From: "Cercle social" <cerclesocial-AT-altern.org>
Subject: Re: AUT: What could "proletarian socialism" possibly mean?
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:45:11 +0100


The books and articles of Seidman explain well enough the Spain situation.
We lack of a comparable analysis for other 20th century revolutions, but
there are many facts that seems converge to explain organized socialist
movement as a work-fetishist movement. In Russia, the militarization of
work, "communist sunday", lenino-taylorism and so on. In China, "Hundreds
flowers" as the mobilization of workers toward industrialisation (very good
book from Francis gipoloux on this, but agin in French.) . In Cuba, with the
"ten millions tons zaffra" and Fidel going himself cut sugar cane. And so
on.

>From this point of view, there is few difference between "marxists" and
"anarchists".  At least, we can find in Marx drafts some good texts direclty
against work, and the formula "spend live to win it" under Emile Pouget
quill. But the real theorisation of anti-work come in the late sixties, with
situationnism and operaïsm. Not as a proff of the genius of theoricians, but
as theorisation of the real worker practice against chronometer-industry an
evident absurdity of work.

The "socialist" fetishisation of work - partially product by the preeminence
of Professional workers in socialist movement -  enter in contradiction with
the worker practice against work - frequently coming from the most unskilled
workers - mass worker (a good book from Michel Burnier on this, but you
should take a few french lessons again. sorry). It's a major contradiction;
that seems me indispensable to understand and analysis for a good
comprehension of past revolutions, and - most important - for future one.

This is not a division between false and good conscience, nor "treason of
chiefs" against goodwill workers,a nd so on, but the contradiction of work
itself, as frequently expressed by the same worker  : "I know my job better
than my boss" vs. "I'd like to sleep tomorow morning instead coming in this
shitty plan". Prowork tendency suppose the first thing is good
(self-management, worker control over work, and so on) and the second is bad
(just lazy people).

This reflects also partially in the difference between mode of management
and mode of production, as Dauve criticize Catoriadis view on bureaucracy
(in Communism and the russian question). When working cass as
class-in-capital (to raise a 70's ultraleft notion) try to organise work, it
stay in managament ground, instead of production. When workers refuse to
work, they break production, dissolve capital relation.

Nico




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