Feeling of atomization

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Feeling of atomization
Printer-friendly version

In my work, I have to help people as a last resort, after everyone has let them down and I am their last chance to regain their freedom.

But although they ask for help, although they need my help, they are often unable to receive it, and either intentionally or involuntarily sabotage all my efforts. They are not used to being helped and do not know how to get help. It is very discouraging.

For my part, as a liberal profession, nobody would help me in the event of a hard blow, except my family, but my family could not withstand a very violent blow, of course.

I really have a feeling of disconnection and atomization: I see that judicial and administrative institutions have taken the place of communities, and that there is no community, no human connection. Agains the state institutions, the individual is nothing, crushed, dismantled, quartered. He is even no longer able to receive human solidarity when it comes to him.

I see the Communist Party as the seed of renaissance of the global and universal human community. But I do not trust the current communist parties, which are primarily organs of propaganda and discussion, and whose individuals are basically very isolated from each other, and could hardly withstand serious state pressure.

I will feel much, much more reassuring in a "democratic-military" organization, that is to say a democratic organization, which takes care of each member as an individual and as a related community, but also as a centralized military organization, disciplined and able to resist repression and a major state offensive against it.

As I said in my previous thread, I am in favor of a complete centralization of the resources of the militants, and a centralized management of the party and militants' resources, thus confused. I am in favor of the formation of disciplined units that elect their leaders, who function militarily but without the barracks spirit characteristic of the bourgeois army (blind obedience and humiliation, for example).

I am in favor of the militants following a party resource plan (raising money), but also following a physical, intellectual and organizational training, that the party be regularly subjected to simulations of attack of the state to test how the party can defend itself and improve its organization. For example, for a month the party simulates its ban by the state, or simulates the arrest of 10 leaders to test its ability to resilience. The party must always test its security and improve it, this is an essential point.

If the state is going after

If the state is going after the party, it usually means the leaders will have to flee abroad (along with the funds) and try to continue the organisation from abroad. Since you mention atomization, that is what the remaining local party members will have to endure probably, because any "centralized command" or organized network by them will be eventually found. Even one of the greatest Bolshevik organiser, Yaakov Sverdlov, although he was careful, was eventually arrested. Read the story of his undergound years: https://libcom.org/library/yakov-sverdlov-klavdiya-sverdlova.

My feeling of atomization is

My feeling of atomization is very strong, although there is no very severe repression for me. I am thinking of rural and urban communities and of the suppression of the city and the countryside which Marx and Engels talk about in German Ideology, that is to say the fusion of cities and countryside. Even with very high agricultural productivity, it is not really possible at present, although cities can naturalize a bit through gardens and greenhouses.

But even if the community appeared on earth, and there are some communities, would I be well adapted, would I be well received? The communist parties are not themselves communities: the militants have their own individual jobs, their own individual homes, their own hobbies and their own families, their lives are not collectivised.

Can communists' life be collectivized in the party?


The feeling of atomisation is real, and is even intrinsict to bourgeois society. As Engels wrote in The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844:

“..however much one may be aware that this isolation of the individual, this narrow self-seeking is the fundamental principle of our society everywhere, it is nowhere so shamelessly barefaced, so self-conscious as just here in the crowding of the great city. The dissolution of mankind into monads of which each one has a separate principle and a separate purpose, the world of atoms, is here carried out to its utmost extreme”

We would argue that this process is even accelerating in the phase of capitalist decadence we call "social decomposition".

Communist militancy does offer a means of resistance to all this, moral, intellectual and organisational, and is the expression of a deep tendency towards real association.But we cannot build islands of communism within this society. And it is also important to recognise that today's revolutionary organisations are more like fractions than parties. 

> And it is also important to

> And it is also important to recognise that today's revolutionary organisations are more like fractions than parties. 

That's right. There is no community spirit. Although anarchists have different organizational ideas and principles than communists, I have no reason to feel foreign to an anarchist. It is the same between the Trotskyists and the communist left.

In fact, many separations result from a need for intrinsic separation that is not very clear. The disputes over the nature of the USSR do not really make sense when we need to publishing Marx books. Similarly, when we need to hosting a militant to allow him to carry out political work, it does not matter whether the host (who is coming) or the host (who is welcoming) is a communist or an anarchist. And it's not just about pooling efforts, but also about community.

The question is surely not to associate with anyone and to be opportunistic, the question is that we are not even associated with each other.

For me, the material basis of the spiritual and social community of communists is the community of goods and labor within the party, with centralized management. The community of goods and labor, if it can not be fully realized for many practical reasons, should be carried out at least partially, with some flexibility.

Atomization is real, but it

Atomization is real, but it doesn't affect everyone in the same way and there are groups who resist the atomization of bourgeois society by developing "expressive communities" based on group cohesion. A less nice way of saying that is some people join cults and there are various forms of political cults around today. In fact, one element in the current populist turn is the progressive destruction of older forms of working-class community, the erosion of so-called "social capital," based on the workplace, the local neighborhood and the union and their replacement with a splintered social space of competing groups solidarities based on race, ethnicity, religion, language community, partisanship or politcal/moral ideology.