Communization refers to a revolutionary theory that rejects any transitional phase between capitalism and communism. Emerging in militant and intellectual debates after 1968, this notion breaks with the classic strategies of the labor movement, whether it concerns the seizure of state power or self-management. It posits that the destruction of capitalist relations and the production of new social relations must be simultaneous, not sequential.
After 1968: why communization breaks with the workers’ program
Most Marxist currents of the twentieth century shared a common framework: the proletariat seizes power, establishes a transitional period (dictatorship of the proletariat, planning, self-management), and then communism emerges. This framework is based on the idea that the working class can positively assert itself as a ruling class before abolishing itself.
Further reading : Opportunities Between France and the CIS: Trade and Perspectives for 2026
The theorists of communization precisely contest this postulate. For them, the class cannot assert itself without reproducing capital. Any permanent class organization, any program for managing the existing economy reproduces the very categories it claims to transcend: wage labor, value, commodity.
This break is rooted in the assessment of the revolutionary experiences of the twentieth century. Portugal from 1974-1975, Poland in the 1980s, but also the limitations of workers’ councils: each time, workers’ management of production has stumbled upon the reproduction of market relations. As Gilles Dauvé puts it, the legacy of these experiences “had no will,” meaning it did not provide a reproducible model.
Read also : Understanding Size Variation in Rabbits: Factors and Measurement Tips
The communization as a concept emerges from this acknowledgment of failure. It does not propose a new program but asserts that the revolutionary moment immediately transforms the relations between individuals, or it is not revolutionary.
Abolition of work and critique of value: the theoretical core
The heart of the theory rests on a reinterpretation of Marx, particularly from the Grundrisse and Capital, which distinguishes labor as human activity from labor as a social category of capitalism. In the capitalist mode of production, labor reduces all activity to a single, measurable substance in time, exchangeable for a wage.
Abolishing work does not mean eliminating all productive activity. It means destroying the social framework that makes work the obligatory mediation between individuals and their means of existence. Communization thus implies the simultaneous abolition of wage labor, commodity exchange, and value.
This position distinguishes itself from the councilist project, which envisioned maintaining the measurement of working time as a distribution tool in a post-capitalist society. Proponents of communization believe that any accounting in terms of working time reproduces the logic of value. However, they do not propose a detailed alternative plan for organizing production, which constitutes one of the recurring criticisms directed at this theory.
What communization is not
It is important to distinguish this approach from several related notions that may cause confusion:
- It is not to be confused with libertarian communism or anarchism, although it shares the critique of the state. Communization also rejects self-management as a sufficient horizon.
- It does not fall under traditional “council communism,” as it rejects workers’ management of the economy as a transitional step.
- It does not designate an existing social movement or party. It is primarily a theoretical concept that analyzes the conditions under which a revolutionary break could occur.
Contradiction between proletariat and capital: the driving force of the theory
For theorists gathered around journals like Théorie Communiste or SIC, communization stems from an analysis of the relationship between classes. The proletariat no longer finds in its class existence the basis for a positive project. The capitalist restructuring since the 1970s has gradually destroyed the forms of working-class identity (Fordist factories, working-class neighborhoods, mass unions) that allowed the class to constitute itself as an autonomous force.
This reading makes the contradiction between the proletariat and capital the very engine of the communization perspective. The proletariat, in fighting, calls into question its own existence as a class, because this existence has become an external constraint rather than a claimed identity.
The available data do not allow for a definitive conclusion on how this process might materialize. The theory describes a logical horizon, not an operational scenario. This is precisely what fuels the most heated internal debates among communization currents.
Communization as an object of intellectual history
In recent years, communization has also been studied as a phenomenon in the history of ideas. Academic work, particularly those accessible via platforms like OpenEdition, situates this theory within the genealogy of theoretical recompositions post-1968. Communization has transitioned from a militant position to an academic object.
This shift is not neutral. It allows for a better mapping of filiations (situationism, Italian and French ultra-left, heterodox Bordigism) and points of rupture. However, it also generates tensions: some authors believe that academicization neutralizes the critical scope of the theory by transforming it into mere intellectual curiosity.
Recent texts place greater emphasis on the critique of classic political strategies, including those arising from contemporary social movements. The central argument remains that any management of the existing society reproduces capitalist relations, whether it is carried out by a state, a union, or a popular assembly.
Communization remains a demanding theory, whose main strength is also its main limitation: it poses a radical analytical framework of capitalist society but does not provide a roadmap. The divergences among currents concern both the interpretation of Marx and the very possibility of formulating a positive project. What is consensual is the rejection of any transition. The rest is an open field, which neither militants nor academics have closed.