Here I finally collect, in my own words, the ideas of the book I use as my title. I would encourage any interested by it to look into the book itself for both more insight on the theory as well as the style, which is both verbose and non-academic in nature, something I simply adore.
This essay is long overdue, given the name I go by and all. I have been meaning to write about Monsieur Dupont’s Nihilist Communism for some time now. At first I had the rather ambitious goal of significantly buffing up the Wikipedia page. I re-read the book, collecting notes as I went. But when it came time to sit down and write in the encyclopedia style, I hit a wall. After awhile I figured writing something I’m more comfortable with would be a good stepping stone, but the whole project got away from me and I’ve done nothing with it since. Except, per usual, discuss with people online (a consciousness born of Reddit, as my close friend put it). After having restated the main theses of the work multiple times to different people, I have become a bit more comfortable writing about it, and feel I understand it enough to warrant putting a more serious volume of words to the page, if only to improve my online correspondence.
. . .
To me, the biggest take away of Monsieur Dupont’s work is their nihilism, which exists specifically in regards to our relative inability to overthrow capitalism, the dream of leftists everywhere. Their radical claim rests on the most fundamental of Marx’s observations, that the economy, as the material base of reality, largely determines the rest of our reality. This is known perhaps most simply as the base-superstructure model, with the base representing the material conditions and the superstructure housing everything else, from ideology and religion to culture and language. Of course these two affect each other, it is not simply a one way process, but by and large it is the base that determines the superstructure.
As an example, consider workplace culture, an element of the superstructure, against wage labor, the economic system it rests upon. Clearly, workplace culture, as an affectation of wage labor, did not give rise to wage labor, but in fact the opposite. However, after being born into the world of wage labor, workplace culture does have some capacity to change, even in ways that may run counter to that of traditional wage labor (say, worker self-management). What this aspect of culture cannot do is change the nature of wage labor to something fundamentally different, say to a communist system of production, and not just because outside forces won’t let it: as an element of the superstructure which is determined by these very material conditions, it is impossible for it to do so. The superstructure cannot turn around and wipe away the base of reality that has given rise to it. Fundamental change in the superstructure can only come from fundamental change in the base. To deny this is to deny the whole of Marx’s material analysis.
But what of revolution, you say? Is it not just the kind of change to the base Marx wrote about and pushed for? Where is its place in all this? Frankly, it is right where it always has been, amid lines of other “if everyone” fantasies of the social: if everyone refused to fight, we could end war – if everyone refused to pollute, we could (have) save(d) the environment – if every nation chose to cooperate instead of compete, to value trust over security, we could have peace on Earth…the list goes on.1 Simply put, yes of course, if every worker joined together in a global general strike, capital would grind to a screeching halt. Hell, one could even argue (as Monsieur Dupont does) that not everyone would be required to participate, just a critical mass of workers in essential industries going on strike together would be enough.
1 This is not to couch Marx’s predictions about revolution within idealism. Far from it, Marx’s predictions were based on his analysis of material conditions, which he of course understood to be the real driving force of history. Yet, as is the norm for predictions, they did not pan out. To some this indicates an issue with the materialist conception of history, but in reality it is only an issue with Marx’s analysis of it in this particular case, for the other examples I listed all feature their own material reasons that dominate the ideals of men: soldiers want to continue getting paid – corporations want to expand or maintain their profit margins – nations want to ensure their own physical well-being.
These material concerns exist alongside idealist assertions about world peace and maintaining our biosphere, yet it is clear who the winner is between the two. Despite the rationality of such ideals, indeed despite the proclaimed power of rationality in general, they are outside the realm of social possibility because the social is determined first and foremost by material reality. And material reality says “if I put down my weapon, how can I know they will do the same?” The solution to this ancient problem is perhaps the biggest social fantasy of all: a collective, simultaneous leap of faith, from the high mountain peak of security, through the clouds of uncertainty, into the lush meadow of trust and possibility. But…who is willing to jump first? Perhaps some already did, or still are; and those who remain, or maybe just the uncaring cruelness of the world itself, destroyed them for it.
However, we must be very careful here. Causing a crisis within capitalism (or indeed any society based on class antagonisms) and a successful revolution that actually takes us beyond it are two very different things. The latter requires the former but the former does not necessarily give way to the later, in fact it usually doesn’t. Capitalism has gone through many crises, caused by both subjective action and its own objective contradictions. But just as most revolutions fail, most crises result in rebuilding the old, not creating the new, simply because it is easier to rebuild what once was than it is to create something different. And yet, a “narrative of newness” is often wielded by reactionary groups concerned only with growing their own power, offering false promises of change that result only in changing who holds the throne, not change to the throne itself. This can be seen throughout history, and it is not even necessarily conscious from an ideological point of view, only from the realpolitik of the groups involved in the power struggle. For Monsieur Dupont, these groups and their potential to become reactionary are the real danger within the left, as the quote from the back of their book states so well:
“It is not for anarchists to celebrate when The People take over; anarchists ought not to be so amazed at examples of natural ingenuity and resilience. That is, after all, what they base their principles on. Unfortunately, anarchists’ proper political task is less appealing and more controversial; it is to poke their fingers into the wounds of revolution, to doubt and to look for ways in which the Zapatistas, FLN, ANC or any other bunch of leftwing heroes will sell out, because they always do.” -p165
But this problem only concerns us once a significant crisis has occurred, and the global strike that would cause such a crisis has not yet happened, despite Marx and despite the educational and “class consciousness raising” missions of leftists ever since. Why? I’ll give you one guess…material conditions. Workers, as elements of the base, cannot be fundamentally affected by the superstructure.2 They’re called workers for a reason, chiefly that they work, and a general strike asks a great many of them to simultaneously not perform this role-defining task, a task that is ultimately motivated by the material need to survive. This is not to say that striking is impossible, that workers are defined entirely as people by their role in capitalism, etc. Of course not. We may be largely determined by material conditions, but not totally; we still exist as subjects with our own agency (and if you think otherwise, you need not worry about the question of what can be done).
2 It is important to note that for Monsieur Dupont, a worker exists only while actually engaged in the action of working. Once they clock out, call out sick, refuse to work, that’s it, they are no longer a worker until they begin working again. Of course people as individuals are affected by the superstructure, and while the worker as an individual may have any number of things going on in their head while at work, (what to eat for dinner, who to vote for, whether or not to go to religious service, etc.) their role at work is still the same: a cog in the base that produces and reproduces material reality. In this strict sense, the worker only has one choice to make: to work or not to work, or in other words, to be a worker or not to.
So then, what brings a worker to strike, to choose to no longer be a worker? What brings any revolutionary potential into action? You guessed it, material conditions. Workers strike because they want to work less and be paid more. The human body’s natural inclination towards rest provides all the revolutionary motivation required to end capitalism. Here however we encounter the tricky part about our existence as subjects not wholly determined by our conditions: we are different. We feel different things at different times. This means that it is incredibly difficult to organize people to the level of solidarity required to pull off a global strike with the conscious goal of ending capitalism. It is physically possible, but from a sociology perspective, like all those “if everyone” fantasies I mentioned before, we may as well forget it.
. . .
Revolutions, mass protests, essentially any action taken by “the people” is, at its core, a reflex, spontaneous action taken in response to an event or a build up of events. I can think of no better nor more recent example of this fact than the protests that swept the United States and even parts of the world in response to George Floyd’s murder. But what of Eric Garner? Four years ago he was murdered similarly, recorded for everyone to see, shared through the media like wildfire, and yet no such massive protests took place. Why? You’re possibly tired of this by now but, yes, material conditions. State mandated lockdown in the face of coronavirus rapidly ratcheted the unemployment rate up to 20% while forcing many more to stay cooped up in their homes. No wonder that two months into such a radical change to people’s material reality there was an explosion of activity in response to such an incendiary event, as people were both available to participate (unemployed) and quite excited to do so (moral reason to leave the house and fraternize with others).
Despite these massive protests that went on for weeks, energy eventually died down, and in respect to that particular event, things are largely “back to normal.” Many who took to posting constantly during these protests are now posting about “keeping things going” and “staying active.” But for the most part these rallying cries fall on deaf ears. Perhaps these posters would understand why if they actually participated in the protests instead of just posting, a few super-activists aside.
Again, material conditions are to blame. People are tired, they’ve had their fun and taken their beatings, they would like to go home now, so home they are. This is not to say that the protests did not accomplish anything. To expect one spontaneous outpouring to completely change our institutions as we know them is to misunderstand the strength of institutions generally. But, like a crate of dynamite, the protests were built up, stick by stick, by material events, and then ignited similarly by a spark, and they had their explosive effect. Asking the dynamite to continue detonating not only misunderstands how it got there and why it detonated in the first place, it misunderstands the material world itself. This applies similarly to class consciousness raising and other attempts by leftists to “spur revolution.” Revolution will (or won’t) happen when (The) people decide (in response to their conditions) they want to revolt, that is all.
. . .
Monsieur Dupont’s conclusion then on what leftists can do about ending capitalism is to do nothing, yes? Basically. But that is not to say there are not things we can do to prepare for a revolutionary event, whenever it may come, just that there is nothing we can do to create this event in the first place. Base and superstructure. Therefore, leftists interested in the future would be better served by considering their actions from the perspective of preparation, not causation. Such a shift in thinking takes away some of the frantic urgency of being an agent of change, sharpens our analysis through a better understanding of our own position, and helps us make a better choice about what to do tomorrow.
I know from experience that many leftists, who are naturally optimists, what with their inclination towards changing the world for the better, find such a nihilistic answer to be unacceptable. As someone who was an optimist for most of their life, and in many ways still is, this is totally fair, and I would never ask anyone to change in such a way. But as is often the case in online discussion, discussion about things as wide reaching as political economy, and discussion these days more generally, people tend to remove a conclusion from its context and argue it as a separate entity. “Nihilism is bad, doing nothing serves the interests of the powerful,” etc. This is true. But let us be good philosophers and not disregard a particular conclusion based on universal reasoning that ignores its context. As I said at the start, Monsieur Dupont’s nihilism exists specifically towards our capacity to overthrow capitalism directly. Yes, capitalism largely determines the rest of our reality, but there are things us leftists can do to improve the world within it. Mutual aid work, fighting against racism, theorizing conceptions of a world after capitalism, these are all worthy projects for any individual committed to action. This is why the book is titled Nihilist Communism and not Communist Nihilism: MD is specifically arguing a “do-nothing” approach to the communist project, nothing more.
To put it even more generally, consider the laws of physics. Do they not determine our reality even more fundamentally than capital? And yet when people die, we do not struggle to find a way of reversing entropy. We simply cannot work at such a fundamental level, and we accept this limitation. Capitalism, as a social organization, is much more within our grasp, but it is so massive and totalizing that we cannot grab it fully in both hands, cannot wrestle with it head-on. As such, the ultimate burden of the leftist is not merely understanding how our social world functions, but accepting our limited role within it as subjects, subjects incapable of stepping outside of the capitalist frame, much less smashing it with a hammer. We must work from within or not at all.
Afterword
I have been inspired a great deal recently by writer/thinker/creator/memer @thousandgrugeaux on Instagram, who made a short series of publications on Substack (a bare-bones newsletter website) about climate pessimism that is highly worth checking out. I am not sure yet, but I think it is very possible I will expand on what I have written here in the future, perhaps even in the near future, and I think Substack may be the way to go if I do so. I will still upload to WordPress, but I think there may be use in separating my writings if indeed a certain subject comes to exist as a multiplicity. But I want to go ahead and get this one out first, as feedback and time away will help me figure out whether or not I have more to say.
Until then,
-NC
Nihilist Communism 