May, 2000
Philosophic dialogue
On the movement against global capital
Editor's note: We print below excerpts from a discussion by a
prisoner, Todd Morrison, on the effects the Seattle protests against
the World Trade Organization (WTO) "may have on the larger movement
toward a revolution in permanence." We invite additional responses from
our readers as part of this important dialogue.
The Marxist-Humanist Perspectives for 1999-2000 point out: "Today, ours is
a struggle for the mind of humanity." This abstraction was given life by
the movement against global capital which emerged during and after the WTO
protest in Seattle. We there saw an unheard of coalescence of trade
unionists, environmentalists, feminists, animal, civil and human rights
activists, Third World activists, and anarchists-virtually every segment
within the struggle for social justice and human liberation-join together
and raise their voices in unison. Without question, it was a clear message
of just how the masses feel about a globalized capitalist economy.
More importantly, I believe, is the message that it sent to those engaged
in the struggle for human liberation: that solidarity between traditionally
antagonistic social movements is not only possible, but essential for
victory. Its validity will only be seen in the future, in direct actions on
the part of the masses as Subject of their own liberation.
For the moment, my concerns lie with the theoretical questions that, in the
end, will give definition to and guide the struggle into the future. In
this regard the confrontation in Seattle gave me some cause for concern. It
exposed what I believe to be a weakness-or rather, a lack of precision-in
our philosophical questioning, and a potentially crippling flaw in our
strategy.
THE NEED FOR THEORY
Since the forging of Marxist-Humanism in the bloody strife of the Coal
Miners' General Strike of 1949, the guiding question in our struggle
against the unrelenting self-expansion of capital has been: "What KIND of
labor should humankind do?" This question was constructed as a direct
result of the workers' struggle against the further division and automation
of labor. It is palpably physical in nature and speaks to the false
dichotomy (created by the despotic nature of capital) between humanity's
physical and intellectual prowess.
For literally thousands of those present in Seattle, however, the
traditional question (and the focus it provides) of what kind of work we
should do has no concrete meaning. For them, the literal life and death
struggles that forged this question on the floors of factories, in our
steel mills, and in the bowels of the earth, are not "reality." Within the
fully industrialized nations of the capitalist world, the bitter taste of
capitalist production has been artificially sweetened with the
establishment of "regulatory" commissions, "arbitration" and "labor
relations" boards. This is evidenced by the existence of what Marx
described as the predominance of a "service" industry within advanced
capitalist societies. As a result, the old question of "what kind of labor
should humankind do" has become-if not antiquated-too "narrow" to speak to
the minds of the young people manning the barricades of our struggle today.
It is an acknowledged truism that capitalist production is inherently
exploitative and self-expanding. Most would agree that the LABOR performed
under such a mode is tyrannical and counterintuitive to our true nature as
creative beings. And I think all would agree that humanity should engage in
a mode of production that not only satisfies human needs and desires, but
facilitates the symbiotic relationship between human intellect and labor in
its natural pursuit of liberation.
The time has come for us to construct new questions that may pave the way
to this new kind of labor. I believe the events in Seattle will bare
witness to the fact that the place to start is Marx's concept of commodity
fetishism. We must, both individually and collectively, begin to ask
ourselves more precise questions about the "things" around us if we are to
ever "de-objectify" the "commodity" and our relationship to it.
Take for example the deceptively simple question, "what is a commodity?" It
will elicit a myriad of responses, all of which, in the end, come down to
saying: "A commodity is a 'thing,' a 'product' to facilitate exchange in
the satisfaction of human needs."
Is that it? Is that all a commodity represents is a "thing"? If so, what
does that say of the human labor that produced it? Is that nothing more
than a "thing" too-a commodity? All of this begs the question of just what
is our relationship not only to the "product," but to the process of
production itself.
Through such expanded questioning, the enemy, long obfuscated by the
infinite division of labor and compartmentalization and fragmentation of
knowledge, will be seen in its totality. Only when it is understood that
the commodity represents much more than the sum of its parts, that it is
rich in human value, will people begin to see that the process of
production is not only about "things," but is, in fact, about the
manifestation of our core nature (a melding of intellectual and physical
powers), and that the exchange in such "things" represents, not only market
relations, but more importantly, human relations. We learn that the HUMAN
labor which produces the commodity is not, in fact, a "thing" to be bought
and sold on the open market. Rather, it is the expression of our true
selves-as creative beings.
It is through such understandings that those not within the "traditional"
fold of "anti-capitalist" movements will come to realize that the root
cause of "their" concerns (the root cause of all social maladies) is not
the despotic, greedy corporation, or the uncaring, secretive government,
but the capitalistic mode of production and the social superstructure which
it engenders.
Through the broadening of our questions do we effectively erase the false
dichotomy (created and maintained through the despotic plan of capital)
between the progressive, "issue-specific" movements of today, and venture
into a new epic of "freely associated labor" (labor recognized as the
expression of the human individual's creative nature) on a journey toward
total liberation.
IMPORTANCE OF DIALECTICS
Of course, the question that immediately arises at this point is not "how
do we get people to ask such questions?" but rather "how do we prevent the
development of simplistic, ill-considered answers?" And, it is there that
you find the real "struggle for the mind"-not to mention the insidious
nature of commodity fetishism.
Within the capitalistic social superstructure (or the property relations of
capitalism), "A" cannot be both "A" and "B" at the same time. The logic of
Aristotle rules supreme. The rules of Aristotelian logic-the laws of
"identity," "non-contradiction," and "excluded middle"-are the perfect
fertilizer for the spread of commodity fetishism. They obfuscate the true
nature between things, which results in a superficial analysis of given
matters. Such logic weakens the dialectic and tends toward sophistry.
The answer lies with the abandonment of the Aristotelian construct. In its
wake should be placed a logical construct that allows us to conceive of a
reality in which identity is transitory, contradiction is manifest in all
things, and, as such, all things are always in the process of becoming. In
short, we need a Hegelian logic to see that the "commodity" is at one and
the same time a "thing" and a "social relation"; that human labor, while it
does produce the "thing," is in reality an expression of our true creative
nature.
So, how do we get from here to there, when we are totally immersed in a
logical construct that does not allow for even the perception of such a
"reality"? Or to use Hegel's own words: How do we take the leap from
"Absolute Negativity" to a "New Beginning" (a social construct built upon a
Hegelian logic)? Such a question allows us to see that we are at the
threshold of a new historic epic, and that our "struggle for the minds of
humanity"-for our "New Beginning"-is no less great a struggle than that of
Copernicus and Einstein, nor are the consequences any less significant.
The answer to this question, while profoundly difficult to manifest, is
actually rather easy to articulate. As a fallen comrade in the struggle for
social justice once said, "By any means necessary." That is, the sophism of
our social superstructure is exposed through intellectual and physical
confrontation with it-which brings us to the strategic flaw the Seattle
confrontation exposed.
THE LIMITS OF PACIFISM
Within developed capitalist nations-the U.S. in particular-within the
struggle for human liberation, a dangerous ideology has gained strategic
hegemony-pacifism. I should take a moment here to clarify the term
"pacifism." By it I do not mean nonviolent direct social action. The latter
is a tactic applied within a larger strategic plan. Pacifism is more than
this, however. It is an ideologically held principle that precludes any
infliction of violence, even in the furtherance of the cause of
self-defense, yet at the same time it allows for the unfettered absorption
of violence by its adherents.
As such, pacifism has become a self-coopting form of social protest. It is
the pedagogy of a "democratic" oppressor. The stark contrast between the
alchemistical "revolutionary" force of pacifism and that of "by any means
necessary" is easily seen in the Seattle confrontation. Does anybody really
believe that the Seattle demonstrations would have received the attention
they did, let alone play a part in shutting down the WTO negotiations, had
it not been for the comparatively small number of protesters who defied the
"orders" of the self-policing "marshals" of the mainstream protesters and
ventured outside of the march's planned path into the "no protest zones"?
The reality is that had it not been for the courageous and radical action
of these defiant protesters, the confrontation in Seattle-no matter how
large-would have gone down in history as nothing more than a peaceful march
that went according to "plan," rather than the rallying cry for a
revolutionary confrontation with the property relations under a capitalist
society. Nor would the jackbooted foot of capitalist exploitation and
subjugation-the police-have exposed their contemptuous eyes and
bloodstained fangs.
And this is the historic reality the pacifist fails to recognize. It is why
the strategic hegemony of pacifism has become so dangerous to the struggle
for human liberation. This is also why, in their claim to social
prefiguration, pacifism will never be able to usher in a New Beginning and
will thus remain forever classist and racist in its relations. In the final
analysis it stifles, rather than promotes, true dissent. It is a form of
"revolution" Gramsci would define as "passive," seeking only to reform
through protest, rather than change through resistance.
No one hopes more than I that the confrontation in Seattle was the dawning
of a new day in our struggle for a revolution in permanence. It was without
question a shining example of what could be. I am convinced, however, that
if we do not broaden our questions-if we do not make them more than
"appealing," or more "inclusive"-and establish a "language of revolution"
that speaks to all, and if we do not have as our primary strategy a "taking
it to the enemy" attitude, the struggle for liberation will be doomed to
wallow in of reformism.
| 
