The Fight Against Capitalism
DAVID DEGNER
While #OWS still encompasses within it a multiplicity of tactics, opinions, and degrees of political radicalism, the evidence is all too clear that the soul of Occupy is anticapitalist, and the desire for a different system is a desire for a protest movement whose grasp on our lives is more holistic. There has already been inspiring work done to organize in different communities, and one can envision the emergence of a dispersed network not only of general assemblies but of communes and cooperatives as well.
The old pessimism of theory beats at our backs, telling us that any developed and sustained form of communal organization can only exist as an autonomous pocket whose threat to capitalism is nil. Yet sustaining autonomous, communal forms of care is not a shift away from direct, active forms of resistance. The positive and the negative aspects of the fight against capitalism must work in conjunction with one another to mutually reinforce each other. Communes, cooperatives and other structures of social support provide a material safety net that facilitates more radical action, enabling people to strike from work and from debt obligations with the assurance that their material needs will be met when they do. Moreover, such forms of organization can begin the incredibly difficult process of building trust between those with radically different backgrounds and experiences, providing support for whoever needs it, especially those who have borne the brunt of the economic collapse.
These forms of organization will enervate the status quo by drawing participants’ time and energy away from their roles as wage laborers, salaried workers, and consumers. Of course, #OWS has already begun to do this; many of us without the luxury of highly flexible (read precarious) employment, or who haven’t already committed ourselves as full-time occupiers (and are now sleeping in churches, synagogues and generously offered private homes – and organizing during the day) already spend our office hours surreptitiously reading working group emails or occupy-related articles. Yet we aim to achieve a less schizophrenic mode of existence in which the totalizing effect of Occupy on our thoughts is reflected in the degree to which it predominates our actions, one in which our politics accords with the way in which we support ourselves. For those against capitalism this will mean testing our own boldness and examining our own perceived futures. As Daniel Marcus observed: “There can be no movement of communes if protest is merely an extracurricular activity of wage-earners: workers will have to choose whether they stand with the communes or with the bosses and administrators.”
The need for new structures of care is emotional as well as material. Many of us are beginning to realize the extent of our own dissatisfaction. We spend time with friends and lovers, but these encounters are transitory counterpoints to the anomie induced by a culture of individualism. We work towards success, but what constitutes success seems increasingly empty. Perhaps it’s unfashionable to speak of “alienation,” naïve to make claims about what forms of work or activities might begin to overcome it, utopian to believe that we could create a society in which a better life is possible. And yet we already see the possibility of these things in the near future of this movement and are already beginning to build the necessary infrastructure.
Affect isn’t just an effect, but a decisive tool of revolution. Just as the catharsis of resistance we experienced in the fall bolstered community and emboldened us to go further, more communal, self-sustaining and holistic instantiations of Occupy will further entrench and strengthen the movement. We are strongest when our resistance draws on our outrage but also harnesses our vital forces, extending to the very material and psychological basis of our lives.
In the spring we must rediscover together that there are militant kinds of community and insurrectionary forms of care.
56 comments on the article “The Fight Against Capitalism”
Displaying 21 - 30 of 56
Page 3 of 6
Anonymous
are those the immutable laws of nature, my dear friend. care to explain? Just because the erstwhile socialist countries adopted a totalitarian structure let us not go about shouting how socialism will lead to totalitarianism. As a person participating in the OWS debate, you might want to think as to why the erstwhile socialist revolutions took to a totalitarian path. The hostile external conditions did not seem to you as a reason? Since you seem to have read Marx, let me ask you something. When Marx wrote that one revolution will lead to another, what was the scientific basis behind it?
Anonymous
You are quite right. I apologize for the certainty of “will” and the brief, unclear, unexplained statements. That was too rash.
As I understand it, Capitalism is based off of a few principles, namely, accumulation of wealth and profit (M->C->M'), ownership over workplaces, and so on. It replaced the feudal ruling over other people by divine rights (of nobility) with Capital ruling over people by money. No matter how much I tried to reconcile Capitalist system, as pure as it may start, it has always lead to corruption, exploitation, changing the laws to serve the ruling class, etc, because of the underlying motive of making more profits. At some point, someone (and eventually most people) would get the short-end of the stick because it's the nature of competition—there would be a losing team. Perhaps, it's due to my severe lack of imagination that I'm unable to reconcile capitalist system with equality and welfare for everyone.
It would probably take me years before I could understand Marx for the most part. I hope you can educate me in any misunderstanding on my part.
As far as the scientific basis of one revolution leading to another, I do not know. I think that Marx believes that Socialism is inevitable because of the inherent paradox exists in Capitalism.
However, I think there is a scientific basis in Socialism, namely, Kropotkin's Mutual Aid. If my scientific literacy is not out of date. I believe that current studies of evolutionary biology does support his theory, in that mutual aid amongst animals would give better chance of survival, rather than Herbert Spencer's social darwinism model. And Kropotkin outlined in quite a great detail of how his theory of Mutual Aid would work pragmatically in his Bread and Conquest.
I did not mean to say that socialism wouldnt work. I was trying to say that socialism with authority would lead to totalitarianism, don't you think? If I remember correctly, in oscar wilde's Man's soul under socialism essay, he outlined quite correctly, in my mind, the kind of socialism that would lead to equality. So did many other intellectuals, such as Kropotkin, George Orwell (his homage to catalonia is a great read), etc. That is Anarchist Socialism.
Thus, I agree with onetwothreefour!'s comments below—if I understand him correctly.
Please correct any of my misunderstanding.
one two three four!
pretty much agreed. Kudos for the Wilde reference..
Alim
Are you a professor of economics by any chance? You sound so totally confused.
When a handful of people control all money in the world, and the rest of humanity has no say in anything, there will never be any prosperity.
The blood sucking moneylenders will "look out for the welfare of all.", shameful nonsense. Give me a break.
I hope you are not teaching this nonsense to our kid.
I am shocked, and very worried.
Anonymous
Nope. But if socialism is what you support, I would like you to give me an example of a socialist economy that has suceeded and was not bogged down just as much corruption. If you can, I will graciously admit defeat.
Also, what we have experienced here in the 21st century isn't really Capitalism. It's a sort of new type of Feudalism that borrows elements of Capitalism. In this case, land isn't the source of feudal power, it's ownership of institutions - Media, Financial, etc...
As I said, if you look at the distribution of wealth in the U.S. and much of Western Europe throughout a good portion of the mid-late 20th century, there was a larger distribution among the middle (a diamond shaped distribution). The rest of human history is dominated by the pyramid distribution.
Anonymous
All socialist economies were right wing. Prove to me there was a left wing form of socialism that failed and I will totally eat my words. Just because your economy is socialist now, doesn't mean all the right wingers just up and disappeared. Right wing, left wing capitalism. Right wing, left wing socialism. Right wing, left wing communism. Right wing, left wing monarchy. Right wing, left wing anarchy. It all exists. Politics IS complicated! =)
Anonymous
"All socialist economies were right wing."
so why can't the lefties set up anything?
ProudAmericanCo...
You need to go get a dictionary and look up the word "Socialism" !!!
Oh Wait... It just hit me why you think Socialism is "Right Wing"... You are of the generation taught by liberal teachers. Listen when I was in college I had a polysci instructor who tried to tell me the second amendment did not give us the right right to keep and bear arms "It guaranteed the US Government to keep and bear Arms on our Behalf"............. Wrong!!!!
ProudAmericanCo...
You need to go get a dictionary and look up the word "Socialism" !!!
Oh Wait... It just hit me why you think Socialism is "Right Wing"... You are of the generation taught by liberal teachers. Listen when I was in college I had a polysci instructor who tried to tell me the second amendment did not give us the right right to keep and bear arms "It guaranteed the US Government to keep and bear Arms on our Behalf"............. Wrong!!!!
ProudAmericanCo...
You need to go get a dictionary and look up the word "Socialism" !!!
Oh Wait... It just hit me why you think Socialism is "Right Wing"... You are of the generation taught by liberal teachers. Listen when I was in college I had a polysci instructor who tried to tell me the second amendment did not give us the right right to keep and bear arms "It guaranteed the US Government to keep and bear Arms on our Behalf"............. Wrong!!!!
Pages
Add a new comment