The communist should not attend
The communist should not attend, never mind organise, public protest demonstrations. Nor should he participate in spontaneous popular decision making structures such as soviets or assemblies. Any and all such involvements will inevitably lead to the loss of the ideas which he must develop in isolation from events. The communist must relinquish bringing his ideas to the world because it is against the purest ideals of communism that popular revolt must measure itself. Pragmatism is the death of communist theory. Pro-communists must always stand apart from revolt and maintain their critical distance from enthusiasm. On no account must theory ever be put into practice. Theory must seek to perfect itself as theory, it is not the basis for realising new social relations. The practice of social relations must refer itself to theory, as a celestial navigation, but may apply its knowledge only to the degree of registering the falling-short of its projects, and for measuring the gap that must still be closed between ideas and practice (a gap that will never be closed). The continued failure of practice before theory is the only means for recognising further possibilities. The communist should never confuse the categories of participation within historical events with the morality of personal involvement. Wherever an identity of popular revolt and communist ideas emerges, it always leads to barbarism. Wherever popular revolt and communism combine, it is the communist component that is relinquished in a rising spiral of engagements with necessity which always take the form of identifications and externalisations, allies and enemies. It is therefore the social and historical function of the communist to set up an external, and uninvolved, corrective of the spirals of enthusiasm. Sometimes this critique, in order to preserve its reason, may find that it can take no other form than silence, and withdrawal – it must stand by and let the storm pass. In the place of involvement, the communist should cultivate his sensibilities towards reason, critique, proportionality, the other. In the midst of social upheaval, he should stay at home, drink tea, watch birds in the garden. Deploying the utopian categories of communism which he has cultivated in isolation, he finds himself in the ideal position to reflect upon, and test the claims of, the protest movement, and the structural/procedural apparatus of the popular institution. He will then publish his findings, to what end he does not know. Although he performs his task scrupulously, his findings are always the same: this is not communism. The communist must pass judgment on that which seeks to attain communism but he will never experience himself the ecstasies of involvement. Just as a poet cannot know love or nature, but only records his separation from these, so the communist is separated by a great distance from his object, communism. What others will grasp of communism as it is confirmed in their immediate experiences, the communist will never know directly. Paradoxically, as others who previously have been defined by their direct involvement in events, then begin to identify themselves as communists, so they will find themselves withdrawing from popular events, from communism itself, in order to establish a theoretical perspective upon the shortcomings of its manifested forms.
…
And now for something completely political:
We can go back in time and look at people cheerleading the Iranian revolution or the Zimbabwean anti-colonial struggle or the ANC in South Africa or the Sandinistas or whatever political fight. In all cases there is an understandable urge to side with the underdog. But what was the outcome? Why are radicals so quick to patriotically cheer on the latest thing, when we should be saying: “Brothers and sisters in Yemen and Egypt and Algeria and Tunisia, watch out for the states in waiting, watch out for the ‘popular resistance hero’. Remember Mugabe. Remember Khomeini. The difference between a dictator and a democrat is only at the ballot box – the factory and the slum will not change. The ‘imprisoned opposition leaders’ of today will be the jailers of tomorrow. Stay strong. You will need miracles, and G-d is not watching. All the proposed solutions are lies!”Perhaps it is too soon to say this (Mubarak may hold on), but the real enemy of those revolting in Northern Africa is the political opposition that is preparing to take power. And when I say ‘take power’, I mean that in the most general way.
If/when a revolt appears where ‘we’ are, ‘we’ cannot fall prey to the indecency of waving flags and banners in support of whatever is happening. Our task is to pee on the parade. To say “No! Push further! The old world is not behind you yet!” To point out the policeman with red and black flags. To maintain our principles and avoid urgency, even when the situation appears to be moving quickly.
Remember every international revolt you’ve been excited about in your life. Look at what happened after each of them. What happened May, 1969? What happened to your enthusiasm? All of the doors that appeared to be open lead nowhere or were, in retrospect, closed. The freedom fighters joined or became the government. The political situation was turned upside down, the old leaders jailed, the elections became free (at least for one election!), and yet… wage labor, value production, the unending circulation of commodities and money, the reproduction of classes, all of this carried on without pause. Why?
Does anyone believe the situation in North Africa is a revolt against capitalism? If you do, do you think this revolt could lead to communism (or ‘anarchy’ or whatever you want to say)? If you say no to either question, what exactly are you supporting?
