What is this tendency about exactly? It seems that communizers view communism not as something to be establish after the revolution, but rather the content of the revolution itself, is that a fair definition? There is also a lot of overlap with insurrectionary anarchism, especially in Tiqqun.
It's ancom for people too embarrassed to call themselves ancoms.
I don't get it tbh, communization posits there's no transitional stage, that we can stablish communism right now, and how do we stablish communism you say? By having communist measures. And what are communist measures? Measures that stablish communism right now, circular logic much?
It's when you think reaching Star Trek tier communism within an hour is the only true way, and everything else is the left-wing of capital.
you know whats weird? there are some communization people that have joined DSA and founded a caucus. its beyond bizarre
that owns actually
Im not sure if they are very good communiziation-ers but the DSA Communist caucus (which was founded by some communization people) is doing good stuff. Organizing tenants unions and fighting the lukewarm socdems in the leadership of the East Bay DSA. Bretty neat.
The idea behind communization is that you build communities and planned economies at the local level to meet people's needs that capitalism doesn't. It uses the "when you have a potluck and everybody makes food for everyone to eat that's communism" lens. It's basically community organizing plus class consciousness.
It uses "communism" not to mean only a global system but a mode of production. Which means if you have a revolution/insurrection/parallel society then that's both communism as a movement (trying to establish global communism) and communism as a mode of production (because what you practice in that chunk of society is communism).
I think the deal is that if you have authoritarianism in the movement it will grow like a cancer and turn you away from a real proletarian revolution toward some bastard version of fascism. That power begets power and that the only way for people to bring about communism is to wholly be communist. I kind of get the idea but in practice I think it's going to take baby steps to get people to stop being comfortable with exploitation and really just want communism. Shit like co-ops and communization help with that I think but it's not like they're going to bring about communism in and of themselves.
I'm sympathetic to them, I really am, I just feel they published a lot of fluff about >muh value to essentially arrive at the TAZ
From my POV it seems like a link is missing between the "solidarity economy" and communization theory. If one takes the communizers at their words on subjects like this, and I'm now gonna quote from this thread (which pretty much confirms to the Dauvé's writings on communist production I've read):
and then take into account the relatively recent conceptualization (around the early 2000s) of the solidarity economy; a 'solidarization' conceptialization starts to emerge. Why? Because they're intimately linked in the proletariat's natural expressions of struggle. Just like pockets of communization emerge, so does, most of the time first, a solidaristic economy acting like a type of social safety net has appeared. Wikipedia lists some examples of the types of organizations solecon corresponds to:
Shit, I guess I'm a communizer? I just called myself an ancom, but what you wrote is exactly how I see it.
I think the book I attached to this post is great.
What you linked is insurrectionary anarchist communization theory. Insurrectionary anarchism is synonymous with anti-organizational / informal / affinity-based anarcho-communism.
It’s basically organising production in a communist way from the beginning, i.e. no wage labour, markets, private property etc
I believe communisation will be crucial in forming a dual power that is both international and capable of ending capitalism all together.
How is that different from communization?
What's some good communization theory?
just start with reading endnotes, or Dauve, specifically Eclipse and Re-Emergence of the Communist Movement.
Call it for what it is. Gang violence. At least in the hood they have balls to do things beyond shoplifting hrt pills.
Can I get some libsoc's input on this? What do you think?
I'll float this idea. Solecon is to communization as lower phase communism is to communism. The examples given are more like transitional states that haven't quite fully realized a limited-scope communist mode of production.
The idea is that communization is basically a commune except instead of being bounded according to members and physical borders, its boundaries are defined by its activities within society. It's not strictly self contained, unlike a commune, so its organizational structure and ethos are more prone to propagation because its members (and probably its activities) come into contact with outsiders.
It's the best body of theory we have today.
not gonna let this one die
might help to read Being and Time to get the ontology they're working with (protip they synthesize Heidegger and Hegel), but otherwise communization has been described by them multiple times in multiple documents including, off the top of my head 'absolute sharing between friends'. so please don't strawman. if you want to read more, dredge up any of their documents and ctrl+f "communise" or "communization"
whoops, meant that communization was DESCRIBED as that sharing between friends and that's from their film "And the War Has Only Just Begun". It's really quite simple. And in addition to Heidegger they place emphasis on Deleuzo-Guattarian notions of circulation (re: material and affective circulation on a plane of consistency) so you may want to check out parts of A Thousand Plateaus.
It's anarchist retardation but cloaked with Marxist 'look how intellectual I am' obscuritanist language
Nobody is friends with most people. Spontaneous and ultra-localist "measures" look to me like acts of affection almost anybody does, but now with added pompous philosophy about it to make it sound less mundane than it is (not that you should feel bad about doing that, but it ain't communism).
Do you think somebody who actually has an explanation to offer writes like that.