Dylan Taylor

Across and Beyond the Far Left: The Case of Gilles Dauvé

This essay explores the work of French ultraleftist Gilles Dauvé. Situating his contribution against a discussion of left communism as a unified intellectual-political current, it identifies and discusses three crucial moments in Dauvé’s work. A first moment, 1969–1979, sees Dauvé attempting to critically draw together council communist, Bordigist, and situationist contentions into a unified and unique communist perspective. During a second moment, coincident with the crisis of Marxism, Dauvé continued to solidify this position, in particular criticizing the confluence of liberal-democratic thought with antifascism. In a third moment, 1999–present, Dauvé has engaged in important rethinking and clarification, further underscoring communism as communization. The essay’s conclusion underscores the importance of Dauvé’s singular intellectual journey in terms of its novel synthetic quality, its resonance with contemporary discussions of the appearance of a new global Left, and its important contribution to the communization current.

The Revaluation of All Values: Extremism, The Ultra-Left, and Revolutionary Anthropology

ABSTRACT The notion of “extremism,” we argue, can be understood as an element of the contemporary liberal consensus or “post-politics.” In particular, the anti-utopian character of extremism discourse necessitates robust critical theoretical attention. As part of this critique, we seek to return to the historic far-Left and examine various dimensions of Leftist “extremism,” reading and retrieving this material in light of its utopian significance. Here, we examine far-Left extremism that deals with the utopian re-making of the subject, what might be called the “revolutionary anthropology” found in far-Left work. Exploring some of the historic twists and turns of this revolutionary anthropology, drawing on the work of Luc Boltanski and associates, we suggest three distinctive facets of this renewed critical bearing within contemporary far-Left thought: insurrectionary immediatism, a new anti-foundationalist collectivism, and a theological turn. Attention to the sphere of revolutionary anthropology, we hope, might help us think the subject(s) able to not only resist the current social order but also to realise a new one.

The Subject of Change

While some considered Occupy a “class building” movement, the movement tended to shy away from such a designation—opting instead for the notion of it being the movement of the “99%” opposed to the “one percent.” This designation proved too diffuse as a basis on which to construct an enduring collective identity. The youthful composition of the movement, and the widely shared state of indebtedness, offered better avenues through which to foster collectivity. As it was, Occupy struggled to effectively hold its diverse social base together, and its culture of radical inclusivity proved unmanageable. Further, it struggled with divergent internal tendencies, as exhibited, for instance, with the appearance of a Black Bloc in a movement where most participants championed non-violence.

The Dynamics of Capital

This chapter unpacks the key dynamics of capital (dispossession, class divisions, alienation, the appropriation of surplus value and the quest for endless accumulation) so as to better contextualise the study of movements. The state plays a crucial role in stabilising capital’s contradictory tendencies. This brings us to concrete considerations of the financial crisis of 2008, the causes of which are traced from the crisis of Keynesianism, through financialisation, towards a rentier form of capital grounded in the proliferation of debt. The recent financial crisis illustrates the important role states play in stabilising capitalism and underscores the “crisis of democracy,” insofar as the mass of people were subjected to austerity while the elite were “bailed out.” The financial crisis fuelled the rise of the Occupy movement.

Rethinking Social Movements

This chapter is concerned with the study of social movements. North American social movement studies have undergone a number of iterations. In general, however, they tend towards narrow models—historical context is downplayed and political economy ignored. The European study of new social movements has a wider scope, suggesting changes in contestation are inextricably bound to wider social change, although political economy is still marginalised. “Activist scholars” have recently come to prominence in the study of movements, offering thick description but tending to elide wider structural elements. A return to Marxist forms of analysis—with a wider historical scope and an appreciation of the dynamics of political economy—presents a means of rejuvenating the field of social movement studies.

Reconceptualising Effective Action

Returning to the work of Nicos Poulantzas aids the development of a political strategy that simultaneously pursues actions both within and against the state—and takes account of the importance of the dynamics of capital. If the left is to effectively rejuvenate democracy in core countries it must fight for “economic democracy.” Occupy was a powerful opening salvo in this fight. To take this further, however, a return to communism is needed—radical change requires escaping the logics of capital. This involves striking a balance between movements and parties. In the absence of such a balance—if protest movements continue rejecting the state, and parties remain dissociated from the wider populace—the dynamics of capital will continue to claim the century to come.

Conclusion: Overcoming the Crisis of Democracy

Overcoming the crisis of democracy requires that the dynamics of capitalism be directly challenged. This involves more than protest, reaction and critique. An alternative economic vision must be offered. We live in cities and towns produced by cooperative labour. Yet the vast majority of people are subject to gross exploitation, divided, forced to fight one another, to fear constantly what the future may bring, to eye one another with suspicion. None of this is inevitable—communism is possible. The resources and knowledge needed to realise a plentiful common life exist in the here and now. What is lacking, however, is strategic vision and the political will to carry it. A complete reconceptualization of what is possible in terms of political organisation and action is needed. Such is the conclusion reached at the close of the last chapter.

Occupy, Democracy, and Enduring Change

Occupy may have begun as a response to an economic crisis, but this came to be seen simultaneously as a crisis of democracy. Occupy sought to challenge the financial elite’s capture of political power. While there was widespread agreement as to the nature of the problem faced, the question of “what is to be done” proved vexing. Arguments between reformist and “revolutionary” tendencies within Occupy echoed those of the nineteenth century, although this time the anarchist emphasis on spontaneity, horizontal organisation and total disengagement from the state proved hegemonic. The consensus-based decision model used by the movement favoured those who pursued a radical line. This came at the cost of the movement’s capacity to build an enduring popular base.

Locating Effective Resistance

Much has been made of Occupy’s use of new media—with cyber-optimists imaging this usage is an example of the Internet’s capacity to rejuvenate democracy. A sceptical position, here, is in order. The logics fostered by the Internet are consistent with those of neoliberalism. The Internet needs to be viewed as a secondary feature of Occupy. An analysis of the movement indicates that, in truth, it tended more towards analogue forms of organisation and action. Occupy pointed, positively, to the importance of resistance grounded within everyday life and attempts to “reclaim the city,” although the temporary nature of encampments was a limiting factor.

Reconceptualising Political Strategy

In surveying the influential work of Badiou, Žižek, Ranciere, Laclau and Mouffe, and Hardt and Negri, it is argued that left thought today is undergirded by an ontology of multiplicity. Taken together, the theorists considered here present three courses for political action: a reform of existing liberal democracy driven by social movements; actions taken against the state to force change and a total disengagement from the state through exodus. The latter is seen to have prevailed in the case of Occupy, although a synthesis of the first two positions—when bound to a concrete theorisation of the state and political economy—would have been of more strategic use.