Communization and its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles

by Benjamin Noys

Communisation, the contributors behind this new analysis suggest, is the spectre of the immediate struggle to abolish capitalism and conventional notions of the state. This book treats communization as a problem to be explored rather than a solution.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Theory, Nonfiction

279 pages, Paperback

First published November 15, 2011

Reviews

[Mikael Hall · Rating 2 out of 5]

Quite disappointing to be honest. In my view it is a failure. It doesn't really introduce communisation theory, and does very little justice to the anarchist tendencies of tiqqun and the invisible committee. Some of the texts does introduce the reader to the perspectives of communisation, while others center around niche debates only someone well versed in the tendency can appreciate. In the end it turns out worse than endnotes one which at least gives the reader a foundation for further inquiry. Still, I'm not sad I read it so if you're somewhat familiar with the themes and lacking in other reading take a look and see of any of the contributions are of interest.

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of content to decipher and think about. I may have to read this again.

[Sam Whitehill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a collection of essays engaging with the idea of communization. Communization is a contemporary ultra-left theory that argues for the immediate abolition of the value form rather than a post-revolutionary transition to communism. It also claims the working class cannot create communism through their classic organizations, because a clean break with every aspect of class society is essential. Many communization theorists recognize that capitalism, in the era of real subsumption, is creating the conditions for this rupture, but make no pretense to understand what communization might actually look like. In the end, there are many intriguing aspects to this theory but it leaves me with many uncertainties. This collection does a pretty good job discussing those uncertainties, but it doesn’t resolve them.

[Aaron Schuschu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Basically the idea that, since capitalism appropriated worker’s rights, communists feel that the best direct action is to abolish work entirely. How is that not accelerationist? That’s going further than what communism has traditionally gone.

[Echo · Rating 3 out of 5]

this book was instrumental in my burgeoning understanding of the distinctions between communization and acceleration as possible futures, and while I perhaps was a tad too green for my first pass at it, I think it still holds some value as an anthology

[Avery · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mixed bag, like communization theory in general. My favorite pieces were Endnotes, TC, Toscano, Pepperell, and Bernes.

[River · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was pretty dry and uninteresting. It didn't do much in terms of explaining communization or really delving into the debates. It seemed more like a narrow defense of one particular type of theory than an active engagement.

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent collection of essays worth checking out if you're into contemporary Left politics/theory.

[ػᶈᶏϾӗ]

This is clearly not a book written for a wide audience, and TBH I'm not sure who the audience *is*. Anarchists in the Bay Area? Veterans of OWS or the student occupations? Communist theory-heads? The early essays are dry and boring. Some essays try not to be dry and boring and end up being obnoxious instead - this is even the case in the last essay, "Black Box, Black Bloc," which had some very interesting things to say about the work of criticism and the allegory of the black box, the cipher, the laptop. But really only two essays here shine: Evan Calder Williams and Maya Andrea Gonzalez. Honorable mentions must also go to Jasper Bernes and John Cunningham, for interesting ideas but again kind of poor presentation.

Still, there is one heartening trend here: a quest for what, in Marx's analysis of capitalism, can actually be done. I don't agree that "worker identity" is gone and dead, never to return; I think giving up on creating a worker identity from the (always already) fragmented and alienated proletariat is the problem. Theorists want to publish when, in fact, the necessary theory has probably already been produced or shouldn't be that hard to produce; the point is to teach it, to find the workers where they are and actually build revolution. It's hard work. But it's more effective than writing in these circles.