Fezeka Mbatha
In
this essay I will argue that communism is potentially emancipatory as it has
the elements of a truly emancipatory project if it is conceived of in a
slightly different way from the way it was in the past. Moreover, communism
needs an amalgamation of elements, such as an Idea, a general will and desire
to be emancipated.
The meaning of
emancipation and the link it has to communism
Emancipation,
according to Ranciére, is when a person is able to break away from a situation
of minority (2010: 167). By “minority” the author means a situation in which a
person is treated as if they have no capacity to act, hence, the person needs
guidance in order not to make the wrong decisions (Ranciére, 2010: 167). Emancipation
is where there is an opportunity for an infinite number of possibilities and a
space where the impossible becomes the possible. I do not agree that
emancipation should follow a pedagogical process, where the enlightened lead
the ‘ignorant’ to towards equality (Ranciére, 2010: 167-168). A fully
emancipatory project should be one that begins with equality and not a project
that begins with inequality with a promise of eventual equality (Ranciére,
2010: 168).
The
Haitian Revolution is an example of where the ‘impossible’ was made
possible. Society could not conceive of
the fact that slaves had the ability to fight for universal freedom. The
Haitian Revolution was a sequence event that followed the French Revolution,
where the ‘universal’ principles of liberty and equality affirmed in the French
Revolution were truly tested (Hallward, 2004: 4). The French colonial lobby, to
keep the slavery system in place, is parallel to the logic in the present
global division of labour (Hallward, 2004: 4). Certain people are seen as not
having capacity thus the universal principles that should apply to all humanity
do not extend to certain groups. The status
quo is that rules that apply to ‘us’ cannot reasonably be made to apply to
‘them’ without resulting in detriments to investments or terror (Hallward,
2004: 5). The achievement of Haitian independence is important as it is
indicative of the fact that politics does not always need to proceed as ‘the
art of the possible’ (Hallward, 2004: 5).
Moreover,
a truly egalitarian project does not have divided intelligence where people are
seen as having an aptitude for only particular things; the intelligence of an
artisan should not be seen as different or inherently inferior to the
intelligence of the legislator or the student (Ranciére, 2010: 168). An
emancipatory project would view intelligence as intelligence that is not
specific to positions in society, instead, it is the intelligence which is
unified and acknowledges the potential of the equality of intelligence
(Ranciére, 2010: 168). Emancipation means the “communism of intelligence” where
people who are seen as ‘incapable’ and ‘ignorant’ have the capacity to learn by
themselves (Ranciére, 2010: 168).
At
this point, it is important to understand that emancipation can be transmitted
from individuals to individuals as anybody can be emancipated and emancipate
other individuals with the end result being the composite world of emancipated
individuals (Ranciére, 2010: 169). However, a society can never be emancipated
(Ranciére: 2010: 169). This means that emancipation needs to start from the
individual and from there a collective realisation of emancipation can be
attained. One cannot simply, begin to ‘emancipate’ a society through the
implementation of a blanket approach such as laws that come from the state. A
top-down approach to emancipation is not an effective one as it still results
in a hierarchy being created.
In
order for communism to be thought of differently, we need to reconceptualise it
by looking at certain facts (Ranciére, 2010: 167). Communism is not only its
history i.e. social movements and infamous state powers of the past; moreover,
it is not a name that has a bad connotation that is in need of great and risky
efforts in order to claim-back the meaning of emancipation (Ranciére, 2010:
167). “The communist hypothesis is the hypothesis of emancipation” as communism
is a form of universality that is shaped by emancipatory practices (Ranciére,
2010: 167).
Plato
argues that people with iron in their souls (workers) cannot be communist; only
people with gold in their souls (legislators) can and must let go of the gold
category and live, as communists, on the production of non-communist workers
(Ranciére, 2010: 170). A communist worker is one that makes his/her presence
felt through asserting his/her capacity to be part of the conversation and
common affairs instead of ‘merely doing his/her job as a ‘useful’ worker
(Ranciére, 2010: 170). These Platonic categories need be broken through and
made non-existent in the fight for emancipation. The communism of intelligence
needs to be asserted in order for an emancipatory project to be successful. The
heterogeneity of the logic of emancipation and the existence of a hierarchal
social order tends to remove the premise of emancipation which is the
affirmation of the “communism of intelligence or the capacity of anybody to be
where s/he cannot be and do what s/he cannot do” (Ranciére, 2010: 171).
The
repression of the golden communist by the iron worker and vice versa has been
done by all communist state powers (from the New Economic Policy to the
Cultural Revolution) and accepted by Marxist science and leftist organisations
(Ranciére: 2010: 172). Ranciére rightfully states that this conception is
something that needs to be forgotten to be revived under the name of communism
(2010: 172). Above that, the history of
communist parties and states has relevance today as it can teach us how to
avoid making the same mistakes and to build strong organisations and how to
assume and keep state power (Ranciére, 2010: 173).
Additionally,
the communist moments throughout history need to be joined together in order
for something to be reconstituted under the name of communism (Ranciére, 2010:
173). This is fundamentally important as we understand the tradition of
communism as a number of moments where ordinary people and workers exercised
their agency by fighting for the rights of everybody to be part of the
political space, such as in administration and in schools (Ranciére, 2010:
173). This reconstruction is dependent on the revival of the ‘hypothesis of
confidence’ in that agency and capacity of people as it has been made
non-existent by the “culture of distrust in the communist states, parties and
discourses” (Ranciére, 2010: 173, 177). This confidence is important as this
plays a fundamental role in what Hallward calls the ‘will’ and ‘general will’
(as will be further discussed below).
The importance of the
Idea of communism
Apart
from needing to think differently about communism as an emancipatory project it
also needs more than that to accomplish emancipation. Badiou elucidates the
Idea in terms of communism to have three basic elements that are needed for its
operation, namely, political, historical and subjective (2010: 1). An Idea is “the
possibility for an individual to understand that his or her participation in a
singular political process (his or her entry into a body-of-truth) is also, in
a certain way, a historical decision (Badiou, 2010: 3). The person takes his or
her place in the struggle for emancipation and fully commits him/herself to the
movement by understanding that they are a new Subject through incorporation and
no longer see his/her own selfish desires as a priority (Badiou, 2010: 3).
It
is in the existence of an Idea that an individual is able to find the capacity
to exist ‘as a Subject’ (Badiou, 2010: 5). Badiou asserts that “the Idea
exposes the truth in a fictional structure” (Badiou, 2010: 5). In the case of
the communist Idea, it is functional when the truth it deals with is an
emancipatory political sequence (Badiou, 2010: 5). Which means that communism
exposes the sequence in the symbolic order of History, it looks retroactively
at what communism has done in the past in order to create truths in the present
time, and it exposes its faults and successes and affects the reality of the
present political world (Badiou, 2010: 2, 5). The Idea is ideological and it
gives a sense of direction to the emancipatory project which is needed in order
for it fulfil its aim.
However,
Badiou argues that it imperative that “‘communist’ can no longer be the
adjective qualifying a politics” as a century of incidents, good and bad,
resulted in certain phrases that flowed from the disconnection between the real
and the Idea being misconstrued, phases such as the ‘communist party’ or
‘communist state’ (Badiou, 2010: 5). The problem with such an oxymoron is that
communism is used in a system that somewhat resembles what communism wants to
be emancipated from. It is still within the confines of the state yet is
claiming to be communist and for the people. This is a challenge that the
reconfiguration of ‘communism’ is faced with.
The
South African Communist Party (SACP) is an example of such an oxymoron, the
party says it is a national liberation movement and is a leftist organisation.
Contrary, the SACP illuminates the problems with communism that have been
discussed so far, it believes in a vanguard or a group of enlightened people
who can lead the rest i.e. iron workers, to equality. It also is premised on
inequality with the promise of eventual realisation of equality. It is too
closely related to the state (the African National Congress- ANC) as opposed to
challenging the state; it says to its followers that they must wait for the
‘right’ time. Waiting for the ‘right’ time is problematic as Hallward’s
argument will show.
Badiou
believes in the ‘event’ as something that paves the way for the possibility of
the strictly impossible (2010: 6-7). An event is “a rupture in the normal order
of bodies and languages as it exists for any particular situation” and “a
creation of new possibilities” (Badiou, 2010: 6). The State, for Badiou, is the
limiting factor as it limits the possibility of possibilities (2010: 7). “The
State is always the finitude of possibility, and the event is its infinitisation”
(Badiou, 2010: 7). This is why it is important for an emancipatory project to
be separate from the State. The State is a hindrance to what communism, in the
true sense, can achieve. That is why parties such as the SACP have, in the post-apartheid
state, failed to realise universal emancipation.
Institutions,
such as the army, the police and the capitalist economy, constitutional form of
government, property and inheritance laws i.e. State apparatuses and what
Althusser called the ‘ideological State apparatuses’ have one goal (Badiou,
2010: 7). The goal is to prevent the communist Idea from designating a
possibility; this is done through the State organising and maintaining the distinction
between what is possible and what is not (Badiou, 2010: 7). Therefore, an event
for Badiou is something that can occur only if it is separated from State power
(Badiou, 2010: 7). For the state
anything that is not in keeping with the ‘common goal’ is disorder and the only
way tame it is through the use of the language of ‘order’ by stating that the
‘disorderly’ conduct is criminal. The Marikana incident is an example of such
an event that was sometimes portrayed by the media as something that unexplainably
went too far when there are other lawful and ‘orderly’ avenues to voice
concerns or grievances.
The need of will and
general will when fighting for emancipation
Hallward,
unlike Badiou, argues that in order for the Idea of communism to be realised it
requires that we should strive to achieve it at once without waiting for the
opportune moment or compromising (2010: 112). Active and conscious action needs
to be taken to convert the impossible into the possible, and break the barriers
of what is considered to be feasible and what is not (Hallward, 2010: 112).
Communism is “the real movement which abolishes the present state of things”
(Hallward, 2010: 113). I agree with Badiou and Hallward that the emphasis on
the Idea of communism invites a free and reckless thinking about communism; a
thinking of communism as a project or possibility that is independent of the
legacy of formerly existing communism (Hallward, 2010: 111).
Communism
is an emancipatory project that aims to, through voluntary action, universalise
the conditions for voluntary action (Hallward, 2010: 117). This means that
communism seeks to make every space a space where people are free to engage in
politics and not to be encumbered because the ‘universal’ right to engage in
the political sphere has not been extended to them. For Hallward, it is the
‘communism of the will’ that can realise the Idea through bringing together
revolutionary theory and revolutionary practice (Hallward, 2010: 117).
Hallward
disagrees with Badiou that a successful emancipatory project requires there to
be an event and faithfulness to the event. Instead he echoes, the sentiments of
Paulo Freire that “a communist assumes that if there is no way, we make the way
by walking it” (cited in Hallward, 2010: 117). I agree with Hallward and Freire
in this sense, because in order for communism to be an effective emancipatory
project it should not to play the waiting game. There needs to constant
contestation and people asserting their presence in a particular space at this
present moment as opposed to waiting for a grand event that may never come. Hallward’s
suggestion gives people the opportunity to be “authors and actors of their own
drama” and make their own history (2010: 117).
General
will is fundamental in order for people to assert their presence in a space. It
is important in the mobilisation of any collective force that wants to assert
and sustain a fully common, inclusive and egalitarian, interest (Hallward,
2010: 121). This is important not only for political emancipation but economic
as well. The reason is that the will is able to command a voluntary and
autonomous action that is able to transcend through a system if sustained and
collectivised (Hallward, 2010: 122). The will of the people cannot be limited
to, as Machiavellian thought believe, to passive expression of consent
(Hallward, 2010: 122). Contrary to that, it is a process where people are always
being engaged and where the people participate in the process of actively
willing or choosing a particular trajectory over another (Hallward, 2010: 122).
Kant’s
argument is in support of the need of will in order for communism to be
emancipatory as he states that active willing is what dictates what is possible
and what is right and subsequently what makes it so (cited in Hallward, 2010:
123). This happens because, according to Kant, “will achieves the practical
liberation of reason from the constraints of experience and objective
knowledge” (cited in Hallward, 2010: 123).
Political
will involves collective action and direct participation which Rousseau calls a
‘general will’ as each person agrees to put him/herself and his power in common
to be under the control of the supreme general will (Hallward, 2010: 123). The
general will is what is most favourable, equitable and just to the public
interest (Hallward, 2010: 123-124). It is important at this point to understand
that, in an emancipatory project, disagreements about the direction to be taken
to realise emancipation are bound to happen. To solve this problem the general
interest exists only if the will to pursue it is stronger than individual
interests (Hallward, 2010: 124). It means that negotiations and debates between
different wills can happen but the end result would be the prevailing of the
general interest and the acceptance of that general will by all (Hallward,
2010: 124). Participation in the general will is acceptance that it is better
to be “wrong with the people rather than right without them” (Hallward, 2010:
124).
The
national liberation movement, the ANC, demonstrates the non-existence of the
mantra that should be present: it is better to be “wrong with the people rather
than right without them” as in recent years it has experienced a splinter party
forming. The Congress of the People (COPE) was formed in 2008 because
particular interests could not accept the prevailing of the general interest
(this is not to say that the split was bad and that the COPE founders were
self-interested, instead, it is to illustrate a point). This is what brings
about problems in fulfilling an emancipatory goal, if there is infighting that
does not get resolved. Debates are important in consecrating the active and not
the passive interest of the greatest number of people (Hallward, 2010: 124).
General will is not promoting a form of vanguardism, where a group of elites
lead the way for the rest; it is mobilisation (Hallward, 2010: 124). It is the
people working to “clarify, concentrate and organise their own will” (Hallward,
2010: 125).
In
keeping with the Marxist and Jacobin thought, general will is a matter of
actual material power and active empowerment of people, first; and a matter of
representation, authority or legitimacy after that (Hallward, 2010: 125).
Therefore, it is ineffective to wait for objective conditions for emancipation
to mature as this opportune moment may never come (Hallward, 2010: 126). Had
the post-apartheid shack-dwellers’ movement in South Africa, Abahlali
baseMjondolo, decided to wait and give the state a chance to fulfil their
constitutional mandate of every person having a house then nothing concrete
would happen.
This
is because a particular group in a society is expected to be quiet and to know
its place in order for that group to be safe as a poor group of people can be
(Zikode, 2009: 22). Zikode calls this “the politics of those that do not count”
(2009: 22). In order for those who do not count to defend their territory they
should not speak, instead they should be led, they should not question, instead
they should just accept the particular services that the state deems fitting
for them (Zikode, 2009: 23). The acceptance of this reality in the hopes that
the right time to assert ones right to be in the political space and for
economic independence is approaching one day does not guarantee emancipation. Proponents
of ‘living communism’ suggest that an inclusive popular politics must begin
with an unqualified proclamation of the humanity of every human being in order
for it to be successful (Hallward, 2010: 126).
General
will and collective agreement can only take the communist movement to certain
point; a political association also needs to be disciplined and indivisible as
a matter of course (Hallward, 2010: 127). This means that the organisation has
implicit power through each person’s commitment that anyone who does not accept
the general will shall be forced to do so by the entire body (Hallward, 2010:
127). Collective freedom will be a going concern as long as people can “defend
themselves against division and deception (Hallward, 2010: 127). Rousseau and
the Jacobins named this defence ‘virtue’ and this means to privilege collective
interests over individual interests and to ensure that society is governed on
the basis of the common interest (Hallward, 2010: 127).
More
than having a general agreement of the will within the organisation; will also
means the strength to continue despite resistance or constraints (Hallward,
2010: 127). There needs to be an understanding that ‘to stop before the end is
to perish’ (Hallward, 2010: 128). This will takes communism as an emancipatory
project to the next level as there is a difference between mere wishing and the
practical exercise of will (Hallward, 2010: 128). A free collective will is “a
will that wills and realises its own emancipation” (Hallward, 2010: 128). Emancipation
requires those who are silenced to be willing to emancipate themselves and
sustain it. This is what Badiou would call the body-of-truth as it a
commitment, wholeheartedly, to the emancipatory project. The silenced need to
take cognisance of the fact that it is the oppressed that empower their
oppressors as the oppressor can only harm to the degree that the oppressed
allows them to do so (Hallward, 2010: 129).
The benefits of
returning to the common in communism
An
effective shift of the meaning of ‘common’ would be a momentum that changes the balance and reconfigures the universe of
the possible (Ranciére, 2010: 173). Hardt (2010) speaks of the common at a more
economic level of emancipation than the other writers. This is important, as
economics and politics are inherently linked. For this reason, communism is
able to achieve emancipation at both these levels. As stated before,
emancipatory politics is the possibility of the impossible. Therefore, it is
important to explore another possibility, other than private property of
capitalism and public property of socialism (Hardt, 2010: 131). This
alternative is the common in communism (Hardt, 2010: 131).
Hardt
argues that many central concepts in the politics have been corrupted to such
an extent that they are unstable (2010: 131). Concepts such as communism,
democracy and freedom have come to mean something different to what it
initially meant (Hardt, 2010: 131). In practice, communism has come to mean its
opposite, which is, that the state has absolute control over economic and
social life (Hardt, 2010: 131). Hardt echoes the sentiments that I have already
eluded to in this essay; he argues that it would be more valuable to restore or
renew the meaning of these concepts as opposed to disposing of them as they
have with them a “long history of struggles, dreams and aspirations” (2010:
131).
In
order to renew communism, there needs to be an analysis of the forms of political
organisations that are possible in the contemporary world (Hardt, 2010:
131-132). This, however, requires an investigation into the contemporary
economic and social production (Hardt, 2010: 132). Marx’s main critique of the
political economy is private property therefore communism is the positive
expression of the abolition of private property (Hardt, 2010: 132, 139). For
the author, ‘positive expression’ is the distinguishing factor of genuine
communism from false or corrupt understanding of the concept (Hardt, 2010:
139).
Marx
states that the meaning of communism is the “positive supersession of private
property as human-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human
essence through and for [human]; it is the complete restoration of man to
himself as a social” (Hardt, 2010: 140). The return to the common would give
people a sense of their own subjectivity, creative and productive powers in the
political space as there is no dependence on a provider (Hardt, 2010: 141).
This is linked to this notion of ‘human production of humanity’ or bio-politics
(Hardt, 2010: 142). The common also affects social relations. The ultimate goal
of the capitalist mode of production are not the commodities, instead, it is
social relations or forms of life that the system produces (Hardt, 2010: 142). That is why in order for communism to be
emancipatory it needs to also needs to transcend the capitalist mode of
production.
There
is a close and significant relationship between the Idea of communism and
contemporary capitalist production that is important for emancipation (Hardt,
2010: 143). Hardt argues that capitalist development is not necessarily
creating communism and that bio-political production does not directly result
in emancipation (2010: 143). Instead, through the increasing centrality of the
common in contemporary capitalist production, “the production of ideas,
affects, social relations and forms of life, are emerging the conditions and
weapons for a communist project” (Hardt, 2010: 143).
For
example, in countries such as South Africa and India, where people used to
traditionally fish at a particular place and are now seen as poachers because
new laws have been introduced to regulate fishing and only licenced individuals
and companies are allowed to fish in a space that was previously self-regulated
as it was a common. This is as a result of capitalism. However, new forms of
economic life bring about new forms of commons and communing. Digital commons such,
as Wikipedia, is self-regulated and is for free use with anyone with an
internet connection. It brings about new forms of life that challenges software
such as Microsoft that require people to pay. Communism is defined not only by
the abolition of property but also by the affirmation of the common (Hardt,
2010: 144). This affirmation is the affirmation of “open and autonomous
bio-political production, the self-governed continuous creation of new humanity”
(Hardt, 2010: 144). It is also a form of challenging a particular space and
asserting ones Subjective existence in the political realm.
Conclusion
In
sum, we see that communism is indeed a potentially emancipatory project. There
needs to be a conceptualisation of communism that is willing to create new
possibilities and to break through the shackles of oppression. This can be done
by having an Idea and being faithful to it. This Idea does not have to wait for
the ‘right’ time in order to be successful; it does not necessarily have to be
a grand event, it just needs to be an entry into a space and doing the
impossible. Above that, there needs to be general will in order for
emancipation to be universal and successful. In the reconfiguration of
communism there needs to be a return to the pre-capitalist mode of thinking
that brings back the logic to the future, essentially, there needs to be a
return to the common.
REFERENCE
LIST
Badiou, A., 2010, ‘The Idea of Communism’, The Idea of Communism, Ed. Costas Douzinas & Slavoj Zizek, Verso: London.
Hallward, P., 2004, ‘Haitian Inspiration’, Radical Philosophy, No. 123
Hallward, P., 2010, ‘Communism of the Intellect, Communism of the Will’, The Idea of Communism, Ed. Costas Douzinas & Slavoj Zizek, Verso: London.
Hardt, M., 2010, ‘The Common in Communism’, The Idea of Communism, Ed. Costas Douzinas & Slavoj Zizek, Verso: London.
Rancière, J., 2010, ‘Communists Without Communism’, The Idea of Communism, Ed. Costas Douzinas & Slavoj Zizek, Verso: London.
Zikode, S., 2009, To Resist All Degradations and Divisions.
