The Real Movement

Communism is free time and nothing else!

John Cunningham: What praxis disables the entire reproductive cycle of capital remains an open question …

It literally took John Cunningham more than 6000 words to tell us what he could have told us in a single sentence, namely that he has no idea what communization means.

I feel cheated. I will never get back the time I spent poring over his essay, “Make Total Destroy,” from the anthology produced by Clever Monkey, Communization and its Discontents.

It is actually unfortunate that Cunningham makes this admission, since he appears to come closest to actually establishing a realistic communization strategy. I will try to show why I think this, but first let me summarize what I think is Cunningham’s argument.


Read the rest of this entry »


Shorter John Cunningham …

“I have no fucking idea”:

Apparatuses reproduce a more uneven terrain of struggle that includes but can’t be reduced to production as a site of contestation, corresponding to the everyday and potentially blocking insurrection. This aporia will only be resolved through a praxis that disables the entire reproductive cycle of capital and what that would be remains an open question.
Make Total Destroy, John Cunningham

This took 18 pages to say.

More later.

Class struggle and the abolition of wage labor: Did 20th century Socialism have it backwards?

I know I said I would review Nicole Pepperell’s essay next, but I still haven’t figured out what the fuck her argument is, yet. I apologize for that. I will keep at it until I have something relevant to say about it.

In the meantime, one of the more interesting takes on the notion of communization as a strategy is offered by Jasper Bernes’ “The Double Barricade and the Glass Floor”. Bernes explains how really difficult it may be to produce a strategy based on communization theory. I think he is right. Communization theory seems to get the relation between the class struggle and the immediate abolition of labor exactly backwards.

Trying to produce a strategy based on the premise that class struggle leads to the abolition of wage labor may not just be difficult, it may be impossible.

***** Read the rest of this entry »

Has Toscano ever actually read Capital?

Continued from here

The abolition of wage labor in 20th century socialism

I think it’s a mistake to think communization theory offers anything new to replace the old strategy of the Communist Manifesto. The idea communists gathered around Marx and Engels in the middle of the 19th century were not committed to the idea of immediately abolishing wage slavery is silly.

This is all communization means.

Is Toscano seriously trying to argue that the men and women who produced and adopted the Manifesto did not fully intend to immediately put an end to the buying and selling of labor power if they successfully gained state power?

Read the rest of this entry »

Vanguardists continue to ban me on Reddit

As if this will fix what is wrong with their weak shit.

Can Communization Work as a Strategy? Alberto Toscano is skeptical

In this critique of British cultural critic, social theorist, philosopher and translator, Alberto Toscano’s essay, Now or Never, I am examining his various reservations with communization theory.

For the purpose of this critique, I assume that communization means the direct and immediate abolition of wage labor by the proletarians is all that is required to realize a fully communist society. Although many communizers may not hold to this view, I do not feel bound by their lack of recognition of the implications of their own theory.

In the course of answering Toscano’s reservation I hope to show why my definition of communization, as the direct and immediate abolition of wage labor, is the only rational reading of communization theory.

This post is a bit long, so I will divide it into two parts.


Read the rest of this entry »

A brief hiatus while I translate Alberto Toscano’s Newspeak into Ebonics

In my last post, I argued that communization is identical with the immediate abolition of wage labor. Alberto Toscano, however, has defined communization as “intransitive, anti-strategic varieties of communism.”

I am sure he has good reasons for this definition. I hope to find out what the phrase means at some point.

But I thought this argument was funny:

“Even if we accept that all transitional strategies are doomed, this does not in any way suggest that intransitive, anti-strategic varieties of communism have any better chances of dislocating the domination of the value-form – far from it.”

What I find so funny about this argument can be seen if we substitute the phrase, “intransitive, anti-strategic varieties of communism”, by the much less vague phrase, “immediate abolition of wage labor”, so that the statement now reads as follows:

“Even if we accept that all transitional strategies are doomed, this does not in any way suggest that the immediate abolition of wage labor has any better chances of dislocating the domination of the value-form – far from it.”

Without in any way suggesting either that all transitional strategies are doomed or that we can immediately abolish wage labor, I want to ask if there is any reason to believe the domination of the value-form can survive the abolition wage labor?

What is the value-form? Money, right? Specifically, fascist state fiat currency. Can someone tell me how money outlasts the abolition of wages? If wage labor is abolished — i.e., if wages are no longer being paid out — what role does money …uh, the value-form now play?


Okay. I’ll get back to work trying to figure out what the fuck Toscano is saying.

Communization is identical with the immediate abolition of wage labor: A reply to Leon de Mattis, et al

I am continuing with my examination of a series of essays on communization published by Clever Monkey in the book, Communization and its discontents. The book presents the idea of communization through the lens of writers who, allegedly, embrace the idea.

The essays raise several questions regarding communization, the answers to which should cause anyone reading them to take pause.

Where do we begin communizing society?

We begin, of course, with an idea of communism.

What does the term communism mean?

It means a society without classes, property or the state; a society characterized by the principle, “to each according to need.”

Simple enough, right? Why then does the idea of communization cause so much confusion among communists? The reason may be found in the answer to a third question:

Is communization possible?

We don’t know.


Read the rest of this entry »

How Theorie Communiste tried to rebrand 20th century socialism

I have been reading a lot of communization literature of late. I am impressed by the implications of the argument for communization, but if you have been keeping up with my blog, you know I am terribly disappointed.

Here is what I have learned from the Communization School so far:

  • In Clever Monkey’s opinion, it appears communizers have no idea who is doing the communizing, nor exactly any idea of what it is they are trying to communize.
  • From Theorie Communiste, I have learned that communizers have been unable to explain how communization differs from what we used to call socialism.
  • The Endnotes collective insists communization is not on the agenda at this time, despite arguing that the proletariat is superfluous to the production of material wealth.

This last point is very important, in my opinion. Both Theorie Communiste and the Endnotes collective argue that communization is not a call to immediately communize anything.

Let me focus in on this critical defect in the argument of both the Endnotes collective and Theorie Communiste (TC).


Read the rest of this entry »

Really? On Endnotes’ “Communization for Dummies”

I have been reading Clever Monkey’s 2009 anthology of writings from the communization school, Communization and its Discontents. The first essay in the anthology, “What are we to do?”, is provided by the Endnotes collective.

The essay appears to be a polemic against another collective that is more or less grouped around the journal, Tiqqun. But it seems to me to be nothing more than an failed attempt to leverage communization in much the same way Mason, Srnicek and Williams tried to hijack accelerationism.

Perhaps, I am wrong, but let me continue and you be the judge.


Read the rest of this entry »