💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › gilles-dauve-human-all-too-human.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:30:14. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Human, All Too Human?
Author: Gilles Dauvé
Date: 2008
Language: en
Topics: communism, Endnotes, a reply, human nature
Source: Retrieved December 7, 2014 from https://endnotes.org.uk/articles/human-all-too-human
Notes: A reply to ‘http://endnotes.org.uk/en/th-orie-communiste-normative-history-and-the-communist-essence-of-the-proletariat][Normative History and the Communist Essence of the Proletariat]]’ by Théorie Communiste. Originally published as ‘Humain, Trop Humain?’, appendix to Quand Meurent Les Insurrections ([[http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gilles-dauve-when-insurrections-die), (La Sociale, Montreal 2000), pp. 69–77. Translated by Endnotes.

Gilles Dauvé

Human, All Too Human?

It is for the reader to judge whether, as Théorie Communiste think, When

Insurrections Die explains what happened by what didn’t happen. We

believe that in that article we set out first what proletarians actually

did, and then what they weren’t able or didn’t want to do. “Yet no

lessons but negative ones can be drawn from all these undertakings [the

struggles of the German proletariat from 1919 to 1923]… The lesson

learned was how not to proceed.”[1] To jump back and forth between

yesterday and tomorrow has its dangers, but is more illuminating than

the explanation according to which every social movement ineluctably

ends up where it is driven by its epoch.

“Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to

solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself

arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already

present or at least in the course of formation.”[2]

So be it. It remains for us to determine these conditions, and which

goal they correspond to. Otherwise we limit ourselves to demonstrating

how what had to happen happened. To reconstruct two hundred years of

class struggles from the knowledge which we now have of them is not

without interest. But what privilege permits the observer in the year

2000 to know that his standpoint is ultimately the right one? Nothing

can guarantee that in 2050, after 50 more years of capitalism, an even

more broad-ranging overview won’t establish for x + y reasons the ways

in which the proletarians of the year 2000 (and with them TC along with

G. Dauvé) remained historically constrained by the limits of their

times, and thus that communism wasn’t actually in the offing in the year

2000 any more than it was in 1970 or 1919, but that now a new period is

ushering itself in, allowing us to genuinely grasp the past from the

new, proper viewpoint. Nothing guarantees it, except the certainty of

the opening of a totally different historical epoch towards the end of

the 20^(th) century. To be sure, the conviction of TC is well buttressed

and argued. Despite everything, however, it is not a caricature to read

a new version of the “final crisis” in this vision of a phase in which

proletariat and capital are supposedly from now on face to face,

enabling proletarians to call into question their own existence as

class, thus posing the question of communism in all its nakedness.

More than a mere theoretical position, it is this way of situating

oneself in relation to the world, this ultimatism, which is

questionable.[3]

Capitalism will only be non-reproducible the day when proletarians cease

producing it. There is no objective limit to a social system.

Proletarians only give themselves tasks that they are able to and want

to resolve.

Théorie Communiste steers clear of the conditional and subjunctive

modes. However, just as one of the traits of language is projection into

the future, man is also characterised by his capacity to think what

could be, to reinterpret the past on the basis of the collective choices

made by social groups, and thus to consider what could have been.

History is a conjunction of possibilities and wills. Freedom consists

not in being able to do anything one wants, but in wanting what one can

do. Which is another way of saying “Men make their own history … but

under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the

past”[4], circumstances which they don’t invent, but which it is within

their power to modify.

“Will”, “freedom”, “Man”: these are all words which disturb the

theoretical rigour of TC. Unfortunately, to refuse all concepts which

are exterior to capitalism is to condemn oneself to thinking nothing but

capitalism. The fate of capitalism is not intelligible on the basis of

capitalism alone. To reject all concepts which refer to an outside of

the capital/wage-labour structure amounts to building a model that is

irrefutable because it refers only to itself. What would be the use in a

proletarian structuralism?

We don’t postulate an irreducible, ahistorical human nature which ends

up bursting the capitalist fetter.

“Underneath labour lies activity”, stated an article in La Banquise.[5]

Idealism? Everything depends on the underneath. It is false to conceive

of capitalism as a prison from which, one glorious dawn, will emerge a

virtuality which today is enclosed. That would presuppose an always

already existing positivity, constrained by capital and waiting to

escape.

What exists, on the contrary, neither anterior nor exterior to capital,

but consubstantial with it, and as indispensable condition of its

functioning, is the universal scope of living labour, from which it

feeds every day.

Not in the sense in which labour is presumed as the essential

characteristic of Man defined as homo faber.

More simply, proletarians are not bovines. A man is not put to work like

an animal is. The most manual occupation demands more than mere

expenditure of muscle: a grasp, an anticipation of the gesture, a

savoir-faire not eliminated by Taylorism, an acquired skill which the

worker can then transmit. This faculty includes the representation of

what other workers do and are, including if they live 10,000km away. The

horse can refuse the work demanded of it, kill its master, escape and

finish its days free, but it cannot initiate another form of life which

reorganises the life of the former master as well. Capital is only

capital because it exploits not only the product of labour but that

which is human: a power to work, an energy which is always collective,

which capital manages but can never completely dominate, which it

depends on and which can put it into crisis — or even a revolution.

Proletarianisation is not the loss of some prior existing thing, but the

exploitation of a human capacity. Alienation is only transhistorical to

the extent that capitalism recapitulates a multi-millenarian past.

Something becomes other: this is certainly one of the characteristics of

wage-labour. The latter effects a dispossession, not of an undefinable

humanity, but of time constrained, energy used, acts forced by capital

which is thereby valorised. What the proletarian loses every day is not

a strip of some eternal nature, but a force of life, a social capacity

which the beast of burden does not have at its disposal, and which is

thus a reality internal to the wage relation. It’s not a question of

introducing a human dimension into the analysis, but of seeing that it

is to be found there.

A fundamental contribution of the German-Dutch Left, and its

descendents, is to have emphasised this.

“If the worker is, even from the economic point of view, more than a

machine, it is because he produces for the capitalist more than he costs

him, and above all because in the course of his labour he manifests the

creativity, the capacity to produce ever more and ever better, than any

productive class of previous periods ever possessed. When the capitalist

treats the proletariat as livestock, he learns quickly to his expense

that livestock cannot fulfil the function of the worker, because the

productivity of over-exploited workers decreases rapidly. This is the

deep root of the contradictions of the modern system of exploitation and

the historical reason of its failure, of its incapacity to stabilise

itself.”[6]

Socialisme ou Barbarie, like councilism, reduced the generic character

which is the foundation of wage-labour to the dimension of its

management. This fact, however, cannot blind us to that which these

currents, which reflect the struggles for self-activity and autonomy

against the bosses, bureaucracy and the State, brought to light: it is

the proletariat which capitalism places in a situation of universality.

The important thing is not that proletarians produce riches (which for

the most part impoverish us), but that they themselves are the ever more

totalising but never total commodification of activity and life. Since

the proletarian is the commodity which produces all the others, he

contains them all, holds the key to his own exploitation, and in

negating himself as commodified-being, can revolutionise the world of

the commodity. No previous exploited class lived a similar potentiality.

In fact, even if they died from overwork, the slave, the serf, the

peasant under the yoke of the corvée and tax, the artisan and the worker

before the industrial revolution, were only ferociously exploited in one

part of their existence, a large portion of which remained outside the

control of the dominant class. The serf’s vegetable garden wasn’t of

interest to the lord. Modern proletarians produce the totality of

material life, they lose it, then they receive it back in the form of

the commodity and the spectacle, and this takes the form of the global

circulation of goods and labour. It’s for this reason that capitalism

was theorised a hundred and fifty years ago as the realisation, if not

the completion, of a double tendency of the universalisation of humanity

and its alienation.

Between 1830 and 1848, a minority perceived society at a limit-point:

proletarians can only reappropriate the totality of the conditions of

life, “not only to achieve self-activity, but, also, merely to safeguard

their very existence.”[7] The announced revolution will use productive

forces, but won’t be a revolution of the producers. Technology is only

valid as a flowering of individuals, with the supersession of

professional capacities: “now the isolation of individuals and each

person’s particular way of gaining his livelihood have themselves become

accidental.”[8]

“Thus, while the fugitive serfs only wished to have full scope to

develop and assert those conditions of existence which were already

there, and hence, in the end, only arrived at free labour, the

proletarians, if they are to assert themselves as individuals, have to

abolish hitherto prevailing condition of their existence (which has,

moreover, been that of all society up to then), namely, labour. Thus

they find themselves directly opposed to the form in which, hitherto,

the individuals, of which society consists, have given themselves

collective expression, that is, the state; in order, therefore, to

assert themselves as individuals, they must overthrow the State.”[9]

Beyond the glaring contradiction between an increasing production of

wealth which impoverishes its producers, the more radical perceived a

historic opening, through the contradiction of labour, “which is now the

only possible but, as we see, negative form of self-activity.”[10]

From the clash between artisans a new figure could emerge beyond the

creator-artist and the proletarian-servant of the machine. Thanks to

commodified labour, which was unattached and indifferent to its content,

but collective, it became possible to envisage association, and the

supersession of the wage form (still too recent to appear “natural”).

The “Proletariat” is thus conceived as that which will compose another

society. It already configures a kind of society, since classes dissolve

themselves in it. It sucks in artisans and peasants, attracts a

proportion of “intellectuals”, and doesn’t form a bloc or entity, but

expresses a social decomposition (or a recomposition as revolutionaries

hope). Proletarians experience unemployment, poverty, uprooting, the

breakdown of the family, of customs, of identities, of values, and at

the same time act collectively (as seen in insurrections, chartism,

trade-unions, Tristan’s Union Ouvrière, Luddism too, of which the later

trade unions gave the falsified image of a brute force, spontaneous but

limited). The proletariat of before 1848 is an ensemble disaggregated

enough to criticise itself, but still communitarian enough to want to

struggle, and by the breaking-down of barriers between

worker/non-worker, artisan/labourer, manual/intellectual… accede to a

free association. The organised workers’ movement subsequently both took

on and denied this heritage, and the communist horizon has been fixed on

sociology for more than a century.

Under the weight of the epoch, Marx himself, although aiming for “a

description of the characteristics of communist society”[11] considered

it increasingly on the basis of capitalism, and by dint of criticising

political economy became enclosed within it. What is the interest in

scientifically “proving” exploitation, instead of exposing how

exploitation exploits that which can produce communism?

It’s not a case of opting for the “young” Marx against the “old” Marx,

but of understanding that the “young” Marx contains the “old” Marx a lot

more than the “old” Marx contains the “young” Marx. Thus the

intellectual involution echoes a historical stabilisation. The

perspective is impoverished in the International Workingmen’s

Association or the Commune when compared to that of the middle of the

century, which the author of the 1844 Manuscripts synthesised the best,

but which others had also expressed.[12]

The revolution didn’t occur around 1848, and it would be vain to expect

that computerisation will finally render “historically necessary” in the

year 2000 that which large-scale mechanised industry was supposed to

achieve before 1914 or nascent automation after 1960.

What is true is that every profound reorganisation of the productive

system materially impoverishes the workers, but also dispossesses them

of a relative mastery over their work, and unleashes resistance and

revolts, often conservative, but revolutionary perhaps. The calling into

question by capitalism of the forms of wage-labour opens up a path of

rupture with the wage condition. Each time, nothing guarantees that a

communist movement will be able or want to take advantage of it, but the

possibility is there, which makes of the proletariat the “overthrowing

class”.[13]

A hypothesis: we are living in a new charnel-epoch in which capitalism

is able to create poles of profit for itself, technically innovate and

multiply consumer goods, create employment and/or income, calm riots,

but not unify the global society of generalised labour at the very

moment in which the latter becomes inessential. From the fetid cellars

of Lille or Manchester in 1840 to the living-rooms of council

tower-blocks where the VCR has pride of place, the problem remains: how

to put wage-earners to work if they are profitable, and what to do with

them when they are not? At one extreme, in China, 100 million uprooted

ex-rurals which the capitalist city won’t be able to integrate. At the

other end of the chain, in Seine-Saint-Denis (TN: Parisian suburb ):

school until 22 years old; training schemes; insignificant, precarious

jobs; benefits. Between the two, the United States. For Emmanuel Todd

(L’illusion économique), “the biggest success of the American system of

production is anti-economic”. The question isn’t whether there is no way

out of the situation for capital, but whether it reopens a way out for

the proletariat as a class not of workers, but of the critique of work.

The limit of capital is that it is unable to do without labour, which it

indeed generalises, making millions of beings enter into wage labour, at

the same time as it reduces labour to a negligible role. To remedy this,

thinkers such as Andre Gorz propose the delinking of money from labour,

in order to accord to everybody a share in consumption, whether they

have participated in production or not. Such a society is impossible:

even if it were ten times more automated, our world would still rest

upon labour. Proletarians will remain the necessary evil of capitalism.

A question: is it possible to pass from the moment where capital refuses

many proletarians (in particular young ones) to the refusal of this

world and its labour by proletarians (particularly lots of young ones)?

What will be done by these “masses resulting from the drastic

dissolution of society, mainly of the middle estate, that form the

proletariat…”

“… By proclaiming the dissolution of the hereto existing world order,

the proletariat merely proclaims the secret of its own existence, for it

is in fact the dissolution of that world order. By demanding the

negation of private property, the proletariat merely raises to the rank

of a principle of society what society has made the principle of the

proletariat, what without its own co-operation, is already incorporated

in it as the negative result of society.”[14]

On the basis of what he had in front of his eyes — i.e. nascent

industrialisation, Marx theorised a period (to come) of dislocation of

classes, which was simultaneously the effect of a profound social crisis

and the conscious action of proletarians. For him, the proletariat of

1844, but also one hundred or two hundred years later, is the ensemble

of categories having in common that they live only from the sale of

their labour-power, whether they are in work or without it, partially

employed, precarious or protected by a statute but susceptible (if not,

a brother, or a daughter…) to falling into a fragile category. The

proletariat exists as dissolution of classes in the sense that it is and

effects this dissolution. It is both the product and the process of this

dissolution, by a revolution “in which, further, the proletariat rids

itself of everything that still clings to it from its previous position

in society.”[15] It is not a question of it forming a bloc like an army

against another, but that it puts into practice the negation which it is

already, going beyond individualism as well as massification.

“…standing over against these productive forces, we have the majority of

the individuals from whom these forces have been wrested away, and who,

robbed thus of all real life-content, have become abstract individuals,

but who are, however, only by this fact put into a position to enter

into relation with one another as individuals.”[16]

“…the communal relationship into which the individuals of a class

entered, and which was determined by their common interests over against

a third party, was always a community to which these individuals

belonged only as average individuals, only insofar as they lived within

the conditions of existence of their class — a relationship in which

they participated not as individuals but as members of a class. With the

community of revolutionary proletarians, on the other hand, who take

their conditions of existence and those of all members of society under

their control, it is just the reverse; it is as individuals that the

individuals participate in it. It is just this combination of

individuals (assuming the advanced stage of modern productive forces, of

course) which puts the conditions of the free development and movement

of individuals under their control — conditions which were previously

abandoned to chance and had won an independent existence over against

the separate individuals just because of their separation as

individuals, and because of the necessity of their combination.”[17]

According to Théorie Communiste, “the proletarian of the young Marx is

the personal individual for whom the previous social determinations have

become a matter of contingency, and it is this situation in itself which

is posed as revolutionary.”[18] However this proletarian evoked by Marx

is more than an individual, as he shares (in his head and his actions)

his fate with millions of others. Is he so individual, this individual

who is weighed down by a historical constraint, this being who is

endlessly “excluded” from production then coercively re-included, and by

the same token who, because his condition doesn’t enclose him in a

factory, an occupation or a particular place, is able to do what the CGT

metalworker proved himself to be incapable of: to pass from one category

to another, not to think of himself one-sidedly as “worker” or “out of

work”, to manifest a certain fluidity, a freedom…

Proletarians can fight exploitation, either to merely impose some limits

upon it, or to bring an end to it by producing communist social

relations. How does the link between the two operate? Even the most

resolved and most autonomous movement will only challenge society if it

manifests the practical demand for another life, in a word if its acts

contain or acquire a universal dimension. The communist revolution is

precisely the moment of fusion between the struggle against exploitation

and the struggle against alienation. No historical dialectic can deliver

the key to this in advance.

[1] Paul Mattick, ‘Otto Rühle and the German Labour Movement’, 1935, in

Anti-Bolshevik Communism (Merlin Press, 1978).

[2] Marx, Preface, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,

1859 (MECW 29), p. 263.

[3] TN: Ultimatism — the confidence that one is in a position to grasp

the ultimate truth.

[4] Marx, 18^(th) Brumaire (MECW 11), p. 103.

[5] ‘Sous Le Travail: l’Activité’, La Banquise no. 4, 1986.

[6] Socialisme ou Barbarie no. 1, 1949.

[7] Marx & Engels, The German Ideology (MECW 5), p. 87.

[8] ibid. p. 88

[9] ibid. p. 80

[10] ibid. p. 87

[11] Amadeo Bordiga, ‘Trajectoire et catastrophe de la forme capitaliste

dans la classique et monolithique construction marxiste’, Réunion de

Piombino, September 1957. (French translation of the article which

appeared in Il Programma Communista in 1957).

[12] cf. Alain Maillard, La Communauté des égaux (éd. Kimé, 1999).

[13] Marx, The German Ideology (MECW 5), p. 53.

[14] Marx, Introduction, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s

Philosophy of Right, 1843 (MECW 3), p. 187.

[15] Marx, The German Ideology (MECW 5), p. 88.

[16] ibid. p. 87.

[17] ibid. p. 80.

[18] Théorie Communiste no. 14, 1997 p. 19.