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.