| towards a better
understanding of the world, in order to change it.
The world we live in is a world of
contradictions. The
environment is in a state of decline, yet industry continues to pump
pollutants
into the atmosphere whilst non-polluting technologies are neglected.
Thousands
starve, while food stocks remain unused. We can communicate with
strangers from
all around the globe, yet no-one knows their neighbour. Automation
could free
us from labour, yet we are chained to the machine. We live amongst vast
material possibilities, yet poverty is the universal experience - not
just in
the narrow economic sense but also in terms of the quality of lived
experience. “Never in history has there been such a
glaring
contrast between what could be and what actually exists.” [1]

Central
to all these contradictions and reshaping all
previous antagonisms is the global commodity-capitalist system. A
system
characterised by the production of commodities, wage labour
and
the market economy. A commodity is what is produced by the
worker under
capitalist conditions, its purpose to reproduce and enlarge capital
(stored-up labour). The pursuit of ever increasing profits is the
driving
force
behind the whole process – the fulfilment of peoples needs is a
secondary and
not always occurring result.
Commodities are
only available in exchange for other commodities, money
being the universal commodity and measure of all others. Since all
goods have
been turned into commodities and access to non-commodified materials
restricted [2],
those without the means of producing anything to exchange must sell the
only
thing they have, their physical or mental labour-power. The logic of
the market
economy treats this labour like any other commodity; to be bought, sold
and
discarded as the market dictates. In effect the worker becomes a
commodity.
This transformation of living activity into an object creates an alienated
or estranged world in which humankind does not recognize or fulfil
itself, but
is overpowered by the dead things and social relations of its own
making.

Capitalist
society is therefore split into two camps, the bourgeois or capitalist
class
(those who own and control the means of production – the land, equipment, machinery, buildings and raw
materials necessary to create the things we need and use every day)
and
the proletariat [3] (those
with “nothing
to lose but their chains”). However, both classes are subject to the
laws of
the market economy [4] - our concern
is
with the social relation capital not the individual capitalist
-
the functionaries of capitalism are more and more disposable as
individuals.
While the rag wearing classical proletariat of Marx’s time has all but
disappeared, at least in the developed countries, the fundamental
division
remains; power and wealth are becoming more rather than less
concentrated under
the control of a small minority. The modern proletariat is almost
everyone; it is the working class which must destroy both alienated
work and
class.

The “official”
history of the working class’s struggle against capitalism is
an inversion, what is presented as its greatest triumphs are in reality
its most
bitter defeats; Leninist “Communism” in the east and reformist
“Socialism” in
the west where both expressions of a general movement towards state-capitalism.
The greatest tragedy of these times is that in the minds of the vast
majority
of workers the project for the dissolution of the commodity economy
became
associated with its exact opposite. “So the light darkened that had
illuminated
the world; the masses that had hailed it were left in blacker night… By
usurping the name communism for its system of workers' exploitation and
its
policy of often cruel persecution of adversaries, it made this name,
till then
expression of lofty ideals, a byword, an object of aversion and hatred
even
among workers.”[5]
Though the call for a
new society was never thoroughly extinguished; small
and often profoundly isolated groups and individuals argued the case
for a
social reorganization to bring free access and control of the means of
production
into the hands of the whole of humanity. “From each according to ability, to
each according too need!” [6]
The
creation of such a society has two preconditions;
firstly that technological production techniques have been sufficiently
developed to be able to fulfill the material needs of the whole of
society and
secondly, that the majority of the population have an understanding of
what
needs to be done and want to carry it through. Revolutionaries are
painfully
aware that the first requirement has long since been reached but that
the
second is still far from being realized.
If we are to avoid
repeating the mistakes of the past it will be necessary
to develop a theory of revolutionary practice, a theory which seeks to
“get to
the root of all things” and improve them. It is not a matter of
choosing from
one of the pre-existing ideologies of the old workers movement and
basing our
world view around it, but a matter of finding the “moment of truth” in
all the
theories of the past and synthesising this with our experience of the
present.
“Theory
itself becomes a material force when it has
seized the masses.”[7]
DJP October 2008
MORE
ABOUT THEORYANDPRACTICE.ORG.UK
FOOTNOTES
1.
Ken Knabb
- “The Joy of Revolution”
2.
For a description
of how this came to be see Karl Marx - "Capital Vol. 1" Chapter 26
3.
"Proletarian":
broadly speaking “modern working class” including the un-employed and
unemployable.
However the proletariat is not to be understood as a sociological
category
of people in such-and-such income group and such-and-such occupations,
but as a social relation of capitalism. It is all those who have little
or no means of support other than selling their physical and mental
labour-power.
The proletariat is the only class capable of ending class society, as
it
produces the material conditions of its own enchainment.
4.
“The propertied
class and the proletarian class express the same human alienation. But
the former feels comfortable and confirmed in it, recognises this self
alienation as its own power and this has the semblance of human
existence.
The latter feels itself crushed by this alienation, sees in it its own
impotence and the reality of an inhuman existence.” Karl Marx -
"The
Holy Family"
5. Anton Pannekoek
- "Workers
Councils"
6.
Often
attributed to Marx's
1875
"Critique
of the Gotha Programme" though
it appears that this phrase was in usage
years before. The subtitle to Etienne
Cabet’s 1840 work "Travel and
Adventures of Lord William Carisdall in Icaria"
read “From each
according to his capacity, to each according to his work”.
7.
Karl Marx
– "Contribution
to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right" |