Marx, Yesterday and Today (2)
Alex:
“If it is true that it is on the social base of the most developed capitalism where the decisive confrontation must take place…”
Not quite sure why this is indeed true. It seems that a lot of the Italian autonomist literature I have read to date make the argument, mainly implicitly, that it is capitalism’s most advanced stages that are the appropriate terrain of struggle. An explanation for this tendency would be helpful. I am wondering/concerned about the consequences of this thinking for groups such as peasants and industrial workers today that, it can be argued, are not the workers of capitalism “most advanced” form (i.e. high-technology capitalism)
Much of the article is a critique of ideology and orthodox or vulgar Marxism. I read the basic message as: we need theory tied to working class struggles, “theory from below” as we would now say, and not ideologies. And that the most effective critique of ideology, capitalist or Marxist, develops through struggle against capitalism, a struggle led by a revolutionary party.
“Ideology is always bourgeoisie; because it is always a mystified reflection of the class struggle on the terrain of capitalism…Here is thus why the working class does not need to have its own ‘ideology’. Its existence as a class, that is to say, its presence as a force antagonistic to the capitalist system, its organization as revolutionary class, do not bind the class to capitalism: they liberate the class from it and they cause the class to oppose it.”
I read this as: The exploited have no need of ideology, their exploitation makes visible to themselves the fact that they constitute an antagonistic force in relation to capitalism and thus ideologies, brought in from the outside or from above, can only obscure what is already visible.
“…it follows that the process of demystification must take place within marxism itself, and must also take the form of a de-ideologization[?] of Marxism.”
Goes on to critique “vulgar Marxism” via the critique of “vulgar economics” (Marx’s description of classical political economy according to Tronti) then argues that the demystification of Marxism can not be achieved at the level of theory only but also through active struggle.
“Today more than ever, the Leninist thesis appears in all its accuracy: a revolutionary movement cannot exist without revolutionary theory… However, today more than ever, the inverse thesis is also true: revolutionary theory is not possible without revolutionary movement. Here is why the theoretician him/herself must lend a hand to the practical work of the rediscovery and reorganization of the only authentically subversive forces that exist within capitalism”
Don’t like the “only authentically subversive forces” part but I do like the part about the theoretician “lending a hand” or becoming active in social struggles.
hi Alex,
That’s a great question re: the highest developed capitalism and all that. I like it differing from the Leninist ‘weak link’ idea, but in some ways it just flips it on its head, still replays the tendency to legislate in advance where the most important of revolts can break out. In a sense, this seems like a failure to fully start from the working class.
What do you make of the “no need for ideology” stuff? Ideology’s not needed, but the party is? And therefore the party and what it says are not ideological? Kinda fishy if you ask me. I wonder about what the role and importance of theory is here - is it “theory can lend a hand” or is theory more of a necessary (but not sufficient) condition? I assume that theory is one of the functions of the party, but I’m not sure.
take care,
Nate
Comment by Nate — January 15, 2006 @ 5:46 am
Hi Nate,
I like the way you put this: “still replays the tendency to legislate in advance where the most important of revolts can break out. In a sense, this seems like a failure to fully start from the working class.”
On ideology and theory, it seems to me Tronti is saying implicitly that what the “truly revolutionary” party says is not ideological because it, being “truly revolutionary” accurately reads and acts in tune with the constantly changing desires of the working class. Yes, this is definetly fishy or rather I think unrealistic. Its easy to make the argument that in this case party ideology would quickly emerge and seek to dominate alternative viewpoints.
Regarding theory, I read it as theory is necessary but not sufficient…the whole can’t have a revolutionary movement wihtout theory and vice versa bit. “Lending a hand” was not the best choice of words there. What I had in mind by that was theory emerging from practical struggle, from the movements itself which is different from “lending a hand” which implies a separation from the movement(s).
Comment by Alex — January 17, 2006 @ 3:43 am
hi Alex,
That’s much clearer, and I like that. Workers think, struggles are evidenc of that, despite what vanguardists might say or act like. I think you’re right about Tronti and the true revolutionary party. That’s a fine way to think if it’s only retroactively applied, where we can say that this and that case in history were revolutionary instances of activitiy, but as a prescription this seems really problematic. How does one know one’s in tune with the working class? Absolute certainty that one is might be a result from being in tune. It also might be part of a colossal (and anti-worker) mistake.
take care,
Nate
Comment by Nate — January 17, 2006 @ 4:27 am