The Antinomies of Antagonism

As a fundamental perspective we can see the principle task of the revolutionary movement is to aid in the process of the recomposition of an antagonist class subject.

However, those who focus on the aspect of antagonism to the detriment of the class aspect, are guilty of the voluntarist (& sectarian) conception of antagonism as belief or ideology.

For us antagonism is neither a belief nor form of consciousness, but an immanent characteristic of the capitalist dynamic. If we focus on the recomposition of the class subject, capitalism will provide the antagonism free of charge.

Hence the true danger is not the possibility of producing a non-antagonistic class subject, but to produce a merely political subject, rather than a class subject.

Thus the limitations of the specific political organisation taken in isolation - it cannot transcend the creation of a political subject. The descent into the sectarian policing of ideology or behaviours of participants as the key to assuring "proper" class content is futile and ultimately self-defeating.

So are mass organisations the way to produce a class subject? Yes and no. The specific danger of the mass organisation is to produce an institutional subject. Here in fact, the subjectivity of the collective subject decays, as the organisation itself substitutes for the collective subject in the eyes of the loyal organisation cadre or militant, but appears as external or alien to the ordinary member, appearing ultimately as yet another institution of existing society that may or may not be manipulated to provide benefits to individuals or groups. In this way collective subjectivity is decomposed for the mass membership and demands the militant defend the organisation against the interests of the members and the wider class itself. To the degree that it necessarily excludes other sections of the class, it narrows the horizons to the particular sectional interests it defends, rather than the class as a whole, thus reproducing the relations of competion and dependency, characteristic of capitalist social relations.

Hence the perspective of dual organisationalism which refers, not to the numbers of organisations in question (for example see the texts on intermediate organisation by Scott Napalos), but the insufficiency of any one organisational form for the recomposition of the class subject. This is not merely a question of mutiplicity versus monolithism, but a focus on process of dynamic balance in the interrelations and mutual feedback between the different organisational forms. By the same token it is anti-substitutional, there is no organisational form that can substitute for the class for itself. Finally it is anti-fetishistic, rejecting the fetishism of antagonism as individual acts of destructive self-actualisation that define the praxis of the so-called insurrectionist tendency.
 

Comments

I hope this means peasant

I hope this means peasant hegemony over all working-class formations.

Signed pro2rat

Sure the language is a

Sure the language is a barrier in pieces like these. But you have to understand that this blog is a mixed bag in terms of its contents. Some pieces are written with an eye on communicating a message to a wider audience, some are simply notes in an ongoing process of theoretical construction, written in a kind of shorthand jargon that will probably only be familiar to people with experience of working in similar obscure theoretical terrains and codes. The latter I put up here similarly to the way that people leave post-it notes all over their desk. But also so that people with interests in the same or similar particular obscure corners can take a look and see if anything resonates with what they're working on. To a degree, whether they see the same things in these notes that I do, or it resonates with some entirely different meanings for them, is immaterial, the point is cross-fertilisation, not communication. Certainly, if I was to take something from the above and decide to make a communicative text from it, then the language would have to be sorted out and the framework of a story, with examples and illustrative anecdotes would have to be built as well. But that all takes time and effort, and as a full time wage slave I don't have time to do this for every text I generate. The alternative is to self-censor, that is not to share stuff that is not worked up to story-telling standard. But that would miss the opportunity for cross-pollination and the possibility of being "mis-"understood in interesting and fertile ways.

I wish you would say all this

I wish you would say all this in simple short sentences, without the long-winded "in jargon" and all in a plain English that a self-educated working class person like myself can understand. You obviously have something to say here I just wish I knew what the feck it is!

  


Like what you are reading?  Get a notification whenever we post a new article to

Anarchist Writers via Facebook or Twitter

where you can also like and comment on our articles