Dmytri Kleiner on Thu, 3 Nov 2011 01:38:46 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> The Revolutionary Role of a Transnational Counterparty

On 01.11.2011 19:11, Snafu wrote:

But when you elect a class of professional politicians, it is unlikely
that they will abdicate their power to other bodies as their legitimation
(and income) derives from the bourgeois institutional structures the
Transnational Counterparty is meant to deny.

I don't deny the challenge, and agree with the risks, but as mentioned earlier, the risks are now a fact if we are do depend our the plutocrats' party for our representations. A debtors' party could not be worse. And yet, perhaps these risks can be avoided or mitigated in ways that have not been tried before, by, for instance, having candidates for election contractually bound to forfeit their position on the demand of the membership.

Conversely, when social movements have organized in revolutionary
committees, these bodies have invariably formed the core of the

And yet, for these bodies to change society they must also develop the sort of dialectic form that I propose, wether by intention or imposition, for the simple reason that their their intrinsic characteristics are disharmonious with the environment they exist in, and remain dependent on. They must develop extrinsic characteristics for survival within an external environment that doesn't share their internal form.

The very fact these committees are forms of class conflict, require these unavoidable extrinsic characteristics to be created, the committees could not do anymore than demonstrate without them, and even for demonstation, there are hidden extrinsic interfaces, as their survival to demonstrate is funded diffusely by sympathetic wage-labour in the external economy, and not from internal production. For example, using your paycheque to buy supplies for the symbolic occupation is already an example of an antithetical process, yet OWS could exist otherwise.

If we are to transform society on a bigger scale, transforming such central features such as how education, child care, health care and housing are socially provisioned, we can only do so by understanding that transformative structures must have a dialectic form, because they are intruments of class conflict, and thereby decide to choose to create our extrinsic form, rather than only react to it's inevitable imposition.

Engagement with the actually existing government in our society is one of those external relationships we will be unable to avoid,The form of the government and it's system of parties is not an option, only how we engage with it, by forming our own representation, or begging such from others.

Hence, the notion that an organized revolutionary body will dissolve itself
is as delusional as the transitional notion of the dictatorship of the

I'm not proposing that the Transnational Counterparty "dissolve itself," in the process of the transformation of society it's intrinsic form will become the form of society itself, what will vanish is it's extrinsic characteristics, which will vanish because the external structures that necessitated them will have vanished.


Dmyri Kleiner
Venture Communist

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info:
#  archive: contact: