theories about insurrectional being or becoming

[obsolete discourse]

I'm curious if anyone in this vast arcade's attempts at communication has had the pleasure or subsequent disgust to engage in some of the newer texts from European comrades regarding insurrection and rupture. Specifically, I am speaking of the contributions that I believe have elaborated the method that was sometimes called "insurrectional anarchy."

A recent piece was written for the English journal "Occupied London" called "Human Strike After Human Strike"(see: occupiedlondon.org/strike) that touches on some of the contributions of an imaginary party (many of the texts are linked at the bottom of the page). I think it has a lot to offer. Although potentially hostile to the Left, the anonymous authors, offer very interesting theories for "living communism and spreading anarchy," and I think specifically, through the appropriation of Giorgio Agamben's thought, and a return to Walter Benjamin among others, begin to offer us a very sobering, terrible, and possibly joyful position to be situated at in late capitalism--something most modern anarchist and Marxian theory has failed to do.

The above mentioned concept of "the Human Strike" is a methodological and metaphysical refining of the concept of the general strike with regard to Benjamin's concept of "pure means" or "divine violence." Their engagement also with the concept of "global civil war" is another interesting development, that appropriates some of the worst possible concussions of postmodernity, and the death of the modern subject (i.e the proletariat). Finally, their reliance on the discursive model of "the state of exception" is probably one of the most interesting and again, horrifying possibilities, that they seem to suggest we must face and moreover push to it's threshold.

I find this particularly interesting considering the texts coming out of the recent Greek Uprising uses a lot of these concepts and are far removed from any traditional practices of the modern Left.

[Enragé]

I like the stuff that came out during the december uprising (communiques from some of the occupied universities), and some later stuff as well. They do contain insights i feel, though their language isnt just far removed from the modern Left but from basicly everybody. Same goes for whats on occupiedlondon.org/strike.

"Human Strike" is an interesting concept: blocking town squares (the oaxaca example) roads (highschool student uprising), these are certainly things we need to be doing more. But we also have to look about at the practice of the writer. Though i respect even the most ardent rioter, in most countries, in most places it's not a good idea (since you alienate yourself from basicly everyone else). Notable exceptions ofcourse may '68, greece, the french banlieues etc

Also, some of the things the guy says is bordeline reactionary ("how is it to be done?") p. 17, last few lines - you dont enact revolution over the heads of the people, besides being scrupulous tactics it wont get you fuck all).

[al8]

I find the way in which the author uses language to be unclear, boring and more or less impregnable.

[obsolete discourse]

1. Law is in force only in its imposition. This goes for language as well as ethics.
2. The exception is the rule.

I think the human strike is takes the form of a communication that says both at once: "this what we need; this is what we want, do you?" and "I want to destroy everything, especially my self." What is coherent about the human strike, is only its opacity. This is a tactical question many times. For the technique of rioting known as a black bloc, the opacity of all black (the rule) can be easily modified to be black tops, blue jeans (the exception) and all of a sudden, a more open practice, still containing its essential nothingness, can be spread with more contagion. If you're we're talking about rioting, blockades, and occupation/uses of space, then what are we talking about? I mean that in all earnest, what rebel practices could we possibly be sharing that would hold us together beyond our image? (the circle A, or the red flag, or the fact that we might call ourselves "revolutionaries?") If you believe the practices of revolt are alienating, then what community are we attempting to form?

I find these texts very seductive, and a nice refining of anarchist and communist theory. I think the concept of insurrection itself is more grounded in these ideas, and linked well to the concept of rupture.


Also, some of the things the guy says is bordeline reactionary ("how is it to be done?") p. 17, last few lines - you dont enact revolution over the heads of the people, besides being scrupulous tactics it wont get you fuck all).

"Today human strike means
refusing to play the role of victim.
Attacking it.
Taking back violence,
Imposing impunity.
Making the paralyzed citizens understand
that if they do not join the war they are part of it anyway
That when we are told that it is either this or dying, it is always
this and dying"

I think you may have a different interpretation to this than I do, if that's what you refer to. "Making the paralyzed citizens understand..." is not trying to say "You are guilty, you pay taxes for war" but rather that the normal functioning of capitalism and the state-form is "global civil war," which is to say, hostilities and paranoia. If one takes no position in war, that contributes nothing to its fulfillment nor interruption, and that as terrible as life in total hostility is, death is so even more tragic, and it will happen. So through the force of imposition, it can be made totally clear, that what is at stake in this global civil war is a life, lived. Which is not freedom or death, but freedom and death. This can only be communicated through exposition; and which is possible when we start to live as prey that become predators, that become parasites. (whatever singularities)

al8, why would you want concepts to be impregnable? Honestly though, do you find them boring or simply difficult? What excites and entices you? Have you read other insurrectional anarchist texts?

[YSR]

I want to read more up on the state of exception as it's used in the theories of radical thinkers. I know a lot of post-autonomist Marxists use that term to talk about society today.

Obsolete Discourse, I'm not totally convinced that rioting/insurrections are somehow more centrally located as a subjectivity superior to others. There certainly is a type of subjectivity created when one engages in those activities (I hear) but is it the only type of revolutionary subjectivity?

I'm starting to realize that one of the reasons that I'm having trouble with the insurrectionist school(s) is that I think they're overstating things. It's quite possible that they have to. Marx wrote somewhere (in a letter, I think?) that he had to pound away at pushing the case of materialism because he was working in an environment so profoundly anti-materialist. Likewise, I think the insurrectionists see themselves in a world of armchair revolutionary thinkers and praxis that amounts to little more than selling papers or doing FNB. So maybe they're saying it too strongly.

I'm just not convinced that the kind of experience of the world produced by destroying capitalist property is somehow more revolutionary and important than any other. Certainly I'm glad that folks are talking about it and thinking more about it, but I don't think it's for me. There are plenty of radical, capitalist-mentality-shattering experiences that don't involve fighting with cops.

[Enragé]

If you believe the practices of revolt are alienating, then what community are we attempting to form?


I don't know, thats the whole point. You don't know what kind of community we are going to form post-revolution, because we're alienated.

Also, our methods, though being a fight against alienation ofcourse are, as you said, alienated. We are alienated and do everything under alienated circumstances, including our resistance to alienation. Everything we do (including resistance) bear the marks of alienation - are alienated.
I know
but, what's the point? Practically? You might say some forms of resistance are more alienated than others, but how are you to judge that? Alienation cannot be measured, first of all because alienation is everywhere in our being and our acts, and in our thoughts - how can alienated thought measure the extent of alienation?

The practice of the writer especially lead me to conclude he believes rioting is less alienated than for example a peaceful strike or blockade, how so? That it is less alienating for the subject involved in it than is a paper sale, i can understand, but it's a necessary evil until at least better tactics are found - something he does not do.

I'll put it like this: though rioting may be for the subject involved in it a complete assault on alienation (i.e the subject takes back the power to alter, interact with material reality, something stolen from us in the labour process since we no longer produce what we have in our minds and so no longer interact with our material surroundings but simply reproduce capital, in ever increasing amounts) - however taking into account the alienation around you and present everywhere, it's no wonder why you alienate a fuckload of other people by rioting even in the process of undoing your own alienation. Thereby, you negate the negation of your own alienation because alienation is a collective phenomenon under capitalism and cannot be fought but from within the collective, as a collective


So through the force of imposition, it can be made totally clear, that what is at stake in this global civil war is a life, lived. Which is not freedom or death, but freedom and death.

Ah, you want to smash the spectacle? Combat alienation with pure alienation? Negate negation? Fine, but by what tactics? That still isnt clear with me, but if the answer is just rioting then i think i just beat that tactics on the guy's own terms.

[obsolete discourse]

Quote:
If you believe the practices of revolt are alienating, then what community are we attempting to form?
I don't know, thats the whole point. You don't know what kind of community we are going to form post-revolution, because we're alienated. To be clear, The question I am posing is not regarding any static community, who will inherent the world post-rev. I talking specifically about a now-community, or a community of now-time (Jetztzeit); which is a community still to be located, but one that I want to be a community of sharing practices of revolt. I mention rioting, occupying space, and expropriations as social events, because, I think those are some of the practices we can always point to as signifiers of rebellion--ever since humankind has found its bodies held by the state-form and capitalism.


I'm just not convinced that the kind of experience of the world produced by destroying capitalist property is somehow more revolutionary and important than any other. Certainly I'm glad that folks are talking about it and thinking more about it, but I don't think it's for me. There are plenty of radical, capitalist-mentality-shattering experiences that don't involve fighting with cops. I think clarity is also required here. The destruction of property is the image, the event where property can be detroyed is the situation. I'm not concerend with what is more revolutionary or important--I think that is a different discourse than the world I want to be apart of and explore. I'm concerned with what circulates affects between bodies with a more terrible velocity and sentiment than capital; furthermore, with what can deactivate the neutralizing affects of the spectacle (or whatever)--the way that everything has a one function but has many uses. I think the destructive feast of a riot that goes beyond rage and justice to being an expostion of non-functional desire and furthermore the destruction of what we like (not just what we don't like)--the destruction our own images; which newkind is correct in saying the negation of the negation. This is not the locating of a new or different subject but a process of desubjectivification.


The practice of the writer especially lead me to conclude he believes rioting is less alienated than for example a peaceful strike or blockade, how so? That it is less alienating for the subject involved in it than is a paper sale, i can understand, but it's a necessary evil until at least better tactics are found - something he does not do.

I'll put it like this: though rioting may be for the subject involved in it a complete assault on alienation (i.e the subject takes back the power to alter, interact with material reality, something stolen from us in the labour process since we no longer produce what we have in our minds and so no longer interact with our material surroundings but simply reproduce capital, in ever increasing amounts) - however taking into account the alienation around you and present everywhere, it's no wonder why you alienate a fuckload of other people by rioting even in the process of undoing your own alienation. Thereby, you negate the negation of your own alienation because alienation is a collective phenomenon under capitalism and cannot be fought but from within the collective, as a collective I agree, that we are really fucking alienated, and that we don't know what will come of our practices. I think its important to say that is not what is at stake. Although I want to discover new techniques and attached them as embodied habits of revolt, I think that we can only find them in ruptures. To paraphrase Debord again, I think that new theories (and techniques) come from struggles, so to really begin, as they say, is to assess our situation from collective intellegence (a gang, a groups of friends, a crew of workers...etc) , and act acordingly, as we please. Of course we will alienate some; and we ought be careful with who we alienate, but what matters is that we face our terrible desires and we face the our terrible conditions. I don't think these can be made separate, and I think we will find our practices spreading by contagion if we expose our desires and all their problematics, rather than by social-contract. Which is to say simply we will only find new ways of rebeling by begining to rebel, and which I believe the elaboration of the technique of rioting known as a 'black bloc' can be seen very materially in doing.

To be even more opaque, we in this shared space are only able to speak about these and their problematics if one of us, using a shared and commensurable language says, "I want this," and perhaps with care continues "do you?"

My opacity continues: How can we act with power, to seduce with care, others who we have not yet become friends with if we do not expose our power through an element of force?

Newkind, why are tactics--compartmentalized practices that are contained within a toolbox and thus have specific functional uses (which do not account for their non-functional use) what matter to you? I find the discourse of tactics and their diversity to be dangerously Cartersian mind/body, and to be rooted in a liberal democratic morality of the individual (Kant's moral imperative). A recent SDS and SDAC contract of unity said "2. We will respect each others tactics and organizer’s ideas." Why should the organizer's "ideas" even be a concern? This is enlightenment drivel.

[black magick hustla]

These are all rhetoric, very little substance. cute language games. I wont lie and I can say i find a lot those cute little post-left word games very aesthetically appealing but they are not meaningful political discourse.

[YSR]

I think the destructive feast of a riot that goes beyond rage and justice to being an expostion of non-functional desire and furthermore the destruction of what we like (not just what we don't like)--the destruction our own images; which newkind is correct in saying the negation of the negation.

That's fine, but that's your subject position. My subject position says that I can destroy images and fulfill my desires by growing my own crops in my garden, by standing up to the boss with my comrades, etc etc.

You're using really complex language to dress this up, but I'm still not convinced that you're saying anything more than "rioting is the way that we should all fight images because its inherently more whatever (you say desubjectifying, I say creating new subjects) than anything else." But why? Compared with other practices of resistance, why is rioting better? Because you're physically smashing symbols of corporate power? So is the person who saves seeds. So is the group of workers who tell the boss what to do.

Actually, this is a critique that I have of the insurrectionist thing in general. While there are some authors that say things really clearly and well, like Crudo from Modesto Anarcho, I really have a difficult time penetrating your language. How can your theory be applicable to the working class if they can't understand it?


A recent SDS and SDAC contract of unity said "2. We will respect each others tactics and organizer’s ideas." Why should the organizer's "ideas" even be a concern?

Because they need to work together in the future, obviously. If one's praxis is simply "smashie smash" than ideas don't mean anything. But for the vast majority of us who see politics (or anti-politics) as something far more broad than simply destruction, we need to find points where we can line up our politics to work together and leave each other in peace when we don't.

I don't see how Kant has anything to do with this. As an organizer, I can tell you that organizers always need to put the strategic utility of their actions towards building a liberated society before anything that involves Kant. :cool:

[Os Cangaceiros]

To be clear, The question I am posing is not regarding any static community, who will inherent the world post-rev. I talking specifically about a now-community, or a community of now-time (Jetztzeit); which is a community still to be located, but one that I want to be a community of sharing practices of revolt. I mention rioting, occupying space, and expropriations as social events, because, I think those are some of the practices we can always point to as signifiers of rebellion--ever since humankind has found its bodies held by the state-form and capitalism.

I think clarity is also required here. The destruction of property is the image, the event where property can be detroyed is the situation. I'm not concerend with what is more revolutionary or important--I think that is a different discourse than the world I want to be apart of and explore. I'm concerned with what circulates affects between bodies with a more terrible velocity and sentiment than capital; furthermore, with what can deactivate the neutralizing affects of the spectacle (or whatever)--the way that everything has a one function but has many uses. I think the destructive feast of a riot that goes beyond rage and justice to being an expostion of non-functional desire and furthermore the destruction of what we like (not just what we don't like)--the destruction our own images; which newkind is correct in saying the negation of the negation. This is not the locating of a new or different subject but a process of desubjectivification.

I agree, that we are really fucking alienated, and that we don't know what will come of our practices. I think its important to say that is not what is at stake. Although I want to discover new techniques and attached them as embodied habits of revolt, I think that we can only find them in ruptures. To paraphrase Debord again, I think that new theories (and techniques) come from struggles, so to really begin, as they say, is to assess our situation from collective intellegence (a gang, a groups of friends, a crew of workers...etc) , and act acordingly, as we please. Of course we will alienate some; and we ought be careful with who we alienate, but what matters is that we face our terrible desires and we face the our terrible conditions. I don't think these can be made separate, and I think we will find our practices spreading by contagion if we expose our desires and all their problematics, rather than by social-contract. Which is to say simply we will only find new ways of rebeling by begining to rebel, and which I believe the elaboration of the technique of rioting known as a 'black bloc' can be seen very materially in doing.

To be even more opaque, we in this shared space are only able to speak about these and their problematics if one of us, using a shared and commensurable language says, "I want this," and perhaps with care continues "do you?"

My opacity continues: How can we act with power, to seduce with care, others who we have not yet become friends with if we do not expose our power through an element of force?

Newkind, why are tactics--compartmentalized practices that are contained within a toolbox and thus have specific functional uses (which do not account for their non-functional use) what matter to you? I find the discourse of tactics and their diversity to be dangerously Cartersian mind/body, and to be rooted in a liberal democratic morality of the individual (Kant's moral imperative). A recent SDS and SDAC contract of unity said "2. We will respect each others tactics and organizer’s ideas." Why should the organizer's "ideas" even be a concern? This is enlightenment drivel.

This post made my head hurt.

I can speak and understand the language of academia, especially on this subject, as I have a bit of knowledge of Marxist/Situationist/Postmodernist theory under my belt from my school work. I get the feeling that 99% of the general population will tune out if spoken to like this, though.

[Enragé]

To be clear, The question I am posing is not regarding any static community, who will inherent the world post-rev. I talking specifically about a now-community, or a community of now-time (Jetztzeit); which is a community still to be located, but one that I want to be a community of sharing practices of revolt. I mention rioting, occupying space, and expropriations as social events, because, I think those are some of the practices we can always point to as signifiers of rebellion--ever since humankind has found its bodies held by the state-form and capitalism.

Ah ok, sry i misunderstood. Well, the community we need is basicly a huge network of activists from different strands of revolutionary theory working together on points the whole network agrees on (i.e, we need revolution, (self-)liberation), with tactics larger or smaller parts of the network agree on (because our disagreements revolve mainly around tactics, not around our end goal) which are then put it into practice by those smaller or larger parts of the network.

In other words, the community we need is a community which for each subject is the means by which the subject combats alienation and in the end overthrow it, in communication with other subjects seeking to do the same thing. This will on the one hand bring some necessary unity amongst the revolutionary currents (at least to a higher extent than is the case now) while at the same time making sure each subject can free him/herself in his or her way, thus preventing disillusionment, splits, burnouts and/or the subject becoming alienated from the rest of the network.


I think that new theories (and techniques) come from struggles

I agree. What we need to look at however is what kind of theories/techniques we need. We need theories/techniques to bring the majority in action, theories/techniques which bring the self-liberation of the working class closer to reality. And as Vaneigem (sp?) said, those who talk of revolution without reference to everyday life have a corpse in their mouths. I would like to add to this that those who act out 'revolution' without reference to everyday life are digging their own graves. Therefore, ritualised confrontations with the police are nonsensical (which is the feeling i get from alot, not everything but alot, of what the black block does) - no wonder it is then that often the first stones thrown at G8 meetings etc are thrown by police infiltrators.


I'm concerned with what circulates affects between bodies with a more terrible velocity and sentiment than capital; furthermore, with what can deactivate the neutralizing affects of the spectacle (or whatever)

Solidarity through struggle and struggle in solidarity - the reinvention/reconquest of communication.

In my opinion it is not that rioting in and of itself cannot induce this, cannot be part of this, but that it is one of many tactics than can be employed in building solidarity. Which tactic is best, depends on the situation.


Newkind, why are tactics--compartmentalized practices that are contained within a toolbox and thus have specific functional uses (which do not account for their non-functional use) what matter to you? I find the discourse of tactics and their diversity to be dangerously Cartersian mind/body, and to be rooted in a liberal democratic morality of the individual (Kant's moral imperative).

At the risk of being opaque (wtf does opaque mean exactly?) - even non-functionality is a form of functionality, i.e the functionality of something not being functional.
Aside from such language games, with non-functional you mean symbolic? If so, then the fuction resides exactly in it being symbolic.

The same action can have different symbolic meanings for different people. This is what we have to take into account in deciding 'tactics', i.e in deciding how exactly it is to be done.

How the use of the word tactics in anyway connects me to cartesianism escapes me in its entirety, though i must admit i only know "i think therefore i am" which is ofcourse complete nonsense. I intervene in reality, therefore i am - the question of tactics is the question of how this intervention is to be done.

your question

How can we act with power, to seduce with care, others who we have not yet become friends with if we do not expose our power through an element of force?


is a question about tactics.

As for answering it.. well, what do you mean by force? Violence? How do you define violence (materially only, or psychologically/symbolically as well)?

And what is this "our power" you talk about?

---


I get the feeling that 99% of the general population will tune out if spoken to like this, though.

The same happens when you quote marx on commodity fetishism, that doesnt mean its useless, it just means that when talking to those 99% we try to word it in such a way that people dont tune out, that people understand what we mean. Which, ironically, is exactly what Obselete Discourse points out when he says:

"To be even more opaque, we in this shared space are only able to speak about these and their problematics if one of us, using a shared and commensurable language says, "I want this," and perhaps with care continues "do you?""

[black magick hustla]

"The same happens when you quote marx on commodity fetishism, that doesnt mean its useless, it just means that when talking to those 99% we try to word it in such a way that people dont tune out, that people understand what we mean. Which, ironically, is exactly what Obselete Discourse points out when he says:"

this is completely useless though. there is no substance here. its the kindof word plays the situationists were fond off, like saying stuff like "the spectacle is truth inverted" or something that sounds really pretty but its bad literature at the most

[Enragé]

Marmot, whilst i couldnt agree more that Débord often has more attention for style than substance, its not just nonsense.

If you read my posts you'll see that what i am trying to do is to put in somewhat less complicated phrasings what Débord is saying (i think), and i try to emphasize the Marx of species' being, alienation, commodity fetishism etc and build on it, which is also what the situ's tried to do.

This more philosophical, "soft", side of Marx is often neglected, in favor of the more hardcore economic, materialist theories. However, the core of Marx's ideas were not those latter theories, but the ones on species' being, alienation, and commodity fetishism and from there he goes on to the political economy etc.

So in short, yes the language is often over the top, but what they attempt to do is something what we should also attempt to do: build on all of marx, not just the stuff about surplus value.

[StalinFanboy]

I'm curious if anyone in this vast arcade's attempts at communication has had the pleasure or subsequent disgust to engage in some of the newer texts from European comrades regarding insurrection and rupture. Specifically, I am speaking of the contributions that I believe have elaborated the method that was sometimes called "insurrectional anarchy."

A recent piece was written for the English journal "Occupied London" called "Human Strike After Human Strike"(see: occupiedlondon.org/strike) that touches on some of the contributions of an imaginary party (many of the texts are linked at the bottom of the page). I think it has a lot to offer. Although potentially hostile to the Left, the anonymous authors, offer very interesting theories for "living communism and spreading anarchy," and I think specifically, through the appropriation of Giorgio Agamben's thought, and a return to Walter Benjamin among others, begin to offer us a very sobering, terrible, and possibly joyful position to be situated at in late capitalism--something most modern anarchist and Marxian theory has failed to do.

The above mentioned concept of "the Human Strike" is a methodological and metaphysical refining of the concept of the general strike with regard to Benjamin's concept of "pure means" or "divine violence." Their engagement also with the concept of "global civil war" is another interesting development, that appropriates some of the worst possible concussions of postmodernity, and the death of the modern subject (i.e the proletariat). Finally, their reliance on the discursive model of "the state of exception" is probably one of the most interesting and again, horrifying possibilities, that they seem to suggest we must face and moreover push to it's threshold.

I find this particularly interesting considering the texts coming out of the recent Greek Uprising uses a lot of these concepts and are far removed from any traditional practices of the modern Left.

I have been reading insurrectionalist texts off and on for about 6 months now. This may be my bias because I help with an insurrectionalist journal, but I think that insurrectionalist anarchism is probably the most relevant strain of anarchism in today's world. This is not to say that trade unions are completely irrelevant, because I don't think they are. I still have yet to finish reading that piece from Occupied London because my attention span is shit and it often takes me a few reads to fully digest something, but I do like what I have read. Something that really stood out was the idea that liberating space is more liberating or revolutionary than liberated space. I guess it sounds nonsensical in a way but the idea is that the actual action of liberating an autonomous space is far more revolutionary than say, participating or living in a space that's already been liberating. That we must continue to increase the pressure.

Hope this at least added something to the discussion.