasteless language from the old 1800’s bearded men on both the anarchist and communist/Marxist camp. If you want to see some real “Eurocentrism” in action read some Proudon or Stirner. But the beauty of political theory is its evolution through time and the ability to go back to older texts and create a new political tradition that is relevant today. It is ridiculous to jumble together Lenin and Marx and then assume that it’s the same thing, as did Mr. Churchill, because that is a very linear way of looking at Marxism, anarchism, communism, etc… There exists many different political traditions that have their roots in Marx’s writings and to critique Marx through the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and all the horrible dictators throughout the world who once called themselves communists is not a critique of Marx. It is a cheap shot, a punch below the belt.

Most importantly, anarchist-communism is not something in the far off distant future to be attained. Rather anarchist-communism is a current through history that has been around as long as one class of humans exploited the labor of another class and this anarchist-communist current is what forces human societies to reorganize itself and restructure its production process (primitive-communism millions of years old and 21^st century leftism). An anarchist-communist’s mission is to use this social, political, and economic current in a revolutionary period and hopefully partake in an insurrection, but what happens usually is barbarism, capitalism regains control, fascism, etc… But to be more specific this current is more powerful or more relevant now than say in France during the French Revolution, the capitalist revolution against feudalism. So in response to Churchill’s point that Leftist are in some way religious because they believe in a better future is not accurate, communism is a social current.

As stated by Riff-Raff, “Communism is not an ideal that will be created. It is already in existence, not as a society but a current, a task to prepare one self for. Communism is a movement which is attempting to abolish the human-condition that is determined by wage-labor, communism will abolish it through revolution. The discussion of communism is not an academic one, it is not a debate about what is going to happen tomorrow, communism is an integrated aspect of an entire series of immediate and distant tasks, where discussion is only an aspect in reaching theoretical understanding. On the other hand, such a task could easily and more effectively be carried out if we could answer the question: where are we going?”

Churchill is right in saying that Marxism has Eurocentric qualities and that it flows from a history rooted in Western Judeo-Christian culture but no more than the !Kung are “!Kungucentric” and have their beliefs grounded in a !Kung culture. Are political theories worse or bad for the Earth and all of humanity simply because they come from Europe or is this another one of Churchill’s punches below the midsection? Just because Judeo-Christian culture and all that comes from it seems to be destructive we must recognize that left-wing radicalism grew naturally out of this material condition as a vicious and very real opposition. When left-wing politics refers to all of humanity it is simply responding to the simple yet horrifying material reality that capitalism has pretty much integrated the entire biosphere and all its inhabitants into its cogs and therefore all of humanity must struggle against capitalism, regardless if you are an “indigenist,” peasant, campesino, or “working-class” (all are working-class). Capitalism is not at your door step, the phone call is coming from inside the house! Look at all the benefits that Marxism, anti-capitalism, Lenin, anarchism, etc…has done for the EZLN. I think the anarcho-primitivists, libertarian-Marxists, anarchists, or “techno-anarchists”/anti-anti-civilizationists can find some common ground and solidarity within the Zapatista resistance. The autonomous zones of Chiapas are a great example of a social current but I am sure that the Zapatistas and campesinos say, we still have a long way to go.

If the indigenous populations around the world are not going to ally themselves with the left who have traditionally been very active in their right to “self determination” or freedom to remain “outside” capitalism’s cogs, then who are they going to ally themselves with? The way I see it, an anarchist-communist revolution that puts the power back into the hands of the working class is the indigenous population’s only hope. How long can a few thousand people spread across the world with different ways of living, different ways of sustaining themselves, and different traditions going to act out independently, unified, and win against a system that has engulfed the entire world and its population without allying itself with the left? The numbers do not add up. Churchill is right in saying that a Marxist’s interest and an “Indigenist’s” interest are not the same but that does not mean that they have nothing in common, quite the opposite. Left-wing radical politics does not want to integrate the indigenous lands into capitalism, capitalism wants that. Left-wing radicalism is not interested in the subsumption of indigenous lands or peoples into their “communist utopia”. To be blunt, they can do all the peasant farming or hunting and gathering they want more consumption for me and my fellow techno folk.

Value, what is value? Churchill seems to have a romantic, idealistic, and maybe even a mystic view of nature and places value on some kind of spiritual essence within nature as opposed to the supposed nature hating materialist’s view of nature. Then again Churchill’s critique of the left-wing materialists might be ignoring other forms of value besides raw material, maybe immaterial or abstract value?

Churchill states, “A mountain is worth nothing as a mountain; it only accrues value by being "developed" into its raw productive materials such as ores, or even gravel. It can hold a certain speculative value, and thus be bough and sold, but only wish such developmental ends in view. Similarly, a forest holds value only in the sense that it can be converted into a product known as lumber; otherwise, it is mere an obstacle to valuable, productive use of land through agriculture or stock-raising, etc. (an interesting commentary on the Marxian view of the land itself). Again, other species hold value only in terms their utility to productive processes (e.g.: meat, fur, leather, various body oils, eggs, milk, transportation in some instances, even fertilizer); otherwise they may, indeed must be preempted and supplanted by the more productive use of the habitat by humans.”

Though immaterial value might not be the exact right term, maybe immaterial surplus-value in the context of capitalism, it will have to do until I find a better suiting term to explain sightseeing, an emotional interaction with nature, or the need or feeling to preserve woodland, water systems, oceans, ancient cultures attached to the land, bio diversity etc… Just because left-wing politics and theory might not be centered on the welfare of nature does not mean that non primitivist radicals are not worried about the environmental state of our planet. Hell, in order for humanity to survive we must create sustainable societies even capitalism and capitalists are starting to understand that they cannot extract surplus-value and profit from both raw material and the working-class if either are around. If the Earth is to polluted to extract usable capital, harass ancient cultures that stand in the way of trade routes, exploit humanities emotional attachment to nature, and the working-class is to sick and poor to produce surplus-value and profit for capital then the entire free-trade system will collapse. Industrial collapse is something that seems to be glorified within the green-anarchist movements and if I may punch below the belt, is this not some future event when all becomes well again and humanity is finally reintegrated back into nature, harmony? So it seems that Eurocentric Judeo-Christian culture has even infiltrated the green-anarchist/primitivist movements. What will happen to the green-anarchist/primitivists when capitalism goes green to sustain itself?

Because,“…At first glance good reason to rejoice; but no sooner does the slightest suspicion enter one’s mind that it becomes obvious that all these forces have simply redeployed, and are now waging the same war under different colors. Green, lest not forget, is also the color of the dollar bill. The new and improved consumerism may be democratic, it maybe ironic, but always presents its bill, and the bill must always be paid. A life governed by a sanctioned greed is by no means freed thereby from the old tyranny of having to forfeit one’s life simply to pay for it…” (Raul Vaneigem, The Revolution of Everyday Life, preface to the 1^st French paperback edition.)

Well back to the issue of value, value can be put on anything that can create surplus value within capitalism regardless if that products end result is material or immaterial. Churchill is wrong when he states,

“A mountain is worth nothing as a mountain; it only accrues value by being "developed" into its raw productive materials such as ores, or even gravel. It can hold a certain speculative value, and thus be bough and sold, but only wish such developmental ends in view. Similarly, a forest holds value only in the sense that it can be converted into a product known as lumber; otherwise, it is mere an obstacle to valuable, productive use of land through agriculture or stock-raising, etc. (an interesting commentary on the Marxian view of the land itself). Again, other species hold value only in terms their utility to productive processes (e.g.: meat, fur, leather, various body oils, eggs, milk, transportation in some instances, even fertilizer); otherwise they may, indeed must be preempted and supplanted by the more productive use of the habitat by humans.”

Though he is correct in stating that a mountain, a forest, an animal, and a human’s labor power can be reproduced as something valuable to capital, Churchill ignores the fact that a mountain, a forest, an animal, and a human can also embody an immaterial and abstract surplus-value/exchange-value and a use-value. The left glorifies the use-value, death to exchange-value. Also what Churchill seems to confuse is how a leftist views value and how capitalism views value. But Churchill is absolutely correct when he observes this interesting Marxian view on value itself but his observation is not all that interesting or profound. Just as a capitalist sees value in extracting ore, skinning animals for fur, or logging forests for consumption an anarchist-communist sees value in socially extracting raw material from nature for social use a “Native America” sees value in cutting down trees to make canoes, killing animals for meat and fur , and using nature to ease her life. All three have something in common yet vast differences.

Native Americans and other indigenous cultures around the world are little in size, their existence is ecologically sustainable, and they see the same kind of “western” value in nature, something to be used, as western capitalist and Marxists. Capitalists are in control of a society that is not ecologically sustainable but do not ever underestimate a capitalists drive to continue extracting surplus-value, if he has to create an ecologically sustainable free-market economy and reduce pollution levels to sustainable levels to insure his profit he will definitely do it. This is where a “Marxist-environmentalist” theory comes into play. Marxism does not view this on going transformation within capitalism to a more environmentally friendly capitalism as something that capital does out of its own good will. Rather, the working-class, indigenous peoples, and the natural fact that nature is collapsing are all active subjects forcing capitalism to restructure itself because we refuse to live this way! The only pisser is this, the social current for revolution seems to be too weak at this moment to abolish capitalism and of therefore our struggle and energy for change will be integrated into the cogs of capitalism. But the dialectic remains! So, the continued world grasp continues but at least it will soon be an environmentally sustainable capitalist grasp that we must struggle against to continue our fight to develop environmentally decentralized communist societies or we underestimate capitalist ignorance and arrogance and we do face industrial collapse and then I am afraid that barbarism and decentralized clan type fascism will come to the defense of the ruins of capitalism. At least in this Mad Max or Kevin Costner’s, “The Postman” future society power will be decentralized and the left can federate itself to create more autonomous zones but I would long for the day that we could fully feed, cloth, and entertain humanity. Either way, Marxism and anarchist-communism remains.

Notes:

-Churchill, W. http://www.cwis.org/fwj/22/falsep.htm

-Marx, K. The Principals of Communism.

-Vaneigem,R. The Revolution of Everyday Life.

Star Trek-Marx Trek, are Trek?

coming soon!

Human or Commodity?

To survive in the market place as workers who produce value/surplus value/commodities means to give up the most important quality we as human beings have: our time, our selves, our control over our lives, and our fundamental understanding of what it means to be human (freedom) in exchange for a forced existence in alienation to ourselves and what we produce. Our struggle must only have one objective, take control over our own lives. By realizing that our labor power socially produces value/commodities in a society that privately controls the distribution of wealth, we must rise above the trash heap that is capitalism and socially consume, oh glory to use-value! The adventure is how and when we get there!

Why GRAF "cant stop, wont stop" living in 1992.

coming soon!

International Cycle of Struggles!

We need not demand the right to work, but the right to a decent life!

“Extensively, the common is mobilized in communication from one local struggle to another… the geographical expansion of movements takes the form of an international cycle of struggles in which revolts spread from one local context to another like a contagious disease through the communication of common practices and desires.”

-Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt, Multitude

We need not demand the right to work, but the right to a decent life! Capital chooses when it needs one’s labor, when the opposite should transpire out of our struggle, we must gain control over our labor and lives. The government and businesses are in business with one another, nation-states and supernational organizations are the collective think tanks and enforcer for capitalism. Two consequences: the illusion of business not wanting illegal labor, in turn for cheaper wage labor and successfully eliminating workers being able to dissent and demand their rights, out of fear of deportation and prison. The opening of borders for corporations to freely move across the globe but walls, borders, and death await those who want to move freely. Throughout the world a contradiction keeps money and profit circulating without static but detains the very element that makes this profit possible, the worlds working population.

Attempting to create a chasm between the struggling people of different geographical regions, neutralizing the threat of an already existing true international class war where workers with common desires for freedom from poverty, boredom, wage slavery, border laws, and from work itself will fail because of our unity and creativity. Taking it upon one self to move, freely, without abstract interpretation, we stand in solidarity with the idea that no matter what the reason, the freedom to move without consequence should undoubtedly exist. Not only to describe the notions and paths of the multitude (the North American housewife, the student, part-time worker, Mexican free-trade zone laborer, migrant worker, Palestinian refugee, Indios, illegal immigrant, peasant, teacher, nurse, cubical wage-slave, homeless, youth, elderly, material and immaterial laborer, etc…), but to support human liberation from restraint in all its forms. Neutralizing the “multitude” is impossible, thus our presence nation wide today.

No matter the tactics of capitalism: from racist minutemen, nationalist politicians, reactionaries, propaganda machines, spectacle driven news corporations, to neo liberal free-trade capitalists, people continuously resist border laws and capitalism, thus a dis-rhythm is presented. Reorganizing society to benefit business and not people is not in our interest, we must struggle against capitalism to obtain true global human liberation.

A paradox exists in the encroachment of mobility and human freedom. It will never be tolerated. Proof of this exists in a migrant and non migrant proletarian gathering, in the streets, in solidarity, in revolt. Resistors, workers, and neighbors must unite, are uniting, in common desires, to demand freedom from the market, not a free market.

Contact GRAF: grafbeyondgraf@yahoo.com or www.myspace.com/grafbeyondgraf

GRAF: Non-Party Program

GRAF

Global (Greensboro’s) Revolutionary Autonomous Front

Non-Party Program

(SECOND DRAFT)

“…At first glance good reason to rejoice; but no sooner does the slightest suspicion enter one’s mind that it becomes obvious that all these forces have simply redeployed, and are now waging the same war under different colors. Green, lest not forget, is also the color of the dollar bill. The new and improved consumerism may be democratic, it maybe ironic, but always presents its bill, and the bill must always be paid. A life governed by a sanctioned greed is by no means freed thereby from the old tyranny of having to forfeit one’s life simply to pay for it…”

~Raul Vaneigem, The Revolution of Everyday Life, preface to the 1^st French paperback edition.

1. We are for a society that is free of monetary exchange, socio-economic hierarchies, and societies that glorify the use-value of commodities vs. exchange-value. Therefore we are anti-capitalists and consider ourselves left-communists, anarchist-communists, anarchists, and autonomous-leftists.

2. We recognize that the free-market organizes itself through a state-apparatus in order to collectively conduct repressive and expansive measures that erect a society of control which constructs economic regions of domination kept in place by police and military forces who inhibit freedom of movement. By creating a society with no outside existence, the multitude is forced to take part in the capitalist’s cogs. We support the social call for no-nations/no-borders and will partake in constructing a society free of a state-apparatus, while enthusiastically empowering communities of people to create community participation based on more non-hierarchical decision making processes, a multitude of international-worker class democracies.

3. We recognize that classism and racism exists on two plains: social and institutional. Understanding that capitalism effectively uses both racial prejudices and tolerance to manipulate that working class to extract cheap labor and socially divide local and global communities on the basis of fear, fear will be replaced with respect and alliances (GRAF will also work on internal racism).

4. Capitalism maintains a class society for its very survival. The owning class projects a certain class perspective through education, media, and supposed leisure activity, this is not our class therefore not our perspective. We hope to make visible the class contradictions/hypocrisies integrated into our current social situation to better re-create a society riddled with class-division and privilege into a vibrant classless society.

5. We are for a society that respects each individual’s sexuality that is nurturing and compassionate. We recognize that hetero-sexism has socially integrated sexist and homophobic perspectives and behavior into the collective populous; therefore we will be active in the struggle for women’s liberation and homosexual freedom.

6. We are for a society free of sexism and male domination. We understand that patriarchal-capitalism has instilled a false male-superiority complex in social relations that emotionally and physically drain women. Patriarchal-capitalism has also made personal relationships and social interactions based on the commodity economy, making love financial. Understanding this, the movement of movements must destroy sexism and patriarchy once and for all (GRAF will also work on internal sexism).

7. During the existence of capitalism the physical world has become more and more integrated to better serve the free-market, with little regard to various bio-regions, ecological sustainability, animal and plant life, and indigenous cultures bound to traditional lands. We recognize ecological sustainability insures healthy specie survival and bio-diversity; therefore we support animal liberation from capitalism, eco-defense, and indigenous resistance to corporate-globalization and privatization of traditional communal lands.

8. We recognize there exists a healthy multitude of movements against the same enemies and we embrace this multitude. Understanding what works for us may not for fighting people in Asia, Europe, South America, Africa, Central America, the Middle East, or city to city. Communication is key! There exists an interconnectedness between these multitudes as with the North American housewife, the student, part-time worker, Mexican free-trade zone laborer, migrant worker, Palestinian refugee, Indios, illegal immigrant, peasant, teacher, nurse, cubical wage-slave, homeless, youth, elderly, material and immaterial laborer, etc…

9. We understand that work is something that is determined and dictated to the multitude by capitalism, therefore we support the idea of zero work for capital while undertaking socially conscious productive labor (necessary labor) for the local and global community, subverting the capitalist work place and “open” social spaces to create.

10. We support various tactics and methods of action to overcome this sexist-racist-class dictatorship to create a free, vibrant, and fun global classless societies.

MISSION STATEMENT

Without a doubt, capitalist created technologies, innovations, and development have allowed for faster communication, faster means of production, more agricultural production, and medical breakthroughs that could potentially benefit a classless society. These commodities currently have a price and are subject to classism. Now more than ever, Capitalism has entered into our everyday life and is visible in all aspects of social interactions. Our personal relationships with lovers and friends are beginning to embody behavior dictated by capital. As capitalism integrates huge portions of living life into a society that resembles theatrics, our lives and social relations are viewed rather than action. Capitalism or spectacular society is attempting to make its own negation internalize capitalistic ideology in hopes of safe guarding its own existence. GRAF wants to project a radical and true working class perspective into the cogs of capitalism to bring about its demise.

EDUCATION & THEORITICAL RADICALISM

Working will never be demonized by capitalism because human labor binds all capital together. In this fact rests both capitalism’s negation and the class war. Due to compromise of some past labor movements and current trade-union perspectives (AFL-CIO) the battle for no work has been lost and converted to empty labor slogans such as, “equal work opportunities for all,” and “jobs for all who want to work”. We must find the radical, spontaneous, and true labor perspective once again, the resurrection of autonomous class warfare.

Though, the working class can benefit from the state-apparatus, welfare and other government assistance, we want to expose the fraternal police orders for what they really are, city-to-city thugs who carry out day-to-day repressive measures to maintain order within the spectacle, the streets are the trenches before private property. In order to understand our own wishes we must fully understand the inner-workings of this spectacular-capitalist society in order to overcome! No matter how progressive either liberal labor union demands become or how socially progressive global governing bodies become we recognize: 1. the working class’s own struggle for freedom demanded capitalists and bureaucrats to reform current conditions, 2. these reforms will be revoked as quickly as they were created if the situation presents itself, and 3. we demand freedom from the market, not a free-market!