From: Massimo De Angelis <M.Deangelis-AT-uel.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:19:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Monty's article (comments)


Here just few notes, few synapses that Monty's  article may open among
others. Since I don't have page numbers, the references are from
sections.

I introduction. "The current situation appears to be one in which the
Mexican state and capital are decomposing at a faster pace than the
working class can politically recompose itself, making for a fluid,
dangerous and violent situation." This sentence contains much more
than an assessment about the Mexican situation. It contains what I
believe is a general rule, every activist in every part of the world
should keep in mind. To paraphrase the "superman" philosopher, at each
point in time, the class struggle is suspended on a rope between
barbarism and a new beginning beyond capital. No matter how strong and
pervasive struggles are, without a recomposition of the class on the
ground of a vision of the future, not only there is no hope to break
our chains, not only there is the risk that capital imposes its vision
as the only alternative, but also there is the great danger that in
the process of imposing this the world plumbs into BARBARISM. Our
struggles decompose capital, its viability, its sustainability as a
way of living and cooperating as human, as a way to organize our
social metabolism. Are we able at the same time to recompose ourselves
in such a way to prevent this life-sucking way of social cooperation
to return in strength? If not, capital's decomposition turns into
either capital's recomposition on the ground of new strategies, or in
into barbarism. 

III. Reflections of the Zapatistas' strategy

Identification of new enclosures with neoliberalism. "The critical
point is less which term ought to be used (Midnight Notes prefers "new
enclosures"), but rather the political conceptions carried by the
users of the term and whether those lead to analysis and practice that
opposes capitalism, rather than just some aspects of capitalism."

Question about the non-critical point, that is whether the term "new
enclosure" is a perfect substitute for neoliberalism (I just want to
make sure I understand the application of your conception of
enclosure). Do you consider the threat to "job security" of the South
Korean Coabal a "new enclosure" and therefore consider "job security"
itself a common? If you do, then in your conception new enclosure and
neoliberal strategies are perfect substitute (in the sense they refer
to the same phenomena although they may leave open different
interpretations). If you don't, then in your conception new enclosures
are a "subset" of neoliberal strategies, and the problem is to point
out their relation. Can you come back to me on this?

Now, on the more substantive point. You are right to point out that
"one danger in using the term is that in focusing on the current stage
of capitalism, "neoliberalism," the essence, capitalism period, is
possibly ignored. This can feed those who call for ameliorating the
worst excesses of capital; . . .Yet, in practice, how much does this
now matter? Little of the planet is not subject to neoliberalism as
the guiding force. Will not in practice opposition to neoliberalism,
regardless of the proclaimed ideology of the opponents, lead to new
openings which, as always, can lead to a variety of paths? That is,
can a planetary strategy against neoliberalism lead to a strategy
against capital as a whole?"

I have the impression in the following discussion that you answer
positively, but unless I miss something this answer is not clear, and
definitively not grounded on an analysis of the ***possible
alternative global strategies*** that capital could, in principle,
deploy in the current international class composition. The question
you raise however is crucial. We have heard at nauseam people coming
back saying that the problem is capitalism and not neoliberalism. We
face this problem every day in our work in fHUMAN. We can certainly
understand their concern, as you point out.

However, first, on a mere formal level, this problem would remain even
if we were focusing on "capitalism" instead of on neoliberalism. To
illustrate, imagine that last summer we had held the "first
intercontinental meeting against ***capitalism*** and for humanity".
Imagine the discussion in our economic table (mesa), that would have
had to define the "beast", capitalism. There the discussion go: there
is the "boundless imposition of work" version; there is the
predominance of the market version; there is the exploitation of wage
(only wage!) labour version; there is the exploitation of wage and
unwaged labour version; there is the "fuck the petty bourgeoisie"
version; there is the "eat the rich" version; there is the private
property version (meant only in the formal sense); etc. Each of these
definitions (and all the infinite others that academic imagination can
device) point to a vision of the future, to a "for humanity", or, more
simply, to a sense of the alternative. These visions, as the
definition of capitalism, at times are overlapping, at times not, at
times are conflicting. The point is that had we started to discuss
capitalism instead of the current capitalist strategy (neoliberalism)
we would have ended up in any case "to feed those who call for
ameliorating the worst excesses of capital" or feed those who think
that the alternative to capital (given ***their*** definition of
capitalism) is some sort of state socialism (that you and I know it is
instead a form of capitalism). Thus, from this point of view, I don't
think it is a big deal to talk about neoliberalism instead of
capitalism, as long as we are able to stress that neoliberalism is a
capitalist strategy.

On a more substantial ground, I think there is another reason why I
would answer positively to the question you raise: "can a planetary
strategy against neoliberalism lead to a strategy against capital as a
whole?". This for two reasons.

First, because capitalist strategies cannot be shifted at will. ***At
this stage*** and in the given conditions of the global class
composition, neoliberal strategies are the only strategies capital can
deploy. Perhaps it can refine its tools, or the means to implement it.
However, currently, it has not the alternative of a global
keynesianism. The reason for this is that any form of Keynesianism is
based on a productivity deal between the bureaucratic representatives
of a "hegemonic-core section" of the working class and the core
sections of capital. Without these deals being operational, there is
no alternative for capital to the management of the balance between
necessary and surplus labour but the iron laws of the market. These
deals presuppose: A) the presence of such a "hegemonic-core" section
of the working class; B) the presence of a labour bureaucracy and
other instruments of representation able to play leverage on the
workers (fire fighters). From Ford onward, until the crisis of the
Keynesian strategy, this core-hegemonic section was the **mass**
worker, working in huge productive establishments, assembly lines,
etc. With reference to the U.S., the struggles of the mass worker
first, created industrial unionism (1930s) and then threw it into
crisis (1970s) when this was functioning as an instrument for the
control of their autonomy. The work of Martin Glaberman is here great
in pointing out how the deal was full of cracks already back in the
1950s. This section also served as a reference point for the struggles
of many non-unionized section of the working class (e.g. public sector
workers in the U.S. 1950s). Furthermore, the struggles of all the
other sections left out of the deal (women, students), or those who
were carrying an experience of struggle inside the unionized factory
(blacks), contributed to the devastation of the Keynesian strategy.
Now, after 20 years of neoliberal strategy, it seems to me that the
only deal that capital can offer (as you mention) is to that 20% of
the working class or fewer which receive "great material confort
homes, cars, travel, entertainment, servants and attendant social and
psychological benefits", in exchange for the acceptance of the "war of
all against all". Here you quote Reich, so you must refer to that
section of the working class that he calls (how does he call it? I
left the book at the office) and that comprise very skilled workers,
"creative" professionals, etc. So, here you are talking about a deal
which is quite different from the productivity deals of the Keynesian
era. You are talking about a deal buying consensus, the legitimization
of "democratic" institutions and, perhaps, the registration at your
local voting office (I wander, isn't it this what Galbraith is talking
about in his last book, which I have not read?). Also a deal that buys
knowledge, creativity and ideas, which need, however, to be put into
practice. But for the rest of the 80% there is no deal at all, and
there cannot be. Take for a moment the waged section. In my article on
globalisation (which is at the spoon site) I point out that the
current globalisation strategy comprise of two interrelated and at
times contrasting strategies, including elements of "toyotism" and
"fordism". Now, within the framework of toyotism, there is no
core-hegemonic section of the working class to whom a deal can be
offered in case of a widespread movement (I'm thinking about hundreds
and thousands of small firms, home-tele-workers, etc. comprising the
subcontracting network of a toyotist firm). Within the framework of
global fordism, a deal can either be avoided by capital to the extent
it succeeds in accelerating its mobility (which now include also
highly skilled jobs), or its concession cannot be pegged at the social
level (precisely because there is no a core-hegemonic section of the
working class dictating the wage-productivity standard). As far as
reproduction and unwaged labour is concerned, what are the current
viable (from the perspective of capital) alternatives to neoliberal
strategies? In the South the IMF and in the North the liberalized
capital markets police any local/national bubble in public expenditure
and acts as enforcers of the market, enclosures, and increasing load
to those who have in charge reproduction work. Any alternative
strategy which would have in sight a deal on the reproduction front,
would have to guarantee the liberation of resources to pay for this
deal. In the south, the implication would be the abolition of debt
(and therefore interest debt repayment). In the north, control of
capital flight, measure which would see the entire financial
establishment against.

Second, (we are still talking about the reasons why we should answer
"yes" to the question "can a planetary strategy against neoliberalism
lead to a strategy against capital as a whole?"). The fragmentation
and division that neoliberal strategies have brought to the global
class composition is accompanied by a lack of the dimension of "hope"
within the capitalist paradigm. I think this is an important aspects
to consider, because a sense of hope, of the future, is what buys its
legitimization. If it is true that in analyzing working class history
"we conclude that a struggle against capital and its regime of work
and accumulation, to be successful requires at least [among other
things] . . .a sense of alternative possibility, the idea that another
world can exist and can be created", it is also true that a capitalist
strategy, in order to be viable and, at least in the medium term,
sustainable, requires to sell us (or a core section of us) a positive
sense of the future. Keynesianism was able to project an image of the
future that was plentiful and secure. In its economic discourse, the
targeted variables were "sensitive" variable (variables that our
senses could get a grip on), such as unemployment, income, etc. The
main variables of the neoliberal discourse are alien to our senses
(inflation, balance budget, debt/GNP ratio, etc.) in the sense that
they cannot immediately be related to our sensuous needs. They instead
are presented as THE need. (I'm trying to work this out for my paper
in the next issue of vis a vis). The point therefore is that without
this sensuous dimension provided by our enemy, we do not need to
counterpoise a different system of needs, of what it is to be "human"
for us, in relation to what is to be "human" for them (this was the
opposition between market and plan for example). Rather, by being
silent on the front of needs, neoliberalism forces us to define them.
By addressing needs, we are in the process of constituting our
humanity vis a vis a discourse (neoliberalism) that simply does not
address "humanity" at all. We are making the leap. The struggle
AGAINST neoliberalism becomes therefore a struggle against capitalism
because 1. Capitalism does not have any other viable strategy at the
moment 2. to the extent that in the process of this struggle we are
defining our needs we are also opposing capitalist system of
realization and constitution of needs.

Well, what do you all think about these thoughts
#####################################################

DESIRE IS PRODUCTION OF REALITY

#####################################################
Massimo De Angelis
Department of Economics
University of East London
Longbridge Road
Dagenham Essex RM8 2AS
U.K.

work 0181 5907722 x2254
home 0181 9616067
fax  0181 8493549
e-mail massimo-AT-uel.ac.uk 
#########################################################


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---