Communization refers to a theoretical current that rejects any transitional period between capitalism and communism. While orthodox Marxist tradition envisions an intermediate phase (often called the “dictatorship of the proletariat”), proponents of communization argue that communism occurs within the very movement of struggle, or it does not occur at all.
This analytical framework, supported by journals and collectives since the late 1970s, has undergone recent rearticulations around ecological crisis, gender, and global logistics.
Communization and Transition: What the Debate Reveals About Theoretical Fractures
The divide between supporters of communization and advocates of a transitional horizon structures part of the internal discussions within contemporary communism. Understanding this divide requires comparing their assumptions along three axes: the relationship to the state, the temporality of change, and the role of wage labor.
| Criterion | Communization | Transition (type dictatorship of the proletariat) |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship to the State | Immediate abolition, the state cannot be a tool of emancipation | Seizure of state power as a temporary lever |
| Temporality | Communism is realized in the movement of struggle | Planned intermediate phase before communism |
| Wage Labor | Abolition of wage labor and value from the outset | Progressive reorganization of work |
| Main Theoretical Actors | Gilles Dauvé, Théorie Communiste, Endnotes | Leninist, Maoist, Trotskyist currents |
This table reveals a fundamental divergence: communization denies any utility of a state apparatus, even temporary. This position has been criticized as “politically disarmed in the face of the state and fascism,” particularly after the movements of 2011 (Occupy, Indignados) and the uprisings of 2019-2020 in Chile and Hong Kong.
The theoretical discussions that ensue are documented on communisation.net, where several texts confront these positions.
Ecology and Degrowth in Communization Theory
Since the 2010s, English-speaking researchers have integrated reflections on energy finitude and ecological crisis into communization. Jasper Bernes and Aaron Benanav, among others, argue that communization implies planned material degrowth and not just the abolition of market value.
Their argument is based on the analysis of the global value chain. Global logistics (maritime transport, warehouses, just-in-time flows) constitutes, according to them, a material apparatus inseparable from capital. Abolishing value without massively de-intensifying transport would mean keeping intact the infrastructure that reproduces market relations.
Communization and Logistics: A Concrete Knot
This ecological reading shifts the debate from purely philosophical terrain to operational questions. How does a post-capitalist society organize food distribution without the current logistics network? In this version, communization is not limited to a critique of wage labor. It posits that the break with capital involves the transformation of material flows.
In contrast, the classical currents of communization (Dauvé, Théorie Communiste from the 1970s-1990s) did not integrate the ecological question as a central dimension. The gap between these two generations of texts illustrates an ongoing evolution of the analytical framework.
Feminist and Queer Critiques of Communization
A recent angle focuses on gender dimensions. Authors like Maya Gonzalez and certain contributions to the journals Endnotes and Viewpoint criticize the foundational texts of communization for treating the abolition of the nuclear family and domestic labor as secondary issues.
Their argument: reproductive labor (care, education, household maintenance) is not an archaic residue but a structural condition of capitalism. Abolishing wage labor without simultaneously abolishing the gendered division of labor would reproduce relations of domination in another form.
Gender and Value: A Theoretical Articulation
This critique has led to reformulating communization as a process that simultaneously affects several social relations:
- The wage relationship, the historical axis of communization theory, focused on the abolition of value and market exchange
- The gender relationship, including the end of the nuclear family as an economic unit and the elimination of unpaid domestic labor
- The relationship to nature, added by recent ecological readings, which links the exit from capitalism to a material reorganization of production and transport flows
Thinking these three axes together distinguishes contemporary communization from its earlier versions. The classical texts of Dauvé or Théorie Communiste focused on the first axis. Feminist and ecological contributions from the 2010s-2020s have broadened the scope without resolving all internal tensions.
Communization After 2020: Limits and Open Questions
Recent social movements have tested communization theory. The uprisings in Chile and Hong Kong, followed by mobilizations related to health and climate crises, have created situations where the question of political power has arisen directly.
Critiques directed at communization focus on a specific point: the absence of a strategy in the face of state repression. If one refuses, in principle, any institutional mediation, how can a social movement be protected against state violence? This objection, raised as early as the 2010s, has not found a consensual answer within communization currents.
In contrast, proponents of communization argue that any form of state power, even “revolutionary,” ultimately ends up reproducing the relations of domination it claimed to abolish. The disagreement remains structural and permeates all specialized publications.
Communization remains a theoretical framework in motion, enriched by feminist and ecological contributions but still confronted with the question of its practical translation. The controversy over transition is not a doctrinal detail: it concerns the very possibility of abolishing capitalism without reproducing its logics in the very act of fighting it.